WA state- in.1491- a nasty piece of work, ripe for misuse

[tokugawa]

This is going to make a lot of vindictive people happy. A court can deny your rights, confiscate your guns, all on an anonymous complaint by a family member or a cop. And the person has to prove they were not going to harm someone. Exactly how does one prove a negative? This is some Orwellian crap here. And oh so detailed- I wonder where it originated?
 http://sos.wa.gov/_assets/elections/initiatives/FinalText_101

[Fly320s]

Linky no worky.

Our apologies...
The web page you requested cannot be found on the Secretary of State site.

[zxcvbob]

Is this it?  http://lawfilesext.leg.wa.gov/biennium/2015-16/Pdf/Bills/House%20Passed%20Legislature/1491-S2.PL.pdf  I don't see anything about guns.  Nevermind, that's 2015.

http://sos.wa.gov/_assets/elections/initiatives/FinalText_1016.pdf

[tokugawa]

 Thanks for fixing the link-
 This really bugs me- it is "pre-crime" policing- anonymous complaint, a star chamber hearing where you have to "prove" you are not a menace, you are required to offer up all your firearms for seizure, if they suspect you have any others, they can raid the home looking for them, if they find one, then charges are enhanced, it goes on and on, and looks tailor made for the cops to have a legal raid opportunity for anyone they want, and for any divorce to stick it, once more, to the guy-who is about 100 times more likely to have a gun collection than the female.

 And talk about a set up opportunity!
 First, file a complaint, get the persons weapon away, then the thug/boyfriend/girlfriend can attack with impunity.
 
 We have heard of "swatting", this is that concept legalized.  And all before any crime has been committed.
 Fascist trash- I wonder where the money came from, and who wrote this bill, and if it is by the same group that is pushing the "background check" aka no private sale bills?

[Ben]

Thanks for fixing the link-
 This really bugs me- it is "pre-crime" policing- anonymous complaint, a star chamber hearing where you have to "prove" you are not a menace, you are required to offer up all your firearms for seizure, if they suspect you have any others, they can raid the home looking for them, if they find one, then charges are enhanced, it goes on and on, and looks tailor made for the cops to have a legal raid opportunity for anyone they want, and for any divorce to stick it, once more, to the guy-who is about 100 times more likely to have a gun collection than the female.

 And talk about a set up opportunity!
 First, file a complaint, get the persons weapon away, then the thug/boyfriend/girlfriend can attack with impunity.
 
 We have heard of "swatting", this is that concept legalized.  And all before any crime has been committed.
 Fascist trash- I wonder where the money came from, and who wrote this bill, and if it is by the same group that is pushing the "background check" aka no private sale bills?

I also hate this kind of "policing" with a passion. CA recently implemented something similar due to the Santa Barbara "shootings" a couple of years ago ("shootings" in quotes because it was 30% shooting, with the other injuries/deaths attributed to knifings and a car).

It really is like "swatting". All it takes is someone with a grudge or agenda to ruin an innocent person's life forever. With no penalties for false reporting.

[Hawkmoon]

Thanks for fixing the link-
 This really bugs me- it is "pre-crime" policing- anonymous complaint, a star chamber hearing where you have to "prove" you are not a menace, you are required to offer up all your firearms for seizure, if they suspect you have any others, they can raid the home looking for them, if they find one, then charges are enhanced, it goes on and on, and looks tailor made for the cops to have a legal raid opportunity for anyone they want, and for any divorce to stick it, once more, to the guy-who is about 100 times more likely to have a gun collection than the female.

 And talk about a set up opportunity!
 First, file a complaint, get the persons weapon away, then the thug/boyfriend/girlfriend can attack with impunity.

Connecticut has a new law that's worse -- no star chamber hearing required. The accusation alone is all that's required for the police to seize all firearms, THEN the accused gets a hearing somewhere down the road at which he or she has to prove that he/she is not a threat.

[Firethorn]

May I suggest that somebody start submitting anonymous complaints about the politicians, judges, and such?

[Scout26]

May I suggest that somebody start submitting anonymous complaints about the politicians, judges, and such?

They probably exempted themselves....

[zxcvbob]

I don't think it's even a bill yet.  Not sure how "initiative and referendum" works in WA, but I don't see any signatures.  I wonder who "KS" is?

[brimic]

They probably exempted themselves....

Their kids and spouses wouldn't be

[tokugawa]

I don't think it's even a bill yet.  Not sure how "initiative and referendum" works in WA, but I don't see any signatures.  I wonder who "KS" is?

 It is on the ballot.  Police state measure, cloaked in concern.
   So the police could search the internet, find some "inflammatory" comments, go to a judge, get an order, deprive the person of their rights, and then raid the home to be sure they have complied, without a shred of any real evidence these people were planning some nefarious deed.  They probably won't do it at random at first, they will have someone they don't like and use this to put heat on them, the fact it allows a search to confirm, well, there are all ssorts of things a search could turn up, eh?

 No judge is going to give the defendant benefit of the doubt, because there is no downside to it it- but if the judge says 'this person is OK to possess arms", and they then do something bad, then the judge will come  under concerted attack. 

 As soon as it is passed, this will be ammo in every divorce case, guaranteed.

[Mannlicher]

my first thought  is that this is a blatant denial of due process.  Upon reflection though, this is within the purview  of the 9th Circuit, and would probably be upheld there.