Wash. Rev. Code » Title 9 · Chapter 9.41
Revised Code of Washington

Wash. Rev. Code § 9.41.800 (2026)

✓ current as of May 2026
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section WA-LEGapp.leg.wa.gov JustiaTitle on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar
(1) Any court when entering an order authorized under chapter 7.105 RCW, RCW 9A.40.102, 9A.44.210, 9A.46.080, 9A.88.160, 10.99.040, 10.99.045, 26.09.050, 26.09.060, 26.26B.020, 26.26A.470, or 46.61.5055 shall, upon a showing by a preponderance of the evidence, that a party has: Used, displayed, or threatened to use a firearm or other dangerous weapon in a felony, or is ineligible to possess a firearm under the provisions of RCW 9.41.040:
(a) Require that the party immediately surrender all firearms and other dangerous weapons;
(b) Require that the party immediately surrender any concealed pistol license issued under RCW 9.41.070;
(c) Prohibit the party from accessing, having custody or control, possessing, purchasing, receiving, or attempting to purchase or receive, any firearms or other dangerous weapons;
(d) Prohibit the party from obtaining or possessing a concealed pistol license;
(e) Other than for ex parte temporary protection orders, unless the ex parte temporary protection order was reissued after the party received noticed and had an opportunity to be heard, direct law enforcement to revoke any concealed pistol license issued to the party.
(2) During any period of time that the party is subject to a court order issued under chapter 7.105, 9A.46, 10.99, 26.09, 26.26A, or 26.26B RCW that:
(a) Was issued after a hearing of which the party received actual notice, and at which the party had an opportunity to participate, whether the court then issues a full order or reissues a temporary order. If the court enters an agreed order by the parties without a hearing, such an order meets the requirements of this subsection;
(b) Restrains the party from harassing, stalking, or threatening an intimate partner of the party, the protected person, or child of the intimate partner, party, or protected person, or engaging in other conduct that would place an intimate partner or protected person in reasonable fear of bodily injury to the intimate partner, protected person, or child; and
(c)(i) Includes a finding that the party represents a credible threat to the physical safety of the intimate partner, protected person, or child; or
(ii) By its terms, explicitly prohibits the use, attempted use, or threatened use of physical force against the intimate partner, protected person, or child that would reasonably be expected to cause bodily injury, the court shall:
(A) Require that the party immediately surrender all firearms and other dangerous weapons;
(B) Require that the party immediately surrender a concealed pistol license issued under RCW 9.41.070;
(C) Prohibit the party from accessing, having custody or control, possessing, purchasing, receiving, or attempting to purchase or receive, any firearms or other dangerous weapons; and
(D) Prohibit the party from obtaining or possessing a concealed pistol license.
(3) The court may order temporary surrender and prohibit the purchase of all firearms and other dangerous weapons, and any concealed pistol license, without notice to the other party if it finds, on the basis of the moving affidavit or other evidence, that irreparable injury could result if an order is not issued until the time for response has elapsed.
(4) In addition to the provisions of subsections (1) and (3) of this section, the court may enter an order requiring a party to comply with the provisions in subsection (1) of this section if it finds that the possession of a firearm or other dangerous weapon by any party presents a serious and imminent threat to public health or safety, or to the health or safety of any individual.
(5) The requirements of subsections (1) and (4) of this section may be for a period of time less than the duration of the order.
(6) The court shall require the party to surrender all firearms and other dangerous weapons in the party's custody, control, or possession, or subject to the party's immediate possession or control, and any concealed pistol license issued under RCW 9.41.070, to the local law enforcement agency.
(7) If the court enters a protection order, restraining order, or no-contact order that includes an order to surrender firearms, dangerous weapons, and any concealed pistol license under this section:
(a) The order must be served by a law enforcement officer;
(b) Law enforcement must immediately ensure entry of the order to surrender and prohibit weapons and the revocation of any concealed pistol license is made into the appropriate databases making the party ineligible to possess firearms and a concealed pistol license; and
(c) Law enforcement officers shall use law enforcement databases to assist in locating the party in situations where the protected person does not know where the party lives or where there is evidence that the party is trying to evade service.
[ 2023 c 462 s 503; 2022 c 268 s 29; 2021 c 215 s 74. Prior: 2019 c 245 s 1; 2019 c 46 s 5006; 2014 c 111 s 2; 2013 c 84 s 25; 2002 c 302 s 704; 1996 c 295 s 14; 1994 sp.s. c 7 s 430.]

Notes:

Effective dates—2022 c 268: See note following RCW 7.105.010.
Effective date—2022 c 268; 2021 c 215: See note following RCW 7.105.900.
Finding—Intent—Severability—1994 sp.s. c 7: See notes following RCW 43.70.540.
Effective date—1994 sp.s. c 7 ss 401-410, 413-416, 418-437, and 439-460: See note following RCW 9.41.010.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 30 cases (17 in the last 5 years), 1999–2026 · leading case: In Re Marriage of Muhammad, 108 P.3d 779 (Wash. 2005).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
In Re Marriage of Muhammad, 108 P.3d 779 (Wash. 2005). “Rather, it was RCW 9.41.800 and the order of protection itself that prevented Muhammad from owning or possessing firearms.”
In re the Marriage of Muhammad, 153 Wash. 2d 795 (Wash. 2005). “Rather, it was RCW 9.41.800 and the order of protection itself that prevented Muhammad from owning or possessing firearms.”
State v. Noah, 9 P.3d 858 (Wash. Ct. App. 2000). · cites it 2× “uch relief as the court deems proper, including an order: (a) Restraining the respondent from making any attempts to contact the petitioner; (b) Restraining the respondent from making any attempts to keep the petitioner under surveillance; (c) Requiring the respondent to stay a…”
Alexandra Braatz v. Michael Braatz, 413 P.3d 612 (Wash. Ct. App. 2018). · cites it 4× “We hold that the restrained person has the burden to prove by a preponderance of the evidence that they have surrendered their firearms and other dangerous weapons.”
State v. Rodman, 973 P.2d 1095 (Wash. Ct. App. 1999). “In issuing the order, the court shall consider the provisions of RCW 9.41.800. The no-contact order shall also be issued in writing as soon as possible.”
In the Matter of the Dom. Violence Prot. Order for: Ilana S. Hernandez (Wash. Ct. App. 2025). · cites it 11× “Ilana argues it was error for the commissioner, sua sponte, to raise the constitutional challenge to RCW 9.41.800 by citing Flannery. Although the commissioner articulated a concern only that the surrender of weapons statute violated the Fourth Amendment, on appeal Ilana seeks…”
Heather A. Hudon, Obo H.p & S.p., V. Nicolai Piffath (Wash. Ct. App. 2025). · cites it 10× “She argues the court abused its discretion because the renewed DVPO satisfies the requirements of RCW 9.41.800(2), compelling the court to issue an OTSW.”
Jennifer Jo Dare Medlin v. Andrew Allen Miller (Wash. Ct. App. 2026). · cites it 8× “2d at 785, 790 (explaining that RCW 9.41.800 provides the basis for issuing an OSW and RCW 9.”
Richard Randall v. Thomas Koch (Wash. Ct. App. 2020). · cites it 6× “2 We conclude that while the trial court misapplied RCW 9.41.800, it still properly declined to order Koch to surrender his weapons.”
Jessica Montesi, V. Brandon Montesi (Wash. Ct. App. 2025). · cites it 6× “801(9)(a) is self-executing and automatically confers immunity upon any individual subject to an order issued under RCW 9.41.800 or RCW 10.99.100. Because Brandon was subject to an order to surrender and prohibit weapons issued in accordance with RCW 9.”
Jennifer Hart v. Erin Hawtin (Wash. Ct. App. 2019). · cites it 5× “RCW 9.41.800. Relevant here, when an order under RCW chapter 26.”
Elizabeth Earlene Goodwin, V Jeremy Dale Hollis (Wash. Ct. App. 2020). · cites it 5× “Former RCW 9.41.800(3) (2014). When (1) the respondent has actual notice of the hearing and an opportunity to participate, (2) the order restrains the respondent “from harassing, stalking, or threatening” the intimate partner or child or prohibits the respondent from “engaging…”
Show all 30 citing cases →
— Wash. Rev. Code § 9.41.800(1) — 3 cases
Richard Randall v. Thomas Koch (Wash. Ct. App. 2020). “2 We conclude that while the trial court misapplied RCW 9.41.800, it still properly declined to order Koch to surrender his weapons.”
Jessica Montesi, V. Brandon Montesi (Wash. Ct. App. 2025). “801(9)(a) is self-executing and automatically confers immunity upon any individual subject to an order issued under RCW 9.41.800 or RCW 10.99.100. Because Brandon was subject to an order to surrender and prohibit weapons issued in accordance with RCW 9.”
Jennifer Jo Dare Medlin v. Andrew Allen Miller (Wash. Ct. App. 2026). “2d at 785, 790 (explaining that RCW 9.41.800 provides the basis for issuing an OSW and RCW 9.”
— Wash. Rev. Code § 9.41.800(1)(a) — 2 cases
In the Matter of the Dom. Violence Prot. Order for: Ilana S. Hernandez (Wash. Ct. App. 2025). “Ilana argues it was error for the commissioner, sua sponte, to raise the constitutional challenge to RCW 9.41.800 by citing Flannery. Although the commissioner articulated a concern only that the surrender of weapons statute violated the Fourth Amendment, on appeal Ilana seeks…”
Jennifer Jo Dare Medlin v. Andrew Allen Miller (Wash. Ct. App. 2026). “2d at 785, 790 (explaining that RCW 9.41.800 provides the basis for issuing an OSW and RCW 9.”
— Wash. Rev. Code § 9.41.800(1)(c) — 1 case
Jennifer Jo Dare Medlin v. Andrew Allen Miller (Wash. Ct. App. 2026). “2d at 785, 790 (explaining that RCW 9.41.800 provides the basis for issuing an OSW and RCW 9.”
— Wash. Rev. Code § 9.41.800(2) — 4 cases
Heather A. Hudon, Obo H.p & S.p., V. Nicolai Piffath (Wash. Ct. App. 2025). “She argues the court abused its discretion because the renewed DVPO satisfies the requirements of RCW 9.41.800(2), compelling the court to issue an OTSW.”
Richard Randall v. Thomas Koch (Wash. Ct. App. 2020). “2 We conclude that while the trial court misapplied RCW 9.41.800, it still properly declined to order Koch to surrender his weapons.”
Niles v. United States (W.D. Wash. 2024).
Allison N. Crowston, V. Ryan R. Cory (Wash. Ct. App. 2025).
— Wash. Rev. Code § 9.41.800(2)(b) — 2 cases
Diana Marie Fields, V. Markus Anderson Fields (Wash. Ct. App. 2024).
Alisa Walters, V. Brian Walters (Wash. Ct. App. 2026).
— Wash. Rev. Code § 9.41.800(2)(c)(ii)(A) — 1 case
Heather A. Hudon, Obo H.p & S.p., V. Nicolai Piffath (Wash. Ct. App. 2025). “She argues the court abused its discretion because the renewed DVPO satisfies the requirements of RCW 9.41.800(2), compelling the court to issue an OTSW.”
— Wash. Rev. Code § 9.41.800(3) — 4 cases
Alexandra Braatz v. Michael Braatz, 413 P.3d 612 (Wash. Ct. App. 2018). “We hold that the restrained person has the burden to prove by a preponderance of the evidence that they have surrendered their firearms and other dangerous weapons.”
Elizabeth Earlene Goodwin, V Jeremy Dale Hollis (Wash. Ct. App. 2020). “Former RCW 9.41.800(3) (2014). When (1) the respondent has actual notice of the hearing and an opportunity to participate, (2) the order restrains the respondent “from harassing, stalking, or threatening” the intimate partner or child or prohibits the respondent from “engaging…”
Jennifer Hart v. Erin Hawtin (Wash. Ct. App. 2019). “RCW 9.41.800. Relevant here, when an order under RCW chapter 26.”
Svetlana Muzychuk v. Vasyl Tyshkov (Wash. Ct. App. 2020).
— Wash. Rev. Code § 9.41.800(3)(c)(i) — 2 cases
Scott M. Hodges v. Karynn M. Pauley (Wash. Ct. App. 2021).
Scott M. Hodges, V. Karynn M. Pauley (Wash. Ct. App. 2021).
— Wash. Rev. Code § 9.41.800(4) — 3 cases
Jennifer Hart v. Erin Hawtin (Wash. Ct. App. 2019). “RCW 9.41.800. Relevant here, when an order under RCW chapter 26.”
State Of Washington, V. Caleb Dane Bell (Wash. Ct. App. 2026).
Jennifer Jo Dare Medlin v. Andrew Allen Miller (Wash. Ct. App. 2026). “2d at 785, 790 (explaining that RCW 9.41.800 provides the basis for issuing an OSW and RCW 9.”
— Wash. Rev. Code § 9.41.800(5) — 2 cases
Richard Randall v. Thomas Koch (Wash. Ct. App. 2020). “2 We conclude that while the trial court misapplied RCW 9.41.800, it still properly declined to order Koch to surrender his weapons.”
Stacey Marie Jurss, V. Liam Aloysha Mooney (Wash. Ct. App. 2021).
— Wash. Rev. Code § 9.41.800(6) — 1 case
Kaleena Anne Sayson, V. Adolfo Espinoza, Jr. (Wash. Ct. App. 2023).
— Wash. Rev. Code § 9.41.800(c)(ii) — 1 case
Alisa Walters, V. Brian Walters (Wash. Ct. App. 2026).
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.