This is why Fred Guttenberg has no place in policy regarding our safety

I saw some Tweets from Fred Gutenberg that really demonstrate why a distraught ideologue should be kept as far away from politics as possible.

See, the NRA is evil because they don’t want to keep guns from falling into the hands of children.  The oppression of lawful gun owners in Seattle because of this law is a real concern, but not to Fred and this ideological brethren.

This is a link to the text of the the law.  We’ll get to that, but first we’ll turn to the news for a quick summary.

Seattle’s safe storage regulation, and the rules on reporting lost and stolen guns, state:

  • Safe storage: Guns should be stored in a locked container, and rendered as unusable to any person other than the owner or authorized user.
  • Unauthorized access prevention: It will be a civil infraction if a minor, at-risk, or prohibited person obtains a firearm when the owner should have reasonably known they would have access to it.
  • Violation of the safe-storage law, or the unauthorized access regulation could result in a fine between $500 and $1,000.
  • If a prohibited or at-risk person, or a minor obtains a firearm and uses it to commit a crime, injure or kill someone (including themselves), the gun owner could be fined up to $10,000.
  • If a civil case results from prohibited access, it will be “prima facie evidence” that they are negligent. That means it is immediately a fact, unless proven otherwise.
  • The new gun law will go into effect 180 days after it passes and Mayor Durkan signs it.

So what does the law actually say?

How is this enforceable?  It is a civil infraction to not lock up your guns.  Of course I am 100% of locking up your guns.  But if not locking of your guns is a civil infraction, do the police have the right to inspect your home to see if your guns are locked up?  The law does say that it does not construe a change in the requirements for a warrant, but that makes me question the grounds for the issuance of a warrant.

If you know a child might have access to a firearm that is a civil violation?  It’s a violation to know something?  Am I reading that right?

Keep these in mind for the next part.

So if your gun falls into the hands of a prohibited person, that is prima facie evidence that it wasn’t locked up.

Whoa… what the fuck?

You don’t have a right to a jury and your infraction can be decided by the preponderance of the evidence.

So you can lock up your guns according to the law, which is as yet to be codified:

but seems to include trigger locks and lock boxes, and you gun be stolen and used in a crime, then you get prosecuted and fined $10,000.  You can petition the court so say “I locked up my gun in a case like the law requires but it was still stolen” and your guilt is determined by a judge based on the preponderance of the evidence.

Worse, since Seattle requires reporting of a stolen gun, but having your gun stolen is prima facie evidence that it wasn’t locked up, it seems to me that this law requires you testify against yourself if your gun is stolen.

This seems dangerously unfair and potentially unconstitutional.  But why let this get in the way of a “the NRA wants kids to die” narrative.

This is not the dumbest Tweet Fred Guttenberg sent yesterday.

This is the article from the New York Times.

U.S. Wants Students to Learn Bleeding-Control Methods to Prepare for School Shootings

In a nod to the sad reality that shootings at the nation’s schools are far too prevalent, the United States government will award a $1.8 million grant to create a program to teach high school students proper bleeding-control techniques.

The goal of the program, called School-Age Trauma Training, is “to enhance a bystander’s ability to take decisive, lifesaving action to assist victims with traumatic injuries,” according to the Department of Homeland Security, which posted notice of the grant online last month.

“Similar to how students learn health education and driver’s education, they must learn proper bleeding control techniques using commonly available materials,’’ according to the notice, “including how to use their hands, dressings and tourniquets.”

This is a great idea.  There is no such thing as being over prepared.  Knowledge about how to handle yourself in a disaster is always useful.  Bleeding control is good to know in case of a school shooting, or after a car crash, or after a home accident, or any other situation where someone could get hurt.

The grant to develop a program is not tied to any one school shooting, but comes at a time when there have been more than 250 deaths of students and teachers in the country’s schools since 2000, according to Homeland Security. The bleeding-control program is also meant to address providing immediate help during natural disasters, Mr. Verrico said.

Yes.

Cathy Wilson, the outreach and injury prevention coordinator at Vanderbilt University Medical Center, said in an interview on Monday that she teaches at least one Stop the Bleed session a week. When she teaches high school students, she said, she mentions cases of active-shooter situations, but lets them know the training they get will be useful in everyday life. Learning bleeding control techniques is another useful tool, like CPR, she said.

Yes, yes it is.

Only an insane ideologue would resist teaching this kind of knowledge.

We shouldn’t be teaching kids how to use a fire extinguisher, we should just ban matches and lighters.  Cannot make this up.  Make Congress deal with arsonists.”

Sure, the class is being taught for the worst case scenario but accidental deaths are the 4th most common cause of death in the US, at a rate of almost five time that of all the gun deaths (including suicides).

So the goverment wants to teach kids bleeding control in case of a school shooter but I can almost guarantee that the first time a kid will use this is to help someone who had an accident with a lawn mower or circular saw in the back yard or garage.

But that’s too much common sense.  Instead, don’t teach kids something useful and just blame the NRA instead.

This man is a grieving father.  I can empathize with his loss, but because he’s being driven entirely by emotion, he should have no say in policy.

4 Replies to “This is why Fred Guttenberg has no place in policy regarding our safety”

  1. “So if your gun falls into the hands of a prohibited person, that is prima facie evidence that it wasn’t locked up.”

    I think I read ab out a case in New Jersey where a guy had his guns locked in a good safe which was bolted to the concrete floor of his basement or garage. He went on vacation and burglars came in, cut the concrete floor and carted the whole thing away.

    The gun owner was still held responsible.

    They are trying to bypass the Reasonable Person concept.

    1. I guess the Seattle idiots are trying to set a new record for the number of Constitutional violations in a single ordinance.
      As for the attack against teaching first aid, that makes perfect sense if you assume that the goal of the left is more dead bodies, to be used as an excuse for more oppressive laws.

    2. I don’t think bypass as completely redefine what is considered to be “reasonable.”

      It now apparently includes telepathy and precognition. If you don’t have those, well, it’s your fault for the deficient genetic makeup.

Feel free to express your opinions. Trolling, overly cussing and Internet Commandos will not be tolerated .

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.