Jamie Gilt (courtesy rawstory.com)

“A gun-loving social media activist won’t be prosecuted after her 4-year-old son shot her in the back with an unsecured gun,” rawstory.com reports, “but she must speak about firearms safety and complete a weapons training course.” According to Spencer S. Hathaway of the State Attorney’s Office, Ms. Gilt must also install a mounted holster in her vehicle, provide proof of safe storage of firearms in her home and give 10 speeches “‘relating to the incident and the need to safely secure firearms.'” As for keeping guns in her home, car and on her person . . .

She has not spoken publicly about the shooting, but Gilt’s mother said the shooting had done nothing to change the family’s mind about keeping guns in their home.

“She is very pro-gun and will not change her opinion about owning them,” said her mother, Jane Bramble. “She will keep her guns — and I’m happy that she will.”

Are you?

Recommended For You

47 Responses to BREAKING: Florida Court Returns Guns to Mom Shot By Her Four-Year-Old

  1. “Ms. Gilt must also install a mounted holster in her vehicle…”

    Well that actually makes sense!

    • Anyone as gun lustful and identity crippled as Gilt will no doubt have another disaster out moment whether by her hand or that of her son. The neurosis building in her offspring is the pathway to Adam Lanza.

      Let’s just pray that the keep the flying bullets within the family.

  2. Does seem like getting shot is the most serious consequence in this situation.

    Glad she lived and the child was not hurt.

    Rare to get a second chance on a mistake like that.

  3. She’s got a second chance in more ways than one. It would behoove her not to blow it.

  4. Accident’s happen. But you have to deal with the consequences of that. A ND is one thing, allowing your loaded gun into the hands of a 4 year old goes beyond negligent. While you should be allowed to have your guns back, you should also be charged with endangering a minor with that kind of wanton disregard for gun safety. To say nothing of the damage this does to the image of responsible gun owners.

    • It’s her own kid. Some people raise their children differently than others. Some even in ways that can be “proven” (in progressive newspeak) to be more risky than others. Heck, at least she didn’t kill the brat, before he even had a shot a seeing daylight. That alone would put her ahead of a million or so of her sisters every year.

      • Kids aren’t property, for parents to do with as they see fit.

        Raising differently, sure. Endangering is a whole different ballpark. And exposing a kid to a loaded gun that they obviously don’t know how to handle safely (which is obvious from this story) is endangering, with serious bodily harm or death as a likely outcome.

    • I agree, she should be charged wtih something along the lines of risk of injury to a minor.

      Don’t get me wrong. I’m a 100% gun nut. Everything should be legal and you should not need government permission for anything.

      But with rights come responsibilities. She failed MASSIVELY.
      Besides, off body carry is stupid. Either step up to the plate lady or sell your guns.

      Don

      p.s. There is a saying among gun people that everyone should have legal right to own firearms. But not everyone SHOULD own guns. She might fall into that group. Idiot.

      • She was charged with something and got a sentence. She has to do all those requirements. But to condemn off body carry, her ability to secure a weapon, to claim she doesn’t deserve her rights makes everyone on here sound ridiculous. Have any of y’all been in a car wreck? They are called accidents for a reason. Ever trip? Doesn’t mean you should be allowed to walk.

        More importantly, if she is married then what about her husbands rights? Why should he have to suffer a draconian definition of safe and be denied due process? Had she gotten a DUI would they have taken his license too?

        • Accident is when shit happens for reasons outside of your control. Negligence is when shit happens that shouldn’t have happened, because it was predictable and avoidable, but the person to blame allowed it to happen through their ignorance or arrogance.

          This is negligence.

  5. She’s already paid a penalty most don’t walk away from. I would object to the requirement to speak about the incident X number of times. I hate public speaking. How many people have to be present for it to count?

    And as RF opines, on-body carry.

    P.S. Where’s the “notify me of followup replied to this topic” check box?

  6. Click on the link to the whole “Raw Story” in Robert’s article.

    This is a misdemeanor, however, she has been charged with a felony for shoplifting. That, too was dropped, after she completed some sort of deal,

    We’re gonna hear about her again.

      • EJQ mentioned the relevant link and where it can be found in his comment, so he’s already provided what you requested. Take 2 seconds to pay attention instead of getting your undies in a bunch. Good grief.

  7. Now that she got the gun back. She should frame it on the wall as a reminder.

    Give 10 speeches? WTF.

    • Its not enough to give flesh & blood, one hasn’t paid the debt to libtard society until you confess to everyone and a stone.
      I’m surprised they didn’t force her to start a 503b.

  8. Good for her and good on FL. A Constitutional right should not be something taken away lightly.

  9. I dont think the court needed to tell her to secure her guns. I’m sure she’s learned her lesson by getting shot.

    I’m glad the court ruled in her favor.

    • Not necessarily. It may be that she just thinks she didn’t explain it to her kid “well enough”.

  10. Breeding is dangerous business, especially when morons do it…get it…they “do it”, wink, wink, nudge, nudge.

  11. but she MUST yadda yadda yadda BS,

    Dear Florida nannies, Bite me and the horse you rode in on.

  12. I don’t know about this 10 speeches crap. Seems neither here nor there as a punishment, I mean, like smarmy, feel-good statist mea-culpa. And giving this person more attention, ugh. Bleh. No I don’t like this.

  13. Seems fair. She is a self-proclaimed activist, so the speaking in public about the incident can be a great opportunity for her and for the cause of true gun safety.

  14. Anonymous, I gave the reference to the link. It’s cited in the full story that Robert posted a link to, in his article. Second sentence. Raw Story.

  15. Ms. Gilt must also install a mounted holster in her vehicle,
    Why? It seems if somebody wanted the gun, it would be easier to take it. The gun should be on her person. With her safety record, I am not so sure she should have a gun in her presence.

  16. My there are a lot of self righteous people on this site. The woman paid the price in pain and public condemnation. She’s almost certainly learned her lesson. Let he who is without sin cast the first stone.

    • Who cares about the price? The only relevant question is whether she is still a danger to her kid (and, by proxy, others).

      • “Who cares about the price? The only relevant question is whether she is still a danger to her kid (and, by proxy, others)”

        You say that until the PRICE is revoking your 2A rights.
        Give Shannon Watts and her ilk an inch… What? You don’t think they would try to do that?

  17. Ask the question the other way around and see if it still make sense….

    What reason would the State have not to return her firearms?

    She’s getting her own property returned to her so I don’t understand why there would be any questions about who is happy or what they think about the correct thing happening in a surprisingly timely manner.

    • Stop making sense.
      That is not always as straight forward as that in situations where government is concerned on ANY level.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *