Washington Bill Violates Gun Owners' Due Process Rights

Jan 2010
689
0
Pacific NW
Proposed Washington Bill Violates Gun Owners' Due Process Rights
Please Contact Your State Legislators Today!


Legislation has been introduced in Washington State that puts the due process rights of gun owners in jeopardy. House Bill 2778 is being touted as a bill that would bring Washington into compliance with Federal law. In actuality, it is much broader. It expands both the types of relationships that qualify as "domestic" and the types of offenses for which firearms rights are lost. It would also bar "ownership" of firearms while a qualifying restraining order was in effect, whereas a person under federal law loses possessory but not property rights.

HB2778 would require the subject of a final or temporary protective order to surrender his or her firearms to law enforcement until the order expires. Unlike federal law, which allows a person to find other places to dispose of his firearms while an order is in effect, these bills would require law enforcement to seize someone's firearms, even if the subject of the order had no opportunity to participate in the hearing.

Though domestic abuse is undeniably tragic and deplorable, this bill is an unnecessary and unfair overreaction. Under this legislation, a victim of false allegations who had no opportunity to contest those charges in court cannot defend himself at home or simply possess his own guns for any other lawful purpose.

While domestic violence is a deplorable and despicable crime, this bill tramples upon Washingtonians' due process rights. Please contact your state legislators TODAY at 800-562-6000 and respectfully urge them to remove the firearm provision in HB2778 or to oppose the bill entirely.
 
Jan 2010
39
0
Lakewood, Wa.
James,
I do want to add that us " responsible" gun owners would never get ourselves into a situation that requires police response. Correct ? Sure, couples have fights and arguments as all of us do. Correct ? Being firearms owners we ALL have a responsibility to not let the emotions take over.. And having something stupid happen. Correct ?..
If she pisses you off that much, find a new one..
If the neighbor is that big of a douce-bag, ignore him.

Biggest cause of Domestic Crap as noted above can be avoided..

We just have to be the smarter ones.. That way no domestic disturbances will be called on us..

Now, if law enforcement rolls on a call with obvious abuse, and the "bad-guy" goes to jail, maybe taking his guns will save his wife/brother/neighbor. Especially after he/she gets out of jail all pissed off.
I am in no way saying that I like this new bill at all !! I do not endorse it.. And will do everything to vote the authors of this bill out of office.

But the state is tired of stupid ass people who have guns. Those who give the rest of us a bad reputation. I too am getting tired of the idiots.
 
Sep 2009
182
0
Poulsbo, WA
I agree with you yesicarry
A friend and I were talking about this yesterday and came to the conclusion that if there is a restraining order it might be better to let someone you know that will take care of your weapons (until the order expires) have them, rather than letting people have them that don't care about them. Maybe a gun store or some bonded agency.
He says......
An example of what can happen without due process was the Hurricane Katrina debacle. They confiscated firearms, threw them in barrels, etc. without any attempt to preserve them. Then, after the authorities were ordered to return them to their owners, the few folks that actually got them back found that most were virtually inoperable.

Beyond that it's just another intrusion into our 2A rights. Although sometimes it's a good idea to take guns away from idiots.

This is well intentioned and a tough call but I have to be against it
 
Jan 2009
152
0
Bellevue
I'm going to make the phone call today. A good friend of mine is going through a divorce right now. He's an incredibly good guy but his soon to be ex-wife is not a good person (putting it politely).

She slapped a restraining order on him at the beginning of the divorce process without any due cause... simply because she could and it requires ZERO proof. This bill would require someone in his position to turn over his firearms (he doesn't own any) to law enforcement. Require being the key word. If you don't you are now a criminal even though you might not have been one before, just accused.

This type of legislation is a step in the wrong direction.
 
Jan 2009
152
0
Bellevue
Just sent the following email as well.

Rep. Maxwell,Clibborn and Gordon,

I'm writing to you all today to ask that you remove the firearm provision from SB2778. While I agree that those guilty of domestic violence need to be held fully accountable, the firearm provision also affects those wrongly accused who have never gone to trial.

A very good friend of mine is going through a divorce right now. He's an incredibly good guy but his soon to be ex-wife is not a good person (putting it politely).

She slapped a restraining order on him at the beginning of the divorce process without any due cause... simply because she could and it requires ZERO proof. This bill would require someone in his position to turn over his firearms (he doesn't own any) to law enforcement. Require being the key word. If you don't you are now a criminal even though you might not have been one before, just accused.

This type of legislation is a step in the wrong direction. I again ask you all to simply remove the firearm provision in SB2778 so that those wrongly accused don't end up being further penalized than they already are.

Sincerely,
Jeff Gramling
 
Nov 2009
463
0
WA
Sometimes the Courts and Law Enforcement are used as the hammer in domestic disputes. Remember, the police in WA have no discretion when it comes to DV. Even if they think allegations may not be true but cannot completely disprove them, they have to make an arrest.

Yes, it protects the abused party. Unfortunately it's pretty easy to say the right thing and get your partner arrested. If the cops call bullshit, it opens them up to personal civil liabilty as they'd be violating state law. When it comes down to weak probable cause or the officer potentially losing his house, he'll make the arrest.

Comments have been made about making the right decisions to keep these events from happening but lets face it, a lot of this is in the hands of your disgruntled wife / girlfriend. While I agree that we need to protect vulnerable parties, I've seen many a man take a plea on a **** case to keep from risking a DV conviction on his record and forfeiting his gun rights.

There needs to be a balance.
 
Jan 2010
371
0
Sherwood, OR
Quote: "a bill that would bring Washington into compliance with Federal law"
So is WA not now in compliance with federal law?

I would like to know more details about what would happen to your guns after someone gets a restraining order on you? If you lose your right to own them, does the state have to pay you fair market value for them? Are you required to sell them for a loss to a used gun store? What if you have a collection/heirlooms? Would they be destroyed since you are now not allowed to own firearms because someone got an order against you(with or without merit)

The problem is that with making the restraining order the trigger, you lose the presumption of innocence before your rights are removed.

The bill would seem to be well intentioned, but poorly thought out.
 
Jan 2009
1,684
0
s. greenlake *****
She slapped a restraining order on him at the beginning of the divorce process without any due cause... simply because she could and it requires ZERO proof.

that's exactly what happened to me during my divorce.. I took all my guns and moved them to various friends/relatives houses... according to the restraining order I wasn't allowed to have them. I was pissed.. it sucked.
 
Sep 2009
182
0
Poulsbo, WA
Kinda sounds like they need to review the laws concerning restraining orders.
 
Top