[Amelia]

Here is the "home page" on that bill, with links to a couple of different versions. No where in it do I see anything about guns or trigger locks.

Closest I can find is this part:

"(b) Criminal negligence is an act or failure to act which demonstrates a willful disregard or wanton and reckless disregard for the safety of others who might reasonably be expected to be injured thereby."

or maybe this one:

(a) A person having immediate control or custody of a child under the age of 16 commits the offense of endangering a child if the person intentionally or with criminal negligence places the child in imminent danger of:
(1) Death; or
(2) Cruel or excessive physical or mental pain.

Of course, those could be interpreted in many different ways.

I'm confused.

[from occupied ga]

Criminal negligence is an act or failure to act which demonstrates a willful disregard or wanton and reckless disregard for the safety of others who might reasonably be expected to be injured thereby

This is so totally vague as to leave anything and everything as potentially criminal

Try reading the earlier thread and pay special note to Mary Margaret Oliver's comment at the committee meeting (in red) and to Warren Massy's analysis of the bill. It is completely vage, leaving everything up to the prosecutors to determine.

BTW Oliver is one of the most hard line fanatical anti-gunners in the Ga General Assembly. Anything that she co-sponsors has to be viewed with in the light as to how it can be used to further an anti-gun agenda.

[FreedomPoster]

from occupied ga's comments pretty well answer your question, but I wanted to add this:

How badly could the vague language "Criminal negligence is an act or failure to act which demonstrates a willful disregard or wanton and reckless disregard for the safety of others who might reasonably be expected to be injured thereby" be misused by a Decatur or City of Atlanta prosecutor trying to make a name for himself?