Comments

1
If it prevents even one shooting a year - Yay!
2
For how long? As in, can a DV perp ever legally possess firearms again? 5 years later? 10 years later?

Is the forfeit for temporary DV orders as well? And, if the temp DV orders are proven to be on trumped up charges by an angry spouse, can the perp get their guns back?

I'm supportive of the meaning of the bill. I just want to know about the details.
3
Isn't the mantra for gun owners "over my dead body"? How about the people that they have killed or maimed? I'll never understand why persons feel the need to possess firearms for protection. Someone gets killed when a firearm is used in an altercation.
4
Yay!! Well done, WA .
5
uh really whats the big deal. every time a court issues a no contact order the court has the authority to order surrender of firearms.

http://www.kingcounty.gov/~/media/courts…

In fact, every person subject to a DV NCO is prohibited from owning firearms under federal law. 18 U.S.C. ยง 922(g)(8)(9)

and guess what? every "DV" case includes a NCO.

don't call police unless you honestly, seriously, think you are in danger. and then it won't help.

this sounds like more of what we have come to expect from our politicians- a feel good law that accomplishes little, if anything.
7
@5 - this is actually a huge bill, which you would understand if you actually worked with DV survivors. A no-contact order is issued in a criminal DV case, where the abuser is facing criminal DV charges. This bill applies in cases where a survivor has obtained a civil protection order - meaning that even if the abuser has not been criminally charged, a court can order the abuser to surrender weapons if the evidence shows DV and a credible threat. @2, the gun restriction will last as long as the protection order is in effect.
8
And yes, federal law does prohibit gun possession by abusers who are subject to protection orders, and has since 1994 - but without this law, state law enforcement officials have no authority to enforce that restriction. This bill will save lives and @5 obviously knows jack shit about this issue.
9
@3, yeah, who needs a gun for self-defense? I mean, praying has such a great track record.
10
@8, so you are saying that a family court commissioner has no authority to order surrender of firearms based only upon an accusation of domestic violence?

you're wrong.

11
I am a criminal defense attorney, and I regularly handle domestic violence cases including criminal charges, civil protection order hearings, and post-conviction firearms issues. From my read of the bill, it is more of a "tweak" of existing law rather than a substantially new provision. It expands the definition of "unlawful possession of a firearm" to include people who are subject to a civil domestic violence no-contact orders. It is already a crime for a person who has been convicted of a domestic violence crime to possess firearms.

@2 - It does not apply to temporary no-contact orders (which are often issued without the subject of the order being present to give their side of things). The new law says that it applies to no-contact orders "issued after a hearing of which the person received actual notice, and at which the person had an opportunity to participate."

Also @2 - the length of the loss of gun rights works like this. If you are actually convicted of a domestic violence crime, you lose your gun rights permanently. The only way you get those rights back is to petition a court for restoration after some period of time has gone by (3 years for most misdemeanors; 5 years for most felonies). Under this new law, if you are subject to a civil no-contact order, the ban on owning guns applies as long as the NCO is in effect. After that, your rights are returned to you without needing to go through the formal petitioning process.

The other thing the law does is it makes it mandatory for a court to order the person's guns to be surrendered. Basically, it changes the law from "the court may..." to "the court shall..." order the person's guns be surrendered.
12
I am a family law attorney and have done a lot of work in domestic violence cases. This law is a good thing, but I agree with @11 that this is more of a tweak than a substantially new law.

The court has always had the discretion to order the removal of firearms under a civil domestic violence protection order or a civil domestic relations restraining order. I have seen the court exercise that discretion on numerous occasions, so the perception that, at least in King County, courts weren't restricting access to firearms is not accurate.

The court can and has ordered the surrender of firearms on a temporary DVPO or TRO as well - even when there is no notice. Of course, the petitioner has to demonstrate that there is a credible risk of harm if there not removed.

At least in King County, family court commissioner have not been at all shy about exercising their authority to order the surrender of firearms.

But still, this bill is a good thing. It enhances the protections available to DV victims, but it's not exactly providing new ones.
13
I am a family law attorney and have done a lot of work in domestic violence cases. This law is a good thing, but I agree with @11 that this is more of a tweak than a substantially new law.

The court has always had the discretion to order the removal of firearms under a civil domestic violence protection order or a civil domestic relations restraining order. I have seen the court exercise that discretion on numerous occasions, so the perception that, at least in King County, courts weren't restricting access to firearms is not accurate.

The court can and has ordered the surrender of firearms on a temporary DVPO or TRO as well - even when there is no notice. Of course, the petitioner has to demonstrate that there is a credible risk of harm if there not removed.

At least in King County, family court commissioner have not been at all shy about exercising their authority to order the surrender of firearms.

But still, this bill is a good thing. It enhances the protections available to DV victims, but it's not exactly providing new ones.
14
And login problems caused me to post twice under two names... I own both posts.
15
People arrested for domestic violence are exactly the kind of people we want to be armed to the teeth, and with conceal carry permits. What is it about the Second Amendment that you hippies fail to understand?
16
Victoria, if someone is accused of being "threatening," is the burden of proof on the accused to prevent his lawful property from being seized? Because if you're a family law attorney, you know that accusations of threats and claims of "fear" are a dime a dozen in KC family court.
17
@5 This has been federal law for years but it is basically not enforced at all in our state because we have not had the corresponding state law in place. Even in King County. King County does a better job with surrender of weapons in criminal domestic violence cases than most anywhere else. But there are still huge gaps in the enforcement of firearms restrictions in civil dv protection orders. Obviously, a protection order is a whole lot less effective if the abuser gets to keep his guns. So that's why it is a big deal. http://www.nytimes.com/2013/03/18/us/fac…
18
I have a question, what about a minor that had a domestic violence conviction 14 years ago? Does this now adult with a clean record have use of a firearm?
19
I was convicted of domestic violence and I am a regular guy. I am your neighbor, your son, your son's baseball coach. I am NOT a violent person. I wasn't even violent or threatening violence during the "altercation" that lead to charges. My FATHER was the one who called the police during a dispute I had with my ex gf. The court railroaded me and I had no money at the time to afford a proper attorney who would've told me to not feel intimidated and who would have instructed me to not accept a plea deal containing the DV tag. I was scared shitless and accepted the plea deal because my public defender could not give me 10 minutes on the phone. After I accepted the plea deal I learned what the real consequences are of having a domestic violence on one's record. They include not being able to rent an apartment and having your firearms rights taken away permanently. When everybody thinks about a domestic violence person they always think about it in terms of it being one of the bad guys. They never consider how easily they could find themselves in a situation where they were facing the exact same charges and facing the types of consequences that they've chosen through bullshit initiatives like this one.I was raised in a family that had guns around, was taught to shoot at a very young age and get on my first rifle at the age of 10. I have never disrespected firearms or could ever see myself using one to hurt someone else outside of self-defense. I Feel like I have been marginalized in society and have been stripped of my constitutional rights far too easily. It upsets me a great deal.

Please wait...

Comments are closed.

Commenting on this item is available only to members of the site. You can sign in here or create an account here.


Add a comment
Preview

By posting this comment, you are agreeing to our Terms of Use.