• 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.

HB1840 passed

mikeyb

Regular Member
Joined
Feb 19, 2013
Messages
554
Location
Bothell
http://apps.leg.wa.gov/billinfo/summary.aspx?bill=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.
 

Alpine

Regular Member
Joined
Aug 10, 2012
Messages
671
Location
Idaho
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?
 

bebop4one

Regular Member
Joined
Sep 3, 2013
Messages
142
Location
Seattle
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.
 

gogodawgs

Campaign Veteran
Joined
Oct 25, 2009
Messages
5,669
Location
Federal Way, Washington, USA
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
 

509rifas

Regular Member
Joined
Mar 7, 2013
Messages
252
Location
Yakima County
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.
 

509rifas

Regular Member
Joined
Mar 7, 2013
Messages
252
Location
Yakima County
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.
 

Jeff Hayes

Regular Member
Joined
Mar 10, 2009
Messages
2,569
Location
Long gone
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.
 

Freedom1Man

Regular Member
Joined
Jan 14, 2012
Messages
4,462
Location
Greater Eastside Washington
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.
 

509rifas

Regular Member
Joined
Mar 7, 2013
Messages
252
Location
Yakima County
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.
 

Difdi

Regular Member
Joined
Mar 2, 2010
Messages
987
Location
Seattle, Washington, USA
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.
 

hovercat

Regular Member
Joined
Feb 15, 2014
Messages
57
Location
Texas
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.
 

tombrewster421

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

gogodawgs

Campaign Veteran
Joined
Oct 25, 2009
Messages
5,669
Location
Federal Way, Washington, USA
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.
 
Top