Washington Seattle “red flag” law

[partsed]

Seattle police legally seizing guns under 'red flag' law


Seattle police legally seizing guns under 'red flag' law



Explore the Fox News apps that are right for you at http://www.foxnews.com/apps-products/index.html.

Read More

 

[slimmer13]

They say "legally" seizing guns, but if you havent committed a crime, how can you have due process.

Pretty sure pre crime is what the 5th and 14th Amendments were written to protect against.

 

[Stomper]

I'm amused that they edited the video of @Dave Workman to make it seem like he supported the "red flag" law in Seattle....

 

[11Charlie]

This not going to be good!

 

[Mark W.]

9 months 27 firearms from 13 people Sounds like they might actually be dealing with people this is a good thing.

But of course they have to be watched closely to make sure its not abused.

 

[druiseeker]

There are definitely people who shouldn't own or carry weapons. Firearms included. The biggest complaint about the ERPO's is that there is almost ZERO way to fight and get your rights/property restored without having to spend a lot of your OWN money. There needs to be a better administrative process than hiring a lawyer and going back to court. This is crazy!!

 

[partsed]

Sounds kind of like the garbage we have down here.....

 

[Quartermaster]

9 months 27 firearms from 13 people Sounds like they might actually be dealing with people this is a good thing.

But of course they have to be watched closely to make sure its not abused.

I agree with this. In some cases there aren't prior arrests, or crimes commited until people act out their insanity on an unarmed public. It's absolutely critical that the judges remain impartial, and if the testimony against them in exparte court doesn't prove to be valid, then those who petitioned should be held criminally liable; including police. I don't feel that these laws are detrimental to the law abiding so long as the burden of proof lies on the accuser, and not the accused; because the accused can't prove a negative. They can't prove they AREN'T a threat.

 

[KKG]

I'm amused that they edited the video of @Dave Workman to make it seem like he supported the "red flag" law in Seattle....

With some of the things he supports, I wouldn't be surprised.

 

[nwslopoke]

I would like to know in any of these cases would existing law have prevented them for confiscating these firearms. My bet is they could have gotten them with a judge's signature.

 

[cigars]

Not to be the wet blanket here but there's always the domestic violence guy who winds up killing his ex because he's a bit unstable. My buddy worked DV for the last couple of years and I got to hear about a lot of it.
Comes down to damned if you do, damned if you don't thing. Every situation is different. Unfortunately we are surrounded at the moment by a bunch of vindictive Progressives who simply want to not only take away everybody's guns but also want to silence their opponents. For a moment of clarity, if it was my daughter who had to deal with a psycho ex who had an established history of violence then that's the guy who I would support having his guns put on ice. People who do not know how to behave in society don't belong in society.

 

[bentoncity]

Here's the reality of the situation. Feel free to point out any errors or mis-information I'm stating or providing. ([email protected] or 509-588-8842) I do & will concede there's a need to protect individuals along the 'premise' on something akin to the 7.94 RCW's. What I don't agree with is the method of the RCW wherein it utterly violates constitutional rights.

The ERPO's (Emergency Risk Protection Order) the police are running in Wa. state are legally valid as I-1491 (Washington State Initiative) was passed by the voters and became law in the RCW's under
Chapter 7.94 RCW
EXTREME RISK PROTECTION ORDER ACT
Albeit I believe the RCW is bullbubblegum and not enforceable, it has yet to be challenged in the courts in so far as I know. IMHO I believe the ERPO violates the 4th and 2nd amendments but I'm forced to leave that aspect to the courts since I lack the funds to counter the rcw in the courts. Isn't that a surprise since the anti-gun people spent around $5,000,000.00 (as in 5 MILLION DOLLARS) to pass I-1491 vs. zero $0.00 dollars to oppose the initiative. Thank you NRA & NRA-ILA for your support (as in NOT!)

You should see the out of state dollars (yes-out of state) that were spent to support I-1491. Why is that? I ran the full spreadsheet on the $$ support and it's darn sure scary. Why is someone in Florida, or anyone out of state, supporting something like I-1491 in Washington and they don't even have a residence or property here? I have the federal mandated contributions in an Excel spreadsheet if you want it.

FWIW, I contacted the NRA & the NRA-ILA (at every level possible as an NRA member) and requested their support to provide opposing views/opinions backed by factual data that outlined the potential abuses of I-1491. Not one DAMN word/response from the NRA or NRA-ILA that was worth anything besides, we support etc crappola rhetoric? I provided/made a SINGLE & posted you-tube VIDEO arguing against I-1491. David Combs, the ACLU, NAMI (National Alliance on Mental Illness) wrote against I-1491 but the NRA, NRA-ILA couldn't/wouldn't do the same for FREE? WTF? How damn lazy/stupid can you be? And yes I have the data to support my allegations.
Here's the complete workup I put together in Word format outlining the fallacies and potential abuses as provided by I-1491. I sent this to every legislator in the state but...here's what went out.
-------------------------------------
The proponents of I-1491 are being utterly disingenuous in their statements. This initiative is not a grass roots effort by a grieving parent. It's a carefully designed program financed by anti-gun proponents with a lot of money. This initiative allows personal weapons to be seized without any due process of law. Literally anyone can request an extreme risk protection order (ERPO) which could be granted as an ex parte order thereby denying the accused the right to defend themselves against said order.

In simple English, the swat team shows up at your door.

There's nothing in this initiative that would prevent any gun deaths, much less address the purported issue of depression or anxiety on a 'assumption only' by an untrained individual. What is here is a hopeful new law by anti-gun individuals/organizations that utterly violates an individual's constitutional rights.

Know I-1491 – "Extreme Risk Protection Orders"
What you should know about Washington State Initiative 1491:

Unfortunately, I-1491 includes language about mental illness and associates it with mass shootings and other gun violence. 1 The short description on your ballot will read as follows:

"This measure would allow police, family, or household members to obtain court orders temporarily preventing firearms access by persons exhibiting mental illness, violent or other behavior indicating they may harm themselves or others."

These court orders are called Extreme Risk Protection Orders and are issued for 1 year and are renewable indefinitely.

I-1491 Stigmatizes mental illness with gun violence and mass shootings:

The broad use of the term "persons exhibiting mental illness" and detailed language 1 in the initiative about gun violence and mass shooters creates a direct link between anyone with a mental illness and violent acts including "mass shootings."

Although the sponsors of the initiative have now tried to remove all of these references to mental illness from their website, the language still remains in the initiative and cannot be changed prior to the general election.

Myths versus facts about violence and mental illness:

"Myth: People with mental health problems are violent and unpredictable. Fact: The vast majority of people with mental health problems are no more likely to be violent than anyone else. Most people with mental illness are not violent and only 3%-5% of violent acts can be attributed to individuals living with a serious mental illness. In fact, people with severe mental illnesses are over 10 times more likely to be victims of violent crime than the general population." <broken link removed> (<broken link removed>)

Facts about mass shooters:

Mass shooters have behaviors and symptoms that are difficult to detect 3 (National Institute of Health). Therefore, the likelihood that this initiative will significantly reduce mass shootings is not scientifically proven.

I-1491 duplicates new laws and doesn't provide treatment:

Washington State's "Joel's Law" 4 passed in 2015 already provides protection for individuals and those close to them by providing families a legal process for obtaining an involuntary treatment to a mental health facility when a person is determined to be a danger to themselves or others. An individual with a record of an involuntary treatment beyond 14 days cannot obtain or own a firearm.

Additionally, the highly respected organization "Forefront – Innovations in Suicide Prevention in partnership with the University of Washington School of Social Work" (Forefront remains conspicuously silent on any support of I-1491) championed new Washington State laws, that train medical professionals and educational professionals to identify, intervene, and get treatment for potentially suicidal persons.

I-1491 does nothing to provide treatment. It simply takes guns away from what it identifies as potentially dangerous persons and hopes they won't use other lethal means or acquire guns illegally.

Due process is undermined:

This initiative undermines due process by allowing for ex parte orders, which are expedited hearings and judgments without required notification of the accused to be present to defend themselves. These temporary orders can even be issued by lower courts, such as municipal courts, by judges with little or no experience in issuing this type of order. Petitions to the court can be submitted by a broad set of individuals, including household members, police, dating partners, and former roommates. Unsupported statements by a potentially hostile petitioner can be used as sole evidence in issuing the "Extreme risk protection order". Additionally, no public defender is provided, so the accused must pay for their own defense in any subsequent hearings. In order to seek relief from an Extreme Risk Protection Order, the accused has the burden of proof to show by a preponderance of evidence that they are no longer a danger to themselves or others. The cost of hiring a lawyer and providing expert testimony and documentation places a financial burden that many respondents may not be able to afford.

National Alliance on Mental Illness (NAMI) Washington has concerns:

The National Alliance on Mental Illness (NAMI) Washington is neutral on I-1491. However, NAMI Washington has concerns that the specific identification of mental illness in the bill will pose a significant deterrent to care and have the effect of erecting more barriers to treatment by raising fears that seeking help will result in loss of gun ownership rights. This law would also reinforce false public perceptions about the relationship between mental illness and gun violence. 5

American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) Washington has concerns:

The ACLU of Washington takes no position on I-1491 but does not support the initiative because of due process and other concerns including the recording of the protection order in court databases, which are open to the public. 6

Methods for confiscation of firearms provokes "Extreme Risk":

Once law enforcement is given an order to remove firearms from someone that has been determined to be at "Extreme Risk" of harm to themselves or others, police are not likely to politely knock on the door and ask the individual to surrender their firearms. Police are going to treat the individual as armed and dangerous and follow protocols that will most likely use tactical units and force to subdue the individual. Such an approach would create "Extreme Risk" to the individual, the officers, and bystanders. Faced with this type of invasion, an individual may attempt to defend themselves with firearms or even commit suicide in desperation. At best, the individual, who may have not even been notified of a hearing, will be subjected to fear and humiliation and an extensive search of their property.

No judicial training for cases involving mental illness claims:

I-1491 calls for the use of superior court judges to hear protection order petitions even when the evidence is based on a claim of mental illness. There is no provision to move these cases to mental health courts or for training superior court judges on mental health law and diagnosis. There is also no provision to have a trained mental health professional be present to advise an untrained judge in such matters.

Citations:

1. I-1491 Language
2. <broken link removed>
3. Mental Illness, Mass Shootings, and the Politics of American Firearms
4. Washington State Legislature
5. NAMI WA Position
6. ACLU WA Position
American Civil Liberties Union Washington – Position on Initiative 1491
"The ACLU of Washington has not taken a position on Initiative 1491. We do not support the initiative because of the due process and other concerns outlined below. While keeping guns out of the hands of people who pose serious risks to safety is a reasonable public safety measure, the ACLU's role is to evaluate such measures by their impact on civil liberties, and we have concerns that the initiative has inadequate due process procedures. Further, these deficient due process procedures could set a bad precedent for other criminal justice processes.

1. The initiative allows a broad and vaguely defined group of people (family, household member, police) to seek the protection order. A protection order can be issued based on vague criteria ("significant danger") that a person is an "extreme risk." The protection order can be obtained from a judge ex parte – without notice to the person being accused. This severely limits the ability of a person to challenge an order once it is entered.
2. The initiative puts the burden of proof on the accused to show, after 12 months, that the order should be lifted. It is unclear how persons would prove their lack of danger. The concerns are compounded because of problems we've seen with other kinds of protection orders in WA: Although they are initially temporary, after a period of time, there are efforts to expand the scope of the orders to make them permanent, or to further abridge the due process provisions.
3.The initiative requires recording the order in court databases, which are open to the public. A record showing that a person had gun rights taken away based on being an "extreme risk" may well haunt an individual for the rest of their life – regardless of rehabilitation – erecting barriers for them when they undergo a background check for employment, housing, etc."

Source: Email from ACLU WA to David Combs, dated June 28, 2016.

Supporters
Officials U.S. Rep. Adam Smith (D-9)[5]
Parties
Washington State Democrats[6]
University of Washington Young Democrats
Benton County Democrats
Skagit County Democrats
Spokane County Democrats
Whatcom County Democrats
1st Legislative District Democrats
3rd Legislative District Democrats
4th Legislative District Democrats
5th Legislative District Democrats
8th Legislative District Democrats
10th Legislative District Democrats
17th Legislative District Democrats
18th Legislative District Democrats
20th Legislative District Democrats
23rd Legislative District Democrats
25th Legislative District Democrats
27th Legislative District Democrats
28th Legislative District Democrats
30th Legislative District Democrats
32nd Legislative District Democrats
36th Legislative District Democrats
37th Legislative District Democrats
38th Legislative District Democrats
39th Legislative District Democrats
40th Legislative District Democrats
41st Legislative District Democrats
43rd Legislative District Democrats
44th Legislative District Democrats
45th Legislative District Democrats
46th Legislative District Democrats
47th Legislative District Democrats
49th Legislative District Democrats
Civic organizations
League of Women Voters of Washington[6]
Planned Parenthood Votes Northwest and Hawaii
Greater Seattle Business Association
Anti-Defamation League, Pacific NW
Center for Justice – Attorneys and Advocates
Legal Voice
League of Women Voters – Spokane
Capitol Hill Chamber of Commerce
Northwest Progressive Institute[7]
Washington Peace Alliance
Smith-Barbieri Progressive Fund, A Charitable Foundation
Northwest Progressive Institute
Fuse Washington
Washington Bus
YWCA of Pierce County
YWCA of Olympia
Gun violence prevention groups
Brady Campaign[6]
Everytown for Gun Safety
Americans for Responsible Solutions
Seattle Brady Campaign
The Law Center to Prevent Gun Violence
Moms Rising
States United
NE Tacoma Neighbors For Gun Responsibility
Ceasefire Washington
Coalition to Stop Gun Violence
Grandmothers Against Gun Violence
Moms Demand Action for Gun Sense in America
Safe and Sane Skagit
Safety Now
Sandy Hook Promise
Medical organizations
American Academy of Pediatrics, Washington[6]
National Physicians Alliance, Washington
Doctors for America, Washington Chapter
Washington State Public Health Association
King County Medical Society
Religious organizations
Faith Action Network[6]
Jewish Federation of Greater Seattle
Temple De Hirsch Sinai
National Council of Jewish Women
Rabbis Against Gun Violence
Jewish Family Service
Kol HaNeshamah
Kadima Reconstructionist Community
Church Council of Greater Seattle
Herzl Ner Tamid Conservative Congregation
Congregation Beth Shalom
Temple Beth Am Seattle
Queen Anne United Methodist Church
Sravasti Abbey
Temple Beth Am
United Methodist Church
Temple De Hirsch Sinai
Herzl-Ner Tamid Conservative Congregation
Congregation Beth Shalom
Kol Haneshamah
Alki United Church of Christ
First AME Church (Seattle)
Trinity Parish Episcopal Church
Immanuel Presbyterian Church
The United Churches of Olympia
Central Lutheran Church
Bethel Congregational Church, United Church of Christ
Madrona Grace Presbyterian Church
Pacific Northwest Annual Conference of the United Methodist Church
Unions
American Federation of Teachers, Washington[6]

Official arguments supporting I-1491
Marilyn Balcerak, Stephanie Holten, Sheriff John Urquhart of King County, Regina Malveaux, CEO of the YWCA of Spokane, Ken Taylor, CEO of Valley Cities Behavioral Health Care, and former Washington Supreme Court Justice Bobbe Bridge wrote the official argument in support of Initiative 1491. Their argument is as follows:[2]
Washington State has taken important steps to keep guns out of dangerous hands. But there are still gaps in our laws that make it hard to keep guns away from people threatening violence against themselves or others. We know that the majority of mass shooters and individuals who attempt suicide show signs of their intentions, but current law leaves families and law enforcement - often first to see those warning signs - unable to take life-saving action.

Initiative 1491: Empower Families, Prevent Gun Violence
Initiative 1491 empowers families and law enforcement to prevent tragedy -- giving them a chance to remove guns from a dangerous situation when they know someone is a threat to themselves or others. Parents of shooters at Isla Vista, Seattle's Cafe Racer, and other tragedies have said they could have used this type of law to prevent senseless violence. Initiative 1491 would also expand protections that keep guns out of the hands of domestic abusers. Similar laws in other states have been shown to prevent some suicides.

Initiative 1491: Respect Due Process
Initiative 1491 closely follows existing process for other civil protection orders. Both parties may present evidence in court. A judge determines whether evidence of danger is sufficient and issues an order, effective for one year. There are criminal penalties for false petitions.

Initiative 1491: Community Support
Endorsed by Washington State Public Health Association, League of Women Voters, Faith Action Network, Everytown for Gun Safety, law enforcement, domestic violence experts, gun owners, and gun violence survivors.


Official arguments against I-1491
David Combs, Linda Sherry, Sen. Dean Takko (D-19), Rep. Matt Shea (R-4), and Dave Workman wrote the argument against Initiative 1491 found in the state's voter guide. Their argument is as follows:[2]

I-1491 Duplicates Existing Laws
I-1491 disregards existing state laws that already require treatment and restriction of potentially dangerous individuals. I-1491 doesn't require evaluation, treatment, or monitoring and does nothing to address underlying issues. Recently implemented laws actually provide early detection and intervention of persons at danger to themselves or others.
Stigmatizes Mental Illness
I-1491 associates mental illness with mass shootings and violent crime. Statistics show that only 3%-5% of violent acts are committed by people with serious mental illness. The vast majority of people with mental illness are not violent and are ten times more likely to be victims of violent crime than the general population.
Violates Rights
A broadly defined set of people, including former roommates and police, can file a petition against you. Due process is undermined by allowing immediate ex parte orders; hearings and judgments without notice to the accused person. The definition of "Extreme Risk" is unclear. A judge can issue an order based on arbitrary factors and reported behaviors including simply purchasing a gun legally. To be released from an order, a person must prove he/she is not a danger to themselves or others and pay for the tremendous cost of their own defense.
Gives False Sense of Security
There is no evidence that such orders reduce mass shootings and violent crime.
Restrictions on firearm ownership should not be based on ideological agendas manipulating public fears and misconceptions about gun violence. I-1491 is a targeted, discriminatory abridgement of Second Amendment rights. Vote No!
As of October 8, 2016, there is one support committee and one opposition committee registered.

Support
One ballot measure campaign committee registered in support of Initiative 1491 as of October 8, 2016. The contribution and expenditure totals below were current as of October 8, 2016.[13]
PAC

Amount raised Amount spent

Alliance for Gun Responsibility ERP Committee

$3,690,754.83 $2,356,553.06

Total
$3,690,754.83 $2,356,553.06


The following are the top five donors who contributed to the Alliance for Gun Responsibility Committee as of October 8, 2016:
Nicolas Hanauer $650,000
Everytown for Gun Safety Action Fund $550,000
Steve Ballmer $500,000
Paul G. Allen $250,000
Americans for Responsible Solutions PAC $250,000
Opposition
One ballot measure campaign committee registered in opposition to Initiative 1491 as of October 8, 2016. The contribution and expenditure totals below were current as of October 8, 2016.

Know I-1491 Sponsored by David Combs $0.00 $0.00

Per myself to to bob ferguson, (wa atg),
Unknown why the AG office is sticking its' nose into an issue that's a constitutional right. What makes this issue disgusting is there's no validation your proposals will do anything to stop actions you're advocating against. The actions by criminals will not be affected by anything your office can dream up. Virtually every gun owner I know has semi-autos in one form or another but don't use them to commit violent acts.
According to 2 FBI reports,

Murder victims by Weapon, 2010–2014
Weapons 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014
Total firearms: 8,874 8,653 8,897 8,454 8,124
Handguns 6,115 6,251 6,404 5,782 5,562
Rifles 367 332 298 285 248
Shotguns 366 362 310 308 262

& Expanded Homicide Data Table 8

Weapons 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012
Total firearms: 9,528 9,199 8,874 8,653 8,855
Handguns 6,800 6,501 6,115 6,251 6,371
Rifles 380 351 367 332 322
Shotguns 442 423 366 362 303

The FBI reports (2014) clearly indicate handguns far outweigh rifle deaths. Rifle, as in the AR-15 type rifle you want to ban. I can show you a 100 shooters capable of hot swapping a 10 round magazine in a pistol in under 1 second.
"It takes a shooter roughly six to eight seconds to fire off a 30-round magazine, which was reportedly used in the Newtown massacre, according to Joseph Green, a retired firearms instructor and agent of the federal Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives.

On the other hand, a trained shooter would need about 13.5 to 22 seconds to fire the same number of bullets with six magazines containing five rounds. That means limiting magazines from 30 to seven rounds really only slows a determined shooter down by about 7.5 to 14 seconds."

Per your website, "A recent poll presented by Washington Ceasefire and Ceasefire Oregon showed that 65 percent of adults in the two states — including a great many gun owners — favor an assault weapons ban and want lawmakers to act."
What a line of BS. That info was cherry picked and provides no validation what-so-ever. A survey of 310 people can hardly be considered worthy.

The above is like me saying 100% of the individuals surveyed in my poll support no limits on semi-auto weapons in any manner or form. It's true because I only surveyed people I knew were in support of no limits on semi-autos.
Your office should stick to more pressing matters affecting our state instead of jumping onto a PC correct bandwagon. Before you carry on with this nonsense, I'd suggest you and your anti gun people review this video made by Indiana sheriffs. It sure as hell puts your bullbubblegum 'theories and facts' in the trash and shows you the liars you are.

 

[SIG34]

watchout stupid laws

 

[Tangent123123]

Not to be the wet blanket here but there's always the domestic violence guy who winds up killing his ex because he's a bit unstable. My buddy worked DV for the last couple of years and I got to hear about a lot of it.
Comes down to damned if you do, damned if you don't thing. Every situation is different. Unfortunately we are surrounded at the moment by a bunch of vindictive Progressives who simply want to not only take away everybody's guns but also want to silence their opponents. For a moment of clarity, if it was my daughter who had to deal with a psycho ex who had an established history of violence then that's the guy who I would support having his guns put on ice. People who do not know how to behave in society don't belong in society.

And there is always the ex-wife/girlfriend who makes bubblegum up and then files a restraining order to cause trouble or make themselves look better in divorce court or for whatever other reason. We all know it happens. There needs to be some checks and balances here and penalty for abusing the system.

 

[cigars]

And there is always the ex-wife/girlfriend who makes bubblegum up and then files a restraining order to cause trouble or make themselves look better in divorce court or for whatever other reason. We all know it happens. There needs to be some checks and balances here and penalty for abusing the system.

It is indeed a slippery slope.

 

[bentoncity]

Sounds kind of like the garbage we have down here.....

You seen Initiative 43? Was 42 but.. Either/or reads as a virtual TOTAL BAN if you read it through. Maybe cap guns are allowed but I'm thinking not because they have a pistol grip. Hmm?

Dan

 

[The Heretic]

They say "legally" seizing guns, but if you havent committed a crime, how can you have due process.

Pretty sure pre crime is what the 5th and 14th Amendments were written to protect against.

"Legal" does not especially equal "constitutional" or "moral" in our justice system. In 1798 the Sedition Act was passed making it illegal to criticize the government and a number of people, including newspaper owners were put in prison.

Power corrupts and people forget quickly or willfully ignore.

 

[P7M13]

Fcuknig click bait - the Merck ad for "gonnakillya" was longer than the video. "Ask your doctor..."
If only there could be an ad, "here, take this drug and mask all the symptoms you might be cited for in a I-1491 petition..."

Slippery slope, I can see this being abused all too quickly. 13 People, 27 Guns - evidently they haven't found the next Vegas shooter yet.
The news vid was definitely slanted. All the people I know in the Seattle area are snowflakes. I can see them lapping up this dog food.

 

[justcuz]

Deckert, your missive regarding I-1491 passed by the voters Nov 16, does what except to promote history on a bill which the VOTERS passed.

Your articulated history is after the fact! It doesn't address the crux of the problem in WA ~ the statutes exists for special interests to promote self promoting initiatives, period!

Instead of 'oh my' yet another tenuous initiative was presented to the voters of this state and supported by outside special interests and passed, why hasn't anybody challenged the basic premise of how to eliminate this facade in the first place. OMGoodness, Washingtonians screamed or jumped up and down or wrung their hands over the sky is falling initiative(s) presented, 594~passed, 1491~passed yet not one iota of screaming or jumping up and down over the basic concept itself which began in the early 1900s.

(sidebar: are you aware of Initiative Measure No. 1621 concerns possession of firearms on school grounds. This measure would allow nonstudents to carry pistols on school grounds if they are licensed to carry concealed pistols, with certain requirements for school employees, and end requirements to post "GUN-FREE ZONE" signs. Filed on 02/23/2018)

Back to the main thrust of this thread:
WA is but one of 5 states who currently have ERPO statutes on the books and a gaggle of others are proposing them.

"California, Washington, Oregon, Indiana and Connecticut have statutes that can be used to temporarily take guns away from people a judge deems a threat to themselves or others. Lawmakers in 18 other states — including Florida — plus the District of Columbia have proposed similar measures. At the federal level, Rep. Salud Carbajal (D-Calif.) and Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.) introduced legislation last May that would encourage states to adopt the approach.

" Five states allow guns to be seized before someone can commit violence

RCW 7.94.030
Petition for order
(10) The superior courts of the state of Washington have jurisdiction over proceedings under this chapter. Additionally, district and municipal courts have limited jurisdiction over issuance and enforcement of ex parte extreme risk protection orders issued under RCW 7.94.050. The district or municipal court shall set the full hearing provided for in RCW 7.94.040 in superior court and transfer the case. If the notice and order are not served on the respondent in time for the full hearing, the issuing court has concurrent jurisdiction with the superior court to extend the ex parte extreme risk protection order.

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.

It appears I fail to see where any citizens' due process has been mitigated or usurped by RCW 7.94.xxx.

My regret is there is no mention of MH determination during the due process!

 

[justcuz]

And there is always the ex-wife/girlfriend who makes bubblegum up and then files a restraining order to cause trouble or make themselves look better in divorce court or for whatever other reason. We all know it happens. There needs to be some checks and balances here and penalty for abusing the system.

Sorry, male's also do exactly the same thing but the one time the partitioning individual's request for an RO is not taken seriously the results can be devastating to the familial members, e.g., children, parents, etc.