When a domestic violence survivor Ilana Hernandez sought a protection order against her partner Michael in 2023, she detailed terrifying incidents where he displayed, used, and threatened her with firearms. A judge agreed she and her three children needed protection—but refused to order Michael to surrender his guns.
This wasn't an isolated incident. That same year, a rogue Administrative Office of the Courts (AOC) opinion wrongly declared that weapon surrender orders violated the Constitution. Judges in many Washington counties began denying these critical safety measures, leaving survivors like Ilana in danger. Since then, least two women in Washington have been shot and killed by the abuser.
Why So Confusing?
Judges hearing gun surrender cases worried about several constitutional issues. This included concerns about violating the Second Amendment (the right to bear arms). But the U.S. Supreme Court resolved this in Rahimi v. United States in 2024. It confirmed that people who pose credible threats can be temporarily disarmed.
Another concern revolved around the Fourth Amendment, which protects against unreasonable search and seizure. The confusion: does ordering someone to surrender weapons force them to "search" their own home as a government agent? The answer is no. The person simply gathers and surrenders their own property—there's no government search. Law enforcement receives what's voluntarily handed over. If someone doesn't comply, police need a separate warrant to search.
NJP's Strategic Response
Northwest Justice Project's family law team, including Managing Attorney Karla Carlisle and Advocacy Counsel Mary Welch, with essential support from legal assistants Maritza Camacho, Linda Banda, and Kathy Snowhite in Tri-Cities, knew these interpretations were wrong and began filing appeals. Now, thanks to NJP's advocacy, Division Three has also upheld the constitutionality of gun surrender laws in cases like Ilana's. The court made clear: when judges find credible threats involving weapons, they must order surrender.
The decision emphasizes what's at stake: "When the commissioner prohibited Michael from possessing weapons, but declined to order surrender of the same, it left Ilana vulnerable, undermining the purpose of the protection order."
With the recent victories in the court of appeals, advocates across the state are seeing courts issuing gun surrender orders once again, increasing safety for survivors.