• 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.

House Bill 1840 was revived and unanimously approved in the state house

bebop4one

Regular Member
Joined
Sep 3, 2013
Messages
142
Location
Seattle
The gun-grabbers are at it again, passing anything they can to try and chip away at the rights of gun owners.

http://blogs.seattletimes.com/polit...usly-approved-in-state-house/?syndication=rss

The idea behind this bill is that anyone who has a restraining or protective order against them would have to temporarily surrender any and all firearms in their possession. We'll see what the caucus does this year but hopefully it won't be allowed to come up for vote. The last time this bill was brought up last year it was rejected because there was some concern that residents would be denied a firearm without due process.

I don't like this one bit :mad:

Time to start contacting our representatives.
 

Geerolla

Regular Member
Joined
Mar 22, 2010
Messages
114
Location
WA, USA
I can see the intent behind this and I'm sure for some scumbags out there it would be a good idea, but no-contact and restraining orders are used as strategic tools in certain legal proceedings against people that don't deserve them. Oh yeah, and like you mentioned... there's that whole due process thing.


Sent from my UAV using Disposition Matrix 2.0
 

Freedom1Man

Regular Member
Joined
Jan 14, 2012
Messages
4,462
Location
Greater Eastside Washington
I can see the intent behind this and I'm sure for some scumbags out there it would be a good idea, but no-contact and restraining orders are used as strategic tools in certain legal proceedings against people that don't deserve them. Oh yeah, and like you mentioned... there's that whole due process thing.


Sent from my UAV using Disposition Matrix 2.0

Not to mention that there is no real legal review before they are issued. I've seen them passed out through a simple lie by the one who filed for it.

Kill the bill!

Even though judges pretty much do that anyway with TRO's.

Illegally I would add. Deprivation of rights under color of law, even with a TRO, is still illegal. If someone is so dangerous that they cannot own a weapon then they should be in prison. If the judges want to deprive people of their rights for BS like that, then the judge should be held liable if something happens to the one suffering from the ruling.
 

sudden valley gunner

Regular Member
Joined
Dec 13, 2008
Messages
16,674
Location
Whatcom County
Absolutley illega but since when has that stopped judges?

I know I went through a TRO , everyone including the judge at the ruling said it was Bullshite.....yet they still do it.
 

teddyearp

Regular Member
Joined
May 10, 2010
Messages
67
Location
Pinetop, AZ
Not to mention that there is no real legal review before they are issued. I've seen them passed out through a simple lie by the one who filed for it.



Illegally I would add. Deprivation of rights under color of law, even with a TRO, is still illegal. If someone is so dangerous that they cannot own a weapon then they should be in prison. If the judges want to deprive people of their rights for BS like that, then the judge should be held liable if something happens to the one suffering from the ruling.

Agreed. I have a co-worker who is going through a break up with the mother of his child. Her attorney had a TRO issued just on her word. Totally stupid if this is allowed.

Kind of like the broadening of classifying someone as a felon for non violent acts.

Wrong, wrong, wrong in my book.
 
Top