This takes the cake for irresponsible parenting and improper firearms use.

According to the complaint, St. Paul Police responded to St. Paul Central High School on Jan. 17 after a report of an assault against a 15-year-old female student. A social worker at the school had received a report from a parent who had been monitoring her son’s electronic communications. The communications showed that Bartashevitch had sent the son a message that he had pointed an AK-47 rifle at the girl.

The complaint states that the girl and Bartashevitch were arguing at their residence on Jan. 13 about her grades in school. She was getting two Bs in school instead of two As. He swore at the girl, who then told him she hated him, and he grabbed a recently purchased AK-47 and pointed it at her.

According to the complaint, he bought the rifle because he knew it would soon be banned. The girl’s mother jumped between them when he pointed the gun, and the girl was eventually ordered to go to her room by Bartashevitch.

The girl’s mother told police that when she intervened, Bartasevitch threw her to the floor and that he pointed the gun at both of them, the complaint states.

Let’s look at that again.

The father buys an AK-47 because he thinks that Obama’s going to ban them. Then he decides to point them not only at his daughter because her grades sucked (and even then, they weren’t that bad), but at his wife who intervened because this guy decided that the proper firearms technique was to point them at his family members.

The father has been brought up on assault charges.

If convicted (and the charges include felony counts), it is quite likely that the father will no longer be able to possess firearms in the future. The irony is rich with that aspect.

While we should be thankful that no one was shot in this case, it inadvertently highlights the fact that the about half of all firearms fatalities involve family and acquaintances shooting each other.

UPDATE:
In response to Skip Intro’s comments about that it depends on the jurisdiction as to whether the father might lose his firearms, here’s the specific Minnesota law that is applicable. Assault in the first to fourth degree is considered a crime of violence. A crime of violence is a crime that automatically prohibits that person from shipping, transporting, possessing, or receiving a firearm for the remainder of the person’s lifetime (Minn. Stat. Sec. 609.165(1a)).

It’s also possible he’s charged with a domestic assault, which can result in forfeiture of the firearms:

(b)If the court determines that the assault was of a family or household member, and that the offender owns or possesses a firearm and used it in any way during the commission of the assault, it shall order that the firearm be summarily forfeited under section 609.5316, subdivision 3.

(c) When a person is convicted of assaulting a family or household member and is determined by the court to have used a firearm in any way during commission of the assault, the court may order that the person is prohibited from possessing any type of firearm for any period longer than three years or for the remainder of the person’s life. A person who violates this paragraph is guilty of a gross misdemeanor. At the time of the conviction, the court shall inform the defendant whether and for how long the defendant is prohibited from possessing a firearm and that it is a gross misdemeanor to violate this paragraph. The failure of the court to provide this information to a defendant does not affect the applicability of the firearm possession prohibition or the gross misdemeanor penalty to that defendant.

So, yeah, I’d say the chances are quite likely that if convicted, he’d lose his guns.