Legislation watch
Capitol Building

2013 House Bill 1840: Concerning firearms laws for persons subject to no-contact orders, protection orders, and restraining orders
  1. Introduced by Rep. Roger Goodman, (Kirkland) (D) on February 12, 2013, makes it illegal for persons to possess a firearm who are subject to a court-issued no-contact order, protection order, or restraining order, and who are determined to represent a credible threat to the physical safety of an intimate partner or their child. This act directs all law enforcement agencies to develop policies and procedures regarding the acceptance, seizure, storage, and return of weapons required to be surrendered under this act.
    • Referred to the House Judiciary Committee on February 12, 2013.
      • Substitute offered in the House on February 21, 2013, provides that attern forms must be developed to document a restrained person's compliance with an order to surrender firearms, dangerous weapons, and the restrained person's concealed pistol license. For orders entered on or after December 1, 2013, a restrained person is required to file the appropriate form with the court within five judicial days of the order.
    • Referred to the House Rules Committee on February 22, 2013.
      • Amendment offered by Rep. Matt Shea, (Spokane Valley) (R) on March 12, 2013, narrows the category of court orders for which the court must require the restrained person to surrender his or her firearms, dangerous weapons, and concealed pistol license, and that subject the restrained person to a charge of unlawful possession of a firearm if he or she possesses a firearm while restrained: The order must contain both a finding that the restrained person represents a credible threat and terms prohibiting the restrained person from committing certain criminal acts (rather than either such a finding or terms). The amendment failed by voice vote in the House on March 12, 2013.
  2. Passed 61 to 37 in the House on March 12, 2013.
    Who Voted "Yes" and Who Voted "No"

  3. Received in the Senate on March 14, 2013.
    • Referred to the Senate Law & Justice Committee on March 14, 2013.
      • Amendment offered in the Senate on April 3, 2013, narrows the category of court orders for which the court must require the restrained person to surrender his or her firearms, dangerous weapons, and concealed pistol license, and that subject the restrained person to a charge of unlawful possession of a firearm if he or she possesses a firearm while restrained. The order must contain both a finding that the restrained person represents a credible threat and terms prohibiting the restrained person from committing certain criminal acts (rather than either such a finding or terms).
    • Referred to the Senate Rules Committee on April 3, 2013.
  4. Received in the House on January 13, 2014.
    • Referred to the House Rules Committee on February 7, 2014.
      • Amendment offered by Rep. Matt Shea, (Spokane Valley) (R) on February 12, 2014, applies the provisions of the bill to stalking protection orders and stalking no-contact orders. (2) Modifies language in the bill to conform with the language in similar provisions of federal law. (3) Requires that, to apply the restrictions under the bill, an order must contain both a finding that the person represents a credible threat and terms prohibiting the restrained person from threatening or using physical force (rather than either such finding or terms). (4) Makes technical changes to update expired dates and to replace a statute in an amendatory section that was amended by 2013 legislation. ---. The amendment passed by voice vote in the House on February 12, 2014.
  5. Passed 97 to 0 in the House on February 12, 2014.
    Who Voted "Yes" and Who Voted "No"

  6. Received in the Senate on February 14, 2014.
    • Referred to the Senate Law & Justice Committee on February 14, 2014.
    • Referred to the Senate Rules Committee on February 28, 2014.
  7. Passed 49 to 0 in the Senate on March 6, 2014.
    Who Voted "Yes" and Who Voted "No"

  8. Signed by Gov. Jay Inslee on March 28, 2014.

Comments

Re: 2013 House Bill 1840 (Concerning firearms laws for persons subject to no-contact orders, protection orders, and restraining orders)  by RCPatriot on March 25, 2013 
The problem I see with this bill is what it looks like Rep. Matt Shea was trying to address. Many people don't realize how easy it is to get a "temporary order of protection." Proof of a crime is not required. Even a day in court is not required. But, if at any time a person is found in possession of a firearm while under the protection order, it would be considered a felony? No matter what the original protection order was for? They're freely given when someone asks for a divorce, or requests custody of a child. How is it just to deny someone the freedom of personal protection in these cases? At the very least, it should be limited to cases of domestic violence, or other cases where there is a reasonable expectation that the threat of violence is eminent and deadly. Furthermore, the penalty for these cases ought to be limited to 1) buying a firearm after the order of protection is issued, 2) possession only while violating the order of protection, and 3) any penalties must be limited to actual conviction of a crime outside of the order of protection. For example, if a woman requests a temporary protection order against a man whom she claims beat her, and that man is subsequently arrested for being in possession of a firearm, the court should not be allowed to charge the man with a felony simply for the possession unless the original charge was found to be true.

2013 House Bill 1840 (Concerning firearms laws for persons subject to no-contact orders, protection orders, and restraining orders)  by admin on March 25, 2013 
Introduced in the House on February 12, 2013

The vote was 61 in favor, 37 opposed and 0 not voting

(House Roll Call 0 at House Journal 0)

Click here to view bill details.

View These pre-2013 Comments on the Forum.
Your new comments should be made in the box below.