Mark Your Calendars

[Whitney]

RCW 7.94 Extreme Risk Protection Order Act



Pursuant to the Act all law enforcement agencies must develop policies
and procedures by June 1, 2017 regarding the acceptance, storage, and
return of firearms required to be surrendered under this chapter.


FOIA request to my County Sheriff follows.


Please provide policy and procedures developed congruent with RCW 7.94

Specifically 7.94.060 and 7.94.090.



~Whitney

 

[Mainsail]

Wow, I didn't even realize that POS legislation had passed....

Notice this:
[h=3]7.94.100
Firearms—Return—Disposal.[/h](1) If an extreme risk protection order is terminated or expires without renewal, a law enforcement agency holding any firearm that has been surrendered pursuant to this chapter shall return any surrendered firearm requested by a respondent only after confirming, through a background check, that the respondent is currently eligible to own or possess firearms under federal and state law and after confirming with the court that the extreme risk protection order has terminated or has expired without renewal.
(2) A law enforcement agency must, if requested, provide prior notice of the return of a firearm to a respondent to family or household members of the respondent in the manner provided in RCW9.41.340 and 9.41.345.
(3) Any firearm surrendered by a respondent pursuant to RCW 7.94.090 that remains unclaimed by the lawful owner shall be disposed of in accordance with the law enforcement agency's policies and procedures for the disposal of firearms in police custody.

What does "remains unclaimed" mean? The protection order expires on May 31, and on June 1 the firearm is "unclaimed" so the gun grabbers destroy it?

It sounds like they added an 'out' based on experience. If the person goes to jail or otherwise becomes ineligible to possess firearms, I don't imagine he or she would attempt to reclaim them. Likewise when the person moves out of state or just comes to the conclusion that guns are not for them. I don't like that "unclaimed" isn't defined with a time limit. This can burden the police with storing guns for years, or they may decide a month is too long.

There also doesn't seem to be any provision for a family member (unrelated to the issue that led to the confiscation) to retrieve the firearms. In the case of a family heirloom being in police custody; if the previous owner doesn't or cannot retrieve it, a family member with an interest in it should have the option of recovering it.

The firearm is tangible property that has a value, so even if the person cited under that law cannot lawfully recover it, it is still property that has value. He or she should have an option to sell the firearm and get some of that value.

The laws tend to be written from the point of view common to most liberals; that the gun is bad, not the person. The person can be rehabilitated, the gun cannot, and is thus the person and the community benefit from the loss of it.

 

[Whitney]

KCSO policy

Received the attached policy from the Kitsap County Sheriff today.

~Whitney

 

[Freedom1Man]

Holy S. I didn't know that this law had been passed.

 

[OC for ME]

http://app.leg.wa.gov/RCW/default.aspx?cite=7.94.090
http://app.leg.wa.gov/RCW/default.aspx?cite=9.41.340
http://app.leg.wa.gov/RCW/default.aspx?cite=9.41.345

Do the cops care if the ERPO is valid or bogus? QI for cops and absolute immunity for judges, I would think not...confiscate and let a judge sort it out...may be the same judge who issued the ERPO. Sweet irony...no?