The language in (4)(c) quoted above by Old Bill Dibble and others is about a temporary transfer to a person in danger. I think it is intended to cover the temporary loan of my gun to my sister if she is afraid that her ex is coming over tonight to shoot her. I don't think it covers permanent removal of guns from Demented Grandpa.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
Taking a family member's guns away
- Thread starter cjwils
- Start date
- Status
- Not open for further replies.
I just learned that Washington State voters will get to vote later this year on ballot measure I-1491, which has been described as a proposal to take guns from people deemed a danger to themselves or others; following a court hearing. I will try to get more information and report back, probably in a new thread.
Edit a few minutes later: I see that I-1491 is already under discussion in this forum. I will not start a new thread. You can find that discussion easily by searching the law and civil rights forum.
Edit a few minutes later: I see that I-1491 is already under discussion in this forum. I will not start a new thread. You can find that discussion easily by searching the law and civil rights forum.
Last edited:
If you don't trust someone with his guns, do you trust him with his car or checkbook?
People assume that getting the court involved would be catastrophic, but it may be a good option. Probate proceedings are nightmarish and difficult primarily when the families themselves are nightmarish and difficult.
Consider all the problems associated with transfers of personal property, including arms, that have been noted above, especially when the transfer isn't voluntary. If you have siblings with a different view of what should be done, is it better to:
A) do what you think is right with the hope that your siblings or a hostile step-parent won't be angry enough to pay a lawyer to make it a problem for you, or
B) see a judge, get the authority to do the right thing, and let the sibling or hostile step-parent have their say so the solutions you implement reflect due concern for their positions, all in the open and subject to review.
If you've seen what can happen with A, B looks pretty good.
cjwils in his OP said:Also, imagine the nightmare of trying to get a court involved. Is there another legal option?
People assume that getting the court involved would be catastrophic, but it may be a good option. Probate proceedings are nightmarish and difficult primarily when the families themselves are nightmarish and difficult.
Consider all the problems associated with transfers of personal property, including arms, that have been noted above, especially when the transfer isn't voluntary. If you have siblings with a different view of what should be done, is it better to:
A) do what you think is right with the hope that your siblings or a hostile step-parent won't be angry enough to pay a lawyer to make it a problem for you, or
B) see a judge, get the authority to do the right thing, and let the sibling or hostile step-parent have their say so the solutions you implement reflect due concern for their positions, all in the open and subject to review.
If you've seen what can happen with A, B looks pretty good.
Last edited:
why not just make the firearms inoperable?
Good idea if you can get away with it.
Last edited:
BigMikey76
New member
Invest in a gun safe for the parent that will hold all of the firearms in question and put them in it. Then you "lose" the key/combination. If they are out of sight and out of mind long enough, the parent with dementia may well just stop looking for them, or not even remember that he/she was not the one who put them in the safe to begin with, but the parent will still technically be in legal possession the whole time. It sucks to have to take actions like this, but doing the right and responsible thing will often keep you from winning popularity contests.
cjwils
https://wei.sos.wa.gov/county/lewis/en/currentelection/Pages/Measure-594.aspx
Emphasis mine.
On edit. In states with common property laws the spouse of the affected gun owner could give consent to a transfer between family members. But once again a court would probably have to make the final determination.
A person or group could also petition the state government to clarify the law.
https://wei.sos.wa.gov/county/lewis/en/currentelection/Pages/Measure-594.aspx
The measure would establish a number of exceptions to the background check requirement. A background check would not be required to transfer a firearm by gift between family members. The background check requirement also would not apply to the sale or transfer of antique firearms. It also would not apply to certain temporary transfers of a firearm when needed to prevent imminent death or great bodily harm. Background checks would not be required for certain public agencies or officers acting in their official capacity, including law enforcement or corrections agencies or officers, members of the military, and federal officials. Federally licensed gunsmiths who receive firearms solely to service or repair them would not be required to undergo background checks.
Emphasis mine.
On edit. In states with common property laws the spouse of the affected gun owner could give consent to a transfer between family members. But once again a court would probably have to make the final determination.
A person or group could also petition the state government to clarify the law.
Last edited:
Buzzcook, I suggest you might want to look at the actual law, and not the summary that you linked to. I think it is clear that the actual law in Washington State does not cover the situation I raised in the original post. I am not talking about a gifting situation, and other exceptions in the law do not seem applicable, if you read the actual language.
I am not sure about how state common property laws would apply. That is a new topic that I would like some knowledgeable people to comment on. Maybe a new thread topic for someone.
I am not sure about how state common property laws would apply. That is a new topic that I would like some knowledgeable people to comment on. Maybe a new thread topic for someone.
Frank Ettin
Administrator
Wrong. See the discussion in post 17 about what the law actually says.Buzzcook said:cjwils
https://wei.sos.wa.gov/county/lewis/en/currentelection/Pages/Measure-594.aspx
The measure would establish a number of exceptions to the background check requirement. A background check would not be required to transfer a firearm by gift between family members. The background check requirement also would not apply to the sale or transfer of antique firearms. It also would not apply to certain temporary transfers of a firearm when needed to prevent imminent death or great bodily harm. Background checks would not be required for certain public agencies or officers acting in their official capacity, including law enforcement or corrections agencies or officers, members of the military, and federal officials. Federally licensed gunsmiths who receive firearms solely to service or repair them would not be required to undergo background checks.
Emphasis mine.......
Cite some legal authority for that proposition. And by the way, only nine States are community property States.Buzzcook said:...In states with common property laws the spouse of the affected gun owner could give consent to a transfer between family members...
Really? Exactly how is that done? Can you cite some examples of it having been done?Buzzcook said:...A person or group could also petition the state government to clarify the law.
no perfect options but.....
Our family went thru this 4 years ago.
Dementia was taking over along with anger issues. He would makes threats with gun in hand and no one knew whether he was just doing to get his way or meant it. He still had the ability and awareness to behave in public.
So, with the family in agreement, I removed all the firing pins.
Felt pretty good about that and it worked for a few months until he started talking about trading in one of them.
Thankfully, mercifully, that passed without him showing it to a saleman. The dementia continued to make things worse until it put him in an assisted living quarters that was locked down.
Not a perfect answer for sure but it gave us what we needed at the time.
Our family went thru this 4 years ago.
Dementia was taking over along with anger issues. He would makes threats with gun in hand and no one knew whether he was just doing to get his way or meant it. He still had the ability and awareness to behave in public.
So, with the family in agreement, I removed all the firing pins.
Felt pretty good about that and it worked for a few months until he started talking about trading in one of them.
Thankfully, mercifully, that passed without him showing it to a saleman. The dementia continued to make things worse until it put him in an assisted living quarters that was locked down.
Not a perfect answer for sure but it gave us what we needed at the time.
Buzzcock...A person or group could also petition the state government to clarify the law.
Really?
Eattin....Exactly how is that done? Can you cite some examples of it having been done?
While I don't think you can petition a state government to clarify a law, in some states you could ask for clarification or interpretation of a law by the state's Attorney General. If you get an opinion, it could be helpful.....or not. http://www.nwahomepage.com/news/knw...ral-for-clarification-on-state-open-carry-law
Frank Ettin
Administrator
If you read the article at the link you posted, it's not about ordinary citizens asking the Attorney General for an opinion. It's about state legislators asking the AG for an opinion.Skans said:While I don't think you can petition a state government to clarify a law, in some states you could ask for clarification or interpretation of a law by the state's Attorney General. If you get an opinion, it could be helpful.....or not. http://www.nwahomepage.com/news/knw...ral-for-clarification-on-state-open-carry-law
And that's the way it generally works. An AG can provide an opinion on a point of law at the request of one or more legislators, the Governor, or a head of a state regulatory agency. But an AG isn't going to provide an opinion of that sort for anyone other than a state official. An AG opinion isn't binding on a court.
Sometimes a regulatory agency will respond to a formal request for guidance on a matter within the scope of that agency's enforcement authority. So, for example, it would not be uncommon for parties to a contemplated transaction to seek advance guidance from the IRS to assure compliance with the applicable tax rules. Agencies which do that sort of thing have formal procedures in place, and any guidance will be limited to the specific facts set out in the request.
IMO it doesn't matter what state you live in. Dementia must be officially recognized. Someone should be judged mentally incompetent or someone should already have power of attorney before anyone should be allowed to take someones firearms away from them. Otherwise a son, daughter, sibling, or spouse could justify taking someone's guns because they started showing signs of dementia when they voted for Trump or any reason they wanted to foist on an elderly person who they didn't want to have their guns. Think about these situations before they become a problem that requires ignoring the constitution.
Frank Ettin
Administrator
The Constitution has nothing to do with this issue. The Constitution regulates government and not private conduct.DA/SA Fan said:....Think about these situations before they become a problem that requires ignoring the constitution.
Frank Ettin
Administrator
Nothing is unconstitutional unless/until an appropriate court rules it so. Your opinion on the question really doesn't matter.DA/SA Fan said:.... If the the government allows such theft it is unconstitutional.....
The Founding Fathers assigned the authority to determine, among other things, what the Constitution means and how it applies to the federal courts (Constitution, Article III, Sections 1 and 2):
Section 1.
The judicial power of the United States, shall be vested in one Supreme Court, and in such inferior courts as the Congress may from time to time ordain and establish. ...
Section 2.
The judicial power shall extend to all cases, in law and equity, arising under this Constitution,...
What you think the law should be is irrelevant. The issue being discussed in this thread is what the law is.DA/SA Fan said:.... person having his guns confiscated deserves to be proven incompetent in the eyes of the law (government) before losing his or her right and property.
zukiphile, who is a lawyer, provided in posts 3, 19, and 23 some very useful insight into some of the genuine legal issues. Let's stick with trying to address the OP's very real and legitimate concerns in real world terms.
Frank Ettin
Administrator
I think we've taken this about as far as we can go.
- Status
- Not open for further replies.