Results 1 to 14 of 14

Thread: HB1840 passed

  1. #1
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Location
    Bothell
    Posts
    586

    HB1840 passed

    http://apps.leg.wa.gov/billinfo/summ...1840&year=2013

    Addresses the possession of firearms with regard to persons subject to no-contact orders, protection orders, and restraining orders.


    Requires law enforcement agencies to develop policies and procedures regarding the acceptance, storage, and return of weapons required to be surrendered.


    Requires the administrative office of the courts to develop: (1) 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, as ordered by a court; and (2) A declaration of nonsurrender pattern form to document compliance when the respondent has no firearms, dangerous weapons, or concealed pistol license.

  2. #2
    Regular Member Alpine's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Location
    Mercer Island
    Posts
    661
    Is there some kind of requirement that the person whose firearms rights are in jeopardy has to be notified so they can respond before the judge rules?

  3. #3
    Campaign Veteran gogodawgs's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    Federal Way, Washington, USA
    Posts
    5,666
    Quote Originally Posted by Alpine View Post
    Is there some kind of requirement that the person whose firearms rights are in jeopardy has to be notified so they can respond before the judge rules?
    Yes

    (A) Was issued after a hearing of which the person received actual
    18 notice, and at which the person had an opportunity to participate;
    Live Free or Die!

  4. #4
    Regular Member bebop4one's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2013
    Location
    Seattle
    Posts
    142
    You gotta be kidding me...

    Well guys make sure to never date/marry/sleep with a crazy chick because if you ever piss her off and she decides to put a restraining order against you it's bye bye to your firearms. Wwhat a load of crap.
    "I have a very strict gun control policy: if there's a gun around, I want to be in control of it."
    - Clint Eastwood

  5. #5
    Campaign Veteran gogodawgs's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    Federal Way, Washington, USA
    Posts
    5,666
    I posed the following question to representative Matt Shea and Jason Overstreet (two of the liberty caucus):

    Is there an explanation why HB 1840 was passed unanimously?
    Here is Rep. Shea's response:

    Absolutely. I have seen the situation in court. Right now someone's weapon is taken away based solely on hearsay. Don't listen to the media on this, they are shading the truth because we have defeated gun control at every turn and they need a win. My amendment required a finding of "credible threat" in writing (listing evidence) before surrender. This is a massive improvement to current law, preventing what is current practice (virtual universal surrender) based on hearsay evidence (spiteful ex). Also the types of court orders they can do this on were narrowed. Again a massive improvement over current law. The NRA helped draft the amendment and supported.
    My follow up question is as follows:

    Thanks Matt Shea, that is what I read in the new bill section (C) (I) as well. My follow up would be... do the courts have an objective standard in place currently that defines what a "finding" that "represents a credible threat"? or is this going to be left to judicial subjectivity?
    I will follow up when he responds.

    nick
    Live Free or Die!

  6. #6
    Regular Member 509rifas's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2013
    Location
    Yakima County
    Posts
    253
    This will create an interesting cluster in regards to registration.
    If I surrender my 3 guns, and they say I have two more registered but I sold them years ago, then can they serve search warrants with the notice of purchase as PC?
    Will they use this as impetus for registration of guns so they can be sure DV offenders can be compelled to comply?
    The bill itself isn't horrible, from what I can tell, but what it can lead to definitely is.
    LIVE FREE OR DIE TRYING

  7. #7
    Regular Member 509rifas's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2013
    Location
    Yakima County
    Posts
    253
    Wait didn't it used to be that you just had to have the guns not in your possession anymore?
    So if you got a protection order hearing, you may be well advised to "sell" all of your guns to your brother or someone you really trust the day before. And then brace for SWAT.
    LIVE FREE OR DIE TRYING

  8. #8
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    Long gone
    Posts
    2,575
    Quote Originally Posted by 509rifas View Post
    Wait didn't it used to be that you just had to have the guns not in your possession anymore?
    So if you got a protection order hearing, you may be well advised to "sell" all of your guns to your brother or someone you really trust the day before. And then brace for SWAT.
    Would you not want to leave your home before the SWAT raid happened. I would not want to be there but I would leave a lot of security cameras up and running.
    Throw me to the wolves and I will come back leading the pack.

  9. #9
    Regular Member Freedom1Man's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    Greater Eastside Washington
    Posts
    4,690
    SECTION 24 RIGHT TO BEAR ARMS. The right of the individual citizen to bear arms in defense of himself, or the state, shall not be impaired, but nothing in this section shall be construed as authorizing individuals or corporations to organize, maintain or employ an armed body of men.

    The whole thing about disarming someone over a restraining order is a clear violation of the State constitution.

    The law is void no matter how many vote for it.
    Provision for free medical attendance and nursing, for clothing, for food, for housing, for the education of children, and a hundred other matters, might with equal propriety be proposed as tending to relieve the employee of mental strain and worry. --- These matters obviously lie outside the orbit of congressional power. (Railroad Retirement Board v Alton Railroad)

  10. #10
    Regular Member 509rifas's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2013
    Location
    Yakima County
    Posts
    253
    Quote Originally Posted by Jeff Hayes View Post
    Would you not want to leave your home before the SWAT raid happened. I would not want to be there but I would leave a lot of security cameras up and running.
    Ideally, yes, but unless you move out, that may be hard. They don't typically give a courtesy call to let you know they're coming.
    LIVE FREE OR DIE TRYING

  11. #11
    Regular Member Difdi's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    Seattle, Washington, USA
    Posts
    996
    Quote Originally Posted by 509rifas View Post
    Ideally, yes, but unless you move out, that may be hard. They don't typically give a courtesy call to let you know they're coming.
    If you secure your house right, you can make that SWAT team hit the door and bounce.

    Most SWAT entry techniques rely on the standardization of door technology. Just having a pocket door instead of a hinged door breaks about a third of the methods commonly used for forced entry. There was a guy some years back who, having suffered a home invasion that used a truck to break through the front door of his house, rebuilt his door using 8x8 timbers and truck leaf springs in the frame -- the next truck to hit that door will rebound. Steel core doors are a lot more sturdy than even solid core doors, remember, and a steel core pocket door is more secure still.

    I once sketched up rough plans to immunize a house against home invasions. From the outside, it would look like a nice ivy hedge, surrounding an ornamental lily pond with statues, gazing spheres and planter boxes scattered through the yard surrounding a house with tasteful stonework veneer and tile roofing. But everything in there would be designed to passively hold off police well enough that you might only discover the 'standoff' after a restful night's sleep and a leisurely breakfast.

  12. #12
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2014
    Location
    Texas
    Posts
    58
    So must a person surrender every item that has been listed as a deadly weapon?

    If I try to run over an officer, I will be charged with assault with a deadly weapon, my vehicle. Must I surrender that? A piece of pipe, hammer, 12 steak knives, chainsaw, the list is endless.

    Someone should show up with a U-Haul truck full of common deadly weapons, and their attorney, insisting that each item be properly described and receipted. And properly stored in regard to ideal temperature and humidity controls for each item. I am certain that there is a perfect temp and humidity to store a hammer so that it does not rust and the wood does not shrink and loosen the head. The same for firearms, which if taken under this law should be stored in ideal conditions, which should be subject to inspection and records of those conditions kept for verification.

  13. #13
    Regular Member tombrewster421's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2010
    Location
    Roy, WA
    Posts
    1,329
    Quote Originally Posted by hovercat View Post
    So must a person surrender every item that has been listed as a deadly weapon?

    If I try to run over an officer, I will be charged with assault with a deadly weapon, my vehicle. Must I surrender that? A piece of pipe, hammer, 12 steak knives, chainsaw, the list is endless.

    Someone should show up with a U-Haul truck full of common deadly weapons, and their attorney, insisting that each item be properly described and receipted. And properly stored in regard to ideal temperature and humidity controls for each item. I am certain that there is a perfect temp and humidity to store a hammer so that it does not rust and the wood does not shrink and loosen the head. The same for firearms, which if taken under this law should be stored in ideal conditions, which should be subject to inspection and records of those conditions kept for verification.
    Or a piano. Cartoons are always dying from pianos being dropped on them.
    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
    I posed the following question to representative Matt Shea and Jason Overstreet (two of the liberty caucus):


    Is there an explanation why HB 1840 was passed unanimously?


    Here is Rep. Shea's response:


    Absolutely. I have seen the situation in court. Right now someone's weapon is taken away based solely on hearsay. Don't listen to the media on this, they are shading the truth because we have defeated gun control at every turn and they need a win. My amendment required a finding of "credible threat" in writing (listing evidence) before surrender. This is a massive improvement to current law, preventing what is current practice (virtual universal surrender) based on hearsay evidence (spiteful ex). Also the types of court orders they can do this on were narrowed. Again a massive improvement over current law. The NRA helped draft the amendment and supported.


    My follow up question is as follows:


    Thanks Matt Shea, that is what I read in the new bill section (C) (I) as well. My follow up would be... do the courts have an objective standard in place currently that defines what a "finding" that "represents a credible threat"? or is this going to be left to judicial subjectivity?


    Matt Shea's response:

    Evidence that has been verified by independent source.
    Comparing what was in place prior to this bill and the effects this bill may have I do believe that this bill is either neutral or a win for gun owners.
    Live Free or Die!

Posting Permissions

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