Wash. Rev. Code » Title 9 · Chapter 9.94A
Revised Code of Washington

Wash. Rev. Code § 9.94A.706 (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) No offender sentenced to a term of community custody under the supervision of the department may own, use, or possess firearms, ammunition, or explosives. An offender's actual or constructive possession of firearms, ammunition, or explosives shall be reported to local law enforcement or local prosecution for consideration of new charges and subject to sanctions under RCW 9.94A.633 or 9.94A.737.
(2) For the purposes of this section:
(a) "Constructive possession" means the power and intent to control the firearm, ammunition, or explosives.
(b) "Explosives" has the same definition as in RCW 46.04.170.
(c) "Firearm" has the same definition as in RCW 9.41.010.
[ 2012 1st sp.s. c 6 s 4; 2008 c 231 s 11.]

Notes:

Effective date—2012 1st sp.s. c 6 ss 1, 3 through 9, and 11 through 14: See note following RCW 9.94A.631.
Application—2012 1st sp.s. c 6: See note following RCW 9.94A.631.
Intent—Application—Application of repealers—Effective date—2008 c 231: See notes following RCW 9.94A.701.
Severability—2008 c 231: See note following RCW 9.94A.500.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 5 cases (3 in the last 5 years), 2019–2025 · leading case: State Of Washington, V. Christopher Ellis Hamilton, 565 P.3d 595 (Wash. Ct. App. 2025).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
State Of Washington, V. Christopher Ellis Hamilton, 565 P.3d 595 (Wash. Ct. App. 2025). · cites it 3× “87053-0-I) custody condition forbidding him from owning, using, or possessing a firearm or ammunition, consistent with the prohibition set out in RCW 9.94A.706. With regard to LFOs, the court imposed the then-mandatory $500 victim penalty assessment (VPA) and $100 DNA collection…”
State Of Washington, V. Devon Robert Moore (Wash. Ct. App. 2025). · cites it 7× “7 Because we conclude that Moore’s claim is not ripe for review, we need not consider whether there is a manifest constitutional error.”
In Re The Pers. Restraint Petition Of Jeremy Thomas Stevens (Wash. Ct. App. 2019). “But the State concedes that condition 15 should be modified to provide that Stevens “may [not] own, use, or possess firearms or ammunition” because that prohibition is required by former RCW 9.94A.706 (2008), but the remainder of condition 15 are not crime- related prohibitions.”
State Of Washington v. John Flynn (Wash. Ct. App. 2020). “704 and RCW 9.94A.706, and observance of any crime related prohibitions: "per CCO.”
State of Washington v. Jasper James Nelson (Wash. Ct. App. 2024). “We direct the sentencing court to strike condition 22. CONDITION 23: DEADLY WEAPONS/BODY ARMOR PROHIBITION Mr.”
— Wash. Rev. Code § 9.94A.706(1) — 3 cases
State Of Washington, V. Christopher Ellis Hamilton, 565 P.3d 595 (Wash. Ct. App. 2025). “87053-0-I) custody condition forbidding him from owning, using, or possessing a firearm or ammunition, consistent with the prohibition set out in RCW 9.94A.706. With regard to LFOs, the court imposed the then-mandatory $500 victim penalty assessment (VPA) and $100 DNA collection…”
State Of Washington, V. Devon Robert Moore (Wash. Ct. App. 2025). “7 Because we conclude that Moore’s claim is not ripe for review, we need not consider whether there is a manifest constitutional error.”
State of Washington v. Jasper James Nelson (Wash. Ct. App. 2024). “We direct the sentencing court to strike condition 22. CONDITION 23: DEADLY WEAPONS/BODY ARMOR PROHIBITION Mr.”
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.