Can a Domestic Violence Order Take My Guns in Tacoma?

Can a domestic violence court order–a criminal no contact or a civil protection order– prevent someone from legally possessing a firearm in Washington State? Courts across the country have recently been asked to answer this question as challenges to firearm restrictions under the Second Amendment continue to evolve. A recent Washington case, State v. Bell, illustrates how courts analyze firearm possession when a person is subject to a domestic violence protection order. The decision highlights an important principle: individuals who have been found to pose a danger to others may temporarily lose their right to possess firearms. For residents of Tacoma and Pierce County, this case is a reminder that protection orders can carry serious criminal consequences if firearm restrictions are violated.

In State v. Bell, the court confronted a timely and consequential question at the intersection of constitutional rights and public safety: whether a defendant may be prohibited from possessing firearms while subject to a domestic violence protection order without violating the Second Amendment. As courts continue to interpret evolving federal precedent on firearm regulation, this case highlights how longstanding legal principles permitting the disarmament of dangerous individuals are applied in modern criminal proceedings. If you are facing charges involving firearm possession or are subject to a domestic violence protection order, it is essential to consult with a Tacoma criminal defense attorney to understand how these issues may affect your case.

Factual Background and Protection Order

The charges against the defendant arose after a domestic violence protection order was issued prohibiting him from contacting certain family members and requiring him to surrender all firearms. The protection order was entered after the defendant was personally served with notice of the proceedings and allowed to participate in multiple hearings, which he did not attend. The court issuing the protection order determined that the defendant posed a serious and imminent threat to the safety of others and imposed restrictions that barred him from possessing or accessing firearms.

The protection order specifically restrained the defendant from engaging in threatening or harmful conduct toward protected individuals and required him to surrender any weapons in his possession. The issuing court found that the defendant presented a credible risk based on allegations that he had made threats of violence, exhibited unstable behavior, and refused treatment for underlying issues. These findings served as the basis for the firearm prohibition in the order.

Arrest, Charges, and Trial Court Proceedings

The defendant’s arrest occurred when he appeared at a retail location carrying an assault-style rifle and pointed it at an employee during an attempted transaction. Law enforcement officers later apprehended the defendant while he was still in possession of the weapon. The firearm was confirmed to be operable.

The State charged the defendant with attempted robbery and unlawful possession of a firearm in the second degree. The proceedings were divided, with a jury determining guilt on the robbery charge and the trial court conducting a bench trial on the firearm possession charge. The trial court concluded that the defendant knowingly possessed the firearm while subject to a valid protection order that prohibited such possession.

Although the trial court determined that one statutory basis for the charge, which required a specific finding that the defendant posed a credible threat, had not been fully satisfied due to a technical omission in the protection order, it found that the alternative statutory basis applied. Specifically, the protection order independently required the defendant to surrender firearms and prohibited possession, which was sufficient to support the conviction under the applicable statute.

Challenge and Legal Framework Considered by the Court

The defendant challenged his conviction and sought a new trial, arguing that the statute under which he was convicted violated his constitutional right to keep and bear arms as applied to him. The court evaluated this argument under the framework established by the United States Supreme Court, which requires courts to determine whether the regulated conduct falls within the scope of the Second Amendment and, if so, whether the regulation is consistent with the nation’s historical tradition of firearm regulation.

The court relied heavily on recent precedent upholding similar federal firearm restrictions applicable to individuals subject to domestic violence restraining orders. That precedent recognized a longstanding tradition of disarming individuals who pose a threat to others, rooted in historical practices such as surety laws and prohibitions on carrying weapons in a manner that terrorizes the public.

Applying this framework, the court concluded that the relevant inquiry was not limited to whether the protection order explicitly labeled the defendant as a credible threat, but rather whether the order as a whole reflected a determination that the defendant posed a danger sufficient to justify disarmament. The court emphasized that the statute at issue provided two independent bases for restricting firearm possession, and that the presence of a surrender order supported the conviction.

Application of Constitutional Principles to the Defendant’s Circumstances

In evaluating the defendant’s challenge, the court examined whether the firearm restriction imposed through the protection order aligned with historical analogues. The court determined that it did, noting that historical laws permitted the temporary disarmament of individuals who threatened violence or disrupted public safety. The court reasoned that the protection order’s finding that the defendant posed a serious and imminent threat to public safety was consistent with these historical traditions.

The court also rejected the defendant’s argument that the absence of a specific finding regarding a credible threat to a particular individual rendered the statute unconstitutional as applied. It explained that historical regulations were not limited to threats against specific individuals but also encompassed conduct that endangered the public generally. Thus, a finding of a broader threat to safety was sufficient to justify firearm restrictions.

Procedural Safeguards and Due Process Considerations

The court further addressed the defendant’s contention that the process leading to the protection order was constitutionally inadequate because he did not participate in the hearings. The court emphasized that due process requires notice and an opportunity to be heard, both of which were provided. The defendant’s failure to attend the hearings did not undermine the validity of the proceedings or the resulting order.

Additionally, the court observed that the statutory framework included safeguards such as the ability to seek modification or termination of the protection order and limits on its duration. These protections aligned with historical practices that permitted temporary restrictions while preserving individuals’ opportunities to challenge or lift them.

Scope of Firearm Restrictions and Self-Defense Arguments

The defendant also argued that the statute was unconstitutional because it prohibited firearm possession even within his home for purposes of self-defense. The court rejected this argument, explaining that constitutional protections for firearm possession are not absolute and that longstanding exceptions exist for individuals deemed dangerous. The court relied on precedent confirming that prohibitions on firearm possession by certain categories of individuals, including those subject to protective orders, are presumptively lawful.

The court concluded that the defendant’s disarmament was justified by the findings supporting the protection order and that there was no constitutional requirement to allow partial firearm rights in such circumstances.

Ultimately, the court determined that the trial court acted within its authority in finding the defendant guilty of unlawful possession of a firearm. The statutory scheme, as applied, was consistent with the Second Amendment because it reflected a longstanding tradition of restricting firearm access for individuals who pose a danger to others. The court therefore declined to disturb the conviction.

What This Means for Tacoma Residents

For Tacoma residents, this case underscores how seriously Washington courts treat firearm restrictions connected to domestic violence protection orders. When a court issues a protection order that requires someone to surrender firearms or prohibits possession, violating that order can lead to additional criminal charges, including unlawful possession of a firearm. These charges are often filed alongside other allegations and can significantly increase the legal consequences a person faces. At the same time, protection orders and firearm restrictions are not always straightforward, and the specific language of an order can matter. Anyone in Pierce County who is subject to a protection order or facing charges involving firearm possession should seek legal advice early to understand their rights and options.

Discuss Your Charges with an Assertive Tacoma Assault Defense Attorney

If you are facing criminal charges involving firearms or are subject to a domestic violence protection order, it is advisable to seek legal guidance as soon as possible. At Smith & White, PLLC, our assertive Tacoma domestic violence defense attorneys understand the complexities of constitutional challenges, and we are committed to advocating for our clients at every stage of the proceedings. We represent individuals throughout Washington, including Tacoma and surrounding communities. You can contact us via our online form or call 253-203-1645 to schedule a consultation.