Bill In The Legislature

I really like the direction this moves.

Click to expand...

I really like the direction this moves.

Click to expand...

Likewise.

While we're on the topic, does anyone know the proper procedure for restoration of a felon's rights? Is there forms anywhere, motions, etc.?

Click to expand...

I read all the parts that were changed, deleted or added and I really like the direction this moves.

I like that if you are treating a mental condition with medication after involuntary treatment and show to the superior court that it's not likely that your mental condition will recur, then you can get your firearms rights back. Before, being on medication still barred you, from how I read it; and that's just wrong. Just because someone takes medication for something doesn't mean they are or will ever again exhibit the symptoms being treated.

Click to expand...

I really like the direction this moves.

Click to expand...

Likewise.

While we're on the topic, does anyone know the proper procedure for restoration of a felon's rights? Is there forms anywhere, motions, etc.?

Click to expand...

I really like the direction this moves.

Click to expand...

Likewise.

While we're on the topic, does anyone know the proper procedure for restoration of a felon's rights? Is there forms anywhere, motions, etc.?

Click to expand...

A frequently litigated issue under §922(g)(1) is whether a convicted felon is exempt from the prohibitions of the statute because of a post-conviction restoration of civil rights under State law. In accordance with 18 U.S.C. §921(a)(20), a conviction does not disqualify an individual from possessing firearms if the person convicted "has had civil rights restored." In §922(g)(1) cases based upon a State felony conviction, courts have uniformly looked to the law of the State where the conviction was obtained to determine whether the defendant's civil rights have been restored and whether such action has nullified the conviction's incidental prohibition on firearms possession. With respect to Federal felony convictions, the Supreme Court declared in Beecham v. United States, 511 U.S. 368 (1994), that only Federal law can nullify the effect of the conviction through expungement, pardon, or restoration of civil rights. This is so, the Court ruled, even though there is no Federal procedure for restoring the civil rights of Federal felons.


In United States v. Ramos, 961 F.2d 1003, 1009 (1st Cir.), cert. denied, ___U.S.___, 113 S. Ct. 364 (1992), the court held that the term "restored" in §921(a)(20) requires the State to make an "individualized official judgment" that the defendant should be excepted from the prohibitions of §922(g)(1). The Criminal Division takes the position that where State law contains any provision purporting to restore civil rights -- either upon application by the defendant or automatically upon the completion of a sentence -- it should be given effect. It is not necessary that the State issue an individualized certificate reflecting the judgment of State officials regarding an individual defendant. The Ramos case should be limited to its unique facts and not extended in attempts to nullify the effect of other State schemes for civil rights restoration. A State restoration document that is absolute on its face should disqualify the affected State felon from prosecution under § 922(g)(1) unless the facts of the case strongly support a finding that the felon had actual notice of his/her continuing State firearms disability despite the terms of the restoration document.
[cited in USAM9-63.500]

Click to expand...

Please watch the committee hearing and notice how many people from the police, wa ceasefire, and jewish federation, are at this event, or are in support of this bill.

http://www.tvw.org/media/mediaplayer.cfm?evid=2009010155&TYPE=V&CFID=2009439&CFTOKEN=32005282&bhcp=1

This is what someone wrote from another board.

"This appears to be a case of making a bad law worse. An unalienable right can not be taken away without due process of law and an involuntary committment does not justify taking away an unalienable right. Am I missing something here or is this just another case of the "gun grabbers" laying the groundwork to try and give "mental health proffessionals" the power to deny the right to keep and bear arms at whim?"

Any thoughts???

XD

Click to expand...

XD45PlusP wrote:

Please watch the committee hearing and notice how many people from the police, wa ceasefire, and jewish federation, are at this event, or are in support of this bill.

http://www.tvw.org/media/mediaplayer.cfm?evid=2009010155&TYPE=V&CFID=2009439&CFTOKEN=32005282&bhcp=1

This is what someone wrote from another board.

"This appears to be a case of making a bad law worse. An unalienable right can not be taken away without due process of law and an involuntary committment does not justify taking away an unalienable right. Am I missing something here or is this just another case of the "gun grabbers" laying the groundwork to try and give "mental health proffessionals" the power to deny the right to keep and bear arms at whim?"

Any thoughts???

XD

Click to expand...

I think it's a case where we're taking bad law and making it t better.

It's relaxing the requirements to regain firearms rights. It's preventing the secretary of DSHS from developing a custom-tailored program to restore the rights on an individual basis.It'schangingrights restoration to a shall issue wording, so long as a preponderance of the evidnce suggests that whatever got them involuntarily committed is no longer an issue.

Remember, we're dealing with a very narrow segment of society here: folks who are unstable enough to have been forced into mental treatment (or folks who plead insanity). This doesn't apply to folks who voluntarily check themselves in for treatment. Now those folks won't have to deal with the secretary of DSHS's arbitrary programs, nor will they have to deal with the DOL. It also relaxes the requirement on what court they can use. They don't have to use the original superior court of record, they can use any superior court in their home area or the court of record.

Honestly, it may be unwanted regulation as a whole, but it's a heck of a lot better than it was before.

Click to expand...

I agree 100%.

As far as the right being inalienable, I agree to an extent. A mentally unstable person is the direct reason my father was killed. Call me crazy but I don't think mentally unstable persons should have access to any firearm under any circumstances. These and career violent crime felons are the only people I think should have their right to a firearm revoked.

Click to expand...

who is responsible when this person stops taking their meds?

Click to expand...

Call me crazy but I don't think mentally unstable persons should have access to any firearm under any circumstances.

Click to expand...

who is responsible when this person stops taking their meds?

Click to expand...

You, me, and everyone else. If the crazy guy pulls a gun in public, shoot him.

Call me crazy but I don't think mentally unstable persons should have access to any firearm under any circumstances.

Click to expand...

Neither do I, but I wonder how high that bar is set? If someone decides you're behaving irrationally, can they petition a court to have your rights revoked?

I consider myself a very sane, stable person. Other than basic driving infractions, I've never been in trouble with the law and don't plan to be. Yet I've been called "irrational" and "insane" for carrying a firearm at all, let alone being involved with this community. We all know how the anti-gunners throw these terms around; how long until they try to make it stick in a court of law?

My opinion? A person should have to be properly diagnosed with a serious mental illness by a proper psychologist, and have that diagnosis confirmed by a second, independent doctor, before their rights are taken away. Furthermore, the list of illnesses should be spelled out in the law.

Click to expand...