Washington Initiative 1491

[NCW_Robert]

Looks like we will, after what just happened and who our next president is going to be [TRUMP Wins Election], replace Justice Scalia and possibly up to 3 more Supreme Court Justices with 2A friendly justices.

After this, we should be able to start taking out these unconstitutional anti 2A laws.

When it becomes clear every anti gun law they pass will be over turned, do you think they will give up?

...

 

[Diamondback]

No, they'll just find a new avenue of attack, like instead of banning guns adding to the ways to become a Prohibited Person, or expanding their use of ITAR to make owning and DIY work cost-prohibitive.

If we the members of NWFA could somehow find a way to bottle whatever adheres the Left to their failed ideas, we'd all be rich, and the superglue manufacturers out of business, by tomorrow morning if not close of business today.

 

[Andy54Hawken]

A "new avenue of attack" no truer words have been written.
A new avenue of attack is always to be expected and watched out for.
What the anti gun folks can't get through a outright ban , they will chip away at with everything else related to guns , shooting and gun owners.
Andy

 

[scrandall01215]

I don't get why the citizens of Wa. St. keep passing these laws. I read this entire law and it takes away due process and gives officers to much leeway, it's sad watching Wa. St. slowly be eroded away! I wish more people would actually read the entire law or initiative that they are voting for!! Most would be surprised at what its really about!
I totally agree with @4 freedom in post # 60

Stacy

 

[RicInOR]

Dear WA -- Good luck with this.

Dear OR -- Expect this here.

 

[decklin]

I spoke to a kid I work with about this a few days ago.
He was very proudly telling everybody how he voted yes on 1491. He then went on to explain what it does to everyone. He proceeded to give an extremely incorrect explanation.
I was surprised to see nobody tell him he was wrong. They were all unfamiliar with the initiative.
So I explained. He seemed shocked that it was something else. I asked if he'd read the initiative before voting to which he said no. He read an article on why it was good and went with it.

 

[whitney]

I believe it is 90 days after passing the initiative all police departments have to implement "policy" on executing/enforcing an extreme risk protection order. I want to get a look at the "policy".

I would encourage everyone to submit a public records request to their local sheriff or police department requesting the written policy when executing an "extreme risk" protection order pursuant to the new law. I am pretty sure they will not be knocking on doors and asking politely for firearms.

Question for the legal minds here. For arguments sake I will be the example.

All of my firearms belong to a trust, what happens in the event an order is executed on a person who is part of the trust? As each person noted in the trust are equal owners can my collection be confiscated on a technicality?

~Whitney

 

[4Freedom]

After the first law abiding citizen is gunned down or forcefully disarmed by the police in Washington state serving an "Extreme Risk Protection Order", the case will become a federal issue. The case will obviously hit the Supreme Court and make national news and become a national issue. I am thinking with a Republican Congress and hopefully a true to his word Republican leader, what will happen is the state of Washington will end up being sued and forced to compensate the damages they have done and the law will be repealed.

I'm sorry to say this, but, I, myself and many others here probably would refuse to give my guns to the police based on an "Extreme Risk Protection Order". Knowing how strong the right-wing element is in many parts of Washington, they are going to have to take them by force without a doubt. It is almost ludicrous that any state can pass a "Gun Confiscation" law and I am hoping it backfires so heavily that a federal law is passed to prosecute/fine any states that try to enact illegal , unconstitutional laws like that which circumvent Due Process and turn law abiding citizens into instant criminals based on the "opinions" of government officials and other citizens, who have no legal authority , mental health training/certifications, etc.

I am only hopeful. Gun confiscation laws are very bold and zealous and usually end up backfiring horribly upon the liberal fascists. Even the Californian government has been more clever than outright declaring "gun seizures" for "undesirable characters". Washington state is really going to the birds. Hopefully the feds can become the good guys for a change and stomp down on this unconstitutional heresy.

And, if a state government can pass any law, what will happen when they re-enact Jim Crow laws or laws silencing freedom of speech, religion, political views, etc, because this or that state believes the Constitution is just a fancy piece of toilet paper and has no authority to counteract their own personal beliefs and laws that they want to enact in their mini-countries as they probably think of them.

By the way, I am hoping New York City's gun ban is tossed out. Seeing that Trump is a "New York" politician, I am hoping he puts his money where his mouth is and helps enact federal regulation that prohibits states and cities from overriding the 2nd Amendment.

 

[ChiefStealth]

I believe it is 90 days after passing the initiative all police departments have to implement "policy" on executing/enforcing an extreme risk protection order.

They have until June 1, 2017 to develop policies and procedures. That's right in the text of initiative. What is not clear is when does the initiative take effect. Obviously, it has to pass. It did! So, could someone petition the day after passage? When could petitions actually start to be filed?

 

[whitney]

They have until June 1, 2017 to develop policies and procedures. That's right in the text of initiative. What is not clear is when does the initiative take effect. Obviously, it has to pass. It did! So, could someone petition the day after passage? When could petitions actually start to be filed?

Because this did not pass the legislature I'm not sure the petition process applies the same to initiatives. You raise a very good question though.

https://www.sos.wa.gov/_assets/elections/Initiative and Referenda Manual.pdf

I will poke around in the RCW and WAC for an answer.

~Whitney

 

[timac]

We elect our representatives to be our voice, for the large city or the small town equally. The initiative process destroys the equally representative democratic system.
Initiative process needs to be repealed at the state. The process silences the voice of the people and gives it to the mob.

 

[Caveman Jim]

I don't get why the citizens of Wa. St. keep passing these laws. I read this entire law and it takes away due process and gives officers to much leeway, it's sad watching Wa. St. slowly be eroded away! I wish more people would actually read the entire law or initiative that they are voting for!! Most would be surprised at what its really about!
I totally agree with @4 freedom in post # 60

Stacy

It's sad that most uninformed voters just listen to the TV ads & think it's golden..... Idiots!!!!

 

[whitney]

They have until June 1, 2017 to develop policies and procedures. That's right in the text of initiative. What is not clear is when does the initiative take effect. Obviously, it has to pass. It did! So, could someone petition the day after passage? When could petitions actually start to be filed?

Following is the answer to when the initiative takes effect.
Laws and Agency Rules Washington State Constitution

Article II section I
Any measure initiated by the people or referred to the people as herein provided shall take effect and become the law if it is approved by a majority of the votes cast thereon: Provided, That the vote cast upon such question or measure shall equal one-third of the total votes cast at such election and not otherwise. Such measure shall be in operation on and after the thirtieth day after the election at which it is approved.

~Whitney

 

[RicInOR]

A Resounding Vote Against Due Process and the Second Amendment

"Like a California law that took effect last January, the gun control initiative that Washington voters overwhelmingly approved on Tuesday authorizes court orders that deprive people of the right to arms without due process. In fact, Initiative 1491, which was backed by Gov. Jay Inslee and attracted support from 71 percent of voters, is even less respectful of due process and the Second Amendment."

 

[Certaindeaf]

Sounds like it could be pretty bad.
It sounds similar to "restraining order" but someone is afeared!. hence the "protective" clause of that order.
I heard that a whole heap of divorces are initiated blitzkrieg style.. with the advice of a friendly lawyer, to get a restraining order (now to probably be a protective order with the checking of a box on the form) to change the locks and probably five other things I don't know about all at the same time.
Poof, no guns for half of Washington in a very short time.

 

[4Freedom]

If the superior court issues an extreme risk protection order, the order is served on the respondent by a law enforcement officer. The order would require the respondent to immediately surrender all firearms and any concealed pistol license to the local law enforcement agency. The order would bar the respondent from obtaining or possessing firearms while an order is in effect. If the respondent does not comply, the court would be authorized to issue a warrant to compel the surrender of these items.

The second type of order, called an "ex parte extreme risk protection order," would be more immediate. "Ex parte" is a legal term that refers to a hearing held without notice to the other side. This type of order would be available where there is a showing of a significant risk of personal injury in the near future. A petition for this order could be filed in municipal court, district court, or superior court. The court must hold a hearing on the day the petition is filed or on the court's next business day. If the court issues the ex parte order, it would last only until there is a hearing in superior court on whether a one-year "extreme risk protection order" should be issued. That hearing must be held within 14 days. All the requirements for issuing a one-year "extreme risk protection order" explained above would apply at that hearing.

Basically, this is a gun seizure law based on whether or not the local state/county/municipal/city government believes you should be allowed to own guns.. They state even someone you have dated , like an ex-girlfriend, can simply make a written testimony you are dangerous and if the superior court accepts the testimony, you are then "GUILTY, UNTIL PROVE INNOCENT" without any type of trial, defense or conviction.

Restraining orders do not result in warrants for a gun seizure, rather you are accept to turn in your guns or remove the guns from the premises. This is actually giving the police authority to get a warrant to seize your firearms without any due process and merely the belief of a vague testimony from a person you may have very little connection to (like the girl you met on Tinder last week).

This is basically the first step to Gestapo style gun seizures, where the government will use a simple plea of a person who knows you to disarm you by force. With a warrant issued by the police, they have the right to shoot you in the head if you refuse to comply with orders, since you are considered armed and dangerous.

My question here is how many of you who are served an Extreme Risk Protection Order will comply and obey the police who are the real criminals and actually violating federal laws?

Obviously, the first person who resists this type of warrant and gun seizure will be shot dead by the police and will probably end up dying in a gun battle. This will be more fuel by the anti-gunners in Washington state to prove how dangerous gun owners are and how all guns need to be seized or to make the regulations even looser as to gun seizures. I can almost be positive that gun seizures can become more and more a common day occurrence.

As I said, the state of Washington will work for a complete gun seizure. It is when the bloodbaths that will obviously ensue from these gun seizures between law enforcement and average Joe citizen get federal recognition will the state of Washington suddenly be under scrutiny to repeal this insane Nazi-era type of gun seizure law.


I am sad to say this is a VERY, VERY DARK DAY for the freedom loving people and gun owners of Washington state.

I'm almost positive that many innocent citizens and officers (who are forced to follow these orders) will have to die because of this insane and very ILLEGAL/UNCONSTITUTIONAL violation of our personal liberties and freedoms guaranteed by our Constitution.

 

[4Freedom]

This will be the only solution to this vicious violation against the Constitution of the USA and act of tyranny against our citizens.

Sadly, I don't completely agree with the non-violence approach of MLK, but I do respect his defying unjust and unconstitutional laws and fighting for his civil rights. If the government comes to murder you or murder your family, you should not sit there and let it happen. My ancestors were all murdered by government soldiers in Belarus during WWII. Unarmed and helpless women and children shot dead for being born the wrong ethnicity.

However, one thing all civil rights activists have in common, whether they are peaceful or militant, is that they stood up against tyranny and corruption. They were considered the outcasts because they refused to follow laws that go against the foundations of truth, justice and liberty; which is the backbone of our country's Constitution and both the moral and ethical backbone of what America is supposed to be as a nation. Civil rights activists are those who stood up to corrupt and evil leaders who write laws to empower themselves and weakened and enslave their subjects. This is the very reason we have a Constitution is because of these tyrannical politicians, leaders who will try to create unjust laws as means to strip people of their freedoms and empower themselves and feed their narcissism.

 

[GunnyG]

Sounds like it could be pretty bad.
It sounds similar to "restraining order" but someone is afeared!. hence the "protective" clause of that order.
I heard that a whole heap of divorces are initiated blitzkrieg style.. with the advice of a friendly lawyer, to get a restraining order (now to probably be a protective order with the checking of a box on the form) to change the locks and probably five other things I don't know about all at the same time.
Poof, no guns for half of Washington in a very short time.

... and IF, after the respondent finally gets to make an appearance in court, hoping to reclaim the firearms wrongfully seized from him/her several weeks prior, successfully makes a case to have the order invalidated, want to guess who will have to pay and go through a background check before the LE agency can release them?

 

[jrd541280]

Exactly right cavemanjim. and decklin.
Thinking bloomberg dumped a "manure" wagon load of bucks into our kool-aid pitcher and the kids drank from it. Hundreds of thousands of students in this state, and they are winning unconstitutional laws, yet they can't change their own flat tire. Or read a bank statement. But rest assured washingtonians, the state has been sued and lost and you "must" dump a bunch of more money into the schools so your kids will be educated on reading ads in a popular magazine, whether they learn reading, writing and "rithmatik" or not.
Just my take on this. All preditors prey on the weak. What weaker is there than young minds?

 

[donaldc]

... and IF, after the respondent finally gets to make an appearance in court, hoping to reclaim the firearms wrongfully seized from him/her several weeks prior, successfully makes a case to have the order invalidated, want to guess who will have to pay and go through a background check before the LE agency can release them?

If you get them back, I would expect the person who submitted the false report to be the one to pay for everything, including attorneys fees. Otherwise it will be used as a tool to "get back at someone" which is not fair at all!