Results 1 to 19 of 19

Thread: RCW 9.41.098 and gun buy backs

  1. #1
    Regular Member EMNofSeattle's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Location
    S. Kitsap, Washington state
    Posts
    3,763

    RCW 9.41.098 and gun buy backs

    So with Seattle's recent gun buy back, it appears to me the city may have violated state law in how they conducted it. Now the law is long and confusingly written it seems, but take a look at this

    (2) Upon order of forfeiture, the court in its discretion may order destruction of any forfeited firearm. A court may temporarily retain forfeited firearms needed for evidence.

    (a) Except as provided in (b), (c), and (d) of this subsection, firearms that are: (i) Judicially forfeited and no longer needed for evidence; or (ii) forfeited due to a failure to make a claim under RCW 63.32.010 or 63.40.010; may be disposed of in any manner determined by the local legislative authority. Any proceeds of an auction or trade may be retained by the legislative authority. This subsection (2)(a) applies only to firearms that come into the possession of the law enforcement agency after June 30, 1993.

    By midnight, June 30, 1993, every law enforcement agency shall prepare an inventory, under oath, of every firearm that has been judicially forfeited, has been seized and may be subject to judicial forfeiture, or that has been, or may be, forfeited due to a failure to make a claim under RCW 63.32.010 or 63.40.010.

    (b) Except as provided in (c) of this subsection, of the inventoried firearms a law enforcement agency shall destroy illegal firearms, may retain a maximum of ten percent of legal forfeited firearms for agency use, and shall either:

    (i) Comply with the provisions for the auction of firearms in RCW 9.41.098 that were in effect immediately preceding May 7, 1993; or
    Trade, auction, or arrange for the auction of, rifles and shotguns. In addition, the law enforcement agency shall either trade, auction, or arrange for the auction of, short firearms, or shall pay a fee of twenty-five dollars to the state treasurer for every short firearm neither auctioned nor traded, to a maximum of fifty thousand dollars. The fees shall be accompanied by an inventory, under oath, of every short firearm listed in the
    (ii) inventory required by (a) of this subsection, that has been neither traded nor auctioned. The state treasurer shall credit the fees to the firearms range account established in RCW 79A.25.210.
    All trades or auctions of firearms under this subsection shall be to licensed dealers. Proceeds of any auction less costs, including actual costs of storage and sale, shall be forwarded to the firearms range account established in RCW 79A.25.210.

    (c) Antique firearms and firearms recognized as curios, relics, and firearms of particular historical significance by the United States treasury department *bureau of alcohol, tobacco, and firearms are exempt from destruction and shall be disposed of by auction or trade to licensed dealers.

    (d) Firearms in the possession of the Washington state patrol on or after May 7, 1993, that are judicially forfeited and no longer needed for evidence, or forfeited due to a failure to make a claim under RCW 63.35.020, must be disposed of as follows: (i) Firearms illegal for any person to possess must be destroyed; (ii) the Washington state patrol may retain a maximum of ten percent of legal firearms for agency use; and (iii) all other legal firearms must be auctioned or traded to licensed dealers. The Washington state patrol may retain any proceeds of an auction or trade.
    So has the city melted down any firearm more then 50 years old? have they made their payments to the range fund?
    Someone oughta call and ask them.....
    they love our milk and honey, but they preach about some other way of living, when they're running down my country man they're walkin' on the fightin side of me

    NRA Member

  2. #2
    Regular Member rapgood's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    Bothell, WA
    Posts
    565
    Quote Originally Posted by EMNofSeattle View Post
    So with Seattle's recent gun buy back, it appears to me the city may have violated state law in how they conducted it. Now the law is long and confusingly written it seems, but take a look at this

    [snip]

    So has the city melted down any firearm more then 50 years old? have they made their payments to the range fund?
    Someone oughta call and ask them.....
    I think you misread the statute WRT the Seattle gun "buy back." The statute relates only to court ordered forfeitures. The "buy back" does not place the firearms in the hands of LE pursuant to judicial operation.

    The key phrase "(2) Upon order of forfeiture, the court in its discretion may order..." establishes the predicate judicial act.
    Rev. Robert Apgood, Esq.

    A right cannot be lost by exercising it. McDonald v. Chicago, 561 U.S. 3025, 130 S. Ct. 3020, 3021, 177 L. Ed. 2d 894 (2010) (citing Near v. Minn., 283 U.S. 697 (1931)).

    Although IAAL, anything I say here is not legal advice. No conversations we may have privately or otherwise in this forum constitute the formation of an attorney-client relationship, and are not intended to do so.

  3. #3
    Campaign Veteran slapmonkay's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2011
    Location
    Montana
    Posts
    1,267
    Quote Originally Posted by rapgood View Post
    I think you misread the statute WRT the Seattle gun "buy back." The statute relates only to court ordered forfeitures. The "buy back" does not place the firearms in the hands of LE pursuant to judicial operation.

    The key phrase "(2) Upon order of forfeiture, the court in its discretion may order..." establishes the predicate judicial act.
    I Agree.
    I Am Not A Lawyer, verify all facts presented independently.

    It's called the "American Dream" because you have to be asleep to believe it. - George Carlin

    I carry a spare tire, in case I have a flat. I carry life insurance, in case I die. I carry a gun, in case I need it.

  4. #4
    Regular Member EMNofSeattle's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Location
    S. Kitsap, Washington state
    Posts
    3,763
    Quote Originally Posted by rapgood View Post
    I think you misread the statute WRT the Seattle gun "buy back." The statute relates only to court ordered forfeitures. The "buy back" does not place the firearms in the hands of LE pursuant to judicial operation.

    The key phrase "(2) Upon order of forfeiture, the court in its discretion may order..." establishes the predicate judicial act.
    Now it does reference

    ii) forfeited due to a failure to make a claim under RCW 63.32.010

    I've read the 63.32.010 and it deals with property in possession of the police, not just judicial forfeitures, does that mean anything? or not?
    they love our milk and honey, but they preach about some other way of living, when they're running down my country man they're walkin' on the fightin side of me

    NRA Member

  5. #5
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Location
    Bothell
    Posts
    586
    Quote Originally Posted by EMNofSeattle View Post
    Now it does reference

    ii) forfeited due to a failure to make a claim under RCW 63.32.010

    I've read the 63.32.010 and it deals with personal property in possession of the police, not just judicial forfeitures, does that mean anything? or not?
    ftfy

    It is referring to lost/abandoned property, not buy-backs. The RCW consistently refers to "personal property." Once you've sold your property to the gov't, it is no longer your property and you have no claim to it.

  6. #6
    Regular Member rapgood's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    Bothell, WA
    Posts
    565
    Quote Originally Posted by EMNofSeattle View Post
    Now it does reference

    ii) forfeited due to a failure to make a claim under RCW 63.32.010

    I've read the 63.32.010 and it deals with property in possession of the police, not just judicial forfeitures, does that mean anything? or not?
    I don't think so.

    Quote Originally Posted by mikeyb View Post
    ftfy
    It is referring to lost/abandoned property, not buy-backs. The RCW consistently refers to "personal property." Once you've sold your property to the gov't, it is no longer your property and you have no claim to it.
    More precisely, 63.32.010 relates only to unclaimed property (lost, abandoned or otherwise, but to which the state is not otherwise entitled possession). Title 62 and Title 9 are wholly separate titles in the RCWs. Unless expressly made applicable, the provisions of one title have nothing to do with the provisions of another title. It is a common mistake to think of "the law" as one big interrelated thing. For all intents and purposes, the correct perspective is of "the laws."
    Rev. Robert Apgood, Esq.

    A right cannot be lost by exercising it. McDonald v. Chicago, 561 U.S. 3025, 130 S. Ct. 3020, 3021, 177 L. Ed. 2d 894 (2010) (citing Near v. Minn., 283 U.S. 697 (1931)).

    Although IAAL, anything I say here is not legal advice. No conversations we may have privately or otherwise in this forum constitute the formation of an attorney-client relationship, and are not intended to do so.

  7. #7
    Regular Member EMNofSeattle's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Location
    S. Kitsap, Washington state
    Posts
    3,763
    Got it, thanks rap
    they love our milk and honey, but they preach about some other way of living, when they're running down my country man they're walkin' on the fightin side of me

    NRA Member

  8. #8
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Location
    Bothell
    Posts
    586
    Quote Originally Posted by rapgood View Post
    More precisely, 63.32.010 relates only to unclaimed property (lost, abandoned or otherwise, but to which the state is not otherwise entitled possession). Title 62 and Title 9 are wholly separate titles in the RCWs. Unless expressly made applicable, the provisions of one title have nothing to do with the provisions of another title. It is a common mistake to think of "the law" as one big interrelated thing. For all intents and purposes, the correct perspective is of "the laws."
    I get that. I was saying that the initial Title 9 section quoted does not apply to gun buy-backs. And even if it did, the Title 63 exceptions provided in 2a wouldn't apply because it applies to unclaimed personal property, which your now-sold gun isn't and never was.

  9. #9
    Regular Member bmg50cal's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Location
    WA - North Whidbey/ Deception Pass
    Posts
    307
    I wonder how it would turn out if someone turned in firearms not theirs to turn in. For instance and angry girlfriend turns in her boyfriend's collection and said boyfriend seeks to reclaim the items from the collecting organization.

  10. #10
    Regular Member EMNofSeattle's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Location
    S. Kitsap, Washington state
    Posts
    3,763
    Quote Originally Posted by bmg50cal View Post
    I wonder how it would turn out if someone turned in firearms not theirs to turn in. For instance and angry girlfriend turns in her boyfriend's collection and said boyfriend seeks to reclaim the items from the collecting organization.
    He'd have to report it stolen.....

    Seattle police claimed on their blotter that they run serials to see if any have been reported stolen...
    they love our milk and honey, but they preach about some other way of living, when they're running down my country man they're walkin' on the fightin side of me

    NRA Member

  11. #11
    Regular Member bmg50cal's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Location
    WA - North Whidbey/ Deception Pass
    Posts
    307
    Quote Originally Posted by EMNofSeattle View Post
    He'd have to report it stolen.....

    Seattle police claimed on their blotter that they run serials to see if any have been reported stolen...
    Let's imagine both the theft and turn-in occurs while the boy friend is at work, where he finds out after the fact.

  12. #12
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Location
    Kent, Washington, USA
    Posts
    398
    Quote Originally Posted by bmg50cal View Post
    Let's imagine both the theft and turn-in occurs while the boy friend is at work, where he finds out after the fact.
    (Assuming that the firearm was already destroyed as well before the police find out about the theft....)

    Report them stolen, the police have a record of the sale and who sold the firearms too them. The girlfriend is prosecuted for felony theft of firearm. Boyfriend can attempt to recover his losses from her in civil court. Only real option if the firearms have been destroyed.

    If they haven't been destroyed yet then the police should use them as evidence, then return them.
    Last edited by arentol; 03-12-2013 at 06:54 PM.

  13. #13
    Regular Member tombrewster421's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2010
    Location
    Roy, WA
    Posts
    1,329

    RCW 9.41.098 and gun buy backs

    Quote Originally Posted by arentol View Post
    (Assuming that the firearm was already destroyed as well before the police find out about the theft....)

    Report them stolen, the police have a record of the sale and who sold the firearms too them. The girlfriend is prosecuted for felony theft of firearm. Boyfriend can attempt to recover his losses from her in civil court. Only real option if the firearms have been destroyed.

    If they haven't been destroyed yet then the police should use them as evidence, then return them.
    Except they don't take down any info from the people turning them in. They wouldn't know who to prosecute.
    Guns don't kill people, bullets do!

  14. #14
    Campaign Veteran gogodawgs's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    Federal Way, Washington, USA
    Posts
    5,666

    RCW 9.41.098 and gun buy backs

    Quote Originally Posted by tombrewster421 View Post
    Except they don't take down any info from the people turning them in. They wouldn't know who to prosecute.
    What about the drones and facial recognition cameras? :-/
    Live Free or Die!

  15. #15
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    May 2011
    Location
    Slightly right of center
    Posts
    166
    Quote Originally Posted by gogodawgs View Post
    What about the drones and facial recognition cameras? :-/
    Nice.

  16. #16
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Location
    Kent, Washington, USA
    Posts
    398
    Quote Originally Posted by tombrewster421 View Post
    Except they don't take down any info from the people turning them in. They wouldn't know who to prosecute.
    True. But these days chances are the girlfriend will post photos of her selling them on facebook, so that should do the trick.
    Last edited by arentol; 03-12-2013 at 11:26 PM.

  17. #17
    Regular Member bmg50cal's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Location
    WA - North Whidbey/ Deception Pass
    Posts
    307
    I'm aiming towards what could be done with the persons/agencies responsible for the turn-in/buy-back. If the entity running the event was "requested" to return stolen property and refused, at that point I wonder to what extent they could be held responsible/liable. They are in possession of stolen property, possibly illegally seized, violating various civil right and laws.

    We know if one of us were in possession of a firearm that was negligently forgotten by some LEO perhaps in a bathroom stall or fell off the top of a patrol vehicle, etc they would face plant, arrest and charge those in possession. It would be worse if it were sold it off or destroyed.

    I'd love to see these turn-ins banned.

  18. #18
    Regular Member sudden valley gunner's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Whatcom County
    Posts
    17,338
    Quote Originally Posted by tombrewster421 View Post
    Except they don't take down any info from the people turning them in. They wouldn't know who to prosecute.
    Quote Originally Posted by gogodawgs View Post
    What about the drones and facial recognition cameras? :-/
    Didn't see the drones but did see the facial recognition equipment.
    I am not anti Cop I am just pro Citizen.

    U.S. v. Minker, 350 US 179, at page 187
    "Because of what appears to be a lawful command on the surface, many citizens, because
    of their respect for what only appears to be a law, are cunningly coerced into waiving their
    rights, due to ignorance." (Paraphrased)

  19. #19
    Regular Member 1911er's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Location
    Port Orchard Wa. /Granite Oklahoma
    Posts
    836
    Notify the White House if they can't pin point the seller Obummer will just drone the whole block or order the millitary to go round up everyone on the block and turn them into Soilent Green. And B T W I am OCing while I type this.
    I truly Love my Country, But the government scares the he!! out of me.

    DEMAND IT
    Congress SHALL NOT receive A salary greater than any service member and will be given EQUIVELANT insurance as any service member

    I came into this world kicking and screaming covered in someone else's blood. And if necessary to protect the Constitution of The United States of AMERICA. I will go out the same way

    All hail the Domain of Neptunus Rex

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •