Attritional strategy: Washington state wants to apply ERPOs to minors, prove you have no firearms in the family home

5 (100%) 4 votes

Just another way for the gun grabbers to confiscate guns from law-abiding citizens.

From Prosecutors in Washington are looking to expand the state’s Red Flag laws to include minors.

Red Flag laws – or Extreme Risk Protection Orders (ERPOS) – are civil orders that allow judges to temporarily suspend a person’s gun rights, even if they haven’t committed a crime, when they exhibit violent behavior that suggests they pose a risk to themselves or others.

Washington was among the first of five states to pass a Red Flag law when voters overwhelmingly approved I-1491 in 2016. Another eight states passed similar laws this year after the Parkland shooting, and four more states are considering them now.

The laws vary by state as far as who can petition the court for the civil orders, with some only allowing law enforcement to file for them, while others allow family members, roommates, people who share children, and some medical professionals to petition the courts.

In Washington, police and family members can petition the courts for an emergency 14-day order to take away a person’s guns. That can be followed with a one-year ban if the court is convinced the pattern of behavior shows the person is a risk to themselves or others.

State law is silent on whether minors can be the subject of an ERPO, but there is an effort to change that.

For the past several months, a legislative task force made up of police, mental health experts, school shooting survivors, the ACLU, and others has been meeting to develop strategies to prevent mass shootings, and it recently released a list of 25 recommendations.

Among the recommendations, clarifying state law to make clear ERPOs can apply to minors.

Prosecutor Kimberly Wyatt with King County’s Regional Domestic Violence Firearms Unit – the only specialized unit in the state that helps other police agencies statewide and family members with ERPOs – believes the orders should apply to juveniles.

“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.

In this case, they are working with a school resource officer at a school where a student under 18 is facing charges for a crime, requiring he not have access to weapons to determine if they need an Extreme Risk Protection Order.

“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.

She said police had tried several times to confirm with the father where the guns are located, but he refuses to comply.

Wyatt said using the ERPO would not be about taking away the father’s firearms rights.

We’re trying to say, ‘Dad lawfully can possess those guns,’ and we would hope that most parents have given law enforcement reassurances where the firearms are. But in this particular case, the father has declined to give any of those reassurances. So we would say that the juvenile could not be in that home with access to firearms. If dad wants to keep the firearms in the home and not share the information, you know that puts him in a difficult position,” Wyatt said.

If the ERPO was served on the child in this case, the dad would then have to choose between proving to law enforcement where the guns are so they know they’re not in the house, or having the child live elsewhere.

Wyatt says overall, they are seeing a lot of success with ERPOs, including another case where they served one to an 18-year-old student in Seattle, who police came to talk to regarding a drug issue and were allowed to search his bag. When school officials and law enforcement searched the student’s bag, they found a loaded gun with the safety off in the backpack.

Wyatt said that on top of the criminal issues there, that the 18-year-old showed extremely negligent behavior with a firearm. That ultimately was why they filed an ERPO against the student, to ensure he could no longer legally buy guns currently legally available.

Those are just some of the examples Wyatt gave lawmakers earlier this month to highlight the importance of ERPOs, and the urgent need to clarify the state law on their use in juvenile cases, as the work group recommended.

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.


Better than Drudge Report. Check out Whatfinger News, the Internet’s conservative frontpage founded by ex-military!

Please follow and like us:

12 responses to “Attritional strategy: Washington state wants to apply ERPOs to minors, prove you have no firearms in the family home

  1. Is a prosecutor in Washington an elected official (Kimberly Wyatt) or an appointment? Shouldn’t the elected representatives of the people define each law they pass specifically and not leave it up to unelected bureaucrats. Just askin.

    • The lead PA is elected. He’s a total libtard who ran unopposed in the last election. I believe the other PAs are appointed/hired based on his input.

      ERPOs was enacted by Washington state legislature.

  2. At some point, revolt is going to be the only avenue they leave open to gun owners…

  3. Wow! This is really a “sticky wicket.” Once the father discloses the location of his firearms–they become ripe for confiscation, by and by. I feel no doubt that this father is in horrible anguish over this choice . . . your son OR your guns!

  4. Should I have a minor in my “DOMAIN”, no one, regardless of the law, comes into my house with such order. Should I have a minor with emotional behavior, I would seek the advise of a professional and I would secure the weapon to avoid dire consequences. The government has no business in my house or my child, we are not under the mandate of the state.

  5. I have a few “guns in my home” – all in a fire proof, water proof vault. Law Enforcement has no business knowing this. They are NOT “accessible” to anyone else in my house, so this false flag of a Father not disclosing “location” to Police is a crock.

    NONE of the children who have done these horrific mass shootings had legal access to the guns they used – Sandy Hook is the best example – the lunatic killed his own Mom to gain access to steel her guns for the shootings in the “Gun Free Zone”…

    Time for all Conservatives to get their Concealed Pistol License and ARM UP !! The Liberals already disarmed themselves… The last Civil War the Democrats started was to keep their slaves. this one they will start to keep their base indentured. Short war with one side being armed.

  6. And government gets to decide what an “emergency” is. Apparently having a gun in your backpack constitutes one. Hmm.

  7. The state has no authority to suspend citizen’s Constitutionally protected rights. There is no “unless” provision anywhere in the Second Amendment. Government’s authorities are enumerated in the Constitution. Just as with the First Amendment and the concept of “prior restraint”, it is not legal to restrain someone’s speech simply because you are afraid they might say something you’d object to.

    In the same way, removing one’s ability to defend themselves simply because someone claims that they “might” use them in the commission of a crime is not authorized either. That is liking finding that someone checked a book out from the library on airplane hijacking so you arrest them because they may decide to hijack and airplane.

    We live in a dangerous world, always have. I am not asking government to make me safe. Not only is that impossible, it is repressive. If someone is worried that another might use a gun to commit violence maybe they should arm themselves against that possibility.

    All of this is modeling. It is a reflex now for people to run to the Government for “protection” like a virgin clutches her panties. There are no “solutions” to be found for this in government.

    • Why left/libtards educrats have punished self-defense by kids getting beaten on by a bully– tell an adult (who does nothing) instead! Because “all violence is wrong,” you see. (Gosh, Billy, you tried to keep your self from getting hurt so I’m afraid you’re going to get suspended too!) Why they do that.

  8. I’ve posted this before on other sites:
    In 1890 the Superintendent of the US Naval War college was Capt. Alfred Thayer Mahan. His niche in history is that he authored a little book titled “The Influence of Seapower on History” which turned out to be very popular and influential within the ranks of professional naval officers. Kaiser Wilhelm II, who reportedly kept a copy on his bedside table and ordered that the officers of his Kreigsmarine read it.
    One of the topics Mahan discussed was the concept of a ‘fleet in being’. This was the idea that just the possession of a large, powerful, efficient naval force was enough to secure a nation from the possibility of invasion and guarantee that the nation’s merchant shipping could go about its business without fear of foreign harassment. However, Mahan also said that the longer that a nation’s navy remains just a ‘fleet in being’ without ever going into action, the less and less effective it will be at keeping the peace. Someday, somebody will decide to take a chance.
    The Second Amendment to the US Constitution has been a ‘fleet in being’ for over two hundred years and those who it was meant to deter are becoming restless. It looks like the time is coming when it will be necessary to do something pour encourager les autres.

  9. Note that this is also about child-grabbing as well, which is quite horrendous, given what we hear about CPS, and sex trafficking, etc. the thought might be to “punish” the gun owner and also gain another child to molest for the state, or otherwise disarm the family in general… of course it isn’t about the guns so much as it is about the control, because even if a person does fork over firearms they’ll likely be on a list as a “person of interest” or “potential threat” simply for the ownership thereof. I do recommend other readers here also keep more exotic things around to keep the jack-booted thugs out (they’ll be prepared for bullets, likely knives as well, less likely for swords, and likely not at all for sound, [like this for example: do look around the place more of course, and do check to see how reputable they are.] microwave, or laser/beam type items).

    Also one wonders, do ERPOs apply to politicians, their body guards, and their groupies/fanclubs?

  10. I am a very strong supporter of all of our rights as enumerated by the Bill of Rights. I am especially supportive of the 2nd amendment, as I believe it is upon this God given right, that all other rights depend.
    I have never been militant about my support for the right to keep and bear arms. However, depending upon what your definition of militant is, I have begun to lean towards it. I say this because I can see the writing on the wall, in a manner of speaking.
    There is going to come a day, when the police go to serve one of these illegal warrants, and the victim of the warrant is going to get violent to the point of starting a gun battle with police. And depending on just how that plays out, it could be the so called shot heard around the country. If anyone remembers the trouble out west, with the Bundy ranch and the large number of people who responded to the attempt to arrest the elder Bundy and a son, on the same charges that they had already served time for, they will also understand what I am talking about.
    A gun battle with a peaceable man, who might be either a leader in a civil rights group that supports the 2nd amendment, or just a community leader, perhaps a Sunday School teacher, or the like, could be the spark that ignites the dry tinder that exists with the 2nd amendment. And if either him, or a member of his family, is shot, it could be the final straw, and people from around the nation could flood that town, and surround the courthouse, or the police station, or some other form of protest. None of the things will end well, I am sure of that.
    I am waiting for the first case of a shootout during a gun confiscation, without legal reason. I hope for the responding officers sake that the order is not predicated upon some sour grapes by an ex wife, or the like. Because if the police shoot a man or perhaps his daughter, accidentally, over one of these orders, that come to find out, is not for any valid reason anyway, the powderkeg will blow up, and take out a lot more than just that tiny place. Civil unrest, by white middle class people, has never been started that I know of. At least, not to the extent of those by minorities.
    The government can only govern those who consent to it. If the people ever reach the point where they no longer are willing to allow the government to force them to do things that they disagree with, there will be no stopping them.


Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.