WA gun rights restoration

[woodsrunner]

I plead guilty to a class c felony in juvenile court in 1998. in 2005 I hired a lawyer and had the record sealed/vacated and my gun rights restored (which was a separated procedure done by the lawyer at the same time). Since then I just bought one rifle from an FFL with no problem.My question is are my rights restored in other states? My lawyer said the federal government DOES recognize WA gun rights restoration. I would assume if the FFL does the check in WA state and comes back clean, it should come back clean when a dealer does the same check in another state. I'm asking because i'm thinking of getting a rifle at the Post Falls Cabela's. Also if I move out of state and become a resident of another state. From what I heard on the internet if the convicting state restores your right then your good to go, just wondered if anybody on here had experience with this, thanks in advance for any info!

Read More

 

[IronMonster]

You should be fine.

 

[Argonaut]

The background check system is a Federal program that relies on imput from the states. You passed it when you last bought a gun. Unless something has changed, you should be good anywhere.

 

[KKG]

You might want to check with the Federal Attorney where you live. They should be able to answer your question.

 

[rdb241]

If memory serves me right. The ATF precludes you from ownership if you have served more than 365 days in jail. Or if the felony was a crime of violence. On a Federal level. If you were convicted after 1994 in the state of Washington for a non violent felony. You must petition the court of record to have your record expunged. If your conviction was prior to 1994, and complete everything the court required. You would receive what's called a "Certificate of Discharge" signed by the Judge of the court of record. When you receive that certificate. It clearly state that "ALL" of your civil rights have been restored. Inlcuding the right to vote, to get a passport and legally leave the country as well as you guns rights. In 1994 the certificate was no longer accepted thanx to the state legislators.

 

[Maynard87]

Washington does not recognize restoration-of-rights orders issued by other states and, conversely, some other states do not recognize Washington restoration-of-rights orders. When the FFL calls in the background check, the FBI's NICS Section is really evaluating three issues: (1) Is the prospective purchaser prohibited under federal law? (2) Is the prospective purchaser prohibited under the law of the state where he or she resides? And (3) Is the prospective purchaser prohibited under the law of the state where he or she received a prohibitive conviction?

Also, a "certificate and order of discharge" issued by a Washington Superior Court most assuredly does not restore firearm rights in the view of law enforcement, even though the paper issued by the court states that "all" civil rights are restored, or that the offender is "released from all penalties and disabilities," or similar language, and even though the discharge statute (RCW 9.94A.637(5)) states: "The discharge shall have the effect of restoring all civil rights . . ." There is a good argument to be made about this issue, but until somebody makes the argument and probably takes it all the way up to the Washington Supreme Court, it will still take a restoration-of-rights order under RCW 9.41.040(4) for a former felon to lawfully possess or purchase a firearm.

 

[WALawyer]

This is a warning I give all my clients. Your rights are restored under federal and WA state law, but not necessarily the laws of other states. You will have to research the laws of every state where you want to possess or purchase a firearm.

 

[WALawyer]

Washington does not recognize restoration-of-rights orders issued by other states and, conversely, some other states do not recognize Washington restoration-of-rights orders. When the FFL calls in the background check, the FBI's NICS Section is really evaluating three issues: (1) Is the prospective purchaser prohibited under federal law? (2) Is the prospective purchaser prohibited under the law of the state where he or she resides? And (3) Is the prospective purchaser prohibited under the law of the state where he or she received a prohibitive conviction?

Also, a "certificate and order of discharge" issued by a Washington Superior Court most assuredly does not restore firearm rights in the view of law enforcement, even though the paper issued by the court states that "all" civil rights are restored, or that the offender is "released from all penalties and disabilities," or similar language, and even though the discharge statute (RCW 9.94A.637(5)) states: "The discharge shall have the effect of restoring all civil rights . . ." There is a good argument to be made about this issue, but until somebody makes the argument and probably takes it all the way up to the Washington Supreme Court, it will still take a restoration-of-rights order under RCW 9.41.040(4) for a former felon to lawfully possess or purchase a firearm.

Only questions #1 and #2 are relevant, #3 is not. #3 is relevant to the inquiry in #1, but not on its own.

Firearm rights are not considered civil rights. Civil rights are only the right to vote, hold public office, and sit on a jury. Thus, a certificate of discharge restoring civil rights does not restore firearm rights. No trip to the supreme court necessary.

 

[WALawyer]

If memory serves me right. The ATF precludes you from ownership if you have served more than 365 days in jail. Or if the felony was a crime of violence. On a Federal level. If you were convicted after 1994 in the state of Washington for a non violent felony. You must petition the court of record to have your record expunged. If your conviction was prior to 1994, and complete everything the court required. You would receive what's called a "Certificate of Discharge" signed by the Judge of the court of record. When you receive that certificate. It clearly state that "ALL" of your civil rights have been restored. Inlcuding the right to vote, to get a passport and legally leave the country as well as you guns rights. In 1994 the certificate was no longer accepted thanx to the state legislators.

I don't correct people on the Internet just for kicks and giggles, but I do not want someone else to read this in the future and believe it. Almost everything in this post is legally incorrect.

 

[Tarawa86]

Welcome to the site, and I hope everything works out for you. I feel bad for those that have made mistakes in the folly of their youth that continue to haunt them later in life. I know but for the grace of God, there go I.

 

[rdb241]

I don't correct people on the Internet just for kicks and giggles, but I do not want someone else to read this in the future and believe it. Almost everything in this post is legally incorrect.

How?

 

[WALawyer]

All convictions for a crime punishable by more than a year in jail prohibit firearm possession under federal law, it doesn't matter if it's a crime of violence. The only exceptions are for "antitrust violations, unfair trade practices, restraints of trade, or other similar offenses" (because we can't be stripping the rights of rich people, obviously).

Washington state law is split into two categories:

1. Anyone who has been convicted of a felony prior to 1984 and received a probationary sentence that ended in a dismissal is not prohibited, unless he or she was convicted of "murder, manslaughter, robbery, rape, indecent liberties, arson, assault, kidnapping, extortion, burglary, or violations with respect to controlled substances."

2. Everyone else who has been convicted either pre 1984 for one of the enumerated felonies above or for any felony after 1984 is prohibited from possessing a firearm under Washington state law. It doesn't matter if it happened before or after 1994, it doesn't matter whether the felony was violent or nonviolent, and it doesn't matter if a certificate of discharge was issued. In these cases, a proper restoration must be done (or a pardon). The laws in effect at the time of the conviction do not matter. Firearm laws are regulatory in nature, not punitive, and therefore do not violate the ex post facto clause. Thus, it does not matter what the law read at the time of conviction, only what it reads now.

There is no such thing as petitioning the court to expunge a record, nothing like that exists in Washington state law. The petition is for a restoration of firearm rights.

As I explained in a previous post, "civil rights" do not include firearm rights.

Getting a passport has nothing to do with a certificate of discharge and there is no general right to "leave the country," because leaving the country necessarily presupposes that you're entering some other country and that other country has every right to turn you away for any reason.

 

[bikemutt]

This is a warning I give all my clients. Your rights are restored under federal and WA state law, but not necessarily the laws of other states. You will have to research the laws of every state where you want to possess or purchase a firearm.

WALawyer, from what you wrote it sounds as if someone who had his/her firearms rights restored in WA, who then travels to another state on say, a hunting trip, could be guilty of unlawful firearm possession in that state?

 

[WALawyer]

Yes, that is a possibility. Each state regulates firearm possession as it wants. For example, there was a case that went to the Washington Supreme Court over a decade ago where a felon from Montana who had regained his gun rights in Montana moved to Washington and then got charged with unlawful possession of a firearm. His conviction was ultimately reversed, but he basically just got lucky.

 

[woodsrunner]

Yes, that is a possibility. Each state regulates firearm possession as it wants. For example, there was a case that went to the Washington Supreme Court over a decade ago where a felon from Montana who had regained his gun rights in Montana moved to Washington and then got charged with unlawful possession of a firearm. His conviction was ultimately reversed, but he basically just got lucky.

When my gun rights were restored in wa state was the ATF database or whatever actually cleared, or did they just add the order too it? I don't know if this is relivent but in 2005 I joined the army. I still mentioned the juvenile conviction to my recruiter and meps even though it was sealed. On the way home from one of my meps appointement my recruiter said he called the juvenile court and they would not release my records to him. Also, they electronically took my fingerprints and sent them to the FBI. I got a paper back from maps with a bounch of * on on and it said "No Record Found". Also I got some paperwork back from meps that THEY filled out and a question said "does this applicant have a criminal record" and THEY said "no". so I guess my question is if even the military was not able to get my sealed record why would it show up in a gun purchase background check? I would find it strange that I the government would say I could go into the military and have all kinds of access too weapons but not be able to buy a gun in the civilian world.

 

[woodsrunner]

You should be fine.

Thanks, should I just go ahead with a purchase? what happens if it is denied, is that a crime in and of itself or will they just say "sorry but you've been denied"?

 

[Gbirk]

I guess I am just optimistic, but from the title I thought this would be about Washington residents getting some gun rights back. Silly me.....

 

[bikemutt]

I'm not really sure how another state would even know about a loss of gun rights in WA that'd been restored. As a lay person I thought restoration of rights was the equivalent of having a finding of guilty for a prohibitive offense changed to not guilty.

After all, the 4473 and the WA Pistol Transfer form both ask if the transferee has ever been convicted of a felony. We all know it's a bad idea to lie on a government form.

So, if your gun rights have been restored in WA and you answer no to the felony question, is that true, or are you lying?

Since we know it's not a lie then it must be true. If it's true then how on earth would CA, OR or XX state come to believe otherwise?

 

[Reed]

When my gun rights were restored in wa state was the ATF database or whatever actually cleared, or did they just add the order too it? I don't know if this is relivent but in 2005 I joined the army. I still mentioned the juvenile conviction to my recruiter and meps even though it was sealed. On the way home from one of my meps appointement my recruiter said he called the juvenile court and they would not release my records to him. Also, they electronically took my fingerprints and sent them to the FBI. I got a paper back from maps with a bounch of * on on and it said "No Record Found". Also I got some paperwork back from meps that THEY filled out and a question said "does this applicant have a criminal record" and THEY said "no". so I guess my question is if even the military was not able to get my sealed record why would it show up in a gun purchase background check? I would find it strange that I the government would say I could go into the military and have all kinds of access too weapons but not be able to buy a gun in the civilian world.

That is a multi-tiered question/statement

First, while I am not expert, the Military has exemptions in place via Federal Law to allow less than perfect citizens to volunteer for Military Duty.

I was once a Senior Drill Sergeant, and part of my duties were to prepare the paperwork of Trainees for Secret Clearances. You'd be amazed at what the records I have seen.

In a nutshell, the Military has to take State Level crimes and relate then to Federal Crimes. As an example, Felony Malcious Mischeif in Washington State is not a Felony at the Federal Level because Malacious Mischief is called Vandalism on the Federal Level.

There is some crimes which people can be convicted of, and they can serve until deployment time comes. The crimes then prevent the Service Member from deploying and initiates separation procedures.

Military Service is the equivalent of a Civil Right, so only a select few lose that right permanently. And service requirements vary from Branch to Branch, and worldwide situations dictate to level in which the Military will accept volunteers.

War means volunteers needed. Peace means very selective service requirements.

 

[Reed]

I'm not really sure how another state would even know about a loss of gun rights in WA that'd been restored. As a lay person I thought restoration of rights was the equivalent of having a finding of guilty for a prohibitive offense changed to not guilty.

After all, the 4473 and the WA Pistol Transfer form both ask if the transferee has ever been convicted of a felony. We all know it's a bad idea to lie on a government form.

So, if your gun rights have been restored in WA and you answer no to the felony question, is that true, or are you lying?

Since we know it's not a lie then it must be true. If it's true then how on earth would CA, OR or XX state come to believe otherwise?

The answer to the question about checking the "no" block on the 4473 is actually found on the 4473 itself.

It states if your firearms rights have been restored, check no.