Seattle Police Confiscate First Firearm Under New “Mental Health” Law

[Stein]

Agreed, but I do believe the notice has to be served by a LEO, at least according to this:

https://www.courts.wa.gov/forms/documents/XR_ERPO%20Brochure_2017.pdf

[Stein]

I just looked it up and the police are required to make two attempts at serving it and then are allowed to mail it or publicize it (in the paper?).  They will attempt to serve it to whatever address or location the petitioner lists on the paperwork.

If someone was real cranky, they would submit the petition while you were out of town for a couple of days.

Anyway, the courts will eventually get around to judging the constitutionality of this order, it is in place in several states.

[Fl0und3rz]

Agreed.

Agreed, but I do believe the notice has to be served by a LEO, at least according to this:

https://www.courts.wa.gov/forms/documents/XR_ERPO%20Brochure_2017.pdf

Not so.  That is essentially a sales pitch that presents best case scenario for petitioners.

Read the actual RCW.

http://app.leg.wa.gov/rcw/default.aspx?cite=7.94&full=true#7.94.060

Pay particular attention to RCW 7.94.070 Service by publication or mail and RCW 7.94.040 Hearings on petition—Grounds for order issuance, Section (1)(d), citing RCW 7.94.050 Ex parte orders.

The situation I described is accurate.  And the burden of proof is the lowest possible, a preponderance of the evidence, not beyond a reasonable doubt or even the intermediate standard of clear and convincing evidence.

This was all covered in the discussions of I-1491, which the media and left gladly obfuscated or mislead the public. 


If you were setting out to design a system ripe for abuse, you could not do a better job.   Don't take my word for it.  Review RCW 7.94.120 Penalties and RCW 7.94.140 Liability.


As I said, the nod to due process is a sham.