• 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.

I-1491 Gun confiscation without being convicted

amlevin

Regular Member
Joined
Feb 16, 2007
Messages
5,937
Location
North of Seattle, Washington, USA
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.
 

Freedom1Man

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

OC for ME

Regular Member
Joined
Jan 6, 2010
Messages
12,452
Location
White Oak Plantation
(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;
Iconfused.gif
(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 penalty
It is unfortunate that many WA citizens hold individual liberty in such low regard.

Hobbes camp or Locke camp...which camp are you in?
 

Whitney

Regular Member
Joined
Jan 12, 2010
Messages
435
Location
Poulsbo, Kitsap County, Washington, USA
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
 

Freedom1Man

Regular Member
Joined
Jan 14, 2012
Messages
4,462
Location
Greater Eastside Washington
I believe that Freedom1man would disagree with you having been initially convicted of carrying a firearm in violation of RCW 9.41.300 (2)(b) because, according to the judge that convicted him, possessing a CPL was not enough to be exempted by 9.41.300 (2)(b)(i) which states that persons possessing a CPL are exempt from (2)(b). These are the same judges that the petitions for protection orders are going to be brought to.



Federal law. 18 USC 922 (g)(8):

(g) It shall be unlawful for any person—
(8) who is subject to a court order that—
(A) was issued after a hearing of which such person received actual notice, and at which such person had an opportunity to participate;

(B) restrains such person from harassing, stalking, or threatening an intimate partner of such person or child of such intimate partner or person, or engaging in other conduct that would place an intimate partner in reasonable fear of bodily injury to the partner or child; and

(C) (i) includes a finding that such person represents a credible threat to the physical safety of such intimate partner or child; or

(ii) by its terms explicitly prohibits the use, attempted use, or threatened use of physical force against such intimate partner or child that would reasonably be expected to cause bodily injury;
to ship or transport in interstate or foreign commerce, or possess in or affecting commerce, any firearm or ammunition; or to receive any firearm or ammunition which has been shipped or transported in interstate or foreign commerce.

There we go, I was not afforded the opportunity to participate.

That part (ii) seems rather stupid. I thought that even without an order spelling that out that it was illegal to do anyway.

Besides, how could I have been seen as any threat to her much less a reasonable one? She was about 3000 miles away and I was broke working a part-time job.

If this passes into law, we are all screwed.

Sent from my SM-G386T using Tapatalk
 

solus

Regular Member
Joined
Aug 22, 2013
Messages
9,315
Location
here nc
alpine, OC Freeman, et al., so whatcha going to do about your dislike of the initiative...someone mentioned education of the public...

ok, OC freeman and alpine you are whining about meaningless specific verbiage portions of the initiative to JQPuplic voter who will say...ok, let's delete those specific portions and pass the initiative for the betterment of WA citizens.

instead, you should be educating JQPublic voter on the initiative's weakness ~ judicial oversight or lack therein. If i might take the liberty Commander, but what you pointed out should be pushed as the significant weakness and pressed home in any advertising...nothing specific against any jurist but the general concept...no jurist is going to buck any reasonably submitted petition based on their political perspective.

now while you are grumbling it won't work alpine, et al., the 594 initiative campaign started out saying it was bad, without specifics, then specific initiative clauses were pointed out as bad...but those didn't effect JQP voter who didn't own firearms or you only pushed against it in venues where individuals came out armed to the hilt which received the best advertising to those pushing the 594 initiative.

594 was a no starter to the majority of WA citizens. since this new initiative will affect the majority of WA citizens since DV is so currently prevalent in our society it now has the potential to affect everyone...and this is another reason to push in your JQP educational campaign.
(sidebar ~ realistically...how did 594 affect any washington firearm owner since except for the most OCD individual ignores the concept and how many prosecutions have been filed or citizens sent to the pen?)

so alpine, my original query remains...you only going to whine, throw insults towards members on an open carry forum or how are you going to push educational information against the RO/PO initiative ~ flyers to religious, community organizations if so push from the perspective of how it will affect everyone...

oh wait...you can't read this cuz you have told everyone to put this member on ignore...oh well...enjoy living under your initiative.

ipse
 
Last edited:

1245A Defender

Regular Member
Joined
Jul 7, 2009
Messages
4,365
Location
north mason county, Washington, USA
Well,,,

I think that the main takeaway from this thread,,, that is about the State of Washington...
Is that we have allowed,,, Mob Rule to make Law!!!

It seems reasonable to accept to allow petitioners to influence Law makers to think about new Laws..

But to accept, and make Law based on the rule of the Mob,
Bypasses the duly, constitutionally, solely authorized Job of the Legislators to make Law in this State!!

In this State and many others,, a voting majority live in a small cluster of Liberal small mind thinkers,,,
In our case,, this is King County.
It is Sad that this is true of many States, but it is a fact, and many states know this..

We are a Representative Country,,, our Founding Fathers knew that representatives
Woud and could do a better job of protecting the rights of All Americans than the rule of the Mob Would!!!
 

solus

Regular Member
Joined
Aug 22, 2013
Messages
9,315
Location
here nc
so 1245A, is there a contribution to the negation of the imitative or is your pontification on king county's mob rule theory (tho impressed one county out of 39 controls the state) enough to settle and ease your conscience so life, as you know it, goes on...

if you haven't noticed...you are standing in the choir section of like minded individuals who empathize yet not heard an iota of suggestions on 'how we going to stop this' or this entity is going this or this group is jumping up and down against the initiative or bloody anything on a plan of attack.

i get the impression the situation will be like 594 where 'we won't comply' gathering were held ~ after the bloody initiative passed!!!

jump in anytime jeff, know you moved, but not that far away...

ipse
 

amlevin

Regular Member
Joined
Feb 16, 2007
Messages
5,937
Location
North of Seattle, Washington, USA
I think that the main takeaway from this thread,,, that is about the State of Washington...
Is that we have allowed,,, Mob Rule to make Law!!!

It seems reasonable to accept to allow petitioners to influence Law makers to think about new Laws..

But to accept, and make Law based on the rule of the Mob,
Bypasses the duly, constitutionally, solely authorized Job of the Legislators to make Law in this State!!

In this State and many others,, a voting majority live in a small cluster of Liberal small mind thinkers,,,
In our case,, this is King County.
It is Sad that this is true of many States, but it is a fact, and many states know this..

We are a Representative Country,,, our Founding Fathers knew that representatives
Woud and could do a better job of protecting the rights of All Americans than the rule of the Mob Would!!!


So are you advocating the abolishment of the Initiative Process we have as WA residents?

Since everyone here claims to be Constitutional Experts, perhaps they are all aware of Article II of the State Constitution that in part states:

The first power reserved by the people is the initiative.

The framers of our Constitution realized that there would be times that the Legislature would get wrapped around the axle of politics and fail to provide necessary laws (defined as laws the PEOPLE want) so they made the Initiative so people could have their say. The second reserved power is the referendum which gives the Legislature the opportunity to pass the buck back to the people when they become spineless.

You quote the US Constitution but just remember, we here in WA State have our own constitution. Before trashing it, consider what Article I Section 24 confers on State citizens that for a couple of centuries the US Constitution left somewhat ambiguous (until McDonald).
 
Last edited:

solus

Regular Member
Joined
Aug 22, 2013
Messages
9,315
Location
here nc
Solus,

Give me the millions of dollars that the anti-gun groups get to fund their advertising campaigns with from people like Bloomberg and I promise to use it to educate the public with. Yes, we have mob rule in Washington. And the mob is led around by their noses by the people with the most money and the best advertising campaigns resulting from that money.

Commander, while i know dave left, you still have the one individual who writes the column and surely they know others who can simply spread the word, svg & company do an excellent job spreading the word...

freedom man is having a picnic...print up small promos...

all i'm sayin' is whining here about specific clauses is counter productive...

remember the citizens of the state allowed the process which makes it easier...tough to over come...

tell me, us, who the key and pro legislative supporters are and my puter will send out respectful emails...

ipse
 

Boomboy007

Regular Member
Joined
Mar 3, 2010
Messages
227
Location
Bellingham, WA, USA
I definitely appreciate the "whining about specific clauses" because it helps me to harness the research time and acumen of members like NavyLCDR and SVG in order to understand the issue at hand, as well as formulate strategies for my own personal "fight for freedom".

Also, it IS an internet forum, after all. This is where one comes to whine.

Solus, I really don't want to make this personal, but I am having a hard time following your posts. I am wondering if a quick read through before posting might help you pull your arguments together in a more coherent way. They are oftem quite disjointed, in my perception. Just a suggestion.
 

amlevin

Regular Member
Joined
Feb 16, 2007
Messages
5,937
Location
North of Seattle, Washington, USA
And the state Constitution needs to be amended. But the will never happen. Our state Constitution establishes mob rule in this state.


Don't overlook the fact that the legislature can modify any law that was established by Initiative. They just have to wait two years before they can. I believe that there would be fewer Initiatives if our Legislature truly represented the wishes of the people they represent. Those of us who live here in WA State know how well that works.

Also, the State Constitution can be amended by a Constitutional Convention. Get 2/3 of the Legislature to put it on the ballot and then let the voters decide if they want a Constitutional Convention. Put the pressure on the Legislatures and the whole Constitution could be "modernized" although each amendment must be presented to the voters individually and won't take effect until such approval occurs.

If people paid more attention to how important the Legislature is, they'd probably not elect as many fools as they do.
 
Last edited:

solus

Regular Member
Joined
Aug 22, 2013
Messages
9,315
Location
here nc
I definitely appreciate the "whining about specific clauses" because it helps me to harness the research time and acumen of members like NavyLCDR and SVG in order to understand the issue at hand, as well as formulate strategies for my own personal "fight for freedom".

Also, it IS an internet forum, after all. This is where one comes to whine.

Solus, I really don't want to make this personal, but I am having a hard time following your posts. I am wondering if a quick read through before posting might help you pull your arguments together in a more coherent way. They are oftem (sic) quite disjointed, in my perception. Just a suggestion.

Boom, why on earth would i consider constructive comment, stated w/o insults or other personal derogatory commentary, a personal affront as it is based on your perception, which you are entitled to express.

if i might be afforded the same opportunity... your comment ...this is where one comes to whine...only meets the basic perceptions of whining as it is strictly stated for the sake of whining!! imagine if you will, you only whine to your boss/supervisor/partner and what the ramifications are...you and your whine are tuned out~ no forward effort to fix anything. prime example, partner whine, you drink/smoke/eat too much. individual ignores the partner and continues on with their merry habits ~ until medical issues set in!! then the partner's whine changes ~ see told you needed...blah blah blah.

whining while offering a plan to mitigate the reason for the whine shows you have thought about the situation and are open to reaching some type of consensus to mitigate the cause of the whine. sometimes after discussion of solutions it is discovered you are stuck with the current situation and allows individual(s) to go fine something else to whine about! :eek:

ipse
 

davidmcbeth

Banned
Joined
Jan 14, 2012
Messages
16,167
Location
earth's crust
No freeman actually hands the gov't their arms, do they? A nice song for your enjoyment ... "only joking"[when they heard the AR] .. classic line

[video=youtube;nHY14OVk7r0]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nHY14OVk7r0[/video]
 
Last edited:

Jeff Hayes

Regular Member
Joined
Mar 10, 2009
Messages
2,569
Location
Long gone
so 1245A, is there a contribution to the negation of the imitative or is your pontification on king county's mob rule theory (tho impressed one county out of 39 controls the state) enough to settle and ease your conscience so life, as you know it, goes on...

if you haven't noticed...you are standing in the choir section of like minded individuals who empathize yet not heard an iota of suggestions on 'how we going to stop this' or this entity is going this or this group is jumping up and down against the initiative or bloody anything on a plan of attack.

i get the impression the situation will be like 594 where 'we won't comply' gathering were held ~ after the bloody initiative passed!!!

jump in anytime jeff, know you moved, but not that far away...

ipse


I preached get involved, do something anything, for a long time and it was always the same handful of people that jumped in, spent their money, risked their freedom and got things done. The truth of the matter, at least for me and a few others, is we got real tired of putting on an event and then listening to the complaining about how things were done. DEROS72 put on a BBQ and footed most of the bill, myself and a few others contributed, including purchasing a pistol to give away and for weeks we heard nothing but complaints about how the pistol was given away. Until people are willing to stand up, take a day off, spend money, go to meetings, write letters this is going to happen.

If people actually want to put an end to I 594 all that needs done is for 50,000 gun owners, one in ten CPL holders in the state, to write a letter to each of their representatives demanding it go away and it will go away or at least be modified. The problem is gun owners will not do it they will not invest half an hour and $3 for stamps and envelopes, its much easier to spend an few hours arguing, complaining and wringing their hands on OCDO. The only reason we are being overran like we are is the lack of participation by gun owners. We have the numbers we lack the desire.
 

Whitney

Regular Member
Joined
Jan 12, 2010
Messages
435
Location
Poulsbo, Kitsap County, Washington, USA
I preached get involved, do something anything, for a long time and it was always the same handful of people that jumped in, spent their money, risked their freedom and got things done. The truth of the matter, at least for me and a few others, is we got real tired of putting on an event and then listening to the complaining about how things were done. DEROS72 put on a BBQ and footed most of the bill, myself and a few others contributed, including purchasing a pistol to give away and for weeks we heard nothing but complaints about how the pistol was given away. Until people are willing to stand up, take a day off, spend money, go to meetings, write letters this is going to happen.

If people actually want to put an end to I 594 all that needs done is for 50,000 gun owners, one in ten CPL holders in the state, to write a letter to each of their representatives demanding it go away and it will go away or at least be modified. The problem is gun owners will not do it they will not invest half an hour and $3 for stamps and envelopes, its much easier to spend an few hours arguing, complaining and wringing their hands on OCDO. The only reason we are being overran like we are is the lack of participation by gun owners. We have the numbers we lack the desire.


I have a personal email from Christine Rolfes stating she would support exceptions to 594 for people who have (CPL) licenses. This is not hard to do but it takes a concerted effort from gun owners.

~Whitney
 

solus

Regular Member
Joined
Aug 22, 2013
Messages
9,315
Location
here nc
jeff & whitney...this thread is about a new initiative rolling towards those citizens who have and carry firearms.

as i have previously stated, if someone would draw up a viable commentary for me to send to ms Rolfes and others of her ilk i will spend the 6 dollars sending them off.

ipse
 

OC for ME

Regular Member
Joined
Jan 6, 2010
Messages
12,452
Location
White Oak Plantation
I have a personal email from Christine Rolfes stating she would support exceptions to 594 for people who have (CPL) licenses. This is not hard to do but it takes a concerted effort from gun owners.

~Whitney
Would support? I'm confused, why does she not now support a exception. And why has she not put forward a bill to implement a exception now, or previously? Suspicious.

Politicians know what is right yet bills that erode/eradicate enumerated rights continue to be introduced...hmm...

As long as a FUDD can hunt he will not fight for individual liberty to be restored.

Liberals with a gun are especially dangerous to individual liberty.
 

Whitney

Regular Member
Joined
Jan 12, 2010
Messages
435
Location
Poulsbo, Kitsap County, Washington, USA
Time clock

Would support? I'm confused, why does she not now support a exception. And why has she not put forward a bill to implement a exception now, or previously? Suspicious.

Politicians know what is right yet bills that erode/eradicate enumerated rights continue to be introduced...hmm...

As long as a FUDD can hunt he will not fight for individual liberty to be restored.

Liberals with a gun are especially dangerous to individual liberty.

[EDIT...needed for this statement. I may have caused some confusion as this statement is in reference to the law created by the citizen initiative I 594. ]
It has more to do with the 2 year wait before the legislature can modify laws passed by citizen initiative. The clock is ticking down on two years for modification of the law [created by I-594.]

I would encourage all Washington gun owners to write your representative regarding this poorly worded "do something" law.

I know it is hard for a lot of people to do this, but, make an appointment to see your legislators and have a short personal meeting with them. Follow up consistently and regularly regarding items like the ones in this thread.


~Whitney
 
Last edited:

OC for ME

Regular Member
Joined
Jan 6, 2010
Messages
12,452
Location
White Oak Plantation
It has more to do with the 2 year wait before the legislature can modify laws passed by citizen initiative. The clock is ticking down on two years for modification of the law. I would encourage all Washington gun owners to write your representative regarding this poorly worded "do something" law.

I know it is hard for a lot of people to do this, but, make an appointment to see your legislators and have a short personal meeting with them. Follow up consistently and regularly regarding items like the ones in this thread.


~Whitney
Thanks. It is true that face to face meetings with constituents tends to "motivate" our elected representatives to follow through on our requests for redress or relief.
 
Top