Post by: bigtex on February 17, 2014, 01:21:38 PM
Posted by Brian M. Rosenthal
OLYMPIA — House Bill 1840 is back.
The proposal, which would require some gun owners with a restraining or protective order against them to temporarily surrender their firearms while the order is in effect, was seen last year as the one gun-control bill that could actually make it through the Washington Legislature — until it died in the state Senate, leaving supporters “seething with anger.”
(The issue was profiled in a New York Times investigation last March.)
Now it’s been revived and received a surprising 97-0 vote (with one member absent) on the state House floor this week after Democrats and Republicans agreed on compromise language.
The compromise adds more judicial oversight by preventing the surrender of guns unless the order is accompanied by an additional finding that the subject constitutes a “credible threat.”
That matches the amendment that got the bill through the Senate Law & Justice Committee unanimously last year. The chairman, strong Second Amendment supporter Mike Padden, said Thursday that he still supports the bill but cannot control what his caucus decides to do.
Last year, caucus leaders did not allow the bill to come up for a vote on the floor because of concerns that some residents would be temporarily denied a gun without due process, Padden said.
“We’ll see what happens this time,” said Padden, R-Spokane Valley.
The House sponsor, state Rep. Roger Goodman, said he is confident about the bill’s prospects.
Goodman, a Kirkland Democrat who chairs the House Public Safety Committee, said even the National Rifle Association supports the amended version of the legislation as a way to protect domestic-violence victims.
“I think we’re going to get this done this year,” Goodman said.
http://blogs.seattletimes.com/politicsnorthwest/2014/02/14/gun-control-bill-revived-unanimously-approved-in-state-house/ (http://blogs.seattletimes.com/politicsnorthwest/2014/02/14/gun-control-bill-revived-unanimously-approved-in-state-house/)
Post by: Eli346 on February 17, 2014, 02:36:25 PM
Post by: canyelk48 on February 17, 2014, 04:48:55 PM
Post by: Lucky1 on February 17, 2014, 05:17:45 PM
Some people are a threat and should have their guns taken away from them. It seems like there should have to be a proven history of violence or firearms violations for someone to lose their gun rights, even temporarily.
Just going by what the article said. I did not read the proposed law.
Post by: Greenhorn on February 17, 2014, 05:36:28 PM
Post by: bigtex on February 17, 2014, 06:01:56 PM
RCW 9.41.040
(2)(a) A person, whether an adult or juvenile, is guilty of the crime of unlawful possession of a firearm in the second degree, if the person does not qualify under subsection (1) of this section for the crime of unlawful possession of a firearm in the first degree and the person owns, has in his or her possession, or has in his or her control any firearm:
(ii) During any period of time that the person is subject to a court order issued under chapter 7.90, 7.92, 9A.46, 10.14, 10.99, 26.09, 26.10, 26.26, or 26.50 RCW that:
(A) Was issued after a hearing of which the person received actual notice, and at which the person had an opportunity to participate;
(B) Restrains the person from harassing, stalking, or threatening an intimate partner of the person or child of the intimate partner or person, or engaging in other conduct that would place an intimate partner in reasonable fear of bodily injury to the partner or child; and
(C)(I) Includes a finding that the person represents a credible threat to the physical safety of the intimate partner or child; and
(II) By its terms, explicitly prohibits the use, attempted use, or threatened use of physical force against the intimate partner or child that would reasonably be expected to cause bodily injury;
(iii) After having previously been involuntarily committed
(b) Unlawful possession of a firearm in the second degree is a class C felony punishable according to chapter 9A.20 RCW.
(8 ) For purposes of this section, "intimate partner" includes: A spouse, a domestic partner, a former spouse, a former domestic partner, a person with whom the restrained person has a child in common, or a person with whom the restrained person has cohabitated or is cohabitating as part of a dating relationship.
9.41.800
(3) During any period of time that the person is subject to a court order issued under chapter 7.90, 7.92, 9A.46, 10.14, 10.99, 26.09, 26.10, 26.26, or 26.50 RCW that:
(a) Was issued after a hearing of which the person received actual notice, and at which the person had an opportunity to participate;
(b) Restrains the person from harassing, stalking, or threatening an intimate partner of the person or child of the intimate partner or person, or engaging in other conduct that would place an intimate partner in reasonable fear of bodily injury to the partner or child; and
(c)(i) Includes a finding that the person represents a credible threat to the physical safety of the intimate partner or child; and
(ii) By its terms, explicitly prohibits the use, attempted use, or threatened use of physical force against the intimate partner or child that would reasonably be expected to cause bodily injury, the court shall:
(A) Require the party to surrender any firearm or other dangerous weapon;
(B) Require the party to surrender a concealed pistol license issued under RCW 9.41.070;
(C) Prohibit the party from obtaining or possessing a firearm or other dangerous weapon; and
(D) Prohibit the party from obtaining or possessing a concealed pistol license.
New Section to RCW 9.41
A party ordered to surrender firearms, dangerous weapons, and his or her concealed pistol license under RCW 9.41.800 must file with the clerk of the court a proof of surrender and receipt form or a declaration of nonsurrender form within five judicial days of the entry of the order.
Post by: bigtex on February 17, 2014, 06:05:17 PM
Post by: TONTO on February 17, 2014, 06:27:46 PM
Quote
(2)(a) A person, whether an adult or juvenile, is guilty of the crime of unlawful possession of a firearm in the second degree, if the person does not qualify under subsection (1) of this section for the crime of unlawful possession of a firearm in the first degree and the person owns , has in his or her possession, or has in his or her control any firearm
Sounds like you would have to give up ownership, not just possesion, without a conviction just the judge's rule.
See you don't need a felony to lose em, but then if found in possesion or in this case ownership(not sure how that works without proof of transfer :dunno: ), instant felon.
Post by: blackdog on February 17, 2014, 06:31:22 PM
Post by: KFhunter on February 17, 2014, 06:39:23 PM
The NRA was neutral not supportive.
They had to be due to their previous statements, this is a "GOTCHA!" bill.
So be careful dating crazy chicks :o
Post by: Heredoggydoggy on February 17, 2014, 06:42:49 PM
Post by: bigtex on February 17, 2014, 06:49:45 PM
It's got to get passed by the Senate now. Good luck with that! :chuckle:
I think it will easily pass in the Senate. Need to remember there is a difference between this year and last year. Last year the bill had 37 House members opposed. The NRA supported amendment brought everybody together in the House and all D's and R's voted in favor this year. I just don't see how the House would vote unanimously in favor of this but Senate Republicans would hold it up...
Post by: Heredoggydoggy on February 17, 2014, 06:54:44 PM
It's got to get passed by the Senate now. Good luck with that! :chuckle:
I think it will easily pass in the Senate. Need to remember there is a difference between this year and last year. Last year the bill had 37 House members opposed. The NRA supported amendment brought everybody together in the House and all D's and R's voted in favor this year. I just don't see how the House would vote unanimously in favor of this but Senate Republicans would hold it up...
Yes, there is a difference in the Senate between this year and last year. This year the Republicans have the majority in the Senate. And they want to keep their jobs! :tup: :chuckle:
Post by: bigtex on February 17, 2014, 06:58:55 PM
Actually that's not different. They were in control last year in the Senate as well..Yes, there is a difference in the Senate between this year and last year. This year the Republicans have the majority in the Senate. And they want to keep their jobs! :tup: :chuckle:It's got to get passed by the Senate now. Good luck with that! :chuckle:
I think it will easily pass in the Senate. Need to remember there is a difference between this year and last year. Last year the bill had 37 House members opposed. The NRA supported amendment brought everybody together in the House and all D's and R's voted in favor this year. I just don't see how the House would vote unanimously in favor of this but Senate Republicans would hold it up...
So you think ALL House Republicans would be in support of something that Senate Republicans wouldn't?
Post by: Fl0und3rz on February 17, 2014, 06:59:47 PM
I don't like the bill either. Who decides if someone is a "credible" threat. How is that determination made.
In theory? She said; he said. In practice? She said.
That said, this appears to provide some better measure of protection from meritless allegations than the current state of affairs.
Post by: Lucky1 on February 17, 2014, 07:04:44 PM
Does that mean the person would have to give up his gun, knife, axe, baseball bat, archery bow, etc?
I really do think we have enough gun laws. We just need to enforce the ones we have. I think enforcement of existing laws would solve most of the problems they are trying to address with this legislation. A good number of the perpetrators of the criminal actions they are trying to stop are repeat offenders who should still be locked up.
That's my :twocents:
Post by: Heredoggydoggy on February 17, 2014, 07:11:04 PM
Post by: dscubame on February 17, 2014, 07:32:44 PM
Post by: Heredoggydoggy on February 17, 2014, 07:49:37 PM
(A) Require the party to surrender any firearm or other dangerous weapon.
Does that mean that all the gang members will just give up their weapons? Hahahahahaha! That's a good one! :chuckle: :chuckle:
Post by: stuckalot on February 17, 2014, 08:05:57 PM
Post by: SCRUBS on February 17, 2014, 09:43:09 PM
We do not need any more gun laws! Why does anyone think that the bad guys are going to obey any new laws if they don't obey current laws?
It`s not about the criminals,it`s about disarming the law abiding folks one law at a time...
Post by: huntnphool on February 17, 2014, 09:50:11 PM
Post by: SCRUBS on February 17, 2014, 09:50:30 PM
I sent him an email letting him know, I would remember his vote on this next election cycle. :chuckle:
Post by: csaaphill on February 18, 2014, 10:25:26 AM
I'm reading more and more on how some in CT are resisting these kinds of things so I'd hope people would here as well.
Meaning take them out of state for the time being if they have too.
Ya all a women has to do is call them and bam your toast anymore.
SO ya against this for the most part!
Post by: bigtex on February 18, 2014, 10:33:12 AM
Very recently (week or so ago)one of my house reps (R) had a phone town hall meeting, he stated very clearly there was no "gun legislation" that he knew of :dunno:Would you be willing to say who this is? :chuckle:
Post by: Heredoggydoggy on February 18, 2014, 10:39:03 AM
Very recently (week or so ago)one of my house reps (R) had a phone town hall meeting, he stated very clearly there was no "gun legislation" that he knew of :dunno:
I sent him an email letting him know, I would remember his vote on this next election cycle. :chuckle:
That's probably the best thing to do. Telling them that how they vote might cost them some votes in their next bid for re-election strikes fear into the people we elect to "Represent" us! :chuckle:
Post by: SCRUBS on February 18, 2014, 10:52:30 AM
Very recently (week or so ago)one of my house reps (R) had a phone town hall meeting, he stated very clearly there was no "gun legislation" that he knew of :dunno:Would you be willing to say who this is? :chuckle:
When you disclose your name, I`ll disclose this persons :chuckle:
Post by: bigtex on February 18, 2014, 10:55:27 AM
Barney.....Barney Fife..... :chuckle:When you disclose your name, I`ll disclose this persons :chuckle:Very recently (week or so ago)one of my house reps (R) had a phone town hall meeting, he stated very clearly there was no "gun legislation" that he knew of :dunno:Would you be willing to say who this is? :chuckle:
Post by: huntrights on February 18, 2014, 11:37:41 AM
Definitely don't like this law. Years ago when I was going through a divorce I was visiting my parents out of State and my wife's attorney convinced her to file a restraining order on me, even though there was no valid reason. It was just to be vindictive and keep me from coming back to my own home when I returned. She even allowed the Sheriff's Dept. to confiscate all of my firearms while I was gone. I had to go to court just to get my firearms returned! Anyone can file a restraining order in this State and you don't have to prove a thing in order to get it!
:twocents:
This type abuse of process may happen more often than we are aware of. This law may result in wrongly confiscating firearms from law-abiding citizens due to the frivolous, vindictive, or unwarranted filing of a restraining orders. Will a judge take a chance in these types of cases? How will the definition of "credible threat" be applied equally and fairly? This may result in situations of guilty until proven innocent. There may be legitimate cases in which there is a "credible threat"; however, the possible abuse of the restraining order and other no-contact order processes need to be addressed. Are there any consequences for filing frivolous, vindictive, or unwarranted restraining orders? If there are serious consequences for abusing the restraining order process, then the law may not be so ominous. The reaction to an unwarranted restraining order may end up being like suspending a second grader from school because he chewed a pop-tart into a shape resembling a gun (http://www.washingtonpost.com/local/education/anne-arundel-second-grader-suspended-for-chewing-his-pastry-into-the-shape-of-a-gun/2013/03/04/44c4bbcc-84c4-11e2-98a3-b3db6b9ac586_story.html). This type of law should not be allowed to pass without ensuring the restraining orders and similar no-contact orders are applied only in cases of real and verifiable "credible threats".
All should take a very close look at this bill and consider the possible abuses and unintended consequences:
http://apps.leg.wa.gov/billinfo/summary.aspx?bill=1840
http://apps.leg.wa.gov/documents/billdocs/2013-14/Pdf/Bills/House%20Bills/1840-S.E.pdf
Post by: KFhunter on February 18, 2014, 11:40:43 AM
It appears to me a lot of chess pieces are in play for the eventual check mate 4-5 moves away.
Post by: Elkaholic daWg on February 18, 2014, 12:10:43 PM
Definitely don't like this law. Years ago when I was going through a divorce I was visiting my parents out of State and my wife's attorney convinced her to file a restraining order on me, even though there was no valid reason. It was just to be vindictive and keep me from coming back to my own home when I returned. She even allowed the Sheriff's Dept. to confiscate all of my firearms while I was gone. I had to go to court just to get my firearms returned! Anyone can file a restraining order in this State and you don't have to prove a thing in order to get it!
:twocents:
This type abuse of process likely happens more often than we are aware of. This law is likely to result in wrongly confiscating firearms from law-abiding citizens due to the frivolous, vindictive, or unwarranted filing of a restraining orders. What judge is going to take a chance in any of these types of cases? How will the definition of "credible threat" be applied equally and fairly? This may result in many situations of guilty until proven innocent. There may be legitimate cases in which there is a "credible threat"; however, the likely abuse of the restraining order process needs to be addressed. There do not appear to be any consequences for filing frivolous, vindictive, or unwarranted restraining orders. If there are serious consequences for abusing the restraining order process, then the law may not be so ominous. The reaction to an unwarranted restraining order may end up being like suspending a second grader from school because he chewed a pop-tart into a shape resembling a gun (http://www.washingtonpost.com/local/education/anne-arundel-second-grader-suspended-for-chewing-his-pastry-into-the-shape-of-a-gun/2013/03/04/44c4bbcc-84c4-11e2-98a3-b3db6b9ac586_story.html). This type of law should not be allowed to pass without having very strong restrictions placed on being able to file restraining orders and very serious consequences in place for filing unwarranted restraining orders.
All should take a very close look at this bill and consider the possible abuses and unintended consequences:
http://apps.leg.wa.gov/billinfo/summary.aspx?bill=1840
http://apps.leg.wa.gov/documents/billdocs/2013-14/Pdf/Bills/House%20Bills/1840-S.E.pdf
:yeah:LOADS of abuse potential!!!!
Post by: blackdog on February 18, 2014, 12:25:08 PM
Post by: ghosthunter on February 18, 2014, 12:26:39 PM
Post by: bigtex on February 18, 2014, 12:56:47 PM
So I guess, If you think your gal is going south, stash your guns before it happens. :dunno:And then hope to god you don't get caught with your gun because then you'll be charged with a felony....
The same offense used for charging felons in possession of a gun will be used for those violating this law....
Post by: huntrights on February 19, 2014, 12:13:14 PM
This law may be far too easy to abuse. Frivolous/vindictive/unwarranted no-contact orders of this type do happen. The accused may fall into a situation of guilty until they can prove they are not a "credible threat". How is “credible threat” determined? Is that determination equally applied and fair? This law may result in wrongly confiscating firearms from law-abiding citizens and wreaking havoc in their lives due to abuse and/or misapplication of these types of no-contact orders. The no-contact, protection, and restraining order system should be infallible before ever considering tying it to a law such as this. This law may cast a net so big it will impose unjustified consequences on many innocent people. This law appears to be another example of the demonization of firearms and another method of firearm confiscation.
It's very fast and easy to have your voice heard on any proposed legislation.
Go to the legislative web site associated with the proposed bill:
http://apps.leg.wa.gov/billinfo/summary.aspx?bill=1840
Take a few minutes to scan through the bill:
http://apps.leg.wa.gov/documents/billdocs/2013-14/Pdf/Bills/House%20Bills/1840-S.E.pdf
Contact your representatives by clicking on the "Comment on this bill" button. You can write up to 1,000 characters; that's only 10 to 12 lines so you have to keep it short and to the point.
https://app.leg.wa.gov/pbc/bill/1840
"We the People" must be willing to get engaged in the political process or we will most definitely continue to lose our rights and freedoms. Don't just complain about these issues; get involved and make your voices heard. Your individual voice really does make a difference.
The excuse of not having the time is gone; it only takes a few minutes to make a difference. Take action and get others to do the same.
Post by: Elkaholic daWg on February 19, 2014, 01:49:35 PM
Post by: WoodlandShooter on February 19, 2014, 04:11:12 PM
The NRA was neutral not supportive.
They had to be due to their previous statements, this is a "GOTCHA!" bill.
So be careful dating crazy chicks :o
LMFAO!!!
Silence = Agreement
Post by: DOUBLELUNG on February 19, 2014, 05:02:15 PM
Is there really no recourse already in law for a credible threat????
Post by: bigtex on February 20, 2014, 10:14:19 PM
Post by: Fl0und3rz on February 21, 2014, 02:03:05 AM
No. No. No.
Is there really no recourse already in law for a credible threat????
There is, but the incredible threats (the vindictive opportunistic allegations) get swept up with it.
Nobody wants to be the judge that says, "this does not appear credible," just to have the case end up with a dead spouse from an estranged lover. So the default, in practice, is to err on the side of safety, 2A, 4A, and 5A rights be damned. This is ripe for abuse from vindictive spouses and shady attorneys.
This appears, at least from my cursory reading, to restore a little balance by requiring notice and opportunity to be heard in the face of allegations that could result in your 2A rights being jeopardized.
Post by: Special T on February 24, 2014, 04:36:35 PM
I tell EVERY young man i meet that is dating. Be carful who you live with or marry. There is WAY more at stake than how good looking she is, or how good a job she does at warming you up at night. :twocents:
Post by: PNW_Hunter on February 28, 2014, 03:41:19 PM
Gone to be tough to get opposition to this bill. Last year the bill passed 61-37. The amendments were made this year and the entire House voted in favor, very rarely do ALL legislators (in this case House members) vote in favor of any gun bill. And finally you have the NRA in favor of a gun control legislation, that in itself says something.
I must have missed that, but can someone please post a link or something to where the NRA expressed support of this bill?
Thanks
Post by: bigtex on February 28, 2014, 07:55:39 PM
I have been informed that the NRA was in support/behind the amendment to the bill, but overall the NRA is neutral/has no opinion on the bill.Gone to be tough to get opposition to this bill. Last year the bill passed 61-37. The amendments were made this year and the entire House voted in favor, very rarely do ALL legislators (in this case House members) vote in favor of any gun bill. And finally you have the NRA in favor of a gun control legislation, that in itself says something.I must have missed that, but can someone please post a link or something to where the NRA expressed support of this bill?
Thanks
Post by: CAMPMEAT on February 28, 2014, 08:14:14 PM
Post by: bigtex on February 28, 2014, 08:18:24 PM
Post by: csaaphill on March 05, 2014, 05:39:58 AM
Probably a bit quicker because sometimes the weakest links in liberty need more defence than those that aren't so strong.
Meaning yes I am against women beaters or stalkers as this law would target, but if not convicted of anything and just have a restraining order you bet it's an infringment!
Post by: ICEMAN on March 06, 2014, 07:39:25 PM
I don't like this law.
Maybe their should be a clause which allows for if a finding that her claim was frivolous, that a default judgement for the gun owner to the tune of $1000 a day for each gun confiscated, payable by the local jurisdiction?
Post by: Greenhorn on March 06, 2014, 07:45:49 PM
Post by: bentley30-06 on March 06, 2014, 09:25:16 PM
Post by: ICEMAN on March 06, 2014, 09:31:20 PM
Well I wonder how they find the un-registered firearms?
By tracking guys like us on the internet...
Post by: bentley30-06 on March 06, 2014, 09:36:20 PM
Well I wonder how they find the un-registered firearms?
By tracking guys like us on the internet...
Well with a name like ICEMAN you would have to be a fool to knock on your door.
Post by: ICEMAN on March 06, 2014, 09:38:29 PM
Post by: bentley30-06 on March 06, 2014, 09:46:00 PM
Actually I am a pretty nice guy, I just have this inner feeling that if they come for guns it will get ugly.
I think anyone would agree that is reasonable....I guess the next thing for them to attempt is to ban private gun sales then so they could track where each weapon goes? I don't know how many states now require you to register your firearms?
Post by: bigtex on March 07, 2014, 09:10:50 AM
Post by: huntnphool on March 07, 2014, 09:35:45 AM
The bill passed with a unanimous vote yesterday in the Senate. So all legislators in Olympia voted in favor of this bill. The bill now goes to Inslee for his signature.How long before we see the first use of this new legislation?
Post by: bigtex on March 07, 2014, 09:44:00 AM
Theres a couple different dates in the bill:The bill passed with a unanimous vote yesterday in the Senate. So all legislators in Olympia voted in favor of this bill. The bill now goes to Inslee for his signature.How long before we see the first use of his new legislation?
-Section 3: All law enforcement agencies must develop policies and procedures by January 1, 2015, regarding the acceptance, storage, and return of weapons required to be surrendered
-Section 4: By December 1, 2014, the administrative office of the courts shall develop a proof of surrender and receipt pattern form to be used to document that a respondent has complied with a requirement to surrender firearms, dangerous weapons, and his or her concealed pistol license
-Section 5: Effective December 1, 2014 A party ordered to surrender firearms, dangerous weapons, and his or her concealed pistol license under RCW 9.41.800 must file with the clerk of the court a proof of surrender and receipt form or a declaration of nonsurrender form within five judicial days of the entry of the order.
However, the actual law regarding the court authority to require surrendering of firearms takes effect 90 days after legislation passed, as does the penalty for failing to surrender.
Post by: bigtex on March 07, 2014, 09:50:27 AM
It's got to get passed by the Senate now. Good luck with that! :chuckle:It got a unanimous YES vote in the Senate......
Post by: PNW_Hunter on March 07, 2014, 10:22:15 AM
Is this where the "credible threat" part comes in?
Post by: huntnphool on March 07, 2014, 12:17:45 PM
So I've never experience divorce before, but I've heard a restraining order getting filed occurs a lot during divorce. So does this mean the first person to file one gets to keep their guns, essentially? Seems like it's a "race " to file a restraining order.Better be careful how you email or text your wife/girlfriend, the tiniest aggression could be used to give a judge the benefit of the doubt that you pose a "credible threat"
Is this where the "credible threat" part comes in?