Seattle Times gun column misleading, missing some facts

There’s a movement in Western Washington gaining steam after the tragic events at Marysville-Pilchuck High School with folks demanding that gun owners be charged when their kids (or other kids) get their gun.

In his Seattle Times column, Danny Westneat tackled the subject and he seems to imply that prosecutors can’t punish an adult whose gun gets into the hands of kid. He’s incorrect.

He writes, “Gun people seem unhappy that every time there’s a mass shooting, I stubbornly want to talk about the tool that’s used in all the mass shootings.” Then says, “It’s just that there’s also this pesky common denominator” one so obvious even a newspaper columnist can spot it.”

This is a slightly troublesome line of thinking. There seems to be a pesky common denominator in drunk driving: cars. Yet despite drunk driving being prevalent, we’re not moving to put further restrictions on cars.

Westneat then says, “As it turns out, last year the state Legislature debated a law that potentially could have addressed this very shooting. It didn’t attempt to get at the demons that lead to shootings, but at something simpler: how to keep kids and guns apart.”

He’s referring to House Bill 1676, which he calls “pragmatic.”

He says the bill basically works like this: “if you leave a gun out and a kid under the age of 16 gets it, then you may be guilty of reckless endangerment. The charge wouldn’t apply if the gun was locked up or had a trigger lock on it, if the gun was stolen during a break-in or if the child used the gun under the supervision of an adult.”

And then, Westneat writes, “Though this proposed law only applied to keeping guns stored away from kids under 16 – which responsible gun owners say they do anyway – the National Rifle Association freaked out about it anyway.”

But the proposed law didn’t only apply to keeping guns stored away. It did more than that. And that’s why some found the bill to be problematic.

For one, the bill would force gun shops to post signs that read “IT IS UNLAWFUL TO STORE OR LEAVE AN UNSECURED, LOADED FIREARM WHERE A CHILD CAN AND DOES OBTAIN POSSESSION.”

But that’s not an accurate representation of the law.

Westneat correctly points out that if the gun is stolen, for example, the adult is not held responsible. Yet the sign said it’s unlawful to store a gun where a child can and does obtain it. The intent of the sign is to scare parents into abandoning their desire to buy a gun. The law says: “When selling any firearm, every dealer shall offer to sell or give the purchaser a locked box, a lock, or a device that prevents the firearm from discharging.” Maybe not a bad idea — but Westneat doesn’t tell you everything the law does. To his credit, he does provide a link (unfortunately most of you won’t click the link there — or here — and instead will get only half the information).

Now, trying to shock you a bit, Westneat points out that the pro-gun state of Texas has, what Westneat calls, the “same type of law.” They’re similar, but not the same.

What he doesn’t tell you, however, is that the law in TX hasn’t ever been used. Not that I can find anyway.

(Update: a helpful listener with access to WestlawNews reports she found at least three cases that invoke the Texas law. Thanks for the tip!)

And here’s something telling because Westneat says the law, had it been passed, “may” be used to find someone guilty of negligence or reckless endangerment, and that we don’t have a law on the books right now that specifically punishes adults who leave out guns. In fact, he links to a state Supreme Court case saying we don’t have the law on the books that would have addressed an issue very similar to what happened with Fryberg.

Westneat is wrong.

He writes: “Here you can store or not store your guns however you choose, even with kids around. Remember that guy in Bremerton in 2012 who left a gun out that a 9-year-old took to school, shooting a classmate in the spine? The courts said there’s no law against it.”

The Supreme Court case he points to says there’s no law on the books covering assault — not negligence. The entire column was meant to push House Bill 1676 as a way to help prevent issues like in Marysville; he points to a similar law in TX to say “Hey, they did it! So can we!” This was meant to confuse the issue and Westneat doesn’t even point out the Supreme Court case was about assault. The implication is it covered the exact same issue Westneat is discussing: negligence and reckless endangerment.

And, as it turns out, there is already a law on the books that could be applied to what we know about the Fryberg issue. There’s a reckless endangerment law on the books and it would apply here.

RCW 9A.36.050: “A person is guilty of reckless endangerment when he or she recklessly engages in conduct not amounting to drive-by shooting but that creates a substantial risk of death or serious physical injury to another person. Reckless endangerment is a gross misdemeanor.”

Now, some say we don’t have a law on the books that directly addresses an adult who leaves out a gun for a minor to pick up and use illegally. In a report right here on MyNorthwest.com, an attorney says “…it’s just that there’s not a statute that speaks directly to the responsibility of gun owners for harm done with their guns.” There’s also not a statute that directly says jaywalking in high heels is illegal. Yet, jaywalking still is illegal. There doesn’t need to be a specific law for every case — we’d have a million laws if that were the case. Instead, we have blanket reckless endangerment laws that can be applied, at the discretion of the prosecutor and the courts.

Remember to fact check everything.