440 P.3d 131
Wash.2019Background
- As a juvenile in 1992, Jerry L. Barr III was adjudicated of three offenses; two remained as class A felony juvenile adjudications that were later sealed.
- Barr has three adult convictions (1996–2000); in 2016 a court restored his firearm rights as to the three adult convictions and one juvenile offense, but not the two sealed class A juvenile adjudications.
- Barr obtained sealing orders for the two remaining juvenile adjudications stating that while sealed the offenses do not prohibit him from possessing firearms under state law.
- Barr applied for a concealed pistol license (CPL) in November 2016; the Snohomish County Sheriff denied the application after background checks revealed the sealed class A juvenile adjudications and concluded federal law (18 U.S.C. § 922(g)) barred Barr from firearm possession.
- Barr sought a writ of mandamus to compel issuance of a CPL; the trial court denied relief, the Court of Appeals reversed, and the Washington Supreme Court granted review to decide whether the Sheriff had a mandatory duty to issue the CPL given Barr’s sealed juvenile adjudications.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the Sheriff had a mandatory duty to issue Barr a CPL under RCW 9.41.070 | Barr: Sealing treats proceedings "as if they never occurred," so sealed juvenile adjudications are not "convictions" and do not trigger federal disqualification | Sheriff: Sealed juvenile adjudications remain convictions for federal-law purposes; federal law (18 U.S.C. § 922(g)) prohibits possession after conviction and RCW 9.41.070 excludes applicants prohibited by federal law | Held: Sheriff had no duty to issue CPL; Barr’s sealed juvenile class A adjudications are convictions for § 922(g) and none of the § 921(a)(20) events (expungement, set-aside, pardon, restoration of civil rights) occurred |
| Whether sealing equates to expungement or otherwise removes federal disqualification | Barr: Sealing functions as if proceedings never occurred and therefore removes disqualification | Sheriff: Sealing does not equal expungement or the other listed federal exceptions; sealing leaves records intact for law enforcement access and does not restore the civil rights relevant to § 921(a)(20) | Held: Sealing is not equivalent to expungement or restoration under § 921(a)(20); Barr remains disqualified |
| Whether the Court should decide Barr’s state-law right to possess firearms | Barr: (requested relief by mandamus to obtain CPL; underlying state-law arguments raised) | Sheriff: Case governed by federal disqualification so no need to resolve state-law possession question | Held: Court decides only narrow federal-disqualification/CPL-issuance question and expressly declines to resolve broader state-law possession rights |
| Entitlement to attorney fees on review under RCW 9.41.0975(2) and RAP 18.1(a) | Barr: If successful in obtaining writ, he would be entitled to fees | Sheriff: No fees if petition fails | Held: Barr is not entitled to fees because he is not entitled to the writ |
Key Cases Cited
- River Park Square, LLC v. Miggins, 143 Wn.2d 68 (statutory-duty question is a question of law)
- Cost Mgmt. Servs., Inc. v. City of Lakewood, 178 Wn.2d 635 (review of legal questions de novo)
- Van Der Hule v. Holder, 759 F.3d 1043 (conviction-for-firearms-purpose analysis follows law of conviction jurisdiction)
- In re Del of Anderson, 185 Wn.2d 79 (juvenile adjudications treated as convictions in relevant statutory contexts)
- Logan v. United States, 552 U.S. 23 ("civil rights restored" in § 921(a)(20) refers to voting, holding office, jury service)
- Nelson v. Dep't of Licensing (In re Firearm Rights of Nelson), 120 Wn. App. 470 (distinguishable: involved full expungement/destruction of records)