Who was involved: FVAP Washington partnered with pro bono lawyers from Davis, Wright, Tremaine law firm to file a legal brief supporting Washington’s weapon surrender law.
Supporting Organizations
Many organizations joined to support this case:
- Battered Women’s Justice Project
- The National Family Violence Law Center at GW Law
- Clark County Volunteer Lawyer’s Program
- Eastside Legal Assistance Program
- Jewish Family Service in Seattle, Project DVORA
- Victim Rights Law Center
- Coalition Ending Gender-Based Violence
- The King County Prosecuting Attorney’s Office
- Spokane Regional Domestic Violence Coalition
The Problem Before This Case
Trial courts across Washington were inconsistently applying the weapon surrender law in protection orders. Many courts were:
- Not ordering weapon surrender at all, or
- Ruling that the law was unconstitutional
This inconsistency was based on an earlier court decision (State v. Flannery) that found problems with an older version of the weapon surrender law.
What This Case Was About
A person subject to a domestic violence protection order challenged Washington’s updated weapon surrender law. He claimed it violated several constitutional rights:
- 2nd Amendment: Right to bear arms
- 4th Amendment: Protection against unreasonable search and seizure
- 5th Amendment: Protection against self-incrimination
- Separation of powers: Claim that the legislature overstepped by telling courts how to enforce these orders
The Court’s Decision
The Washington Court of Appeals Division I ruled that the updated weapon surrender law is constitutional. Here’s how they addressed each challenge:
2nd Amendment (Right to Bear Arms)
- Court’s ruling: People subject to domestic violence protection orders can be prohibited from having weapons
- Why: The court cited the U.S. Supreme Court case Rahimi, which supports this limitation
4th Amendment (Search and Seizure)
- Court’s ruling: No constitutional violation
- Why: When someone is required to turn in weapons under a court order, they are doing it themselves – the government isn’t searching or seizing anything
5th Amendment (Self-Incrimination)
- Court’s ruling: No constitutional violation
- Why: The law gives people immunity from prosecution related to surrendering firearms, so they can’t be forced to incriminate themselves
Separation of Powers
- Court’s ruling: The legislature did not overstep its authority
- Why: Each branch of government remains independent, and the legislature can outline procedures for courts to follow
What This Means
Survivors across Washington state can now rely on this decision to ensure that trial courts will:
- Issue orders requiring abusers to surrender weapons
- Enforce these orders consistently
This removes the confusion that existed before, where some courts refused to issue these potentially life-saving orders.
Current Status
Important Update: In late July 2025, the person who challenged the law asked the Washington Supreme Court to review this decision. The case may still be appealed to the state’s highest court.
Bottom Line
This decision clarifies that Washington’s weapon surrender law is constitutional and must be applied consistently across the state to protect domestic violence survivors.
View the slip opinion
