King county gun confiscation DV

[Special T]

"A court order does not always a domestic abuser make, despite what King 5 wants its viewers to believe. We’re supposed to have due process, requiring a trial, conviction and sentencing before penalties are imposed.

In many cases, we’ve seen restraining orders and firearm prohibitions based on considerably less than “beyond a reasonable doubt” standard. It’s not like motives and incentives don’t exist, including revenge, or getting an upper hand in divorce settlements or custody proceedings.  And in many cases, those unfairly caught up in such orders lack the wherewithal to defend the rights they’re being deprived of.



https://www.ammoland.com/2017/11/planned-king-county-gun-confiscations-foreshadow-larger-wider-plans/#axzz4yRMVmCq0

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G930A using Tapatalk

[Tinmaniac]

Makes perfect sense.Too many people getting shot before the abuser goes to court.A piece of paper won't stop a bullet.

[pianoman9701]

I know people who've been deprived of due process and were unjustly relieved of their firearms. One, whose wife did it just days prior to hunting season. While it's true that charges can be filed against people who falsely accuse, they're rarely levied. Due process, as outlined in the 5th Amendment to our beloved Constitution, is specifically there so that citizens can't be penalized or punished without a jury trial. In the case of domestic abuse, the accuser is assumed truthful and the accused, guilty until proven innocent until court is held.  This is supposedly so because the courts are backed up. The fact that courts are unable to hear these cases immediately should not be reason for the government to ignore our rights. The Forefathers were quite clear that the rights of good people should not be trodden upon because of the acts of bad people. I've seen no attempt by any state government to give domestic abuse claims a speedy appearance before a magistrate to not only protect the alleged victim, but the accused before stripping away his/her rights. The answer is improving the court system to allow these cases to go to the head of the line, or even to have a dedicated court specifically tasked with determination of domestic abuse allegations. Stripping away rights isn't the answer. For some in our government, any excuse to deprive citizens of their 2nd Amendment rights is a good thing.

[Special T]

One of many reasons why choosing a good woman has the largest impact on a man's life... perhaps it is also the reason why men are limiting thier entanglements with women as well.

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G930A using Tapatalk

[Fl0und3rz]

I know people who've been deprived of due process and were unjustly relieved of their firearms. One, whose wife did it just days prior to hunting season. While it's true that charges can be filed against people who falsely accuse, they're rarely levied. Due process, as outlined in the 5th Amendment to our beloved Constitution, is specifically there so that citizens can't be penalized or punished without a jury trial. In the case of domestic abuse, the accuser is assumed truthful and the accused, guilty until proven innocent until court is held.  This is supposedly so because the courts are backed up. The fact that courts are unable to hear these cases immediately should not be reason for the government to ignore our rights. The Forefathers were quite clear that the rights of good people should not be trodden upon because of the acts of bad people. I've seen no attempt by any state government to give domestic abuse claims a speedy appearance before a magistrate to not only protect the alleged victim, but the accused before stripping away his/her rights. The answer is improving the court system to allow these cases to go to the head of the line, or even to have a dedicated court specifically tasked with determination of domestic abuse allegations. Stripping away rights isn't the answer. For some in our government, any excuse to deprive citizens of their 2nd Amendment rights is a good thing.

It goes beyond that, even in the cases where there is proper notice and opportunity to be heard.  There is an innate, self-serving reluctance to disbelieve DV allegations and be that one judge/commissioner who was "responsible" for not disarming an abuser who then goes on to kill his/her victim. 

[Fl0und3rz]

One of many reasons why choosing a good woman has the largest impact on a man's life... perhaps it is also the reason why men are limiting thier entanglements with women as well.

In tax terms, you get more activity that is subsidized and less that is taxed.  The court's predisposition against men in marriages acts as a tax, whereas a court's predisposition to favor women acts as a subsidy to abuse such processes.

[Special T]

Resulting in less marriage and lower birth rates...

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G930A using Tapatalk

[Tinmaniac]

I bet the folks burying their loved ones in Texas wish more had been done to keep guns out of the hands of the DV offender that gunned them down in church.

[ctwiggs1]

I bet the folks burying their loved ones in Texas wish more had been done to keep guns out of the hands of the DV offender that gunned them down in church.

Not relevant. At all.

He was given his due process and found guilty of crimes that both sides agree should warrant losing firearms rights.  He also was put in a mental health facility (and escaped from it) that would warrant losing his rights.  Law enforcement failed on this.  Not the laws of the land.

And that's assuming that the man who criminally bought a gun wouldn't have still bought a gun criminally under the table.

[pianoman9701]

I know people who've been deprived of due process and were unjustly relieved of their firearms. One, whose wife did it just days prior to hunting season. While it's true that charges can be filed against people who falsely accuse, they're rarely levied. Due process, as outlined in the 5th Amendment to our beloved Constitution, is specifically there so that citizens can't be penalized or punished without a jury trial. In the case of domestic abuse, the accuser is assumed truthful and the accused, guilty until proven innocent until court is held.  This is supposedly so because the courts are backed up. The fact that courts are unable to hear these cases immediately should not be reason for the government to ignore our rights. The Forefathers were quite clear that the rights of good people should not be trodden upon because of the acts of bad people. I've seen no attempt by any state government to give domestic abuse claims a speedy appearance before a magistrate to not only protect the alleged victim, but the accused before stripping away his/her rights. The answer is improving the court system to allow these cases to go to the head of the line, or even to have a dedicated court specifically tasked with determination of domestic abuse allegations. Stripping away rights isn't the answer. For some in our government, any excuse to deprive citizens of their 2nd Amendment rights is a good thing.

It goes beyond that, even in the cases where there is proper notice and opportunity to be heard.  There is an innate, self-serving reluctance to disbelieve DV allegations and be that one judge/commissioner who was "responsible" for not disarming an abuser who then goes on to kill his/her victim. 

There's not a lot one can do about bad due process.  The best you can do is show up with the right attorney and the right evidence.

[pianoman9701]

I bet the folks burying their loved ones in Texas wish more had been done to keep guns out of the hands of the DV offender that gunned them down in church.

Do you even own firearms? So apparently you're ignorant about the facts in TX. This is a good opportunity for you to learn something. First,  he was able to get guns because the government didn't follow the laws already in place. He'd already been convicted of DV. Because he was discharged for spousal abuse and dishonorably so, had they sent the information into the NCIC, as is required, he'd never have been able to purchase guns. Does that mean he wouldn't have killed a bunch of people anyway? Of course not. He'd have mowed them down with a rental truck when church was let out, or blew them up with diesel and fertilizer, or gasoline.

[Special T]

I bet the folks burying their loved ones in Texas wish more had been done to keep guns out of the hands of the DV offender that gunned them down in church.

I bet they wish they were packing iron. This was rural Texas not some anti gun utopia...

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G930A using Tapatalk

[Fl0und3rz]

I bet the folks burying their loved ones in Texas wish more had been done to keep guns out of the hands of the DV offender that gunned them down in church.

Not relevant. At all.

He was given his due process and found guilty of crimes that both sides agree should warrant losing firearms rights.  He also was put in a mental health facility (and escaped from it) that would warrant losing his rights.  Law enforcement failed on this.  Not the laws of the land.

And that's assuming that the man who criminally bought a gun wouldn't have still bought a gun criminally under the table.

Well said.

[Tinmaniac]

Absolutely relevant as to what would happen in anti-gun utopia King County.Because of the strict gun laws in King County his information would have been sent to NCIS.If Texas requires a background check like Washington does he wouldn't be able to purchase a gun legally.What is irrelevant is if he would get a gun illegally,run people over or blow them up.My ownership of guns is irrelevant to the topic as well.There is a way to allow DV offenders to keep their guns while awaiting due process.Arrest them,charge them,get them in front of a judge with 72 hours,deny bail,make sure the don't waive their right to a speedy trial and they will have due process within 60 days.In other words if they don't want to surrender their guns keep them away from their guns.

[olyguy79]

Due process, as outlined in the 5th Amendment to our beloved Constitution, is specifically there so that citizens can't be penalized or punished without a jury trial. In the case of domestic abuse, the accuser is assumed truthful and the accused, guilty until proven innocent until court is held.  This is supposedly so because the courts are backed up. The fact that courts are unable to hear these cases immediately should not be reason for the government to ignore our rights. The Forefathers were quite clear that the rights of good people should not be trodden upon because of the acts of bad people. I've seen no attempt by any state government to give domestic abuse claims a speedy appearance before a magistrate to not only protect the alleged victim, but the accused before stripping away his/her rights. The answer is improving the court system to allow these cases to go to the head of the line, or even to have a dedicated court specifically tasked with determination of domestic abuse allegations. Stripping away rights isn't the answer. For some in our government, any excuse to deprive citizens of their 2nd Amendment rights is a good thing.

Not trying to be a know it all. In the 1970s SCOTUS actually ruled the 5th Amendment provision regarding jury trials actually doesn't mandate the possibility for jury trials for all criminal cases, only serious crimes. They went on to say that "serious" crimes are those where the possible punishment is over 6 months in jail. Now many states still allow the possibility of a jury trial for those with possible punishment less than 6 months in jail, but they aren't required to do so under this ruling. If for example your charged with poaching a deer at Mt. Rainier it's a federal Class B Misdemeanor with a maximum of 6 months in jail which means no jury trial.

But to get what I really wanted to hit on.

I agree it's wrong the government takes guns and then says well your court date is in 6 months. But how are we supposed to fix it? You suggest making these cases at the front of the line. So if I'm scheduled for a DUI trial Monday morning at 9AM, but 20 guys were arrested over the weekend for DV does that mean my trial is dismissed? Or do I basically just have to wait until sometime where there's not a guy wanting to get his guns back?

Up until about 10 years ago in WA if you were cited with a criminal offense you received your court date on-scene, but with a growing population it caused the courts to be backlogged, especially after busy weekends. So 100 people would show up for their court date but only 75 cases were heard, well under WA law those 25 remaining cases were dismissed. That's why prosecutors now tell officers to no longer issue criminal court dates, simply send the report to the prosecutor and they'll actually schedule it properly.

The big problem is cities and more importantly counties do not properly fund the criminal justice system. There is not a county in this state that could not use an additional judge, some counties literally just have one District Court (infractions and misdemeanors) and Superior Court (felony) judge. Some counties even share superior court judges. It's crazy but as WA's population has grown, the amount of prosecutors and judges have actually decreased. I hate to compare us to California, but California funds their criminal justice system a whole lot better than WA does. Even smaller counties in CA have multiple court locations with several judges and a lot of prosecutors.

The fact of the matter is it will all come down to $.