• We are now running on a new, and hopefully much-improved, server. In addition we are also on new forum software. Any move entails a lot of technical details and I suspect we will encounter a few issues as the new server goes live. Please be patient with us. It will be worth it! :) Please help by posting all issues here.
  • The forum will be down for about an hour this weekend for maintenance. I apologize for the inconvenience.
  • If you are having trouble seeing the forum then you may need to clear your browser's DNS cache. Click here for instructions on how to do that
  • Please review the Forum Rules frequently as we are constantly trying to improve the forum for our members and visitors.

RCW 9.41.098 and gun buy backs

EMNofSeattle

Regular Member
Joined
Aug 7, 2012
Messages
3,670
Location
S. Kitsap, Washington state
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.....
 

rapgood

Regular Member
Joined
Jan 9, 2012
Messages
598
Location
Stanwood, WA
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.
 

slapmonkay

Campaign Veteran
Joined
May 6, 2011
Messages
1,308
Location
Montana
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.
 

EMNofSeattle

Regular Member
Joined
Aug 7, 2012
Messages
3,670
Location
S. Kitsap, Washington state
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?
 

mikeyb

Regular Member
Joined
Feb 19, 2013
Messages
554
Location
Bothell
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.
 

rapgood

Regular Member
Joined
Jan 9, 2012
Messages
598
Location
Stanwood, WA
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.

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."
 

mikeyb

Regular Member
Joined
Feb 19, 2013
Messages
554
Location
Bothell
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.
 

bmg50cal

Regular Member
Joined
Jan 20, 2011
Messages
306
Location
WA - North Whidbey/ Deception Pass
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.
 

EMNofSeattle

Regular Member
Joined
Aug 7, 2012
Messages
3,670
Location
S. Kitsap, Washington state
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...
 

arentol

New member
Joined
Apr 10, 2009
Messages
383
Location
Kent, Washington, USA
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:

tombrewster421

Regular Member
Joined
May 25, 2010
Messages
1,326
Location
Roy, WA
(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.
 

bmg50cal

Regular Member
Joined
Jan 20, 2011
Messages
306
Location
WA - North Whidbey/ Deception Pass
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.
 

1911er

Regular Member
Joined
Sep 9, 2009
Messages
833
Location
Port Orchard Wa. /Granite Oklahoma
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.
 
Top