Panel backs technical fixes to protection‑order law and new penalty for undetectable firearms; some groups raise due‑process concerns

The Civil Rights & Judiciary Committee reviewed engrossed substitute Senate Bill 5,202, a measure that combines technical updates to civil protection‑order statutes with enhanced penalties for possession of untraceable or undetectable firearms — commonly referred to as “ghost guns.”

Evie Adams, staff to the committee, said the bill would allow a person who was protected as a minor to petition for renewal after turning 18 without alleging new facts and would permit a protected party to move to terminate or modify an ex parte protection order without notice to the respondent when the respondent has not been served. Adams also said the bill makes issuance of mutual full protection orders “strongly disfavored,” requires typewritten orders, and expands use of a confidential information form.

On firearm offenses, Adams said the bill would increase the grade of unlawful possession when a person subject to a qualifying protection order possesses an untraceable or undetectable firearm: possession would become first‑degree unlawful possession of a firearm, a Class B felony, if the weapon is untraceable or undetectable while the order is in effect.

Sen. (sponsor) told the committee the 2021 protection‑order reforms made the system more accessible, producing higher filings, and that ESSB 5202 is intended to fix technical problems and address implementation gaps that surfaced since that reform. The sponsor also said strengthening penalties for ghost guns responds to incidents in which prohibited persons obtained weapons that evade standard detection and tracing.

Washington County prosecutors and domestic‑violence advocates generally supported the bill’s technical changes and its firearm‑related provisions. Sandra Shanahan, program manager for the Regional Domestic Violence Firearms Enforcement Unit at the King County Prosecuting Attorney’s Office, said the bill “makes key improvements” and “ensures that abusers face swift consequences if they're found with undetectable or unserialized firearms while prohibited.” Elizabeth Hendren, a staff attorney with a statewide violence law center, said the minor‑renewal provision addressed inconsistent court practice and avoided forcing a newly turned‑18 petitioner to carry a higher burden.

Law‑enforcement representatives praised measures making orders legible and discouraging mutual full orders, which they said can complicate enforcement in the field. James McMahon, policy director for the Association of Sheriffs and Police Chiefs, said the typewritten‑order requirement helps officers decipher orders during nighttime responses.

Several defense and civil‑liberties groups urged caution. Ramona Brandes of the Washington Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers and the Washington Defender Association said disfavoring mutual protection orders could produce a “race to the courthouse” and argued those decisions are best left to judicial discretion. She asked the committee to preserve judges’ ability to assess dueling petitions on a case‑by‑case basis.

Prosecutors and victim‑advocates said enforcing surrender and notification requirements for firearms remains a practical challenge and argued the bill clarifies processes needed to implement those duties.

Why it matters: The bill alters procedural rules that affect the ability of petitioners — including minors turning 18 — to retain protection; it also raises the penalty for possessing untraceable or undetectable firearms while under court orders, a change intended to reduce risks to petitioners, court personnel and officers.

What’s next: The committee took testimony; sponsors and stakeholders signaled further technical conversations and requested continued coordination with prosecutors and advocates on implementation details.