The shooter who attacked the Silver Rail Elementary School in Bend, Oregon, is dead. John Griffin, 16, used a shotgun, blasted open the locks on the doors to gain entry, and murdered a teacher and three children. A second teacher chucked her phone and tackled him, buying time. An armed bystander, Kaylub Giamanco, intervened and killed Griffin. Oregon already has universal background checks, a ghost gun ban, and safe storage laws. In fact, every gun control law pushed by anti-gun groups is codified here so these people can pipe down. Will Griffin’s mother be charged? She bought the shotgun around the time of Griffin’s birthday.
Amy Swearer has more. It’s not clear. Ownership is in question, and while the state prohibits ownership by those under 18, that doesn't apply to family members with long guns:
Is the 16-year-old gunman's mom likely to be prosecuted for buying his shotgun, like Colin Gray and the Crumbleys? Did a little bit deeper of a dive into Oregon laws regulating guns and minors. And honestly it's not at all clear at this point. On the one hand, ORS 166.395 is essentially a safe storage law requiring gun owners to keep their guns on their person or locked away. It's a class A violation (fineable infraction) if the gun owner fails to do this and, as a result, a minor accesses the gun. It also constitutes negligence per se in civil suits against the owner. At the same time, the key phrase is that the "owner or possessor" of the firearm is responsible. It's not actually clear to me right now who the "owner or possessor" of the shotgun actually was - the mother or the teen. ORS 166.470 prohibits transferring firearms to anyone under 18, but specifically does not apply to parents who transfer long guns to their kids. And ORS 166.250 prohibits minors under 18 from possessing firearms, but specifically exempts minors without disqualifying mental health or juvenile histories who possess long guns transferred to them by a parent. It also indicates that the owner in that circumstance is the minor, not the parent: "and, as a result of the transfer, the minor is the owner of the firearm." Still a lot facts not made public yet about the precise circumstances of how the kid got the shotgun. We just know that (1) the mom bought the gun (2) around the time of the kid's 16th birthday. It would seem that if the kid didn't have a disqualifying history, the mom was absolutely within her rights under Oregon law to gift him a shotgun. At that point, whatever her moral or ethical obligations might be as a parent, the legal obligation to control his access to the gun ceased. It would have been *the kid's* legal obligation to secure the gun, because he was the owner. Could get murkier if the gun arguably wasn't fully transferred to his possession or if this ends up being a situation where he gets the shotgun despite the parents knowing he was suicidal/disposed to violence, etc. But again, we don't have those facts at the moment. I don't see any other laws outlining circumstances where the parent would be criminally liable here. The child endangerment laws are focused on permitting/inducing minors to drug use or gambling, not gun access. Whether or not there's potential civil liability under standard negligence theories would be very specific to facts we don't yet have.
— Amy Swearer (@AmySwearer) October 16, 2026
Is the 16-year-old gunman's mom likely to be prosecuted for buying his shotgun, like Colin Gray and the Crumbleys?
Did a little bit deeper of a dive into Oregon laws regulating guns and minors. And honestly it's not at all clear at this point.
On the one hand, ORS 166.395 is essentially a safe storage law requiring gun owners to keep their guns on their person or locked away. It's a class A violation (fineable infraction) if the gun owner fails to do this and, as a result, a minor accesses the gun. It also constitutes negligence per se in civil suits against the owner.
At the same time, the key phrase is that the "owner or possessor" of the firearm is responsible.
It's not actually clear to me right now who the "owner or possessor" of the shotgun actually was - the mother or the teen.
ORS 166.470 prohibits transferring firearms to anyone under 18, but specifically does not apply to parents who transfer long guns to their kids.
And ORS 166.250 prohibits minors under 18 from possessing firearms, but specifically exempts minors without disqualifying mental health or juvenile histories who possess long guns transferred to them by a parent. It also indicates that the owner in that circumstance is the minor, not the parent: "and, as a result of the transfer, the minor is the owner of the firearm."
Still a lot facts not made public yet about the precise circumstances of how the kid got the shotgun. We just know that (1) the mom bought the gun (2) around the time of the kid's 16th birthday.
It would seem that if the kid didn't have a disqualifying history, the mom was absolutely within her rights under Oregon law to gift him a shotgun. At that point, whatever her moral or ethical obligations might be as a parent, the legal obligation to control his access to the gun ceased. It would have been *the kid's* legal obligation to secure the gun, because he was the owner.
Could get murkier if the gun arguably wasn't fully transferred to his possession or if this ends up being a situation where he gets the shotgun despite the parents knowing he was suicidal/disposed to violence, etc. But again, we don't have those facts at the moment.
I don't see any other laws outlining circumstances where the parent would be criminally liable here. The child endangerment laws are focused on permitting/inducing minors to drug use or gambling, not gun access.
Whether or not there's potential civil liability under standard negligence theories would be very specific to facts we don't yet have.
We need more details, which will no doubt emerge as the investigation continues.
Two things can be true: (1) These deaths were heartbreaking and you should absolutely go hug your kids. (2) Guns are not and have never been the leading cause of death for 5, 8, and 11-year-olds. Ever. This claim was only briefly true when including "kids" as old as 19.
— Amy Swearer (@AmySwearer) October 16, 2026
Wow. A lot to digest here. Worth highlighting the lock situation. Quite unfortunate that he had a shotgun and managed to blow out locks without breaching rounds while avoiding injury to himself. Very unlikely to have gotten in with a different gun...yes, including an AR.
— Amy Swearer (@AmySwearer) October 16, 2026
Editor's Note: Do you enjoy Townhall's conservative reporting that takes on the radical Left and woke media? Support our work so that we can continue to bring you the truth.
Join Townhall VIP and use promo code FIGHT to receive 60% off your membership.
Join the Conversation
VIP members get the ability to comment on articles.