Washington Prosecutors Now Say Red Flag Law Should Include Minors

[Watchdog]

This is apparently the latest twist in Washington's efforts to curtail...well, whatever it is they're trying to curtail.

Quoting from Fox News:

"Prosecutors in Washington are demanding that minors be covered by the state's "red flag" law, which allows for guns to be seized with a court order, according to a report."

Prosecutor Kimberly Wyatt, a Senior Deputy Prosecuting Attorney out of King County, seems to be one of the driving forces behind this latest idea. She's one of 210 attorneys working in the Prosecuting Attorney's Office.

Interested forum members may read further details by clicking here.

MYNorthwest reported on November 24 (bold print is mine):

"The work group also recommended more promotion of the existence of ERPOs and their uses to both law enforcement and the public, and that a second violation of an Extreme Risk Protection Order leads to the permanent loss of a person's firearms rights."

The "work group" mentioned is apparently a panel of police, mental health experts, school shooting survivors, the ACLU, and others. I'm not sure who the "others" are, and I haven't seen any panel members' names published yet.

 

[Racer X]

Seattle has become such a special place. The homeless can **** on your lawn and walk away. But if my dog craps and we walk away, I can get a fine.

 

[BC38]

OK, so now they want to grab YOUR guns and curtail YOUR gun rights because your KID posted something online - or said or did something - that they interpret as a threat.

What is that oft used phrase? A SLIPPERY SLOPE?

This feces is going to just keep being expanded until they find a way to use it to disarm all law abiding gun owners.

This is truly a case of the thought police being able to pronounce you guilty until proven innocent - you're judged, convicted, and sentence imposed based on what you say or think - or even what someone else in your household says or thinks - without anyone ever having actually done anything.....

 

[LoboGunLeather]

I predict that a test case will arise very soon. Are Washington citizens ready to come together, establish a legal defense fund, retain a law firm to fight this all the way? Why wait until someone has been subjected to abuses amounting to civil rights violations before you act? Why not get a lawyer working on injunctive relief, staying execution of this law until legal action(s) are completed?

One person standing alone with nothing but his life savings to fund the fight will probably make little difference. A thousand people, each putting up a thousand dollars will provide a million dollar legal fund. Ten thousand people with a hundred dollars each will do the same. A hundred thousand people with ten dollar bills will do it also. And remember, the state officials don't care how much it costs because it isn't their money! It will be a lopsided battle, for sure, but much easier for thousands to deal with than each individual stuck on his own.

Waiting, hoping not to be the test case yourself, wishing for the NRA to step in with funding for litigation, none of these will get the job done.

Until then I hope no one is confronted by a black-suited SWAT team dropping by (with hydraulic rams to open doors, flash-bang grenades, and automatic weapons) to serve a 'red flag' order and trash a home to find anything that looks like a firearm. I hope your personal computers aren't impounded to search on-line activity. I hope your medical care providers aren't put into the position of explaining federal privacy laws, or having to pay their own lawyers to safeguard your privacy.

And I also hope that none of your kids do or say anything that might subject you to the process.

 

[Doug M.]

That's King County, which is nothing like the rest of the state. I have seen no sign that anyone else supports this position, which is based on a narrow set of circumstances. I have not even seen it come up on any of the various topic email lists from WAPA.

FWIW, an 18 YO is not a juvenile, and considering the usual refusals to charge them, this must be really bad actor. However, if little Johnny is still subject to juvenile court jurisdiction, the pre-trial conditions allowed under the Juvenile Justice Act are potentially much more stringent than for an adult, but under either, the correct answer is to prohibit him from living with or even going to his parents' house. If he has to stay in detention (juvenile equivalent of a local jail), that's tough. There are a lot of options related to the offender that do not require interfering with the rights of another. There are also the existing prohibitions under state law with regard to pre-trial possession, and likewise under Federal law. I just re-did the Superior Court (adult felony) PT orders in my county a few weeks ago and addressed the issue, and my work on the local orders for that purpose in Juvenile court back in ... 2001 (? maybe) is still the main foundation for the Juvenile PT orders.

This is a person trying to claim that there is not an answer to the problem faced (if it exists) because they have an agenda.

 

[BC38]

I predict that a test case will arise very soon. Are Washington citizens ready to come together, establish a legal defense fund, retain a law firm to fight this all the way? Why wait until someone has been subjected to abuses amounting to civil rights violations before you act? Why not get a lawyer working on injunctive relief, staying execution of this law until legal action(s) are completed?

One person standing alone with nothing but his life savings to fund the fight will probably make little difference. A thousand people, each putting up a thousand dollars will provide a million dollar legal fund. Ten thousand people with a hundred dollars each will do the same. A hundred thousand people with ten dollar bills will do it also. And remember, the state officials don't care how much it costs because it isn't their money! It will be a lopsided battle, for sure, but much easier for thousands to deal with than each individual stuck on his own.

Waiting, hoping not to be the test case yourself, wishing for the NRA to step in with funding for litigation, none of these will get the job done...

All true. Unfortunately Washington gun owners are a microcosm of what we see on so many of the gun boards. Pedantic, argumentative, narrowly focused, self absorbed, pessimistic, negative - all those endearing characteristics that fracture us and divide us and prevent us from presenting a unified front against those who would take our liberties.

 

[BC38]

That's King County, which is nothing like the rest of the state. I have seen no sign that anyone else supports this position, which is based on a narrow set of circumstances. I have not even seen it come up on any of the various topic email lists from WAPA.

FWIW, an 18 YO is not a juvenile, and considering the usual refusals to charge them, this must be really bad actor. However, if little Johnny is still subject to juvenile court jurisdiction, the pre-trial conditions allowed under the Juvenile Justice Act are potentially much more stringent than for an adult, but under either, the correct answer is to prohibit him from living with or even going to his parents' house. If he has to stay in detention (juvenile equivalent of a local jail), that's tough. There are a lot of options related to the offender that do not require interfering with the rights of another. There are also the existing prohibitions under state law with regard to pre-trial possession, and likewise under Federal law. I just re-did the Superior Court (adult felony) PT orders in my county a few weeks ago and addressed the issue, and my work on the local orders for that purpose in Juvenile court back in ... 2001 (? maybe) is still the main foundation for the Juvenile PT orders.

This is a person trying to claim that there is not an answer to the problem faced (if it exists) because they have an agenda.

You're right, King County is different than the majority of the state - except for Snohomish and Pierce Counties. They, along with King form what I call The People's Republic of Puget Sound.

Trouble is, those 3 counties combined have more population than the whole rest of the state, and King has the most population of the 3. Unfortunately the red flag law is a state law, and what the state rules in response to King County will apply state wide, won't it?

I also get what you're saying about the 18 year old not actually being a juvenile, and other possible ways to prevent his access to his parent's guns. BUT it looks to me like what they are advocating is that since he resides in, OR MAY HAVE ACCESS TO, his parents home, and they have guns, the push is to use the ERPO to take the parent's guns, regardless of any other possible remedy. That's the remedy they want to pursue, so obviously that's the agenda - which proves the point I was making. If they don't lock him up in juvie, and issue some sort of restraining order instead, that may not keep him away from the guns. If he ignored it and gained access to his parent's firearms, the next thing you know that King County DA will be charging his parents with failure to properly secure them under the new laws.

Given the anti-Second-Amendment track record of King County and even State Supreme Court justices regarding gun control issues, I don't hold out much hope of them standing in the way of anything these agenda-driven prosecutors do to try to deny or reduce the gun rights of the common citizen. Do you?

 

[paulh]

I only hope this thread doesn't get dumped like the last one. Good info here for all of us, an in person opinion not faraway opinions. Extremely educational as to other parts of the USA. (NJ is done)

 

[BC38]

I only hope this thread doesn't get dumped like the last one. Good info here for all of us, an in person opinion not faraway opinions. Extremely educational as to other parts of the USA. (NJ is done)

We'll have to be careful and keep it on topic.

 

[Watchdog]

Quoting from another news source:

"Washington state prosecutor Kimberly Wyatt wants to see gun confiscation orders expanded to include those who are too young to buy guns."

How do you expand on a law that's already on the books? How do you add something that isn't in the original text of the law?

 

[eb07]

What they are saying is that if your child is deemed a threat they can come in and remove YOUR firearms. This is a scary precedent.

 

[deadin]

What they are saying is that if your child is deemed a threat they can come in and remove YOUR firearms.

Even if you keep them secured as described in the just passed law???

 

[Racer X]

It would appear so.

If they REALLY want to save lives, outlaw the sale of alcohol, and mandate flu vaccinations for all. But neither will happen.

 

[BC38]

Quoting from another news source:

"Washington state prosecutor Kimberly Wyatt wants to see gun confiscation orders expanded to include those who are too young to buy guns."

How do you expand on a law that's already on the books? How do you add something that isn't in the original text of the law?

Simple. Write and pass vague laws and then get activist judges legislating from the bench to say that your application/interpretation of them is OK.