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

[Fl0und3rz]

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.

[pianoman9701]

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.

[Fl0und3rz]

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.

[WAcoyotehunter]

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.

[magnanimous_j]

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.

[Curly]

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.

[Fl0und3rz]

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?

[Stein]

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.

[Fl0und3rz]

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.

[X-Force]

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.

 

[timberfaller]

Just keep in mind, the liberal leftist and the term "swatting"

[Stein]

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.

[Humptulips]

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.

[Stein]

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.

[Fl0und3rz]

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.