• 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

solus

Regular Member
Joined
Aug 22, 2013
Messages
8,773
Location
here nc
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-ne...ce-gun-rights-with-individual-safety/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
 

OC Freedom

Regular Member
Joined
Feb 20, 2014
Messages
646
Location
ADA County, ID
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....
 

amlevin

Regular Member
Joined
Feb 16, 2007
Messages
5,952
Location
North of Seattle, Washington, USA
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.
 

solus

Regular Member
Joined
Aug 22, 2013
Messages
8,773
Location
here nc
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:

Alpine

Regular Member
Joined
Aug 10, 2012
Messages
670
Location
Mercer Island
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/initiatives/FinalText_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:

Alpine

Regular Member
Joined
Aug 10, 2012
Messages
670
Location
Mercer Island
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:

Freedom1Man

Regular Member
Joined
Jan 14, 2012
Messages
4,463
Location
Greater Eastside Washington
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
 

solus

Regular Member
Joined
Aug 22, 2013
Messages
8,773
Location
here nc
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/initiatives/FinalText_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/s...rotection-orders&highlight=extreme+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:

Alpine

Regular Member
Joined
Aug 10, 2012
Messages
670
Location
Mercer Island
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...iction-could-be-headed-for-washington-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:

solus

Regular Member
Joined
Aug 22, 2013
Messages
8,773
Location
here nc
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
 

solus

Regular Member
Joined
Aug 22, 2013
Messages
8,773
Location
here nc
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
 

Boomboy007

Regular Member
Joined
Mar 3, 2010
Messages
195
Location
Bellingham, WA, USA
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:

Citizen

Founder's Club Member
Joined
Nov 15, 2006
Messages
18,278
Location
Fairfax Co., VA
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:

Citizen

Founder's Club Member
Joined
Nov 15, 2006
Messages
18,278
Location
Fairfax Co., VA
(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.
 

Freedom1Man

Regular Member
Joined
Jan 14, 2012
Messages
4,463
Location
Greater Eastside Washington
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
 
Top