GOAL 1-2010 (WA State)

From Joe Waldron

GOAL ALERT
1-2010                                                         

1 February 2010

One almost slipped past us!  House Bill 2778 appears to adopt federal restrictions on firearm possession in cases of domestic violence or "no-contact" or other family-related restraining orders.

Federal law is already bad enough.  Banning possession of firearms, a fundamental constitutional right, for a misdemeanor simple assault conviction is already unconscionable.  The same is true with regard to firearm bans on individuals subject to certain restraining orders -- individuals who have committed no crime whatsoever.

But HB 2778 goes much further than that.  Bill sponsors claim the bill merely incorporate the federal prohibitions into state law.  But rather than simply quote federal law, or cite it in existing Washington law, it adds entirely new language that far exceeds the already oppressive federal restrictions.

 From the NRA Legislative Counsel:

Adding "harassment" to the provisions of the federal DV law would exceed the scope of the federal law.  "Harassment" under Washington law may not even contain an element of the use of or threatened use of force.

"Family or household members" as defined in RCW 9.41.040(2) is broader than the definitions of "intimate partner" in federal law.

The surrender of firearms and prohibitions contained in RCW 9.41.800 would apply to ex parte restraining orders, where the subject of the order would not even have the opportunity to defend him- or herself.

  HB 2778 passed out of the House Judiciary Committee on 21 January.  It was subjected to a hearing in the House Ways & Means Committee today (1 February) and will likely come out of that committee in a few days.  Then it goes to the full House for a floor vote by all Representatives.

You are urged to call both of your Representatives and ask them to oppose this poorly drafted legislation.  A substitute MAY be offered that would limit the impact of the bill to that of federal law.  While that is infinitely preferable to the version under consideration at this time, the bottom line is, do we really want to deny a fundamental constitutional right to someone who has not been convicted of a serious crime?  Or in the case of a restraining order, NO CRIME?

You may contact your Representatives via the Legislative Hotline at 1-800-562-6000 or directly via the contact information available at http://apps.leg.wa.gov/DistrictFinder/Default.aspx  When your legislative district pops up, it will include links to your Representatives' web site, with office and e-mail addresses and direct telephone numbers.

In no way does our opposition to HB 2778 imply we condone domestic violence, in any form.  As my father taught me many years ago, boys don't hit girls.  Period.  This is simply a poorly written bill that does not deserve serious consideration. 

During my final year in the Army, we had a young man in the company who had had to have a waiver to enlist, as he had a misdemeanor Domestic Violence conviction--for fighting with his brother.  As a Blackhawk crew chief, he could shoot the door guns--considered "crew-served", and ergo PC, or something-- but not a pistol or rifle, which are eeeeevil.  (At GBR-IV, Maj. Chuck told me that there are no waivers for misdemeanor Lautenberg violations anymore.)