Washington State's Proposition 1491

[Rick W.]

I don't know how many people are aware of the proposition here in Washington State that is probably coming out on this fall's election ballot or not, but they are welcome to Google it for themselves if they want to. It is Proposition 1491 where a family member, the police or anyone (the petitioner) who is remotely familiar with someone (the respondent) can file a complaint with the courts and the respondent has to go to court and surrender all his guns for a period of one year. The petitioner can be a close family member, a girlfriend(or ex girlfriend), a cousin or a friend that files the paperwork on you. It's supposed to be for people WHO MIGHT (or might not) have mental health issues or anger issues where THEY MIGHT (or might not) present a danger to other people or to themselves!

The way I understand this Constitutional violation, the respondent isn't even charged with any kind of crime when he goes to court, so there's no need for him/her to seek out a lawyer before going to court or to have the courts to provide him with a court appointed attorney if he can't afford a lawyer of his own. And just what are the consequences for someone if they are non-compliant with this whole process-prison time and spiraling down the toilet? Without legal council representation, it sounds like just because the accusation is made, then the person automatically loses his gun rights for a period of one year, no matter what, as soon as he shows up for court(automatically guilty just because of the accusation)! But, the respondent is still court ordered to surrender all of his guns (as if he is being charged with a crime) for a period of one year and is court ordered to go to treatment for his drug/alcohol addiction or court ordered to go through an anger management course or court order to seek mental health treatment and even after completion, there's still no guarantee that he will get his guns back! This whole thing stinks of a railroading process that takes people's guns away from them at the slightest provocation! I also suppose that someone getting their guns back would all be contingent upon whether the counselor that someone is required to see is anti-gun or pro-gun too and what kind of report (and when they submit the report) that they submit back to the courts! It is also the respondents responsibility to petition the courts to get his guns back after that one year period is over and if he doesn't do so in a timely manner, then the government can automatically dispose of those guns without any kind of notification to the respondent! So, I suppose that after one year and one day, they can destroy those guns! It is not mentioned exactly what kind of grace period the respondent has to petition the courts for his guns back or the grace period of how long the courts take. The courts can just drag their feet, if they want to, until the guns are already destroyed by law enforcement! I suppose the respondent doesn't have much to say about it if they already destroy his guns! He can't very well "undestroy them" and I doubt very much if the government would replace the guns! All of this is based upon either true or possibly untrue accusations from the petitioner that the respondent is a danger to himself or to others and the petitioner making the claim doesn't even have to have their real address listed on the court paperwork(nothing like starting this whole process with a lie! If they lie about this, then just what else are they going to lie about?).

The way I see this, it opens the door for someone to have his guns taken away from him, and possibly destroyed before he has a chance to get them back, for anything from AN ACCUSATION of being drunk because he tripped on the sidewalk while walking out to his car, to going through a vindictive divorce, to going through the grief cycle from the death of a loved one because someone experiences depression from this (mental health issue)! Is this also going to include any and all skeletons that most people have in their background from 20 or 30 years ago, like he used to pick his nose and eat it when he was a kid and that is a mental health/moral issue? Better be careful that you don't make a family member mad at you for getting into an argument with them or because you took them out of your last will and testament because they just might make a vindictive accusation about you! Because we are an open carry state, someone is liable to have an accusation that they intimidated and scared someone because they had a gun on their hip in public! Or if someone has their Conceal Carry Permit, then someone got scared because they saw someone have a lump on their body because their gun was printing! All I can say about this is for someone to keep their gun hidden away if they have their Concealed Carry Permit and don't let anyone at all know that you have it! Just about any kind of a ridiculous excuse or accusation from just about anyone who is remotely familiar to you will work for the court system! Then, just because someone has just one bad day, then is this going to be cause for someone to be accused of having an anger issue(to err is to be human)? This also sounds like a good way for your dishonest neighbor to come to your house to steal everything you own, and rape and murder all your family members after he knows for a fact that you don't have your guns anymore to protect them (because of this law)!

There's just to many scenarios that could happen with this in order for it to be a reasonable thing that people should vote for! The anti-gun pacifists are back at it once again and gun owners really need to do their homework on this before voting this fall! If we outlaw guns, then the only people who will have guns is the government and outlaws! There are many people today who would absolutely love to throw our Constitution in the garbage can because they think it is outdated, but it is our Constitution that keeps our government in check. Be careful that you don't tell anyone you know where you keep your guns in your house(or on your person for that matter) because that is one of the questions that they ask on the paperwork. But we still have to be careful about passing this law too because some people don't know where you keep your guns (maybe they have never been in your house), so I suppose that the court system will bypass this question and consider it to be trivial if someone doesn't know it and take your guns away from you anyway! Ve no who you are! Ve no you hav guns! You vill cumpli comrad!

[Grizz12]

I think California tried the same thing but I dont remember what happened in the end

[rickyrick]

Thanks for the info
I'll look for it on the ballot
I'm sure these anti gun initiatives are going to just be a way of life in WA

[Aguila Blanca]

This has Bloomberg written all over it.

Look for more of the same, coming soon to a state near you.

[flyer898]

California has a similar bill passed by the legislature after the Isla Vista massacre - college student killed his roommates with a knife, ran over some girls with his car, and shot a couple people too. The largest body count was with a knife. California's predictable response was additional gun control. There are challenges to the California bill pending in the courts, but that has not stopped the legislature from bringing a bill to expand the scope to include employers and co-workers.

[Chaz88]

WHAT!!!!

That is just unbelievable.

I sometimes miss the days before the internet when I was happily ignorant of these kinds of things and, mistakenly, thought common since applied to gun laws. My outrage and stress level was much lower.

[UnkBK]

As a WA resident I have no doubt it will be passed by the wet side Libs. It may be time to move back to my home state of Montana.
AW ban will be next.

[JWT]

What is the world is going on in the once reasonable state of Washington? Most proposed legislation originates of this sort in the ultra liberal Seattle area and west coast at the expense of the remainder of the state. Seattle is fast becoming a clone of SanFrancisco in its 'thimking.

[Old Bill Dibble]

The anti-gun pacifists are back at it once again and gun owners really need to do their homework on this before voting this fall!

Might want to dial it back a notch, just saying...

Text here...

http://sos.wa.gov/_assets/elections/...lText_1016.pdf

Upon hearing the matter, if the court finds by a
preponderance of the evidence that the respondent poses 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 shall issue an extreme risk
protection order for a period of one year.
(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 no
contact 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;
(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.

Picking your nose doesn't seem to be covered...

And just what are the consequences for someone if they are non-compliant with this whole process-prison time and spiraling down the toilet?

Any person who has in his or her custody or control,
purchases, possesses, or receives a firearm with knowledge that he
or she is prohibited from doing so by an order issued under this
chapter is guilty of a gross misdemeanor, and further is prohibited
from having in his or her custody or control, purchasing,
possessing, or receiving, or attempting to purchase or receive, a
firearm for a period of five years from the date the existing or
der
expires. However, such person is guilty of a class C felony if the
person has two or more previous convictions for violating an order
issued under this chapter.

[62coltnavy]

Under California's law, a restraining order can be sought only by a close family member (as defined by stature); it does NOT include ex-girlfriends unless they are still living in the same house. (Ex-girlfriends have much more potent remedies, specifically a Domestic Violence restraining order.) A TRO issues upon affidavit , which is good for up to 21 days, and during this time a hearing must be held or the order expires. A "permanent" order good for up to one year can issue only after hearing, and must be supported by clear and convincing evidence that the person is a threat of harm to himself or others.

These are civil matters, so there is no right to appointed counsel in California or under the proposed Washington law. Beg, buy or borrow an attorney if hit with one of these.

California passed a bill that would have alllowed co-workers and your employer to seek such orders. Governor Brown veotoed the bill.r