‘Red flag’ gun law should include minors and cohabitants, Washington state prosecutors say

[Aim1]

This isn’t good. Why should the father have to move the guns out of the home?

If the father can prove his guns are legally and safely stored in the house and the juvenile doesn’t have access to them he should be fine. Granted in this case he isn’t cooperating because he is supposed to move them out of the home.

Some people have very large collections of guns and moving them can damage them. Also, if the only place the father could transfer the guns to a friend or relative happens to be out of state it could be a huge process with lots of red tape. Wouldn’t want to break the law attempting to obey the law.


What if the person with guns is a renter and not related to the red flag individual, would they have to move their guns out too even if ther weapons were secured and the red flag individual did not have access to them?



From the article:

“We would file the ERPO against the juvenile because the father has access to firearms in the home, and the father is not being cooperative with law enforcement to confirm that the firearms are out of the home,” Wyatt said.


https://www.foxnews.com/us/washington-state-prosecutors-push-for-red-flag-gun-law-to-include-minors

‘Red flag’ gun law should include minors, Washington state prosecutors say

November 25th, 2018

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.

 

[kptaylor]

Well, this was hard to understand so would have been better to post the entire article.

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.

State law is silent on whether a judge can issue an Extreme Risk Protection Order, or ERPO, in the case of a minor, but there is a move now to change that, KIRO-TV reports.

Police and family can apply for the order to seize the guns of persons deemed a threat to themselves or others, even if no crime was committed. The orders are temporary.

Eight states enacted red flag laws after the Parkland shooting in February. Red flag laws already existed in Washington and four other states before 2018.

Domestic violence prosecutor Kimberly Wyatt in King County believes the red flag law should cover juveniles, the station reported.

“We’ve had that issue come up multiple times, and we’ve been asked around the state by other law enforcement agencies that are struggling with the same issue. To date, I don’t know of any that have been filed yet against juveniles, but we have one particular case where we are making that recommendation to law enforcement right now,” Wyatt said.

She said the case involves an 18-year-old charged with a crime whose father owns guns but who refuses to tell cops where they are still being kept in the home.

“We would file the ERPO against the juvenile because the father has access to firearms in the home, and the father is not being cooperative with law enforcement to confirm that the firearms are out of the home,” Wyatt said.

A task force recently recommended expanding Washington’s red flag law to include minors, KIRO reported.

The panel of police, mental health experts, school shooting survivors, the ACLU, and others was created to develop strategies for preventing mass shootings.

“There appears to be a legitimate question of whether or not ERPOs can be sought against a juvenile who does not have the legal right to own firearms under Washington law, but does have the right to access and possess firearms under certain circumstances,” the task force said.

 

[kptaylor]

And in this instance the dad should throw his 18 y/o son out of the house if he doesn't want his guns potentially confiscated until the son is no longer a danger to himself or others. The father not cooperating with the police to make sure his son doesn't harm anyone else indicates one possibility for why the son is screwed up in the first place.

 

[Aim1]

And in this instance the dad should throw his 18 y/o son out of the house if he doesn't want his guns potentially confiscated until the son is no longer a danger to himself or others. The father not cooperating with the police to make sure his son doesn't harm anyone else indicates one possibility for why the son is screwed up in the first place.

Could he throw him out if he was 13-17 years old?

 

[kmw1954]

Could he throw him out if he was 13-17 years old?

So I guess if we have a child that is emotionally unstable or has a drug problem, ADHD, then we should all have to just surrender all our firearms as long as that child is in our care.

 

[GBExpat]

So I guess if we have a child that is emotionally unstable or has a drug problem, ADHD, then we should all have to just surrender all our firearms as long as that child is in our care.

... or ... secure them so that said child has zero access to them.

 

[Aim1]

... or ... secure them so that said child has zero access to them.

The problem is if the law says that isn’t good enough and they have to be moved out of the house.

 

[JTHunter]

The problem is if the law says that isn’t good enough and they have to be moved out of the house.

PLUS, the cops want to "intrude" (from what I understand - W/O a warrant) to "verify" they have been removed. Locked up isn't good enough for them.

 

[AlexanderA]

Yes, this is one of my great fears -- that disqualification criteria will be extended to everyone in the gun owner's home, or even to everyone in his social circle. There's a good chance many of us have one or more relatives, girlfriends, close friends, etc., that might not be100% mentally stable, that might have had past run-ins with the law, that might abuse drugs, etc. If we can be disqualified from having guns because of the failings of these other people, gun ownership in general becomes highly problematic. We would end up questioning all of our associations, or becoming hermits to avoid such entanglements. This is no way to live.

The antigunners are wising up, and waging a multifront war against guns. They're hitting us from all sides at once.

 

[627PCFan]

I don’t think the situation is that deep. If I’m the homeowner, it’s my guns, and the warrant extends to me without due process it’s a slam dunk case of depriving me of my 2a rights. The warrant applies to me by parental proxy and that won’t be good enough in court.

 

[MEHavey]

Remember Sandy Hook . . . .

 

[DoubleMag]

I don’t think the situation is that deep. If I’m the homeowner, it’s my guns, and the warrant extends to me without due process it’s a slam dunk case of depriving me of my 2a rights. The warrant applies to me by parental proxy and that won’t be good enough in court.

Yes but meanwhile they do it. You have to fight it in court. Does the average Joe have $10,000 or more to fight that?
I've seen this argument so much on so many fronts, ''it will lose in court.'' That takes $$ and not talking the equivalent of $ not getting the new model of iPhone XVI, especially considering the state has extremely very largely big deep pockets.

 

[Jim Watson]

Can I "red flag" the crazy politician who threatened me with nuclear weapons?

 

[FAS1]

The way I see it is the anti-gun crowd will want to take your guns BEFORE you go through the determination process of whether or not you are mentally stable or not. That is not DUE PROCESS in our Country and we should never allow it.

They will cite Sandy Hook, Parkland, etc., but those should be great examples for us. There was plenty of time for due process and everyone around them, including adults and professionals knew they had serious mental issues and still never stepped in when clearly they should have a long time before they murdered anyone.

 

[easy]

The way I see it is the anti-gun crowd will want to take your guns BEFORE you go through the determination process of whether or not you are mentally stable or not. That is not DUE PROCESS in our Country and we should never allow it.

Just like the current proposal in NY state about turning over all your social media access including passwords before you can get an approval.

 

[Kaybee]

1. As a responsible gun owner, if your family member is mentally unwell you should take very (very) strong precautions to keep firearms out of their hands. You have a lot of options and it should be given serious consideration.

2. We don’t need police in America “inspecting” people’s homes without a warrant.

 

[AlexanderA]

1. As a responsible gun owner, if your family member is mentally unwell you should take very (very) strong precautions to keep firearms out of their hands. You have a lot of options and it should be given serious consideration.

Absolutely. The issue here, though, is the authorities taking your guns despite every precaution you take. The proposals would substitute the state's judgement for your judgement on whether your safeguards were adequate. And of course the state would err on the side of taking your guns away. No government employee would want to take the blame for not having acted if something goes wrong, and the guns are misused, say, in a mass shooting.

A system is being proposed that has the potential for disarming a large percentage of gun owners. And it has a good chance of being enacted because, on the surface, it looks "reasonable" and addresses a real problem. Let's not be caught napping on this one.

 

[Labguy47]

if this is the case then all parents with minor children are in violation of the law. We all know that isn't the case.

Common sense just isn't common anymore.

 

[George P]

So I guess if we have a child that is emotionally unstable or has a drug problem, ADHD, then we should all have to just surrender all our firearms as long as that child is in our care.

Or you surrender your child to the mind control of the state; which is more in line with what they want anyway.

 

[kmw1954]

Or you surrender your child to the mind control of the state; which is more in line with what they want anyway.

Which is what happens the 1st day you sign your child up for school.

 

[George P]

Which is what happens the 1st day you sign your child up for school.

First day of PUBLIC school.........

 

[amprecon]

Screw those communists and their gun laws, do not comply. They get to pick and choose which laws are bogus or legit, why can't you?

 

[George P]

Screw those communists and their gun laws, do not comply. They get to pick and choose which laws are bogus or legit, why can't you?

I suspect, as this country's divides grow exponentially, you will see more and more of that; the outcome of which, of course, is anarchy followed by totalitarian dictatorship, and then the "circle of life" as governments go will start again.

 

[AlexanderA]

Screw those communists and their gun laws, do not comply. They get to pick and choose which laws are bogus or legit, why can't you?

That's easy to say in the anonymity of an Internet forum, and when you're not faced with the situation directly. Violation of such laws could have dire consequences for you. Are you prepared to have your life ruined?

And, BTW, let's stop calling every idea we don't agree with "communist." Makes us look stupid.

 

[Kaybee]

No argument about that. I was just pointing out that this is an issue about personally responsibility. When discussing the faults of the proposed solutions, we should that recognize there is an issue that should be addressed.

In my view, you can't legislate away the problem of a mentally unfit family member and the best solution is to remind each other to take things seriously.

I compare this to how many lives the NRA has saved by being a strong proponent for safe gun handling skills that has now become part of American culture, that is much more effective than people who just try to make a bunch of safety laws that people don't respect.

Absolutely. The issue here, though, is the authorities taking your guns despite every precaution you take. The proposals would substitute the state's judgement for your judgement on whether your safeguards were adequate. And of course the state would err on the side of taking your guns away. No government employee would want to take the blame for not having acted if something goes wrong, and the guns are misused, say, in a mass shooting.

A system is being proposed that has the potential for disarming a large percentage of gun owners. And it has a good chance of being enacted because, on the surface, it looks "reasonable" and addresses a real problem. Let's not be caught napping on this one.