House Bill 1840 is back.

The proposal, which would require some gun owners with a restraining or protective order against them to temporarily surrender their firearms while the order is in effect, was seen last year as the one gun-control bill that could actually make it through the Washington Legislature — until it died in the state Senate, leaving supporters “seething with anger.”

(The issue was profiled in a New York Times investigation last March.)

Now it’s been revived and received a surprising 97-0 vote (with one member absent) on the state House floor this week after Democrats and Republicans agreed on compromise language.

The compromise adds more judicial oversight by preventing the surrender of guns unless the order is accompanied by an additional finding that the subject constitutes a “credible threat.”

That matches the amendment that got the bill through the Senate Law & Justice Committee unanimously last year. The chairman, strong Second Amendment supporter Mike Padden, said Thursday that he still supports the bill but cannot control what his caucus decides to do.

Last year, caucus leaders did not allow the bill to come up for a vote on the floor because of concerns that some residents would be temporarily denied a gun without due process, Padden said.

“We’ll see what happens this time,” said Padden, R-Spokane Valley.

… Also it says temporary..meaning that once the order is lifted you get your shit back. …

I saw one that defined temporary as 50 years . . . at least it wasn't permanent.

Dang it. Who is going to manage all of the confiscated weapons? Storage, tracking and returns. Sounds like a nightmare. I don't like it. What next?

I think 55 gallon drums would be used and these drums may "accidentally" be exposed to saltwater.. not that thats ever happened before

I think 55 gallon drums would be used and these drums may "accidentally" be exposed to saltwater.. not that thats ever happened before

Remember NOLA.

Meh. Not an issue really. So if you're getting a divorce and the wife tries to play the bullshit restraining order angle it doesn't mean you have to give up your guns unless there is other proof that you're a threat. That being said...IF you are indeed a threat then it's probably best you don't have your guns anyway. Also it says temporary..meaning that once the order is lifted you get your shit back. IF it's not lifted, again, you must pose a threat. In a case not involving divorce there usually has to be police reports or some other history of violence before a restraining order is issued. IF they have that proof then there is something wrong with you in the first place.

I don't know about the rest of you but I have never had a restraining order against me and I don't intend to. Non issue.

a credible threat to many people is just being in possession of multiple firearms.