Quantcast
  1. Sign up now and join over 35,000 northwest gun owners. It's quick, easy, and 100% free!

Initiative 1491

Discussion in 'Firearm Legislation & Activism' started by boogerhook, Jul 7, 2016.

  1. boogerhook

    boogerhook Seattle Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    1,153
    Likes Received:
    1,224
  2. Hawaiian

    Hawaiian Tigard Oregon Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    1,283
    Likes Received:
    1,630
    It seems to say that the person does retain their due process rights. I don't have a problem with it if I am reading it correctly.
     
    boogerhook likes this.
  3. slimer13

    slimer13 Deer Park Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    1,868
    Likes Received:
    3,184
    Due process? A person can be deprived of constitutionally protected rights without having been convicted of any crimes at the whim of a judgeo_O.
     
  4. Caveman Jim

    Caveman Jim West of Oly Springer Slayer 2016 Volunteer

    Messages:
    5,230
    Likes Received:
    8,826
    I never heard a peep of this obamanation until now. WTF!!!!
     
    3MTA3 likes this.
  5. OutlawHoss

    OutlawHoss Klamath-Siskyou Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    642
    Likes Received:
    1,134
    Anything other than 'innocent until proven guilty' is not how it's supposed to work; of course there are many aspects of our legal system that don't work how they're 'sposed to. Now this bill seems to work like a protection order: concerned parties bring a petition to a judge, and the judge decides based on evidence. Here is the jist of it:

    Under the measure, concerned family or household members or police can petition the court by filing an affidavit stating specific concerns, such as mental illness or domestic violence, and the number and types of firearms owned. Following a court hearing, if the court finds evidence that a person poses a danger to themselves or others by having a firearm, they can have their guns taken away and be prevented from buying a firearm for up to one year.
    The part I emphasized seems sketchy to me. Own a scary black gun and take a little antidepressant? Not uncommon these days, and you may or may not attract attention. Piss someone off, (which could range from something reasonable to something unreasonable), then your future could wind up in the hands of the judge, who knows people are watching to see if he/she is going to rein in a crazy guy with a scary black gun, and who may also be an 'activist' judge; of which there are many.
    Of course we gun owners scoff at the idea one gun is more deadly than another, (80% of a guns efficacy is in the operator, right?) but now AR's occupy a mythical and irrational place in the popular mind. I would hope that the bar is high to prove someone is a danger to themselves or others, but yet again, that determination is already frequently used as cause to place someone in an involuntary hold in a Psych Unit. And presently, there are many people who have gone through a similar process and emerged with lifetime firearm prohibitions due to code 11 issues (Police radio code for someone who has mental issues, used interchangeably for people suspected as such (which could be no more than a rumor from neighbor) as well as people formally adjudicated as such. I think this is highly inappropriate by the way.

    So what is different about this bill and the process it puts in place? You get to skip the mental eval and involuntary psych hold and go straight to code 11. Even if the restriction ends after a year as stated, remember what you fill out when you buy a gun with a BGC "Have you ever been committed to a mental institution or determined by a court to be mentally deficient (or some such verbage)" Here again the slippery slope, the alternate (less than full due process) course of rights being revoked by mere suspicion and no trial by a jury of one's peers.
    Yup, I don't like it. National Socialism rears it's ugly head again, (but somehow it keeps getting a face-lifto_O)
     
  6. Stomper

    Stomper Oceania Rising White Is The New Brown Silver Supporter

    Messages:
    12,892
    Likes Received:
    19,473

    Yeah, what could POSSIBLY go wrong? :rolleyes:
     
    OutlawHoss likes this.
  7. SHPD_Retired

    SHPD_Retired Saint Helens Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    667
    Likes Received:
    802
    Restraining orders, and I assume this will be the same, are decided initially by a judge after hearing from the petitioner only. The person who is getting his rights taken away will have a chance to have a hearing but probably not for about 2 weeks.
     
  8. Osarion

    Osarion Snohomish County, WA Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    284
    Likes Received:
    445
    JohnnyD likes this.
  9. Caveman Jim

    Caveman Jim West of Oly Springer Slayer 2016 Volunteer

    Messages:
    5,230
    Likes Received:
    8,826
    Last edited: Jul 8, 2016
    Mikej, Slobray, 3MTA3 and 1 other person like this.
  10. The Courier

    The Courier Newberg, Oregon Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    321
    Likes Received:
    298
    So false charges against you would allow local PD to enter your home and strip you of ALL firearms and bar future purchases for up to a year? I'm for protection of victims of spouse/domestic abuse but this kind of motion sounds like a step towards tyranny, if a situation becomes violent or unstable leave the scene and find your own means for protection. Next they wil add keeping large quantities of ammunition and food as a "Mental disorder".
     
  11. Stomper

    Stomper Oceania Rising White Is The New Brown Silver Supporter

    Messages:
    12,892
    Likes Received:
    19,473
    You just hit the nail on the head... ;)
     
    The Courier likes this.
  12. 3MTA3

    3MTA3 DMZ between Liberty and Tyranny Behind Enemy Lines Bronze Supporter

    Messages:
    2,533
    Likes Received:
    5,609
    And you know just how gently they would handle and store your firearms...
     
  13. Republican

    Republican Georgia Member

    Messages:
    11
    Likes Received:
    27
    Yep. And then everything is fine. Just give them this "common sense" measure and they will go away. Yeah right !
    As with any reform movement such as liberalism, communism , Islam ect... No amount of capitulation is ever enough.
    Just remember these words when faced with any left wing idea that may seem " not so bad" at first glance , in socialism anything that is not forbidden is mandatory. There is no middle ground or compromise with these types. Never give an inch !
     
    Stomper, Caveman Jim and Slobray like this.
  14. Doc In UPlace

    Doc In UPlace Tacoma-ish Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    2,643
    Likes Received:
    2,028
    A couple of three questions:
    1.) Does this flag NICS so the "person deemed" can't just go buy more the same day?
    If not then what good is it?

    2.) Since "The Alliance for Gun Responsibility" was also behind a 2014 ballot measure that requires background checks on all sales and transfers of guns, including private transactions and many loans and gifts, How can they not immediately do things to each other I can't write on this forum or say on the radio, repeatedly and forever in a very hot place?

    3.) When are they gonna be happy? Does anyone think this is their end game?
     
  15. Caveman Jim

    Caveman Jim West of Oly Springer Slayer 2016 Volunteer

    Messages:
    5,230
    Likes Received:
    8,826
    They will never be satisfied unless they get our 2A repealed.
    Then they will steam roll their efforts on the 1A, 4A, 5A.......
     
    etrain16, Slobray and 3MTA3 like this.
  16. Slobray

    Slobray Yelm, WA Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    796
    Likes Received:
    1,532
    Depending on the judge, all someone has to do is say that someone owning or buying a gun is scary and boom loss of rights for a year (to start with). No where in this initiative does it say that a burden of proof has to be shown by the petitioner.

    "Sec. 4. PETITION FOR AN EXTREME RISK PROTECTION ORDER.
    (3)(a) Allege 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, and be accompanied by an affidavit made under oath stating the specific statements, actions, or facts that give rise to a reasonable fear of future dangerous acts by the respondent; "


    "Sec. 5. EXTREME RISK PROTECTION ORDER HEARINGS AND ISSUANCE.
    (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:
    (h) The respondent's ownership, access to, or intent to possess firearms;
    (m) Evidence of recent acquisition of firearms by the respondent."


    So much for "safeguards to protect the rights of respondents and due process of law" as stated in section 1 (5), they can say you must surrender your guns before you get the privilege of due process.

    "Sec. 6. EX PARTE EXTREME RISK PROTECTION ORDERS.
    (1) A petitioner may request that an ex parte extreme risk protection order be issued before a hearing for an extreme risk protection order, without notice to the respondent, by including in the petition detailed allegations based on personal knowledge that the respondent poses a significant danger of causing personal injury to self or others in the near future by having in his or her custody or control, purchasing, possessing, or receiving a firearm."


    "Sec. 6. EX PARTE EXTREME RISK PROTECTION ORDERS.
    (5) (g) The following statement: "To the subject of this protection order: This order is valid until the date and time noted above. You are required to surrender all firearms in your custody, control, or possession. You may not have in your custody or control, purchase, possess, receive, or attempt to purchase or receive, a firearm while this order is in effect. You must surrender to the (insert name of local law enforcement agency) all firearms in your custody, control, or possession and any concealed pistol license issued to you under RCW 9.41.070 immediately. A hearing will be held on the date and at the time noted above to determine if an extreme risk protection order should be issued. Failure to appear at that hearing may result in a court making an order against you that is valid for one year. You may seek the advice of an attorney as to any matter connected with this order."

    Then there's the whole ordeal of getting it terminated.


    "Sec. 9. TERMINATION AND RENEWAL OF ORDERS.
    (1) The respondent may submit one written request for a hearing to terminate an extreme risk protection order issued under this chapter every twelve-month period that the order is in effect, starting from the date of the order and continuing through any renewals.

    (a) Upon receipt of the request for a hearing to terminate an extreme risk protection order, the court shall set a date for a hearing. Notice of the request must be served on the petitioner in
    accordance with RCW 4.28.080. The hearing shall occur no sooner than fourteen days and no later than thirty days from the date of service of the request upon the petitioner.

    (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.

    (c) If the court finds after the hearing that the respondent has met his or her burden, the court shall terminate the order.

    (2) The court must notify the petitioner of the impending expiration of an extreme risk protection order. Notice must be received by the petitioner one hundred five calendar days before the date the order expires.

    So a person has to wait a year to ask the court for permission to have a hearing for termination of said order. Then they have to wait up to an extra 30 days after the petitioner has been informed (God only knows how long that will take). All they have to do to keep your right suspended is to use the same reasoning from Section 5(3), you know the one that says wanting a gun is grounds for this order (see above). "If the court finds" the person has "met his or her burden" and will get their right restored they wait another 105 days after informing the petitioner (again, God only knows how long that will take). Also, during the waiting period they can start the whole process all over again.

    Sec. 11. RETURN AND DISPOSAL OF FIREARMS.
    (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.

    Oh boy, once the person waits for over a year to have their rights restored, they then they have to ask to have their personal property returned to them.

    Sec. 13. PENALTIES.
    (1) Any person who files a petition under this chapter knowing the information in such petition
    to be materially false, or with intent to harass the respondent, is guilty of a gross misdemeanor.

    The only thing in this whole thing that almost makes sense. My problem is that if someone is guilty of making false claims they only get a slap on the wrist, this doesn't go far enough.



    Bend over WA residents, this very bad initiative will be forced on us by the anti's and their bottomless check book.

    Ray
     
  17. boogerhook

    boogerhook Seattle Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    1,153
    Likes Received:
    1,224
    Because now they have enough signatures to put it on the ballot.
     
  18. bilge pump

    bilge pump Federal Way WA Member

    Messages:
    40
    Likes Received:
    14
    Presumption of innocence, and burden of proof when depriving someone of property, constitutional rights, and liberty are completely dismissed by the sponsors who foist this bill on the public.
     
  19. nwslopoke

    nwslopoke forest grove Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    309
    Likes Received:
    610
    Several years ago there was a YouTuber out of Tennessee or somewhere down south that lost his guns and right to them.

    As I recall him telling it, he ended in a medical hospital and they wanted to hold him. As he was a farmer he said, hey I got to get back to my animals. I don't have time for whatever they wanted to do for him. They got mad after he made some sarcastic remarks and he ended up on a mental hold for several days.

    When it was all done it was his word against the doctor's and he lost. After many months it went to a judge. At the end of the day, it's going to be a rare judge or official that puts their good name or status on the line for a potential nut job.
     
  20. Slobray

    Slobray Yelm, WA Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    796
    Likes Received:
    1,532
    This thing is even worse than that, it doesn't even have to be a doctor; It can be an ex, a baby mama/daddy (whether you lived together or not), a step parent/child, an old roommate that hasn't lived with you for 11 months or someone you have dated. All it would take is for a person to go on one date with an anti and let it slip that they own a gun, goodbye due process, goodbye gun rights for an extended period of time.


    Ray
     
    Caveman Jim likes this.