Seattle police confiscate gun without conviction...

[Boboclown]

The report said was starring people down...not something you'd do if you were OC'ing I'd think. Then again w/o hearing both sides I think we're left with a lot of assumptions.

That's the problem I'm having. We only know that 1) the guy had a gun holstered 2) people were scared 3) cops were called.

How the events really happened we don't know.

 

[awshoot]

I'm torn on this but in the end without more detail, have to come down on the side of the 4th & 5th Amendment. It is always the case that the first time authorities expand their powers, they do it against someone nobody can stand because it is extremely hard to believe that some pedophile or whack-job who has their rights violated, didn't have it coming. From there though, the policy sees gradual creeping expansion until it even effects your sweet old grandma type next door.

Secondly, it isn't the type of thing where he can just go and prove he's normal and get his gun back. First, the person who is the subject of an extreme risk protection order will have at most 14 days, and as few as seven (five court days plus a weekend as I read it), to put together a case in his defense.

Next up, the state only has to present a preponderance of the evidence in support of the order -- this is the easiest standard to meet and it means if the State can convince the judge that its evidence is more than 50% correct, the State wins. We aren't talking about a criminal case where the standard is beyond a reasonable doubt, we're talking about a case where the judge can be 49.999% doubtful of the State's evidence, and the State wins -- that's what a preponderance means, 50% plus a feather.

Once the order is in place, a person can only seek to have it removed once every 12 months.

So, imagine you are targeted by one of these orders unfairly. The cops show up at your door, take your guns, tell you that there is a hearing next week to determine if this seizure should last a full year. Even if you can find an attorney to take your case on such short notice, there is absolutely no way you are going to get the requisite mental health eval done in time for the hearing -- something you'll need to stand any chance against the low standard of proof required of the State. That exam will also cost you about a grand on top of your attorney fees, so if you are broke, you can kiss your rights goodby. Anyway, with this procedure, there is no way you will be winning that hearing and then you'll be at the mercy of the court schedule for the next year while you spend thousands of dollars on attorney fees and expert witness fees to regain the rights you are supposed to have been born with.

-----------citations------

RCW 7.94.050: Ex parte orders.
(5) In accordance with RCW 7.94.040(1), the court shall schedule a hearing within fourteen days of the issuance of an ex parte extreme risk protection order to determine if a one-year extreme risk protection order should be issued under this chapter.

RCW 7.94.040: Hearings on petition—Grounds for order issuance.
(1) Upon receipt of the petition, the court shall order a hearing to be held not later than fourteen days from the date of the order and issue a notice of hearing to the respondent for the same.
***

(c) Personal service of the notice of hearing and petition shall be made upon the respondent by a law enforcement officer not less than five court days prior to the hearing. ...​

(2) 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.
***
(7)(g) ... You have the right to request one hearing to terminate this order every twelve-month period that this order is in effect, starting from the date of this order and continuing through any renewals.

 

[Keepmsharp]

I read several comments saying they support due process then go on to explain how they support the exact opposite. There is a reason people are not supposed to pick and choose when due process is to be applied.

 

[Koda]

The guy had multiple harassment complaints against him over time why cant one of those lead to a conviction that could be used to remove his guns? So we took his guns away, but let him go? Now hes both unstable and pissed he doesn't have his guns.

These extreme risk protection order laws are written in response to domestic violence situations. What makes this case interesting is this was a public incident of random victims... it was able to be applied in this case because the police are the only other people that can file an ERPO other than immediate family, roommates, lovers, etc.

 

[Koda]

There aren't many details in the story so it is hard to say but perhaps this would have applied, RCW 9A.46.020: Definition—Penalties. :

its seems like they could have expanded on this one to up the penalty for harassment upon conviction, to include removal of firearms.
But they didn't, and write new laws the remove a persons due process. It doesn't seem like there is any existing law to deal with this...

 

[Superglide]

I read several comments saying they support due process then go on to explain how they support the exact opposite. There is a reason people are not supposed to pick and choose when due process is to be applied.

That privilige is reserved for the POTUS.

 

[nwslopoke]

The police do not need to read your Miranda Rights upon arrest. Its only prior to interrogation that they need to.

However it was said the gun was holstered, not that he pointed it at anyone.

Hard to get in an uproar because the story only said he made some people feel uncomfortable. This is the current standard. There was a story in Portland where a woman wanted some guy arrested for staring.

On the othere hand, low information doesn't mean the guy wasn't a wack job. Open carrying a .25 acp in Seattle just begs the question, what's your plan homie? Hopefully Felony Fear, doesn't beome a thing.

 

[Koda]

Hard to get in an uproar because the story only said he made some people feel uncomfortable. This is the current standard. There was a story in Portland where a woman wanted some guy arrested for staring.

On the othere hand, low information doesn't mean the guy wasn't a wack job. Open carrying a .25 acp in Seattle just begs the question, what's your plan homie? Hopefully Felony Fear, doesn't beome a thing.

My take is this is the one case where the law was used for good, but that doesnt mean the due process loophols is a good thing.... The law is wide open for abuse, all it takes is one anti-gun cop investigating your narcisstic vindictive neighbors (ex roommate, ex lover, family...) incessant unmerited complaints against you just because they know you own guns.

Better start kissing bubblegum to these folks and start removing those pro gun stickers from your vehicles, lawful responsible gun owners are being shoved in the closet.