A paranoid guy with mental issues in marysville was acting up. The family called the cops. They confronted the guy but couldnt do anything. Then he rented 2 rooms at the tulalip casino and took his guns with him. The family called again. He wasn't at the casino but they tracked him to a friends house in Seattle and scooped him up there. Apparently marysville PD didnt have experience with the new law and seattle PD helped them get him on a 72hr psyche evaluation. They recoved a bunch of guns stashed at the house and they're working with the family to have his guns confiscated for a year and get him on a "no buy" list.

Thats the best I can remember, caught it on 97.3 on the way home this morning.

They report the guy has a history of mental issues. All his guns are legally purchased and he has a CCW permit.
This is supposedly the first instance of this law being used. I want to find out more about the story.

A very sensitive issue, but I support this if done properly. I just wish BCSO had acted accordingly.

I'm not sure I like the idea of expecting cops to be Emergency Psychologists.  Seems like a recipe for disaster.

The police are like firearms - only point them at things you're willing to destroy.

It seems like this guy could have been involuntarily committed with due process rather than using the "extreme risk" nonsense though.

I only have to say, in some situations while waiting for "due process", that someone may go off the deep end and act.

Like I say, a very slippery slope, but one that needs to be addressed. I don't like it, but to me this one was maybe starting to look like it may have been going somewhere. I do not know that they need to take the guns for a year, but more like a temp situation till they could evaluate Him. Maybe just give them to a family member.

Maybe He went to a friends house to give them to his friend for safe keeping, IDK.

This happens and a lot of people bitch about it, saying it's wrong, had he gone off and killed people, we'd all been bitching that the cops and his family knew about him, but didn't do anything.

A slippery slope, but I am for it. I think we need concrete definitions that set guidelines, for what happens next.
1) He is proven to be OK, or a false report by someone trying to use the law wrong, or for vengeance.
2) Maybe a cooling off period, and the guns are given to a 3rd party for a set time.
3) He is Batshit, and the guns are confiscated to be dealt with accordingly.

Something along those lines. I agree, "Not one more inch". But I also want safeguards to protect Us from these type people so no more innocent lives are lost.

Anyone know what happens to the guns when they take them? I would hate if someone was wrongly issued an extreme risk order, and all his stuff gets beat to hell or lost by the police.

ALWAYS GIVE AND GET A RECEIPT.

Any process like this must have a way to challenge it. We shouldn't have a thing like the No Fly List with no ability to challenge how your name got on it, or even if your name really is on it.

Expedient due process to get someone quickly committed was done away along with asylums. To do the same today is a major PITA with legal hoops, etc...

I think the extreme risk law is a permanent stop-gap for bringing back "expedient due process" for when guns and nutjobs are involved.

I guarantee those guns will not rest peacefully for a whole year. He'll play hell getting any of them back, let alone all of them...I have never run across a property/evidence room that is genuinely secure.

That's a shame, and it's why we carry.

To be clear, I'm saying this safeguard is/was an infringement and violation of due process and if you're in favor of it you're giving far more than an inch.

To be more clear, There is a line at which people must have the ability to disarm someone who IS DANGEROUS. Where, what that line is needs to be defined. I'm not commenting on this particular case when I say that, I'm saying as a gun owner who does not want to give "One more inch", I also say that we need to have a very clear ability to protect the people from certain individuals.

I do not know the specifics of this case, nor do I know the exact letter of the law. But if it is a reasonable, and justifiable law to disarm people who need to be disarmed, I am for it.

I know that by BOTH side working on such a thing it could be done to a degree that I would support that law, and I think any gun owner with common sense would support such a law. It would not only protect the people, but our gun rights as well.

I see your reasoning, and am skeptical it won't be misused without some counterbalance applied to it.  Maybe if they added some self limiting rule, like if this law is annually applied at a rate higher than the firearm homicide rate it is prima facie of abuse and repealed.  Also, all firearms should be on a receipt including an estimated value that will be paid out in double if the firearm is not returned (include some language around fair valuations, and that the value will be reappraised at the time it is to be returned and the higher value used).  If the lost/damaged firearm was a grandfathered exception to a ban, a new firearm will be grandfathered in its place as if acquired before the ban.  All attorney fees for firearm owners found not a risk but having to resort to legal recourse for recovery of their property will be paid for by the state.

I might feel okay with those protections in place. Did I miss anything?

Am I wrong in thinking that if you are adjudicated mentally ill and/or involuntarily committed, you pretty much meet the definition of a prohibited person?  Why or how has this become "gray"?  If there are deficiencies in mental health law, fix them there.

I'm no lawyer, but if you are deemed a prohibited person that only prevents you from buying new guns. This is a way for them to take all the guns you have.

I agree that I would like to see some language amended into this law about the limits of use and requirements of holding someones property. What is to prevent a group of people to keep filing a new protection order ever year because you called them fat one Christmas party.

I agree with all of it above, documentation, valuation, grandfathering, return of property, all of it.

I'm saying that both sides need to sit down and really write something that is better, and yes, it will require people with a lot of legal knowledge. Also, hopefully common sense.

Unfortunately, this is going to be used and abused by people out of spite. There needs to be a strict penalty when it is shown someone used this law out of vengeance, and go after them as hard and fast as they did the accused.

I do not like this, I am not qualified to be in on writing it. I just say that there needs to be something on the books to deal with certain individuals. The current law was probably written without input from our side of the issue. We cannot categorically deny the ability to confiscate weapons from dangerous individuals.

I think, as shown above, we have some really good input to make a law such as this reasonable and effective, but also with the proper checks and balances.

Well if we want to talk compromise, we could legalize MGs and SBSs, all loaded firearms legal in vehicles without a CPL, delete the pistol registry, add all arms (blades etc) to state preemption, clarify that taxes are an infringement on state preemption, add an amendment that initiatives may not be used to further limit the rights of citizens and only may expand the freedoms of citizens. . that's just what occurs to me in the minute it took to write this sentence.

I'm not compromising on this. I'm saying write a legitimate law that is enforceable, yet has strict criteria to be met in order for it's use. I do not see anything to trade here, just making an existing law, realistic from Our stance on the issue.

As far as compromise or trades right now, outside of moving suppressors off the NFA, I just wanna hold the line right now. We will worry about getting any BS things undone a little later down the road. RIGHT NOW, I just do not want to lose anymore. We all know how hard it is going to be to get things undone, less we have to undo the better.

I honestly believe that by making it a requirement for agencies, or whomever to report the things that need to be reported, so that NICS can do what it is supposed to do (reference the Texas church shooter here). And making it so that LE agencies can confiscate weapons "more easily". I use that term loosely here as I refer to the Parkland shooter, there is NO FUCKING WAY, that he should have still had those weapons. But, I believe that is more an issue with BCSO. I have read in a thread in GD, where several LEO's said they had seen enough to have done it, and I wanna believe, and do believe that would not have been the case here in Washington. Of the several WSP officers, 2 local PD and a Sheriff Deputy I know, I do not think it would have happened the way it did. This is not too mention the FBI or the School District, either. How in the fuck Scott Israel is still the Sherriff down there is beyond my comprehension.

Suppressors are not even a firearm, a goddamn muzzle brake really, I mean as in not even having do a 4473 on them, that is done when you PURCHASE A FIREARM. I may be slightly wrong, but in the "socialist" EU, you are encouraged to buy them so as to not contribute to noise pollution.

We already expect that of them, as they're generally the first point of contact with the mentally ill prior to (or once they have gone off) treatment.

That said, I see too much potential for abuse of the ERPOs to support them. Vindictive anti-gun family members (your nutty flower-child mother in law doesn't want guns around 'her' grandbabies), exes in a breakup/divorce, and so on...

So, that brings a question to mind, is there/does there need to be a difference between an ERPO, a law any "concerned" citizen can report/use, and a law that is for LEO/Medical Professional use only?

I totally agree with you that there will be abuse of the system, but after a few vindictive abuser's of this get their ass handed to them, or fined/sued for slander, people may think twice.

I'll be interested to see how many people use the "No Buy" list.

IDK, since for now at least, this shit is going to be happening, how do we get involved to be part of the process? Letting them write this on their own isn't going to work.

Wait until this law is used against you for expressing a dissenting political opinion or denying global warming.  Wrongthink = mental illness

The extreme left already think all gun owners are a threat and when they figure out how to minipulate this mental confiscation law most of us will become felons in short time.

People should read the law before commenting with incorrect information.

A person makes the report, and there is a hearing that same day with a judge. If the judge decides there is merit he/she issues the order. Anyone can serve it, but it's suggested that be done by police. If the person doesn't voluntarily give up his guns the police can get a warrant and take them as happened in Seattle recently.
At the end of the two week period the person goes to court where the order can be rescinded or extended for a year at a time.

http://app.leg.wa.gov/RCW/default.aspx?cite=7.94

Stop that! We'll have none of that 'round here!

Right, so the state (a cop) makes a complaint, causing the state to decide you can't have guns. Then the state comes and forcibly takes your guns.

All this happens without you having a day in court. See the problem?

The statute that covers the hearing portion of the process does not say that the respondent cannot have a say as part of the hearing. I assume that constitutional rights and case law would force the court to hear and accept any evidence from the respondent, but IANAL

http://app.leg.wa.gov/RCW/default.aspx?cite=7.94.040

There's some other info in that section that corrects some other assertions made earlier in this discussion. Like someone said, y'all should go look this shit up.

If you are legally found to be a danger to yourself/others, you lose your 2A rights under existing federal law...

So the ERPO thing is *only* for non-professional 'concerned' people who think you shouldn't have guns...