Man Loses Gun Rights Over Bogus Out-of-State Red Flag Order He Never Knew About

A simple phone call from Montana to Washington state detonated into a cross-state gun rights nightmare, according to Mark Chesnut at The Truth About Guns. Citing an account by Gary Marbut, president of the Montana Shooting Sports Association (MSSA), Chesnut reports that a married Montana resident phoned an old girlfriend in Seattle to ask a question – what question, no one’s saying.

After the woman told local police she felt threatened, a Washington judge signed a temporary restraining order under that state’s red-flag framework. Within days, the man’s local police department in Montana – a state that bans red-flag orders – confiscated his firearms anyway.

Red Flags Without Borders

Washington’s “extreme risk” regime allowed the judge to issue an order ex parte (without the gun owner present), Chesnut explains, and Washington authorities relayed it to Montana. Gun rights commentator Liberty Doll, in her video breakdown, says the Montana resident – she calls him “John Smith” to protect his identity – hadn’t been to Washington in more than 30 years. Even so, the paper flowed across state lines far faster than due process ever could. Montana officers arrived, followed the order, and took every gun the man owned. No hearing. No chance to rebut. No local red-flag law to justify it.

Confiscation in a No–Red-Flag State

Marbut told Ammoland (as relayed by Chesnut) that MSSA has spent decades making sure Montana hasn’t adopted red-flag procedures. Yet, “BS gun control from liberal states [is] leaching across the state line and affecting Montana gun owners,” he wrote, noting MSSA has helped pass 73 pro-gun laws in Montana. His frustration is obvious: “If you detect that I’m having trouble restricting myself to polite language, you’re right. If you imagine I’m beyond angry, you’re right again.”

Accuser Recants, Order Tossed – But the Guns Don’t Come Back

Once the ex-girlfriend recanted, a Washington judge dismissed the temporary order. Case closed, right? Not even close. Chesnut reports the man still couldn’t get his guns back because Washington’s own gun-transfer rules – completely unrelated to Montana law – froze the process in place. Meanwhile, Liberty Doll notes the resident had to hire two lawyers, one in Washington and one in Montana, to unwind a fiasco that started with a phone call and an accusation Washington’s own courts no longer stand behind.

The 10-Day Waiting Period Kicker

Here’s the bureaucratic kicker: Washington imposes a 10-day waiting period on firearm transfers. Per Chesnut’s summary of Marbut’s account, the Washington court wouldn’t even notify Montana to release the guns until that waiting period ran. If you’re wondering how a Washington waiting period could bind a return of property seized in Montana after a now-dismissed order, join the club. Liberty Doll calls that logic “absolutely wild,” and she’s not wrong.

From Dismissed Order to “Prohibited Person”

Here’s the darkest part. Both Chesnut, quoting Marbut, and Liberty Doll say the man was flagged as a prohibited person the moment the order hit the “court computers.” Even after dismissal, the federal databases don’t automatically update, Marbut warns. “Getting that done is a heavy lift indeed,” he writes, often requiring more lawyers – and until recently, he adds, “it was flat impossible.” So the man risks committing a felony by possessing his own guns or ammunition until the databases catch up.

Why This Is So Hard to Fix

There’s a technical wrinkle the sources don’t dwell on: under 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(8), the federal firearm prohibition for restraining orders typically attaches only after a hearing with notice, not on an ex parte temporary order. But in practice, ERPOs and protection orders can get pumped into NICS/NCIC indexes in ways that functionally kill gun transactions – sometimes even possession – until they’re cleared. And clearing them isn’t automatic; the originating state has to send a cancellation or relief record the feds will actually process. That lag is where real lives get crushed. So even if the legal theory says “no federal prohibitor,” the practical reality can still be “no guns, no ammo, no recourse without counsel.”

Liberty Doll’s Warning: Once You’re on a List, You Stay There

“It’s notoriously difficult to get off these lists once you’re on one,” Liberty Doll says, capturing the digital purgatory that others in similar situations have faced. Her bottom line: the state that created the mess has no obligation to proactively fix your federal status; the person tagged has to do the work – and pay the bills—to claw back rights. This is the sort of administrative Catch-22 that makes people feel the system doesn’t just err – it punishes you for being the target of a bad accusation. 

MSSA Prepares a Legislative Fix

In his remarks quoted by Chesnut, Marbut says he’s drafting legislation for the next Montana session to stop this from happening again. He doesn’t spell out the text, but logical guardrails include: (1) prohibiting Montana agencies from enforcing out-of-state ERPOs unless and until there’s a Montana court hearing with due process; (2) mandating immediate database relief procedures when an order is dismissed; (3) creating civil remedies and attorney fee awards for wrongful enforcement. If red-flag advocates insist these tools are narrowly tailored, then they should also welcome narrow, fast relief when orders collapse.

The Interstate Problem We Keep Ignoring

The Full Faith and Credit Clause doesn’t mean every state must enforce another state’s procedural shortcuts – especially where core rights are implicated and the receiving state offers greater protections. What this case, through Chesnut’s and Liberty Doll’s reporting, really exposes is a patchwork that lets the most restrictive states export their process to jurisdictions that rejected it democratically. That’s a recipe for resentment, non-compliance, and, as here, rights violations that take lawyers and months to undo.

Due Process Isn’t a Luxury – It’s the Guardrail

Reasonable people can disagree about red-flag laws in the most dangerous cases. But a temporary, ex parte order – issued by a judge who’s never met the accused, based on allegations that are later recanted – shouldn’t be the mechanism that wipes out a constitutional right across state lines. At minimum, the system owes citizens: (1) prompt, adversarial hearings with counsel; (2) clear and convincing evidence standards; (3) criminal penalties for false or reckless petitions; (4) automatic, same-day database relief when orders are denied or dismissed; and (5) a fast track to return property without importing unrelated waiting periods from faraway jurisdictions. Those safeguards would protect both public safety and civil liberties – the balance policymakers claim to want.

Textbook Example of Rights Deprivation

If Chesnut’s account and Liberty Doll’s reporting hold up – and their sourcing to Marbut and MSSA suggests it does – then one Montana resident just experienced a textbook case of rights deprivation by paperwork. A dismissed order should mean immediate return of property and automatic removal from any disqualifying databases. Anything less flips “temporary” into indefinite. 

Lawmakers in pro- and anti-red-flag states alike should fix this: codify fast relief, require originating agencies to push cancellations within 24 hours, and ban out-of-state procedural workarounds unless a local court signs off after a real hearing. If red-flag laws are to exist, they must come with equally strong off-ramps when the facts collapse. Without that, stories like this will keep proving the critics right.