collapse

Author Topic: Seattle Police Confiscate First Firearm Under New “Mental Health” Law  (Read 1504 times)

Offline Fl0und3rz

  • Political Topics
  • Trade Count: (+7)
  • Legend
  • ******
  • Join Date: Oct 2010
  • Posts: 26317
  • Location: E. WA
Should we be disarming crazy people or not? If so, what kind of procedure would you guys be ok with?

This allows a warrant for confiscation and seizure without proper due process, based on limited evidence, and it it provides shameless little penalty and liability for abuse of process, as well as no recompense (from a quick review) to an aggrieved and wrongly accused and disenfranchised individual. 

I am not OK with that.

We can do better, but there is no interest in doing so.

Online pianoman9701

  • Mushroom Man
  • Political Topics
  • Trade Count: (+2)
  • Legend
  • ******
  • Join Date: Mar 2011
  • Posts: 28266
  • Location: Vancouver USA
  • NRA Life, MH, WFW, CCRKBA, NAGR, RMEF, WSB
Open carry isn't super common around here, but people do it sometimes and no one freaks out.

I've witnessed people freaking out over normal people open carrying.

I've had someone scream at me for open carry.
"Restricting the rights of law-abiding citizens based on the actions of criminals and madmen will have no positive effect on the future acts of criminals and madmen. It will only serve to reduce individual rights and the very security of our republic." - Pianoman

Offline Fl0und3rz

  • Political Topics
  • Trade Count: (+7)
  • Legend
  • ******
  • Join Date: Oct 2010
  • Posts: 26317
  • Location: E. WA
I'm going to assume he's legitimately nuts.

Unfortunately, this state is dominated by people who think like this and will toss out innocent until proven guilty for a little security.

Offline WAcoyotehunter

  • Washington For Wildlife
  • Trade Count: (+1)
  • Frontiersman
  • *****
  • Join Date: Apr 2007
  • Posts: 4017
  • Location: Pend Oreille County
You can't deflect every gun control argument to mental health and then complain when they try to address crazy people with guns.

Right, every tine there's a big shooting everyone says it's not the guns its the crazy people.... Well, how do you keep guns from people that are a danger?

  I suppose you take them away when people demonstrate that they're crazy.

Online magnanimous_j

  • Political Topics
  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Old Salt
  • ******
  • Join Date: Jan 2009
  • Posts: 7456
I'm not seeing a big issue in this case, but I can see it being abused, and it will.

I don't really see that as being a big threat, especially if as you say, a judge has to sign off on it and give the firearms back if no charges are filed.

Wa.gov estimates that 21% of Adults in King County are gun owners. So a really conservative estimate puts over 100,000 gun owners living in Seattle city limits. That's not counting the number of potentially armed people who commute in. It's unrealistic to think this law could be used to disarm any significant % of those citizens. It's even less realistic to think they could get away with it.

Offline Curly

  • Trade Count: (+2)
  • Explorer
  • ******
  • Join Date: Mar 2007
  • Posts: 18398
  • Location: Thurston County
It does make me feel better that a judge has to be involved. I just pictured a phone call to the police and they run over there and take the guns.
May I always be the kind of person my dog thinks I am.

><((((º>` ><((((º>. ><((((º>.¸><((((º>

Offline Fl0und3rz

  • Political Topics
  • Trade Count: (+7)
  • Legend
  • ******
  • Join Date: Oct 2010
  • Posts: 26317
  • Location: E. WA
It does make me feel better that a judge has to be involved. I just pictured a phone call to the police and they run over there and take the guns.

It shouldn't.  An elected judge, with the prospect of a "potentially dangerous individual" with out the benefit of contrary evidence, because due process was not observed, because the order can be granted without the accused having his/her say, has a disincentive to protect the accused individual's right's. 

Be known at election time as the judge who sided against an ERPO, or as one who has wrongly disenfranchised and economically damaged a law-abiding gun owner.

How do you think that turns out in King County?
« Last Edit: March 07, 2018, 10:20:01 AM by Fl0und3rz »

Offline Stein

  • Trade Count: (+1)
  • Frontiersman
  • *****
  • Join Date: Sep 2013
  • Posts: 3735
It does make me feel better that a judge has to be involved. I just pictured a phone call to the police and they run over there and take the guns.

Keep in mind that the police petitioned the court and there is no requirement for a mental health professional to be involved, or for the subject of the order to be evaluated by anyone with any qualifications in the field of determining the mental health of an individual.  The police simply present why they think the individual may pose a danger to themselves or others.

Once granted, the order remains for one year and can be renewed indefinitely.  The subject of the order only has one opportunity to terminate the order in the first year and is responsible for proving to the court they are not mentally unfit and do not pose a risk to themselves or others.  He/she would be responsible for court costs, as well as any assessment and testimony from mental health professionals and attorney fees.

The petition can also be filed by any immediate family member including ex-spouses or the other parent of any kids, whether they were married or not.  The accused will be notified at least 5 days in advance, so they will have a mere 5 days to figure out what is going on, how to respond, find and pay for an attorney, get some type of testimony from a mental health professional, get the time off work, etc.

One fear is that a disgruntled family member or ex-spouse could simply file the petition which would result in confiscation of all firearms and prevent possession of any firearms for hunting, target shooting or anything for an indefinite period of time.  The burden of proof seems to be on the accused and it is unclear what would happen in a "he said, she said" argument that went to the court.  Once the order was put into place, the person who lost their rights would clearly have to prove that they did nothing wrong to reattain them.

Offline Fl0und3rz

  • Political Topics
  • Trade Count: (+7)
  • Legend
  • ******
  • Join Date: Oct 2010
  • Posts: 26317
  • Location: E. WA
Once the order was put into place, the person who lost their rights would clearly have to prove that they did nothing wrong to reattain them.

Also keep in mind that these types of proceeding are routinely abused in alleging DV in marital dissolution cases.  I would bet there are at least a few people here who can attest to that.

Offline X-Force

  • Solo Hunter
  • Political Topics
  • Trade Count: (+7)
  • Frontiersman
  • *****
  • Join Date: Sep 2007
  • Posts: 4272
You can't deflect every gun control argument to mental health and then complain when they try to address crazy people with guns.

Right, every tine there's a big shooting everyone says it's not the guns its the crazy people.... Well, how do you keep guns from people that are a danger?

  I suppose you take them away when people demonstrate that they're crazy.

 :yeah:
Groupie:                         Podcast:
RMEF                              Gritty
NRA                                Western bowhunter
SCI                                 The Hunt Backcountry
BHA                                MeatEater
SAB                                Hunt Talk Radio

Offline timberfaller

  • Political Topics
  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Sourdough
  • *****
  • Join Date: Mar 2014
  • Posts: 1638
  • Location: East Wenatchee
Just keep in mind, the liberal leftist and the term "swatting" :yike: :yike: :yike:
The only good tree, is a stump!

Offline Stein

  • Trade Count: (+1)
  • Frontiersman
  • *****
  • Join Date: Sep 2013
  • Posts: 3735
Also keep in mind you don't have to be "crazy" or mentally unfit.  The order only requires that someone makes a claim that you pose a danger to yourself or someone else and the judge finds that claim reasonable.  It literally can be as simple as an ex-spouse or even roommate telling a judge that you made threats and they are in fear of being shot.  It would then be up to the accused to convince the judge that didn't happen.

On the other side of the argument, there are known problems with government agencies and professionals not submitting information to the NICS database and nothing is being done on that front.  I believe that is how the gun that was used in Marysville was purchased and there has been nothing done to prevent that from happening again.

Online Humptulips

  • Global Moderator
  • Trade Count: (+2)
  • Frontiersman
  • *****
  • Join Date: May 2010
  • Posts: 4580
  • Location: Humptulips
    • Washington State Trappers Association
  • Groups: WSTA, NTA, FTA, OTA, WWC, WFW, NRA
In WA it appears you can be involuntarily committed for mental illness if you are a danger to others or yourself or even if you are a druggy or drunk. You have to be given a court hearing with representation though within 72 hours. Not so the case when your firearms are taken.
Does not it seem wrong that when your Constitutional rights are taken away even though possibly for good reason you are not given your day in court?
I would feel better about this if the guy got a hearing with representation within 72 hours.
Bruce Vandervort

Offline Stein

  • Trade Count: (+1)
  • Frontiersman
  • *****
  • Join Date: Sep 2013
  • Posts: 3735
He has the opportunity to attend the hearing and is notified at least five days in advance.  The challenge would be proving something didn't happen, i.e., I never said that or acted that way, as well as coming up with an effective defense in 5 days.

It's a tough problem, how to keep guns out of bad guys hands while following the constitution.

Offline Fl0und3rz

  • Political Topics
  • Trade Count: (+7)
  • Legend
  • ******
  • Join Date: Oct 2010
  • Posts: 26317
  • Location: E. WA
He has the opportunity to attend the hearing and is notified at least five days in advance.  The challenge would be proving something didn't happen, i.e., I never said that or acted that way, as well as coming up with an effective defense in 5 days.

It's a tough problem, how to keep guns out of bad guys hands while following the constitution.

The notice and opportunity to be heard provisions in the law are woefully inadequate in comparison to the infringement and potential for abuse. 

These were intentionally lowered beyond what is acceptable in most other contexts for such infringements.  These can be improved.

There is no rational reason to think that if this person is an active danger to self or others that this potential infringement cannot be accompanied by actual notice (personal service of process) and actual opportunity to be heard, rather than service of process by mail or publication and ex parte hearings to grant the order to seize firearms.  None. 

In fact, the reasons to NOT require actual personal service (e.g., flight risk, concealment of firearms) presumes that the person who is an alleged danger not receive actual service of process by the inferior service by mail and publication allowances.  This nod to due process is a sham.

 

* Recent Topics

Just tried my Sous vide for the first time by merkaba93
[Today at 07:25:58 PM]


Been some good ones killed this year. by bowhunterforever
[Today at 07:25:28 PM]


New compound opinions by highside74
[Today at 07:10:44 PM]


Long range for beginners by jasnt
[Today at 06:58:18 PM]


New longbow by northwesthunter84
[Today at 06:52:35 PM]


MOVED: Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump sing "Baby it's Cold Outside" by Humptulips
[Today at 06:52:25 PM]


Male down!!! by pashok23
[Today at 06:48:21 PM]


3nails trapping 2018-19 by sagerat
[Today at 06:47:22 PM]


WTS: Muley Freak Bino Harness by johns8168
[Today at 06:35:28 PM]


Had a great day! by merkelman
[Today at 06:20:07 PM]


"Coy" by branches
[Today at 06:02:06 PM]


Grand Teton park closes hunting area due to grizzly bears by snake
[Today at 05:51:11 PM]


Dec 8 trapping class at Cabelas by Trapper John
[Today at 05:24:03 PM]


6.5 Grendel plinking ammo..... Good deals? by phx2sea
[Today at 05:23:57 PM]


Traps for Sale by Trapper John
[Today at 05:19:50 PM]


Jasen’s 2018-19 season by jasnt
[Today at 05:16:44 PM]


Ruger PC Carbine - Optic/ sight ideas by carpsniperg2
[Today at 05:12:04 PM]


trophy bear hunt???? by mountainman
[Today at 05:07:40 PM]


FS: Kifaru Tahr Coyote by X-Force
[Today at 05:06:56 PM]


Black powder question by quarterstaff
[Today at 05:04:59 PM]