509rifas
Regular Member
Somebody posted something on a local newspaper forum about a gun seized during a DUI stop, and the WSP won't return the gun.
I *think* I know who the individual was, and there was some dispute in that case about medical condition (documented) that cause someone to blow DUI when they're not, but the case is ongoing to my knowledge. The individual worked in the courts system and should have knowledge of motions and whatnot. I could be wrong, but the description matches that individual exactly. It's a small town. Either way it's a significant question.
I "sorta" know the person and sent a link to this page, as OCDO tends to be the best place for compulsive firearm law researchers.
The poster posted:
Also, if a person was armed when arrested for a DUI, their weapon can be confiscated and never returned guilty or not. In addition, the DOL can suspend or revoke that person's driving privileges BEFORE that person is convicted while trial is pending, and if found guilty, can suspend it again with no credit given for the previous suspension. Talk about double jeopardy.
continued...
I have a friend who was associated with law enforcement and even tho that person was stone-cold sober, the trooper took the weapon and so far, they won't give it back. Carry was more than justified - it was required. The person also had a CWP. Thanks, I will pass this on.
I replied with (this was brief as I was on my lunch break)
"If you read the fine print of the laws for carrying while DUI, it does not specifically state that. It says if in possession of a weapon in a place where a CPL is required and intoxicated. But a car does not require a CPL. An open-carrier without a CPL could openly carry while DUI and not be subject to seizure. There are only a couple places where a CPL is actually required.
It's a tiny technicality, but the law is just a collection of technicalities.
RCW 9.41.098
Forfeiture of firearms — Disposition — Confiscation.
"(1) The superior courts and the courts of limited jurisdiction of the state may order forfeiture of a firearm which is proven to be:
(e) In the possession of a person who is in any place in which a concealed pistol license is required, and who is under the influence of any drug or under the influence of intoxicating liquor, as defined in chapter 46.61 RCW;"
They have to prove that it was required in that PLACE, not just under those circumstances (concealment.)"
The posts are not really sequential, you know how newspaper comments go.
I can't find the RCW at the moment in regards to firearm forfeiture, and I'm not sure if they are different than the plethora of other forfeitures, like when they take your car for driving to a marijuana transaction. But I know they have to hold a hearing, they can't just do away with the due process without any hearings.
Also, some of the news articles on the (possibly unrelated except in subject matter) incident The report goes on to say [someone] had a loaded gun in her purse, which is illegal if you're drunk." Can anyone provide an RCW or case law to confirm or dispute that?
Anyone know what someone could do to get back a gun that was confiscated in the manner described above?
I *think* I know who the individual was, and there was some dispute in that case about medical condition (documented) that cause someone to blow DUI when they're not, but the case is ongoing to my knowledge. The individual worked in the courts system and should have knowledge of motions and whatnot. I could be wrong, but the description matches that individual exactly. It's a small town. Either way it's a significant question.
I "sorta" know the person and sent a link to this page, as OCDO tends to be the best place for compulsive firearm law researchers.
The poster posted:
Also, if a person was armed when arrested for a DUI, their weapon can be confiscated and never returned guilty or not. In addition, the DOL can suspend or revoke that person's driving privileges BEFORE that person is convicted while trial is pending, and if found guilty, can suspend it again with no credit given for the previous suspension. Talk about double jeopardy.
continued...
I have a friend who was associated with law enforcement and even tho that person was stone-cold sober, the trooper took the weapon and so far, they won't give it back. Carry was more than justified - it was required. The person also had a CWP. Thanks, I will pass this on.
I replied with (this was brief as I was on my lunch break)
"If you read the fine print of the laws for carrying while DUI, it does not specifically state that. It says if in possession of a weapon in a place where a CPL is required and intoxicated. But a car does not require a CPL. An open-carrier without a CPL could openly carry while DUI and not be subject to seizure. There are only a couple places where a CPL is actually required.
It's a tiny technicality, but the law is just a collection of technicalities.
RCW 9.41.098
Forfeiture of firearms — Disposition — Confiscation.
"(1) The superior courts and the courts of limited jurisdiction of the state may order forfeiture of a firearm which is proven to be:
(e) In the possession of a person who is in any place in which a concealed pistol license is required, and who is under the influence of any drug or under the influence of intoxicating liquor, as defined in chapter 46.61 RCW;"
They have to prove that it was required in that PLACE, not just under those circumstances (concealment.)"
The posts are not really sequential, you know how newspaper comments go.
I can't find the RCW at the moment in regards to firearm forfeiture, and I'm not sure if they are different than the plethora of other forfeitures, like when they take your car for driving to a marijuana transaction. But I know they have to hold a hearing, they can't just do away with the due process without any hearings.
Also, some of the news articles on the (possibly unrelated except in subject matter) incident The report goes on to say [someone] had a loaded gun in her purse, which is illegal if you're drunk." Can anyone provide an RCW or case law to confirm or dispute that?
Anyone know what someone could do to get back a gun that was confiscated in the manner described above?
Last edited:
