A rack of guns, on Friday, May 24, 2019, that were at one point seized by Lewis County deputies during either criminal or civil matters. The guns are stored in a secured property facility maintained by the Lewis County Sheriff’s Office.
Since a law took effect in 2017 that allows the issuance of extreme risk protection orders in Washington State — a specific protection order designed to confiscate firearms from individuals likely to harm themselves or others — four such cases have been filed in Lewis County, and three of those were subsequently dismissed in court proceedings that followed.
The single ongoing case was filed by the Lewis County Sheriff’s Office after deputies responded to a report of a man firing guns inside a mobile home while making outlandish claims of individuals trying to harm him.
California was the first state to pass extreme risk laws, according to the Alliance for Gun Responsibility’s website, following a deadly 2014 shooting at the University of California in Santa Barbara. In 2016, Washington voters passed Initiative 1491, allowing for the same such laws, by a wide margin — 71 percent voted in favor. The law went into effect the following year.
The single case filed by the county has been ongoing since Jan. 31, 2019. A temporary order was filed in that instance, and a hearing for a potentially longer-lasting order is scheduled for a later date.
“The county has dealt with only one (extreme risk protection order). I think that’s actually a good thing, because if there are more, that means the family members are recognizing these issues in family members and asking for their protection — not just their own safety but for the safety of the family member,” said Cullen Gatten, civil deputy prosecutor who represents the county in the single ongoing extreme risk protection order case.
The other three petitions were filed by family members or cohabitants of the respondents. Two of the cases involved individuals with access to firearms making suicidal comments, and the other involved a person threatening to shoot the individual who petitioned for the order. All three of the civil cases were filed between January and September 2017, and all three were eventually dismissed, either because the petitioner requested it, or in one instance, after the petitioner failed to appear to a hearing.
Gatten said the legal process of filing and arguing for such orders is essentially the same as any protection order. The only difference is that extreme risk protection orders revolve around the person’s legal right to own a gun.
“This is not a legal argument, but I think in my personal opinion, it’s designed to prevent mass shootings if someone is having … a mental health episode, or if someone has suicidal ideation. The goal is to prevent unnecessary gunshot deaths and also wounds,” said Gatten.
The language in the RCW includes numerous statistics on gun-related deaths.
“Every year, over (100,000) people are victims of gunshot wounds and more than (30,000) of those victims lose their lives. Over the last five years for which data is available, (164,821) people in America were killed with firearms — an average of (91) deaths each day,” reads the RCW.
At-risk individuals will often hint at dangerous inclinations to family members, or others close to them, before they act, according to the law.
“Many mass shooters displayed warning signs prior to their killings, but federal and state laws provided no clear legal process to suspend the shooters’ access to guns, even temporarily,” reads the law. “… it is the purpose and intent of the people to reduce gun deaths and injuries, while respecting constitutional rights, by providing a court procedure for family, household members, and law enforcement to obtain an order temporarily restricting a person’s access to firearms.”
Gatten said burden of proof in such cases are fairly high, where it must be proven that the person has exhibited alarming behavior and whether or not the alleged acts involved a firearm.
“It’s included but not limiting to acts of violence against self or others, or any dangerous mental health issues of the respondent,” he said.
When a petition is filed, a hearing is held shortly after to determine whether a temporary order is necessary as the remainder of the case plays out. Within 15 days of the temporary order being filed, a hearing will be held for a more permanent order. However, that hearing can be continued to a later date, and the temporary order extended.
Even if an order is granted by a Superior Court judge or commissioner, Gatten said, the person is able to return to court eventually, arguing for their right to own guns to be reinstated.
According to incident reports from the Lewis County Sheriff’s Office, on Dec. 31, 2018, deputies responded to a location in Lewis County north of Centralia where a 79-year-old man had allegedly fired two rounds from a shotgun and five from a handgun inside a trailer. There were bullet holes piercing the interior, and the area was well populated, reports indicate.
The man told deputies he was fending off intruders who were trying to tear down a wall of the trailer, and who were filling his trailer with spiders and reptiles. Deputies wrote that there was no evidence to back up the man’s claims. He was placed in protective custody — he reportedly expressed thanks to the deputies for doing so — and charges were not filed against him, after it was determined it was a mental health situation.
An extreme risk protection order was filed after the man was again seen with a gun in January, making unsubstantiated claims that individuals were out to get him. A temporary order was issued at around the time the case filed, with an expiration date of April 1. The temporary order was later extended to expire on Oct. 7, 2019.
