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

Jamie Gilt (courtesy

“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,” 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?


  1. avatar Hannibal says:

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

    Well that actually makes sense!

    1. avatar Yeti says:

      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. avatar jwm says:

    She wants to be able to defend herself in case the little brat tries to whack her again.

    1. avatar tsbhoA.P.jr says:

      does he have a football shaped head?

      1. avatar RocketScientist says:

        Blast you, vile woman!

  3. avatar Specialist38 says:

    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.

  4. avatar Yellow Devil says:

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

  5. avatar CLarson says:

    It seems fair to me. The only injured victim was herself.

    1. avatar Geoff PR says:

      Let’s see, a handgun goes *BOOM* in an enclosed car? The kid probably has an early start on tinnitus.

      Compliments of mom…

      1. avatar CLarson says:

        I blame the National Firearms Act of 1934.

  6. avatar Flynn says:

    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.

    1. avatar Stuki Moi says:

      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.

      1. avatar int19h says:

        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.

    2. avatar Don from CT (Escaped to MA where at least there are lots of good jobs) says:

      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.


      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.

      1. avatar Erik says:

        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?

        1. avatar int19h says:

          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.

  7. avatar Wood says:

    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?

  8. avatar EJQ says:

    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.

    1. avatar Anonymous says:

      Shoplifting? Need link. Provide sources please.

      1. avatar Wood says:

        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.

  9. avatar Anonymous says:

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

    Give 10 speeches? WTF.

    1. avatar mk10108 says:

      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.

  10. avatar Libertarian says:

    The shock is enough punishment for not safe storage !

  11. avatar Priest of the center mass says:

    And so it goes.

  12. avatar MLee says:

    She may want to invest in Kevlar seat covers. Effective against “small arms fire”

  13. avatar RockOnHellChild says:

    I’m OK with her getting her back gun so long as it upsets Willy_Lunchmeat…

  14. avatar FormerWaterWalker says:

    Gilt by association? Sorry…no sympathy form me.

  15. avatar Ralph says:

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

  16. avatar Lauren says:

    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.

    1. avatar int19h says:

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

  17. avatar Badwolf says:

    Ms. Not-Gilt

  18. avatar Bollocks Troy says:

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

  19. avatar neiowa says:

    but she MUST yadda yadda yadda BS,

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

  20. avatar Wright says:

    Maybe this will teach her to keep her guns secured.

  21. avatar Alphonse says:

    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.

  22. avatar Ragnar says:

    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.

  23. avatar EJQ says:

    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.

  24. avatar Indiana Tom says:

    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.

  25. avatar frankw says:

    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.

    1. avatar Robert Farago says:

      Everybody must get stoned.

      1. avatar radar says:

        of course only those States where legally allowed,
        Bring Munchies!

    2. avatar int19h says:

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

      1. avatar PsyGuy says:

        “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?

  26. avatar Chip in Florida says:

    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.

    1. avatar PsyGuy says:

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

  27. avatar Eric says:

    She may want to invest in Kevlar seat covers. Effective against “small arms fire”

  28. avatar John Barker says:

    The court made the right verdict by letting her go easily because she has already learned her lesson by getting shot. Now she must take measure to secure gun safely.

  29. Can’t believe she isn’t getting charged with child endangerment. What is with Florida’s laws? Next time she may not be so lucky. Hopefully the child is young enough to forget this terrible incident happened. She has a lot to learn about being a good parent and less on the guns.

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

Write a Comment

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

button to share on facebook
button to tweet
button to share via email