gun rights were restored without even a hearing

[MichaelHarris]

"For years, Zettergren had been barred from possessing firearms because of two felony convictions. He had a history of mental health problems, and friends said he was dangerous. Yet Zettergren's gun rights were restored without even a hearing"

"In February 2005, Erik Zettergren came home from a party after midnight with his girlfriend and another couple. They had all been drinking heavily, and soon the other man and Zettergren's girlfriend passed out on his bed. When Zettergren went to check on them later, he found his girlfriend naked from the waist down and the other man, Jason Robinson, with his pants around his ankles. Enraged, Zettergren ordered Robinson to leave. After a brief confrontation, Zettergren shot him in the temple at point-blank range with a Glock-17 semiautomatic handgun."

http://www.statesman.com/news/nation/felons-finding-it-easy-to-regain-gun-rights-1967153.html

The Second Amendment Foundation and the NRA, working hard putting firearms in the hands of felons.

[iverglas]

1. but we gotta protect those firearms owners!

Poor persecuted pets that we all know they are. Why, the very legislation says so:

Since 1995, more than 3,300 felons and people convicted of domestic violence misdemeanors have regained their gun rights in Washington state, where Zettergren got his gun rights restored, according to the analysis of data provided by the state police and the court system.

Of that number, more than 400 — about 13 percent — have subsequently committed new crimes, the analysis found. More than 200 committed felonies, including murder, assault in the first and second degrees, child rape and drive-by shooting.

... Even the National Rifle Association backed the effort. But by the late 1970s, a more hard-line faction, committed to an expansive view of the Second Amendment, had taken control of the group. A crowning achievement was the Firearm Owners Protection Act of 1986, which significantly loosened federal gun laws.

I wonder whether anybody even gives a first thought these days to protecting the public ...

[gejohnston]

3. The

Firearm Owners Protection Act of 1986 did not "significantly loosen federal gun laws." What it did loosen was really of little consequence. It mostly clarified vague parts of Gun Control Act of 1968 and to curb civil rights abuses by ATF. Oh yeah, there is also the Hughes Amendment.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Firearm_Owners_Protection_Act

[AtheistCrusader]

6. So 6.5% committed new felonies?

The and about 6.5% committed misdemeanors?

So, that's pretty good, for the other 87% that had their full civil rights restored, and committed no new crimes, right?

[iverglas]

15. the article misspoke, didn't it?

13% got caught committing new crimes.

their full civil rights restored

As we know, I am a firm opponent of civil death. Most particularly, for instance, the right to vote should never ever be denied to any citizen. (And I used "citizen" accurately here, not as some bafflegab for "person".)

No problem, however, with prohibition orders made on an individual basis, and in particular as terms of probation orders and release on parole. And no problem with denial of permission to possess firearms on a case by case basis, where the person does not demonstrate that they are suitable to possess firearms. It might just be difficult for someone with a conviction for armed robbery to do that.

I've also never said that a criminal conviction should be an absolute bar to firearms possession; in fact, I've said the opposite.

The nonsense thinking that makes this a "civil rights" issue, let alone that ties it to other attributes of citizenship, is the problem here. The idea that someone's entitlement to vote should be dependent on their having the "right" to possess firearms is the nonsense.

Firearms possession is first and foremost a public safety issue, and should be treated as such in all aspects. The entitlement or otherwise of persons with criminal convictions to possess firearms should be addressed on a case by case basis, the issue in each case being suitability to possess firearms and nothing else.

Stop denying people their right to vote, a practice that should have died a couple of centuries ago, and then the process of applying to eliminate the statutory bar to firearms possession can focus on the relevant issue.

[discntnt_irny_srcsm]

17. Questions:

I am in theory against the loss of voting rights but how would one vote from prison?
Would you be able vote from prison or only after release?

[iverglas]

20. I guess here

they set up polling stations in the institutions. ;)

http://scc.lexum.org/en/2002/2002scc68/2002scc68.html

2002 Supreme Court of Canada decision striking down the provision of the Canada Elections Act denying the right to vote to “every person who is imprisoned in a correctional institution serving a sentence of two years or more.” It sets out the host of reasons why denial isn't just unconstitutional, it's counter-productive.

Sentences of two years or more are served in federal penitentiaries. (Thence the common sentence here of "two years less a day", so the sentence is served in a provincial prison.) The decision covered federal elections and federal inmates.

A summary from the Canadian Human Rights Commission:

http://www.chrc-ccdp.ca/en/timePortals/milestones/135mile.asp

I hadn't noticed before that the applicant in the case was a "former member" of the Satan's Choice. I wonder what party biker gangs vote for? Maybe Conservative, given the, er, close ties between the Harper cabinet and bikers ... (former Minister of Foreign Affairs, now back in cabinet after a period in the outer darkness, who was found to have left top-secret documents at his biker moll girlfriend's place and never gone back to retrieve them)

I think the provinces have fallen into line although I haven't kept track.

Ah. Mail-in ballots. Duh.

http://www.theioi.org/news/nova-scotia-inmates-couldn-t-vote-in-2009-provincial-elections

Nova Scotia: Inmates couldn't vote in 2009 provincial elections
03.12.2010

A Correctional Services worker contacted the office to report that adult offenders throughout the province were unable to vote in the provincial election occurring that same day. A representative of the Nova Scotia Ombudsman Dwight L. Bishop immediately contacted the Chief Electoral Officer, who advised it would not be possible given the timing issues involved to set up polling stations in all five correctional facilities on the day of the election. An own-motion investigation was initiated with a focus to prevent a similar situation from happening.

The investigation determined that although a pamphlet specific to offenders was drafted by Elections Nova Scotia outlining how to vote by write-in ballot, slippage occurred and the information was not forwarded to correctional facilities in time for the election.

The Ombudsman recommended that provincial protocols outlining voting procedures for offenders in provincial facilities be developed jointly between Elections Nova Scotia and the Department of Justice, Correctional Services. The recommendation was accepted and implemented.

From Quebec:

http://www.electionsquebec.qc.ca/english/provincial/voting/voting-of-inmates.php

Voting of inmates

During a general election or a referendum, inmates of federal and provincial houses of detention as well as young people placed in temporary detention or in a place of custody have the right to vote.

To be able to exercise one's right to vote, the person must be a qualified elector and be entered on the list of electors of the institution. To be entered on the list of electors, they must satisfy the following conditions on polling day:

be at least 18 years old;
be a Canadian citizen;
be domiciled in Québec for the past six months.

(Quebec has this interesting little residence requirement quirk. In one referendum, on the Meech Lake constitutional accord, I think, it left some citizens without a vote, because they were Quebec residents but not for six months.)

Googling inmates vote provincial at google.ca finds stuff from pretty much every province, I think, so it seems to have been applied universally.

[discntnt_irny_srcsm]

33. Works for me. :) n/t

[AtheistCrusader]

19. Yes, but only 200 of the 400 were felonies.

So, 6.5% were just misdemeanors. Anything from failing to pay a parking ticket, to maybe a minor assault. That's a lot of 'play' in the stats. Bottom line, 87% seemed to 'get it' and move on with their lives. Good for them, that's an encouraging number, given how badly we treat post-release felons in this nation.

I don't think anyone made the case that voting rights are contingent upon the right to possess a firearm.

But I otherwise agree. Neither voting rights, nor firearms possession should be automatically abrogated upon conviction of any felony whatever. Yes, we should only strip the two (or any others) on a case by case 'makes sense' basis.

[one-eyed fat man]

12. Federal disability and restoration

Short of a Presidential pardon, is there any other way to regain the right to own a gun?

In theory, you can make application to the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives (ATF) under 18 U.S.C. § 925(c) to request restoration of your gun rights. The application is supposedly granted if "it is established . . . that the circumstances . . . and the applicant's record and reputation, are such that the applicant will not be likely to act in a manner dangerous to public safety and that the granting of the relief would not be contrary to the public interest."

The problem is that since October 1992, Congress has prohibited ATF from spending any money to handle such applications. If you submit the application, ATF will not act on it. They will simply return it with an explanation that they cannot process it, due to a lack of available funds. Someone who went through this procedure sued in federal court, arguing that the court should bypass Congress in order to make available a procedure to restore the right to own a gun. The Supreme Court rejected the argument in United States v. Bean, 537 U.S. 71 (2002).

The only felonies that are not covered by the federal gun ban are:
(1) those "pertaining to antitrust violations, unfair trade practices, restraints of trade, or other similar offenses relating to the regulation of business practices," per 18 U.S.C. § 921(a)(20)(A)
(2) felony convictions from foreign countries, per Small v. United States, --- U.S. ---, 2005 WL 946620 (April 26, 2005).

Any change in the state liability does not relieve the Federal liability, the Federal liability and disqualification remains in the NICS database, so how is that circumvented?

[iverglas]

16. hm

A bit of plagiarism?

http://www.williamslawonline.com/Press-Room/Top-10-Things-Know-About-Federal-Gun-Law.shtml

Customary to cite the source one lifts text from. That looks like it may be the original source for your text, but you may have got it somewhere else. Or heck, maybe you are the author.


Is this statement in the article inaccurate? --

A crowning achievement was the Firearm Owners Protection Act of 1986, which significantly loosened federal gun laws.

When it came to felons' gun rights, the legislation essentially left the matter up to states. The federal gun restrictions would no longer apply if a state had restored a felon's civil rights and the individual faced no other firearms prohibitions.

[one-eyed fat man]

28. Hasty cut and paste from the last time I quoted them.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=118&topic_id=476795&mesg_id=477627

But if it's all so dead fired easy, try this:

http://www.gunrightsrestored.com/test.html

[AtheistCrusader]

21. Nothing so dramatic.

Your right to possess a firearm can be instituted by a state circuit judge. Same with Voting. It's a fairly simple process, and depending on the crime commmitted by the felon, might be pretty much rubber-stamped, might be rejected out of hand, might get a thourough grilling/hearing.

Edit: Violent felonies are always going to see a judge (or be rejected). Violent felonies committed witha firearm.. well, i've never heard of one being restored in that case, before this thread.

[Historic NY]

2. Oops.....

[gejohnston]

4. a few corrections

It was the National Firearms Act of 1938 that banned felons from possessing firearms, GCA68 simply made it a minimum of five years instead of the original max of five years in prison.
How does it work in other states?
It is not clear, did GCA68 or the 1986 law allow the states to restore gun rights? Since Washington state was half assed in this one case, what does it have to do with any other place or in even in that state as a whole?
In other words, the SAF and NRA "working hard putting firearms in the hands of felons" is total bullshit.

[AtheistCrusader]

5. Normally, it's a bitch and a half to get your gun rights restored in this state.

As far as I can tell, this fuckup was the exception, not the rule.

[apocalypsehow]

7. Myself, I'd have dialed 911, after escorting Mr. Robinson from the room. The matter of "consent"

was the opening criminal act in this ugly drama, as Erik Zettergren's girlfriend obviously wasn't in any condition to give, agree, or otherwise grant it after having been tucked away in bed "passed out."

That's where we start, based upon the information given in the article: this sounds like a rape in progress, interrupted.

But Erik Zettergren, another (felonious) asshole with a fondness for guns was on the scene, and instead of doing what both the law requires and his moral compass as a potential decent human being demanded of him, i.e., stop the non-consensual physical assault upon his girlfriend and await the authorities to arrive, he decided to execute an alleged (by his observations) rapist on the spot with a Glock 17.

I call barbarism. So do the vast majority of decent human beings who count themselves among the ranks of the progressive in these United States. Crimes require trials, which involve due process. Then we punish, if the jury of any said accused agrees. Them there Founding Fathers were on the case again, with that beautiful 5th amendment! The one that said things like this:

"No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation."

Ahhhhh, and in that very same amendment they speak of "the Militia"..."when in actual service in time of War or public danger..."..."A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state..."

Curious stuff - odd how those Founding Fathers mentioned "militias" in the Bill of Rights in two amendments, in the context of "rights" being afforded to collective bodies bearing arms in one, and being exempted in the other while in the same exercise of those same collective rights when it comes to the judicial protections of that same Bill of Rights, in another amendment.

Speaking of which...

"The federal firearms prohibition for felons dates to the late 1960s, when the assassinations of the Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. and Sen. Robert F. Kennedy, along with rioting across the country, set off a clamor for stricter gun control laws"

And that doesn't even cover the cheap, mail order rifle Lee Harvey Oswald was able to order under an anonymous name which enabled him to murder Robert F. Kennedy's brother in Dallas, Texas.

And yet we have non-stop vilification of the 1968 act, and all previous and subsequent laws orbiting generations around it clear back to the 1930s and forward to the Brady Bill, all sponsored, passed, and signed into law by DEMOCRATS, down here in the Gungeon.

One begins to wonder why...and then one really doesn't, after a fair perusal of what's on offer down here.

Which brings us back to Mr. Zettergren and his outrageous trespass of the clear bounds & legality of the 5th amendment: let's hear it.


Edit: typo.

[Euromutt]

11. On the basis of the article, how can you tell?

Let's assume you're correct, and Mr. Zettergren interrupted Mr. Robinson in the act of, for all practical purposes, raping Mr. Zettergren's girlfriend.

The article states:

After a brief confrontation, Zettergren shot <Robinson> in the temple at point-blank range with a Glock-17 semiautomatic handgun.

What is meant by "a brief confrontation"? Did Mr. Robinson attempt to assault Mr. Zettergren, resulting in Mr. Zettergren shooting Mr. Robinson in self-defense, as it happened in the temple? Do you know? If so, how?

As it happens, I know on the basis of Googled court documents that Mr. Zettergren did not shoot Mr. Robinson in the temple (which means my investigative skills are better than Michael Luo's) but I'll leave it to you to discover where Mr. Robinson was shot.

[gejohnston]

29. for example?

And yet we have non-stop vilification of the 1968 act, and all previous and subsequent laws orbiting generations around it clear back to the 1930s and forward to the Brady Bill, all sponsored, passed, and signed into law by DEMOCRATS, down here in the Gungeon.

what non-stop vilification of the 1968 act? What vilification of any of them? Disagreements with specific provisions maybe, but not vilification. I do admit to making jokes about only one (rather obscure) federal gun law, The Mailing of Firearms Act aka the Miller Act. It was signed by Calvin Coolidge (GOP Moran) in February 1927.

[LAGC]

8. As a person with two felony convictions under my belt, I just have this to say...

...anecdotal cases like these certainly do me no favors, as I do hope to get my gun rights restored in a couple years myself.

It's been over 15 years since I made the serious mistake of getting involved with the wrong crowd and going out and committing some commercial burglaries during my "wild youth" as a teenager. We stole over $19,000 worth of computers and accessories before we got caught. My accomplices were still barely juveniles (17-years-old) so they got a slap on the wrist and probation, while I got sent to a prison paramilitary "boot-camp" for 6 months since I was the oldest and held to be most responsible. I lucked out and found a good paying job when I got out, which was fortunate for me because while court-ordered restitution was supposed to be joint-and-several between the three of us, since I was the only one charged as an adult, I had to pay it ALL back, which I meticulously did over the course of 4 years time. For doing so well on probation, I was put on unsupervised status after 2 years.

Several years later, like a dumb-ass, without a probation officer breathing down my neck, I got careless and allowed a friend to talk me into buying one of his firearms off of him. Private-party transaction, so there was no background check. I went on to purchase several more firearms in this fashion. I rationalized in my mind at the time that since I wasn't out committing crimes any more (besides the instant offenses in question), no one should be the wiser. I just wanted to be able to enjoy target shooting again and be able to protect myself in my home, no sinister designs in mind at all. I figured if I ever had to use a gun in self-defense, better to face the consequences and be judged by 12 than to be carried by 6. Well, to make a long story short, a routine traffic stop turned into something bigger when, through a line of questioning, a "friend" informed the cops that I had guns at my home. (I never carried on my person, and only in the car straight to the range and back.) I ended up being sentenced in state court to 1-year minimum (5-years max) on a unlawful possession charge. I would have been screwed in federal court if any of the guns had turned out to be stolen, which is a risk you take when you buy private-party, but fortunately they all came up clean. The guns were all legal, I just wasn't. They were even so kind as to let me sell the guns they had confiscated, after I got out, just so long as they weren't in my actual possession or control any more.

I've definitely learned from my mistakes. I now take my rights and responsibilities very seriously, and have now had all my civil rights (except for gun rights) restored for nearly 3 years now, haven't missed an election since. It really is amazing how much you appreciate your rights after you've had them taken away from you for some time. Never again. I plan on doing everything by the book now, and hope to be a lawful gun owner again in a couple more years once I can apply for my last civil right back. (According to state code, you have to wait 5 years from the termination of your last sentence before you can apply.)

I know cases like mentioned in the OP don't reflect well on ex-cons, and its understandable why some would prefer that felons never be allowed to get their gun rights restored at all. But as even that article pointed out, only 13% of ex-cons went on to re-offend after they got their gun rights back. That means that 87% of those who got their gun rights back didn't. That's a hell of a lot better odds than the overall felony recidivism rate in general. Over 50% of people let out of prison go on to commit new felonies within 3 years. Generally speaking, those that do go straight and don't commit any more crimes within 5 years of their release, won't go on to commit any new crimes at all, which is why 5 years is a pretty good benchmark for judging a person's trustworthiness -- if they can stay out of trouble for that long, they can stay out of trouble for good.

What's interesting, is that it tends to be more liberal-minded minded people who generally believe in giving people second chances, being accepted back in society with equal rights, whereas the more conservative "law and order" types prefer to just throw the book at people and lock them away forever, or forever suspend their rights once they get released back into society, as second-class citizens.

While my state isn't as liberal as Washington state apparently is about restoration of rights, I do hope I can convince the Board of Pardons and Parole that I am worthy again to be afforded the full privileges and immunities that citizenship entails. Of course, I'll respect their decision either way.

[apocalypsehow]

9. "The guns were all legal, I just wasn't." - and therein lies the rub.

We come back again & again & again to that, in this locale. It's almost always, down here, on the side of more and any & all assholes being able to get their hands on more guns on the lightest of pretexts and under a false reading of the 2nd amendment - as long as they're "law abiding." Felons exempted and banished, always and forever.

Myself, as a genuine progressive, not so much.

I can't speak to your case, and don't have to. As there is no actual right to "own" a gun - the Heller case is the Plessey v. Ferugson of our time - your problem is strictly legislative, and changeable with common sense both on your part and whatever government entity you are prohibited from owning firearms under you current circumstances.

Abide by the current laws. Put forth your petitions. Argue them well. Under a decent scheme of governance, that should suffice to allow you to be reinstated to the ranks of those able to posses a firearm. But if it isn't: you still must abide by the law.

Citizenship in an Democracy entails that first premise: I may not like the law, but I will abide by it - and will work to change what I don't like through every process available to me.

I wish you well.

[iverglas]

23. see my post 20

Just because you may be interested in reading the Supreme Court of Canada decision I linked to there, about voting rights for inmates. (No one convicted of a criminal offence who was not actually incarcerated was ever denied the vote in Canada. And it took 20 years after the adoption of the new Charter of Rights and Freedoms in 1982 for a challenge to that bar to succeed.)

The decision lays out (at great length) all the arguments pro and con denying the vote. It demolishes the former and articulates the latter very well. And yes, the right/left division in those arguments is pretty plain.

The unfortunate thing is that it was a 5-4 decision, with one of the supposedly most progressive judges at the time (L'Heureux-Dubé) voting nay. But it's firmly entrenched in Canadian law now: everybody votes.

[Euromutt]

10. What a ludicrously vague article

One might be forgiven for thinking that this article was written to scare rather than inform. Well, who are we kidding? The commercial news media thrives on scaring rather than informing you, because we're evolutionarily wired to want to gain more information about potential threats to the well-being of ourselves and our offspring, which means that if a news story scares us, we'll keep watching/listening/reading.

For years, Zettergren had been barred from possessing firearms because of two felony convictions.

Felony convictions for what? I think it's not too controversial to suggest that someone convicted of defrauding a public utility in the first degree isn't as likely to be a public safety risk with a firearm as someone with a conviction for second-degree robbery, even though both are Class B felonies in Washington state.

Of that number, more than 400 — about 13 percent — have subsequently committed new crimes, the analysis found. More than 200 committed felonies, including murder, assault in the first and second degrees, child rape and drive-by shooting.
<...>
The Times' analysis found that among the more than 400 people who committed crimes after winning back their gun rights under the new law, more than 70 committed Class A or B felonies. Overall, more than 80 were convicted of some sort of assault and more than 100 of drug offenses.

I once read an example of the difference between data and information: from the data that the boiling point of water is 100°C, and the melting point of sodium is 97.8°C, you can derive the information that sodium is a bad choice to make teakettles out of (leaving aside the fact that sodium reacts exothermically with water).

The quoted passages provide a fair amount of data, but they provide very little information because the numbers are lumped together in different, mutually incompatible, ways. "Some sort of assault" comprises everything from 1st-degree, which is a Class A felony, to 4th-degree, which is a gross misdemeanor. "Drug offenses" range from possession of less than 40 grams of marijuana, a misdemeanor, to manufacturing or possessing "with intent to deliver" methamphetamine, a Class B felony.

By referring to the Revised Code of Washington, we can deduce a few things, however. When the NYT states that "more than 200 committed felonies, including murder, assault in the first and second degrees, child rape and drive-by shooting," and that "more than 70 committed Class A or B felonies," we can deduce that the combined number of murders, 1st and 2nd degree assaults and drive-bys was no more than the latter number, since those are all Class A or B felonies. "Child rape"--or, as the RCW words it, "rape of a child"--includes a 3rd degree charge which is a Class C felony, but it deserves note that the offense is one of statutory rape; the law (RCW 9A.44.73-79) does not require an element of coercion, forcible or otherwise; moreover, sexual intercourse with a minor does not constitute "rape of a child" if the perpetrator is married to the victim, even if the victim is under 12 years of age. Personally, I think it's pretty goddamn perverse that a 19 year-old commits a Class C felony if he bones a 15 year-old, but you can (at least theoretically) legally bone a 10 year-old if you marry her first (which implies that you can legally marry her)!

But I digress. Why did the NYT writer choose to state that "more than 200 committed felonies, including murder, assault in the first and second degrees, child rape and drive-by shooting," and then wait until the last paragraph to provide the data from which we could derive that, at most, something in the order of 1/3 of those ~200 felonies consisted of the offenses listed (meaning that almost 2/3 were other, probably non-violent and non-sexual, offenses)? Despite that being a rhetorical question, I'll answer it anyway, namely by reiterating that news media try to keep you scared so that you'll keep watching/listening/reading (and they can charge their advertisers accordingly).

Quoth MichaelHarris:

The Second Amendment Foundation and the NRA, working hard putting firearms in the hands of felons.

Did you come to that conclusion based on this paragraph?

Washington's gun rights restoration statute dates to a 1995 statewide initiative, the Hard Times for Armed Crimes Act, that toughened penalties for crimes involving firearms. The initiative was spearheaded, in part, by pro-gun rights activists, including leaders of the Second Amendment Foundation, an advocacy group, and the NRA.

It didn't occur to you that it doesn't entirely make sense to think that a "statewide initiative <...> that toughened penalties for crimes involving firearms" (emphasis mine) would make it easier for a person convicted of committing a violent crime with a firearm to regain the ability to possess a firearm? It didn't occur to you that, insofar as this supposed "Hard Time for Armed Crimes" initiative (of which I can find little record by Googling, none of which matches the NYT writer's description) made it easier for convicted felons to get their firearms ownership rights restored, this might only apply to those convicted of non-violent felonies, or at least offenses not involving firearms?

[iverglas]

25. well, here you go

http://apps.leg.wa.gov/RCW/default.aspx?cite=9.41.040

Distilling it to the relevant essence (and yes, finding and identifying that wasn't a piece of cake):

RCW 9.41.040
Unlawful possession of firearms — Ownership, possession by certain persons — Restoration of right to possess — Penalties.

(1)(a) A person, whether an adult or juvenile, is guilty of the crime of unlawful possession of a firearm in the first degree, if the person owns, has in his or her possession, or has in his or her control any firearm after having previously been convicted ... in this state or elsewhere of any serious offense as defined in this chapter.

(b) Unlawful possession of a firearm in the first degree is a class B felony punishable according to chapter 9A.20 RCW.

(2)(a) A person, whether an adult or juvenile, is guilty of the crime of unlawful possession of a firearm in the second degree, if the person does not qualify under subsection (1) of this section for the crime of unlawful possession of a firearm in the first degree and the person owns, has in his or her possession, or has in his or her control any firearm:

(i) After having previously been convicted ... in this state or elsewhere of any felony not specifically listed as prohibiting firearm possession under subsection (1) of this section, or any of the following crimes when committed by one family or household member against another, committed on or after July 1, 1993: Assault in the fourth degree, coercion, stalking, reckless endangerment, criminal trespass in the first degree, or violation of the provisions of a protection order or no-contact order restraining the person or excluding the person from a residence (RCW 26.50.060, 26.50.070, 26.50.130, or 10.99.040); ...

... 4(a) Notwithstanding subsection (1) or (2) of this section, a person convicted ... of an offense prohibiting the possession of a firearm under this section other than murder, manslaughter, robbery, rape, indecent liberties, arson, assault, kidnapping, extortion, burglary, or violations with respect to controlled substances under RCW 69.50.401 and 69.50.410, who received a probationary sentence under RCW 9.95.200, and who received a dismissal of the charge under RCW 9.95.240, shall not be precluded from possession of a firearm as a result of the conviction ... . Notwithstanding any other provisions of this section, if a person is prohibited from possession of a firearm under subsection (1) or (2) of this section and has not previously been convicted ... of a sex offense prohibiting firearm ownership under subsection (1) or (2) of this section and/or any felony defined under any law as a class A felony or with a maximum sentence of at least twenty years, or both, the individual may petition a court of record to have his or her right to possess a firearm restored:

(i) ...

(ii)(A) If the conviction ... was for a felony offense, after five or more consecutive years in the community without being convicted ... or currently charged with any felony, gross misdemeanor, or misdemeanor crimes, if the individual has no prior felony convictions that prohibit the possession of a firearm counted as part of the offender score under RCW 9.94A.525; or

(B) If the conviction ... was for a nonfelony offense, after three or more consecutive years in the community without being convicted ... or currently charged with any felony, gross misdemeanor, or misdemeanor crimes, if the individual has no prior felony convictions that prohibit the possession of a firearm counted as part of the offender score under RCW 9.94A.525 and the individual has completed all conditions of the sentence.

(b) An individual may petition a court of record to have his or her right to possess a firearm restored under (a) of this subsection (4) only at:

(i) The court of record that ordered the petitioner's prohibition on possession of a firearm; or

(ii) The superior court in the county in which the petitioner resides.

Finding it was one thing; figuring it out is another.

I'll turn it over to somebody else now to figure out what the changes made in 1995 (or 1998?) were.

[jmg257]

13. A superior court judge found the petitioner met the conditions requiring

an order to restoring the rights pursuant to {Washington law} RCW 9.41.040. His petition was granted. Seems he had a hearing, but could indeed be the judge was just going by the letter of the law, and not 'investigating' the individual.

Anyway, this guy was real scum...
Zettergren was convicted of 2 counts of possessing/dealing marijuana (1987). He was also convicted of unlawful possession of firearms (1997 - not sure if that stems from the drug convictions). In Dec 2004 he had his rights restored in court.
In the Feb 2005 case in the OP, he was charged with murder and assault. He claims he halted a rape in progress (which seems reasonable) and then self-defense justification as the gun shot victim reached for a weapon while being held at gun point (much more dubious more like he executed him). He was also charged with unlawful imprisonment of the victim's fiance, as he forced her to help him dump the body in the river...a real murdering scum bag he is.

http://www.lexisone.com/lx1/caselaw/freecaselaw?action=OCLGetCaseDetail&format=FULL&sourceID=bdjcdj&searchTerm=eOOc.gLKa.UYGY.YbSX&searchFlag=y&l1loc=FCLOW


On a side note, it seems once again we have conflict between federal law and state powers. With regards to this issue some like the federal govt; in re: reciprocity, some prefer the states' ability to decide what's best for them.

[jmg257]

18. Even more on this Zettergren ass...

Excuse the lack of formatting, came up in a search...but you could get the idea...
https://s3.amazonaws.com/s3.documentcloud.org/documents/262214/erik-h-zettergren.txt


"...on the 25th day of September, 1997, under the following circumstances: 0CT-03-2011 14:12 P.21 Whitman County Sheriffs Office PAGE 2 OF 3 Summary of Probable Cause: 092497 , I received a call from Larry Persons who is the landlord of Sandrae Zettergren . Larry told me he saw Erik Zettera ran leavin Sandrae's apartment_ _ with what he thought were two rifles . Sandrae and Erik are getting a divorce. 1 spoke with Sandrae who is at an undisclosed location and she said she owned an SKS Rifle, a 30.30 rifle , and a handgun . Sandrae said she had not been home all day. I told Sandrae I could not do anything without a signed stolen sheet and she said she could not get one until the weekend. Sandrae told me Erilk owne long guns and was a convicted felon . I asked Whitcom to do a Criminal History on Erik so I could verify what Sandrae said. Sandrae did not know why he needed her guns also. Sandrae also told me Erik said if anyone Interfered with him getting his kids they would have trouble from him. ..including law enforcement. ' The criminal history on Erik showed a conviction for felon manufacture of marihuana along with a weapons cha rge in 1987 . Then there was an assault 4 and malicious mischief in 1990. 092597, Erik called me and asked me what was going on. Erik told me his wife too k off wi th his kids . I told Erik I could not tell him where Sandrae was because didn't knowmyself. ' Erik also told me he was told that I wanted to talk with him because I was investigating him. I told Erik I was not investigating him but wondered if he had been at Sandrae ' s apartment the day before , Erik told me he had been there to drop off some of her belongings . Erik_said he_did no_t ente r the residence. Erik said there were_frlends_of San,drge's aS the apartment removing- -her property with her permission. 092597 , 2250 hrs , Dep. Chapman and I went to Erik Zettergren ' s house at 102 D St in Endicott . Erik allowed us to come in and talk with him. I told Erik I wanted to know why someone would tell me he was in Sandrae ' s apartment to remove guns. Erik said he was not in her ap artment and the only guns he had belonged to him. I told Erik someone told me they saw him with the guns . Erik said it was probably one of Sandrae ' s friends trying to get him in trouble , Erik told me again that Sandrae ' s friends were at her apartment removing property with her permission. I asked Erik what kind of guns he,_ owned_ Erik told me a couple rifles and a hagdgun . Erik offered to show us where they were. Erik took us to tho back bedroom and showed us three rifles in the south closet and a handgun on the bed.- Erik said there were more rifles In the north closet . I took Erik back out to the living room and asjced ,hjni If he knew he was not to possess weapons because he was_ a convicted felon . Erik told me he peal fonad th^cours _tg,get_ h s.__..__ ri ghts back Dep. Chapman asked how he did that . Erik could not remember, I asked Erik if he had any paperwork . Erik said no. - Erik finally admitted to not petitioning the court . Erik said he Ij s becaus e he panicked . Erik^f-said ire ht the handgun in Oregon a nd waited th e 14 days . Erik said he thought it was okay to own the guns. __^__ OCT-03-2011 14:13 P.22 Whitman County Sheriffs Office PAGE 3OP3 I told Erik he was under arrest for Unlawful possession of firearms . I took Erik outside and read him his miranda rights and he signed the card agreeing to talk with me . I read Erik a consent to search card and he agreed to let me search and signed the card. Sgt. Kelley stayed outside the residence with Erik In case he changed his mind about giving consent . Dep. Chapman and I searched the residence and found a Mini 14 , 2 SKS rifles , 2.22 rifles , a shotgun , three ballistic vests , a few dou ble pds of arrl mun (to ._.Erik has numerous tatfooh e ged knives , and oeflb W of RKK, and White Separatists groups. Erik said he owns property in Montana. When we left the residence Erik was asked If he wanted the garage locked. Erik said no because he put word out in the neighborhood that if he was burglarized he wouldn't call the police , he would hunt the person down and shoot them.

[iverglas]

22. "some prefer the states' ability to decide what's best for them"

But unfortunately, here again, some states demonstrate their incompetence at deciding what's best for everybody, including people in other states -- and given, especially, that this was Washington state, what's best for people in other countries as well. (Gun running between Washington state and British Columbia is a significant problem.)

Your next post has this person saying he owns property in Montana. So Washington state made the decision for Montana, apparently.

(Interestingly, it also refers to him having a Mini-14, which I am often told is not a firearm of choice for criminals ...)

[PavePusher]

24. You sure seem to extrapolate a lot from insufficient data.

If only real mathmeticians and scientists had your skills... imagine the good works they could accomplish.

[iverglas]

26. you sure seem to be unable to make a clear claim

and back it up with anything.

If there is something in my post you would like to address, I think you know how to copy and paste whatever it is and state what your problem is with it. If you think I have any obligation or need to respond to crap like your post here, you're mistaken.

[jmg257]

27. Agreed this story demonstrates state's incompetence...

reading about him tells me he is not a person I, that many of us, would be comfortable knowing had firearms. I think this is a good example of 'the signs were there but ignored' - in this case due to Washington's restore your gun rights law (point of the article in the OP), a good example of how some of those with criminal histories commit violent crimes with guns, and a good reason to be against state CC reciprocity.

[jmg257]

34. And don't forget Oregon. Apparently he 'legally' bought a handgun from there

that was part of the 1997 unlawful firearm possession charges.

I quote 'legally' 'cause there was nothing legal about him buying it, but he did...possibly from a dealer because he said he 'waited the 14 days'(?).

[JustABozoOnThisBus]

14. Note to self: After drunk-driving from a party

to an unstable gun-owning felon's house, do not try to rape the unstable gun owner's passed-out girlfriend.

At least no innocents were harmed during the drunken drive home.

:shrug:

[one-eyed fat man]

30. Who says there was rape?

As far as they knew, the two of them could have been consensually two thirds of threesome.

[jmg257]

31. The shooter. nt

[JustABozoOnThisBus]

32. Ok, maybe it wasn't rape ...

... maybe it was consensual sex with someone who's passed out and can't say "no".

Also, it was a foursome, not a threesome. The dead guy's fiancee helped dump the body, coerced into helping psyco-felon-killer.

I bet the hangover is nasty.

:hi: