Page 1 of 3 123 LastLast
Results 1 to 25 of 75

Thread: I-1491 Gun confiscation without being convicted

  1. #1
    Regular Member OC Freedom's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2014
    Location
    ADA County, ID
    Posts
    601

    I-1491 Gun confiscation without being convicted

    It appears Washington citizens will now have their guns taken without being charged of any crime. When this law takes effect next year, be careful when open carrying, for someone might decide to report that you are a threat to society.

    Yes, it's Washington and the voters will pass this abominable initiative.




    http://www.kxly.com/news/spokane-new...afety/40392124

  2. #2
    Regular Member solus's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2013
    Location
    here nc
    Posts
    6,865
    Quote Originally Posted by OC Freedom View Post
    It appears Washington citizens will now have their guns taken without being charged of any crime. When this law takes effect next year, be careful when open carrying, for someone might decide to report that you are a threat to society.

    Yes, it's Washington and the voters will pass this abominable initiative.

    http://www.kxly.com/news/spokane-new...afety/40392124
    uh, BS shock and awe...

    did you even read the 6 July article you posted: quote
    1. Initiative 1491
    2. It gives family and law enforcement... by petitioning a judge to temporarily suspend a person's access to firearms.
    3. There has to be documented evidence that the person poses a serious threat to themselves or to others.
    4. ...would easily qualify it for the November ballot.
    unquote

    this isn't even on the ballot and you are screaming the firestorms are coming...

    organize some opposition instead of spreading misinformation worse than the antis...geeeezzzzzz...

    ipse
    I'm only human; I do what I can; I'm just a man; I do what I can; Don't put the blame on me; Don't put your blame on me ~ Rag'n'Bone Man.

    Please do not get confused between my personality & my attitude. My personality is who I am ~ my attitude depends on who you are and how you act.

    Remember always, do not judge someone because they sin differently than you do!

    Get your facts first, and then you can distort them as much as you please. Mark Twain

  3. #3
    Regular Member OC Freedom's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2014
    Location
    ADA County, ID
    Posts
    601
    Quote Originally Posted by solus View Post
    uh, BS shock and awe...

    did you even read the 6 July article you posted: quote
    1. Initiative 1491
    2. It gives family and law enforcement... by petitioning a judge to temporarily suspend a person's access to firearms.
    3. There has to be documented evidence that the person poses a serious threat to themselves or to others.
    4. ...would easily qualify it for the November ballot.
    unquote

    this isn't even on the ballot and you are screaming the firestorms are coming...

    organize some opposition instead of spreading misinformation worse than the antis...geeeezzzzzz...

    ipse

    The initiative now has more than 330,000 signatures, which would easily qualify it for the November ballot.<-- It's going on the ballot, the signatures were not collected for kicks.

    It gives family and law enforcement power to petition a judge to temporarily suspend a persons access to guns.

    A individual reports to Law Enforcement that an open carrier is a danger with any excuse they can conjure up. The law enforcement officer presents the documented evidence (report) to said anti-gun judge, well it just goes down hill from there.

    Solus, All you know how to do is criticize and belittle others, but that's what I expect from San Franciscans. Geeeeezzzzzz....

  4. #4
    Regular Member amlevin's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    North of Seattle, Washington, USA
    Posts
    5,953
    Go read through the news archives for the last few years and count the number of times family members have BEGGED law enforcement and the courts to take firearms away from mentally ill family members.

    One case that comes to mind is the Cafe Racer shooting.

    Even if family members see someone spiraling out of control like Ian Stawicki was, there was no mechanism to disarm him before the inevitable occurred. Same with law enforcement when they come in contact with the same situations.

    A judge still has to be convinced that the person is a danger to himself and society and we shouldn't all be to quick to believe they are all fools. Yes, the request can be made to the court "ex-parte" because in the cases under discussion, the people often too mentally ill to participate and the danger is believed to be imminent.
    "If I shoot all the ammo I am carrying I either won't need anymore or more won't help"

    "If you refuse to stand up for others now, who will stand up for you when your time comes?"

  5. #5
    Regular Member solus's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2013
    Location
    here nc
    Posts
    6,865
    Quote Originally Posted by OC Freedom View Post
    The initiative now has more than 330,000 signatures, which would easily qualify it for the November ballot.<-- It's going on the ballot, the signatures were not collected for kicks.

    It gives family and law enforcement power to petition a judge to temporarily suspend a persons access to guns.

    A individual reports to Law Enforcement that an open carrier is a danger with any excuse they can conjure up. The law enforcement officer presents the documented evidence (report) to said anti-gun judge, well it just goes down hill from there.

    Solus, All you know how to do is criticize and belittle others, but that's what I expect from San Franciscans. Geeeeezzzzzz....
    first OC Freedom...your thread's title: " I-1491 Gun confiscation without being convicted" no where does the article state anything about judicial process not being done?

    as you state 'would easily qualify" then you state its going on the ballot ~ cite?

    and you are hosting a website and standing on the courthouse steps screaming at the top of your lungs to challenge this perceived atrocity.

    and you truly believe the WHAT IF BS situation you spelled out...really? then my comment likening your mentality capabilities to an anti seem to be borne out...

    if you consider throwing the BS flag at your post as belittlement...truly...
    ipse
    Last edited by solus; 07-07-2016 at 09:07 PM.
    I'm only human; I do what I can; I'm just a man; I do what I can; Don't put the blame on me; Don't put your blame on me ~ Rag'n'Bone Man.

    Please do not get confused between my personality & my attitude. My personality is who I am ~ my attitude depends on who you are and how you act.

    Remember always, do not judge someone because they sin differently than you do!

    Get your facts first, and then you can distort them as much as you please. Mark Twain

  6. #6
    Regular Member Alpine's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Location
    Mercer Island
    Posts
    661
    Quote Originally Posted by OC Freedom View Post
    The initiative now has more than 330,000 signatures, which would easily qualify it for the November ballot.<-- It's going on the ballot, the signatures were not collected for kicks.

    It gives family and law enforcement power to petition a judge to temporarily suspend a persons access to guns.

    A individual reports to Law Enforcement that an open carrier is a danger with any excuse they can conjure up. The law enforcement officer presents the documented evidence (report) to said anti-gun judge, well it just goes down hill from there.

    Solus, All you know how to do is criticize and belittle others, but that's what I expect from San Franciscans. Geeeeezzzzzz....
    Do yourself a favor and add Solus to your ignore list, it will save you a lot of headaches. The only time I see his posts are when people quote them. I really wish the mods would do something about him because I suspect that he is one of the reasons this place has been so dead lately and people are reluctant to post, because he jumps on them with incorrect facts and drives them away.

    And yet again he fails to read things thoroughly because otherwise he'd realize the initiative also gives ex-roommates from the past calendar year, who may disagree with you politically, privilege to have your guns seized as well.
    http://sos.wa.gov/_assets/elections/...lText_1016.pdf
    (2) "Family or household member" means, with respect to a
    respondent, any: (a) Person related by blood, marriage, or adoption
    to the respondent; (b) Dating partners of the respondent; (c) Person
    who has a child in common with the respondent, regardless of whether
    such person has been married to the respondent or has lived together
    with the respondent at any time; (d) Person who resides or has
    resided with the respondent within the past year
    ; (e) Domestic
    partner of the respondent; (f) Person who has a biological or legal
    parent-child relationship with the respondent, including stepparents
    and stepchildren and grandparents and grandchildren; and (g) Person
    who is acting or has acted as the respondent's legal guardian.
    Also throws ex-girlfriends and divorced/divorcing spouses into the mix which makes this ripe for a 50 billion dollar industry in America known as...
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HfRDZ4iOnSo
    Last edited by Alpine; 07-07-2016 at 10:38 PM.

  7. #7
    Regular Member Alpine's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Location
    Mercer Island
    Posts
    661
    Quote Originally Posted by amlevin View Post
    Go read through the news archives for the last few years and count the number of times family members have BEGGED law enforcement and the courts to take firearms away from mentally ill family members.

    One case that comes to mind is the Cafe Racer shooting.

    Even if family members see someone spiraling out of control like Ian Stawicki was, there was no mechanism to disarm him before the inevitable occurred. Same with law enforcement when they come in contact with the same situations.

    A judge still has to be convinced that the person is a danger to himself and society and we shouldn't all be to quick to believe they are all fools. Yes, the request can be made to the court "ex-parte" because in the cases under discussion, the people often too mentally ill to participate and the danger is believed to be imminent.
    Explain why ex-parte is necessary when everyone inside the courthouse has to go through a metal detector and there are armed guards present, and the sheriffs can go summon the accused to court, literally on the spot, while the accuser is still there waiting and get the whole thing resolved right at the beginning?

    Also, do you really believe there aren't extreme anti-gun judges who will hand out any order via this initiative based on just about anything?

    Did you see that among the justifications for the bill that wanting to buy a gun or having bought one recently are independent reasons to grant an order under this initiative?
    (3) In determining whether grounds for an extreme risk
    protection order exist, the court may consider any relevant evidence
    including, but not limited to, any of the following:
    (a) A recent act or threat of violence by the respondent against
    self or others, whether or not such violence or threat of violence
    involves a firearm;
    (b) A pattern of acts or threats of violence by the respondent
    within the past twelve months including, but not limited to, acts or
    threats of violence by the respondent against self or others;
    (c) Any dangerous mental health issues of the respondent;
    (d) A violation by the respondent of a protection order or a nocontact
    order issued under chapter 7.90, 7.92, 10.14, 9A.46, 10.99,
    26.50, or 26.52 RCW;
    (e) A previous or existing extreme risk protection order issued
    against the respondent;
    (f) A violation of a previous or existing extreme risk
    protection order issued against the respondent;
    (g) A conviction of the respondent for a crime that constitutes
    domestic violence as defined in RCW 10.99.020;
    Code Rev/KS:amh 7 I-3192.1/16
    (h) The respondent's ownership, access to, or intent to possess
    firearms;
    Also, once an order is in place, the respondent must prove their innocence to get it removed rather than it expiring naturally...
    (b) The respondent shall have the burden of proving by a
    preponderance of the evidence that the respondent does not pose a
    significant danger of causing personal injury to self or others by
    having in his or her custody or control, purchasing, possessing, or
    receiving a firearm. The court may consider any relevant evidence,
    including evidence of the considerations listed in section 5(3) of
    this act.
    Last edited by Alpine; 07-07-2016 at 10:50 PM.

  8. #8
    Regular Member Freedom1Man's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    Greater Eastside Washington
    Posts
    4,690
    Quote Originally Posted by solus View Post
    first OC Freedom...your thread's title: " I-1491 Gun confiscation without being convicted" no where does the article state anything about judicial process not being done?

    as you state 'would easily qualify" then you state its going on the ballot ~ cite?

    and you are hosting a website and standing on the courthouse steps screaming at the top of your lungs to challenge this perceived atrocity.

    and you truly believe the WHAT IF BS situation you spelled out...really? then my comment likening your mentality capabilities to an anti seem to be borne out...

    if you consider throwing the BS flag at your post as belittlement...truly...
    ipse
    A warrant is not a conviction.

    This will be abused if passed.

    Sent from my SM-G386T using Tapatalk
    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)

  9. #9
    Regular Member solus's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2013
    Location
    here nc
    Posts
    6,865
    Quote Originally Posted by Alpine View Post
    Do yourself a favor and add Solus to your ignore list, it will save you a lot of headaches. The only time I see his posts are when people quote them. I really wish the mods would do something about him because I suspect that he is one of the reasons this place has been so dead lately and people are reluctant to post, because he jumps on them with incorrect facts and drives them away.

    And yet again he fails to read things thoroughly because otherwise he'd realize the initiative also gives ex-roommates from the past calendar year, who may disagree with you politically, privilege to have your guns seized as well.
    http://sos.wa.gov/_assets/elections/...lText_1016.pdf


    Also throws ex-girlfriends and divorced/divorcing spouses into the mix which makes this ripe for a 50 billion dollar industry in America known as...
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HfRDZ4iOnSo
    so as you disparage my comments towards OC Freeman's shock and awe misinformation post based on a cited article, please provide evidence where...

    first, please point out i misspoke or provided inaccurate information based on OC Freeman's post against the cited article alpine, from the title to the specifics in his first and subsequent post?

    second, the rhetoric both of you are jumping up and down about is currently not on the ballot, is it?

    third, didn't see the information you referenced in your post about family etc., in the originally cited article...was that info in there?

    fourth, are you not climbing on your own soapbox, again, over something you brought up previously on 29 of feb where 39 lively posts ensued...
    http://forum.opencarry.org/forums/sh...eme+risk+order

    so alpine i await your response to my query, if i misspoke, as i have in the past, will recant and either delete or correct my posting, but ensure you do not read into OC Freeman's post against the article...and my comments therein.

    ipse

    added

    posted by whitney 24 Feb 16: post#14
    quote:
    There are actually two proposals for "protection orders" filed with the Secretary of State.


    Both proposals are sponsored by the same person. With the exception of the term "Extreme Risk" in one, and "Emergency" in the other, side by side comparisons reveal they use the same verbiage.


    1. Extreme Risk Protection Orders; filed 2/18/2016 not yet assigned a number.
    2. Emergency Protection Order;also filed 2/18/2016 not yet assigned a number.

    unquote

    apline & OC Freeman...whitney's post is an exemplary example on how to provide unemotional information for everyone's digestion.
    Last edited by solus; 07-08-2016 at 12:20 AM. Reason: found out my cite didn't work...opps
    I'm only human; I do what I can; I'm just a man; I do what I can; Don't put the blame on me; Don't put your blame on me ~ Rag'n'Bone Man.

    Please do not get confused between my personality & my attitude. My personality is who I am ~ my attitude depends on who you are and how you act.

    Remember always, do not judge someone because they sin differently than you do!

    Get your facts first, and then you can distort them as much as you please. Mark Twain

  10. #10
    Regular Member solus's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2013
    Location
    here nc
    Posts
    6,865
    Quote Originally Posted by Freedom1Man View Post
    A warrant is not a conviction.

    This will be abused if passed.

    Sent from my SM-G386T using Tapatalk
    has to get on the ballot first...huh...

    ipse
    I'm only human; I do what I can; I'm just a man; I do what I can; Don't put the blame on me; Don't put your blame on me ~ Rag'n'Bone Man.

    Please do not get confused between my personality & my attitude. My personality is who I am ~ my attitude depends on who you are and how you act.

    Remember always, do not judge someone because they sin differently than you do!

    Get your facts first, and then you can distort them as much as you please. Mark Twain

  11. #11
    Regular Member Freedom1Man's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    Greater Eastside Washington
    Posts
    4,690
    Quote Originally Posted by solus View Post
    has to get on the ballot first...huh...

    ipse
    I hope it dies before that.

    Sent from my SM-G386T using Tapatalk
    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)

  12. #12
    Regular Member solus's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2013
    Location
    here nc
    Posts
    6,865
    Quote Originally Posted by Freedom1Man View Post
    I hope it dies before that.

    Sent from my SM-G386T using Tapatalk
    candidly, as do i...

    ipse
    I'm only human; I do what I can; I'm just a man; I do what I can; Don't put the blame on me; Don't put your blame on me ~ Rag'n'Bone Man.

    Please do not get confused between my personality & my attitude. My personality is who I am ~ my attitude depends on who you are and how you act.

    Remember always, do not judge someone because they sin differently than you do!

    Get your facts first, and then you can distort them as much as you please. Mark Twain

  13. #13
    Regular Member Alpine's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Location
    Mercer Island
    Posts
    661
    Quote Originally Posted by Freedom1Man View Post
    I hope it dies before that.

    Sent from my SM-G386T using Tapatalk
    Heard the news? They turned in enough signatures to get on even if there are unprecedented amounts of fraudulent signatures that get thrown out by the SoS.
    http://www.seattletimes.com/seattle-...ington-ballot/
    OLYMPIA — Supporters of a proposed ballot measure in Washington state that would create protection orders to take guns from people deemed a serious threat to themselves or others turned in more than 330,000 signatures to the secretary of state Thursday.

    An initiative requires at least 246,372 valid signatures of registered state voters to be certified, though the Secretary of State’s Office suggests at least 325,000 in case of any duplicate or invalid signatures. The signature validation process is expected to take a few weeks.
    There has never been a ballot in WA that reached that many signatures that was thrown out by removing signatures due to fraud/duplication/etc.

    It's on the ballot.
    Last edited by Alpine; 07-08-2016 at 12:37 AM.

  14. #14
    Regular Member solus's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2013
    Location
    here nc
    Posts
    6,865
    Quote Originally Posted by Alpine View Post
    Heard the news? They turned in enough signatures to get on even if there are unprecedented amounts of fraudulent signatures they get thrown out by the SoS.

    It's on the ballot.
    course there is a cite for that piece of information>

    ipse
    I'm only human; I do what I can; I'm just a man; I do what I can; Don't put the blame on me; Don't put your blame on me ~ Rag'n'Bone Man.

    Please do not get confused between my personality & my attitude. My personality is who I am ~ my attitude depends on who you are and how you act.

    Remember always, do not judge someone because they sin differently than you do!

    Get your facts first, and then you can distort them as much as you please. Mark Twain

  15. #15
    Regular Member solus's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2013
    Location
    here nc
    Posts
    6,865
    Quote Originally Posted by NavyLCDR View Post
    A judge gets one of these petitions before him/her. What happens if the judge denies the petition and the subject of the petition ends up shooting someone? Who is going to be vilified by the media and the anti-gun groups for it? You bet the judge is. Now compare that with the judge who just simply signs the petitions and the subjects' guns are confiscated "temporarily". What are the consequences the judge will face over that? Next to none. Now tell me how many judges are going to deny wrongfully filed petitions? It will be much easier for the judge to grant the petition then force the subject of the petition to fight for his/her rights to be restored and let the subject of the petition go after the person making the false claims.

    Want an example of a false claim? During my divorce my ex-wife attempted to get the judge to enter a protection order against me which would have stripped away my firearms' rights and affected my military career. Luckily, in this one instance during my divorce fight the judge exercised a tiny bit of common sense and told her "I don't really think a protection order is required mostly due to the fact that you now live in Wyoming and your husband lives 1,300 miles away in Washington state."
    thanks for the providing a viable perspective & reality check re the judicial review of a RO/PO...it is appreciated!

    personally, i am glad you were able to have a jurist who exhibited appropriate common sense during your divorce proceedings, a rare commodity at times...

    ipse
    I'm only human; I do what I can; I'm just a man; I do what I can; Don't put the blame on me; Don't put your blame on me ~ Rag'n'Bone Man.

    Please do not get confused between my personality & my attitude. My personality is who I am ~ my attitude depends on who you are and how you act.

    Remember always, do not judge someone because they sin differently than you do!

    Get your facts first, and then you can distort them as much as you please. Mark Twain

  16. #16
    Regular Member Boomboy007's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    Bellingham, WA, USA
    Posts
    140
    I, for one, appreciate the head's up, FM1. The left take a very long view, and are content to chip away at our natural right to self defense. November is coming; we will see who truly had insight if the initiative is on the ballot. Were that the case, I would expect Solus to eat a healthy serving of crow, wipe the egg off of his face, and apologize to FM1. Conversely, I trust FM1 to do the same.

    Now, if I were a betting man, my money is on seeing this legal travesty on the ballot.
    Last edited by Boomboy007; 07-08-2016 at 02:52 AM.
    "The strongest reason for the people to retain the right to keep and bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in government." Thomas Jefferson

  17. #17
    Founder's Club Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Fairfax Co., VA
    Posts
    18,766
    Quote Originally Posted by Freedom1Man View Post
    A warrant is not a conviction.

    This will be abused if passed.

    Sent from my SM-G386T using Tapatalk
    +100
    I'll make you an offer: I will argue and fight for all of your rights, if you will do the same for me. That is the only way freedom can work. We have to respect all rights, all the time--and strive to win the rights of the other guy as much as for ourselves.

    If I am equal to another, how can I legitimately govern him without his express individual consent?

    There is no human being on earth I hate so much I would actually vote to inflict government upon him.

  18. #18
    Founder's Club Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Fairfax Co., VA
    Posts
    18,766
    Quote Originally Posted by NavyLCDR View Post
    A judge gets one of these petitions before him/her. What happens if the judge denies the petition and the subject of the petition ends up shooting someone? Who is going to be vilified by the media and the anti-gun groups for it? You bet the judge is. Now compare that with the judge who just simply signs the petitions and the subjects' guns are confiscated "temporarily". What are the consequences the judge will face over that? Next to none. Now tell me how many judges are going to deny wrongfully filed petitions? It will be much easier for the judge to grant the petition then force the subject of the petition to fight for his/her rights to be restored and let the subject of the petition go after the person making the false claims.

    Want an example of a false claim? During my divorce my ex-wife attempted to get the judge to enter a protection order against me which would have stripped away my firearms' rights and affected my military career. Luckily, in this one instance during my divorce fight the judge exercised a tiny bit of common sense and told her "I don't really think a protection order is required mostly due to the fact that you now live in Wyoming and your husband lives 1,300 miles away in Washington state."
    My thoughts exactly--why would a judge even risk it?

    Thanks for sharing the real-life story.
    Last edited by Citizen; 07-08-2016 at 04:18 AM.
    I'll make you an offer: I will argue and fight for all of your rights, if you will do the same for me. That is the only way freedom can work. We have to respect all rights, all the time--and strive to win the rights of the other guy as much as for ourselves.

    If I am equal to another, how can I legitimately govern him without his express individual consent?

    There is no human being on earth I hate so much I would actually vote to inflict government upon him.

  19. #19
    Founder's Club Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Fairfax Co., VA
    Posts
    18,766
    (3) In determining whether grounds for an extreme risk
    protection order exist, the court may consider any relevant evidence
    including, but not limited to, any of the following:
    (a) A recent act or threat of violence by the respondent against
    self or others, whether or not such violence or threat of violence
    involves a firearm;
    (b) A pattern of acts or threats of violence by the respondent
    within the past twelve months including, but not limited to, acts or
    threats of violence by the respondent against self or others;
    (c) Any dangerous mental health issues of the respondent;
    (d) A violation by the respondent of a protection order or a nocontact
    order issued under chapter 7.90, 7.92, 10.14, 9A.46, 10.99,
    26.50, or 26.52 RCW;
    (e) A previous or existing extreme risk protection order issued
    against the respondent;
    (f) A violation of a previous or existing extreme risk
    protection order issued against the respondent;
    (g) A conviction of the respondent for a crime that constitutes
    domestic violence as defined in RCW 10.99.020;
    Code Rev/KS:amh 7 I-3192.1/16
    (h) The respondent's ownership, access to, or intent to possess
    firearms;
    So, the judge can consider pretty much anything he wants, or anything the petitioner throws his way.

    I didn't dig much. Does the proposed statute give a way to get your guns back? An appeals process paid for by the state?

    This ballot initiative is an end run around Washington's constitutional right to possess the means of self-defense. It uses the judiciary to nullify part of the state constitution. It is in fact, a constitutional amendment obtained not through the amendment process, but through a ballot initiative.

    And, some 300K voters were dumb enough to fall for it.
    I'll make you an offer: I will argue and fight for all of your rights, if you will do the same for me. That is the only way freedom can work. We have to respect all rights, all the time--and strive to win the rights of the other guy as much as for ourselves.

    If I am equal to another, how can I legitimately govern him without his express individual consent?

    There is no human being on earth I hate so much I would actually vote to inflict government upon him.

  20. #20
    Regular Member Freedom1Man's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    Greater Eastside Washington
    Posts
    4,690
    Quote Originally Posted by NavyLCDR View Post

    Want an example of a false claim? During my divorce my ex-wife attempted to get the judge to enter a protection order against me which would have stripped away my firearms' rights and affected my military career. Luckily, in this one instance during my divorce fight the judge exercised a tiny bit of common sense and told her "I don't really think a protection order is required mostly due to the fact that you now live in Wyoming and your husband lives 1,300 miles away in Washington state."
    I was only lucky because the police and our judges did not press the issue during my divorce.

    She had gone to Maryland, I was served in Washington on a Friday, was expected to appear in court in Maryland that coming Monday. The judge granded the protection order against me saying that I could easily afford to go chase down and harm my, at that time, wife in Maryland. I was served with the order while at work. The police never even ASKED about my owning guns. And the order did not seem to affect the NICS either. I didn't make it to the hearing due to not having the time, money, nor the inclination to lose my job to take a trip to Maryland without notice.

    But, how can an order from another state, that you were not living in when the order was created, affect your rights in another state?

    It would be like moving to Texas and then having some judge in Washington issue the, "take away their guns order," against you.

    Sent from my SM-G386T using Tapatalk
    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)

  21. #21
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Location
    Thru Death's Door in Wisconsin
    Posts
    13,147
    Quote Originally Posted by NavyLCDR View Post
    and the lemming voters will pass it into law. The current initiative system violates all the basic principles behind a Constitutional Republic form of government and needs to be abolished. The general public at large should not be given the power to legislate. They need to change the initiative system so that a voter passed initiative requires the entire legislature to vote on the initiative to pass it or kill it. That way the public has a means to push the legislature into voting on issues important to them, without giving the power of legislation to the public.
    That is the fundamental conflict of our time and place; between the demotic mob rule that the FF rightly feared, and the corrupt tradition of majority rule handed down from the Ancient Greeks. Only the Greek tyrants enjoyed majority rule, the citizens elected by lot.
    I am responsible for my writing, not your understanding of it.

  22. #22
    Regular Member amlevin's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    North of Seattle, Washington, USA
    Posts
    5,953
    Quote Originally Posted by NavyLCDR View Post
    A judge gets one of these petitions before him/her. What happens if the judge denies the petition and the subject of the petition ends up shooting someone? Who is going to be vilified by the media and the anti-gun groups for it? You bet the judge is. Now compare that with the judge who just simply signs the petitions and the subjects' guns are confiscated "temporarily". What are the consequences the judge will face over that? Next to none. Now tell me how many judges are going to deny wrongfully filed petitions? It will be much easier for the judge to grant the petition then force the subject of the petition to fight for his/her rights to be restored and let the subject of the petition go after the person making the false claims.

    Want an example of a false claim? During my divorce my ex-wife attempted to get the judge to enter a protection order against me which would have st Inripped away my firearms' rights and affected my military career. Luckily, in this one instance during my divorce fight the judge exercised a tiny bit of common sense and told her "I don't really think a protection order is required mostly due to the fact that you now live in Wyoming and your husband lives 1,300 miles away in Washington state."
    Which kind of proves my point that judges are capable of reviewing facts and making a proper decision.

    When all is said and done (which usually means more will be said than done), any constitutional issues with this law (if passed) will most certainly be dealt with by various courts of appeal.

    Sorry, I refuse to succumb to "Chicken Little" syndrome.
    "If I shoot all the ammo I am carrying I either won't need anymore or more won't help"

    "If you refuse to stand up for others now, who will stand up for you when your time comes?"

  23. #23
    Regular Member Freedom1Man's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    Greater Eastside Washington
    Posts
    4,690
    Quote Originally Posted by amlevin View Post
    Which kind of proves my point that judges are capable of reviewing facts and making a proper decision.

    When all is said and done (which usually means more will be said than done), any constitutional issues with this law (if passed) will most certainly be dealt with by various courts of appeal.

    Sorry, I refuse to succumb to "Chicken Little" syndrome.
    I just pointed out that is an exception not the rule.


    .......

    So, what this law would need is a liability rider. Anyone who makes any false claim should be liable for not less than, 100k per individual that a complaint has harmed and not less than 25k per day of lost rights paid to the injured party.

    The judge should lose their place on the bench for any bad revocation and any police officers making false/bad claims should lose their job, be black listed, and everything that is even remotely owned by the officer should go to the injured party.

    Sent from my SM-G386T using Tapatalk
    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)

  24. #24
    Regular Member OC for ME's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    White Oak Plantation
    Posts
    12,269
    (3) In determining whether grounds for an extreme risk
    protection order exist, the court may consider any relevant evidence
    including, but not limited to, any of the following: ...

    (h) The respondent's ownership, access to, or intent to possess
    firearms;
    (i) The unlawful or reckless use, display, or brandishing of a firearm by the respondent;
    (j) The history of use, attempted use, or threatened use of physical force by the respondent against another person, or the respondent's history of stalking another person;
    (k) Any prior arrest of the respondent for a felony offense or violent crime;
    (l) Corroborated evidence of the abuse of controlled substances or alcohol by the respondent; and
    (m) Evidence of recent acquisition of firearms by the respondent.
    Let me get this straight, and this concept is not new for WA, subjective evaluations are driving this obvious end-run around our enumerated rights? 2A, 4A, and 5A.
    PENALTIES. (1) Any person who files a petition under this chapter knowing the information in such petition to be materially false, or with intent to harass the respondent, is guilty of a gross misdemeanor.
    Pfft...no penalty whatsoever.
    Sec. 15. LIABILITY. Except as provided in section 13 of this act, this chapter does not impose criminal or civil liability on any person or entity for acts or omissions related to obtaining an extreme risk protection order or ex parte extreme risk protection including, but not limited to, reporting, declining to report, investigating, declining to investigate, filing, or declining to file a petition under this chapter.
    See...no penaltyIt is unfortunate that many WA citizens hold individual liberty in such low regard.

    Hobbes camp or Locke camp...which camp are you in?
    "I would rather be exposed to the inconveniences attending too much liberty than to those attending too small a degree of it." - Thomas Jefferson.

    "Better that ten guilty persons escape, than that one innocent suffer" - English jurist William Blackstone.
    It is AFAIK original to me. Compromise is failure on the installment plan, particularly when dealing with so intractable an opponent as ignorance. - Nightmare

  25. #25
    Regular Member Whitney's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Poulsbo, Kitsap County, Washington, USA
    Posts
    449

    Law Enforcement Policy

    I don't like this in current form either.
    If this comes to fruition law enforcement are tasked with developing and subsequently implementing policy to execute a protection order.

    I believe this is an area where we may be able to influence or contribute to policy.

    So....for arguments sake, someone is successful in getting an order against me. What happens next? What is the policy?

    Does the sheriff shows up at my door and say, "we have an emergency protection order against you and are here for your guns". The rest of that scenario is not going to go down too good.

    Will the nice LEO come to my work ? We don't know, and if we are stuck with this, the enforcement policies should have protections for the accused and their property.

    Notwithstanding the aforementioned discrepancies noted in this thread the enforcement policies will be the long rows and will have the most effect on the accused.

    ~Whitney
    The problem with America is stupidity.
    I'm not saying there should be capital punishment for stupidity, but why don't we just take the safety labels off of everything and let the problem solve itself?

Page 1 of 3 123 LastLast

Posting Permissions

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