Oh boy. Here we go....
Buh... buh... mah precious freedumbs...
"former intimate partners (if they have a child together)" seemed like a huge gap for exes without a child. That's not actually how it goes. If you lived with them within the past year, you can petition. If you dated but didn't live together (and have no child) /then/ you're out.

Which still could leave a problematic gap. People who dated, but also for disgruntled employees, etc. The thing is I'm not sure why they need the notion of who has standing to even bring a petition. Could they leave it open-ended and penalize frivolous attempts, instead? If a dangerous asshole is threatening you, a dangerous asshole is threatening you.

The language is ---------
A petition for an extreme risk protection order may be filed by (a) a family or household member of the respondent or (b) a law enforcement officer or agency.

------- where that means ---------
"Family or household member" means, with respect to a respondent, any: (a) Person related by blood, marriage, or adoption to the respondent; (b) Dating partners of the respondent; (c) Person who has a child in common with the respondent, regardless of whether such person has been married to the respondent or has lived together with the respondent at any time; (d) Person who resides or has resided with the respondent within the past year; (e) Domestic partner of the respondent; (f) Person who has a biological or legal parent-child relationship with the respondent, including stepparents and stepchildren and grandparents and grandchildren; and (g) Person who is acting or has acted as the respondent's legal guardian.
I think that this may be a good step to take. However, it's important to point out that it will be up to the police to contact these people and take their guns away. This is risky business, trying to take a firearm away from a person who may be in crisis and may be planning to end their life. Do you see where I'm going? A perfect scenario for suicide by cop. Okay, that's their job. That's what they get paid to do. But keep in mind that these days, every time an officer is involved in a shooting, there is a rush to blame the officer for misconduct or worse. This is especially true when an officer kills an individual with mental health issues. If we are going to put our officers in this position we need to support them when things go wrong, at least until the investigation is completed.
Sounds nice, but stripping civil liberties without due process seems like a generally bad idea. Not that people that read the Stranger seem to care about the legal precedent of all that. Not that Statists won't state, either. Unintended consequences seem to be par for the course when legislating with da feelz.

A restraining order is a legal proscription against personal contact invoked because the actions of the orderee have demonstrated an immediate intent to harm. It's a legal process that requires presentation of evidence and formal adjudication through a court; all of which sounds pretty much like the basic definition of "due process" to me.
@7 I expect some people, who read the text instead of concerning blind, will still have concerns about the use of a "preponderance" standard of proof. No benefit of the doubt to keep your guns?

If any such rational opponents come by, i would say your have to take that together with the proposition one is trying to show: the proposition is high risk of future violence, which is tough to prove ever to a 99% standard ("oh, I didn't mean that really" = 2% worth of doubt?), and IMO worth action at 60%.
The ACLU of WA does not support this initiative because of due process concerns, read their statement here:

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

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