Washington 1639 Lawsuit update 8/20 - first oral arguments on Motion for Summary Judgement

[BrentN]

Daniel, please post a link or links to the most effective orgs to continue the fight. I haven't made any donations this quarter and I'm due.

+1.

 

[Sporting Systems]

Second Amendment Foundation.

 

[ZigZagZeke]

Yesterday (8/20) was the first day in court. And anti-climatic as it was, being reduced to a teleconference, it was still moving the ball forward.

This is my first lawsuit. Hopefully, my last. I don't ever wish this on anyone. The formal decision on these motions will come forth August 31 or sooner.
Judge Leighton started it off with his opening statement. This is not about the Second Amendment, and he would not be ruling on any aspect of the 2nd Amendment. He would be hearing motions for summary judgement on the states rights and ability to police it own citizens, really, the will of the people of Washington. He would be hearing the arguments about the dormant commerce clause, restricting sales to non residents, within the confines of federally protected interstate commerce.

His opening statement to the plaintiffs (our team), that he has read everything and is not inclined to rule in our favor, but rather grant the states motion for judgement, that we have an uphill battle. In so many words, he said...you lost, but I have to listen to you for an hour or so. So, the cards were set at the beginning of the hearing. Critical aspects that the state still fails to recognize, and it appears that the judge does too. The words chosen in the law "sell" and "deliver". 1639 prevents the SALE to non residents, and sale is defined as accepting money or other numeration in exchange for the product. Since this went into affect, it's been illegal to SELL or deliver a semi automatic rifle to a non resident of Washington. That includes individuals, dealers and manufacturers. 1639 lumps them all together and say specifically they cannot SELL to a non resident. Joel pointed this out repeatedly, and the state's argument was they wanted semi auto rifles to be the same as handguns, to "harmonize" the laws. We could sell it to them over the phone or internet and ship to an FFL in their state, like with handguns. They said the AG even says this on the FAQ website, that it's ok to ship to FFL's out of state. The AG, has the authority to declare that...but remember the AG recused himself from the lawsuit stating that he doesn't have enforcement power, that that's the local law enforcement...meaning he should be released from the lawsuit (the state's argument). But now, he does have the authority to make declarations, and dealer should trust his judgement even though he has no authority. Do you trust Bob Ferguson with your gun rights? The key word here is sell, that state says that SELL and DELIVER have the same meaning in this context, yet the RCWs do NOT pair the words at all, they are clearly defined differently within the state and federal law, withing every dictionary, in every context, they are different.

The judge did not see moved by the English language and moved onto the 18-21 year ban. This is where the judge really got into the weeds. You see, the judge was raised on farm. He was shooting when he was 6, driving the tractors when he was 12. They took their guns to school every day. And in the community, there were always some kids called "stubbies"...they didn't listen, so they lost fingers on the farm. They weren't responsible enough to operate machinery. The state proceeded to redefine young adults as infants, in old english law you were not an adult until 21 years old, and anyone under 21 was called an infant. At one point during the state's and judge's banter the judge flatly, loudly and unequivocally declared "They are not adults", referring to 18-21 year olds. Shortly after that statement, he related that "youth is akin to mental illness". The state has the ability to police it own residents, by the will of the people, to determine that in the name of public safety, 18-21 years cannot be allowed to purchase or use semi auto rifles. Nothing else mattered, this was not 2nd amendment issue, but a state's rights issue and the state should prevail. He was not moved by any argument to the contrary, because all kids are just crazy today.

The state again moved that we didn't have standing, because we have not been prosecuted and nor proven any harm. This was already decided long ago that we did. The state argued that 2 other plaintiffs have aged out, meaning they are now 21 and can purchase again. Another plaintiff, a student at Seattle U is ABOUT to age out (turn 21) and because he lives on campus, he cannot posses any firearm. Yeah, true, but he can purchase it and keep it at his parents house, where he is today as Seattle U has no classes this fall.

The states team had one annoying party on the conference call, who didn't understand that everyone should MUTE their phones. Every with repeated requests, no mute, So we continued to be blessed by a woman, a child and her dog who needed to go outside apparently at one point exclaim "are you kidding me?" when our attorney made the factual statement, semi auto rifles are RARELY used in crimes and are no more dangerous than any other firearm (as recently stated in Duncan v Becarra decision).

Some additional statements the Judge made were quite alarming, outside the scope of the the entire lawsuit, but he felt them germane to the conversation. Near the very end, he made the peculiar observation that this case would be more suited to a rural district court, not the Western district which is primarily an urban district. This statement nearly knocked me out of my chair. Are our civil rights now dependent on our geography? I've never known our civil rights to be metered based on where we lived. So, if I live in Othello, I should be able to sell guns, but Vancouver I cannot? A Colfax teen is more responsible than one from Bellevue? Wow. This was from a Judge.
In a nutshell, that's an hours worth of the relevant testimony. We are not optimistic that the judge will find wisdom in recent appellate decisions, nor the arguments we presented. This was somewhat expected based on the judges latitude with the state's legal team throughout the case. The Alliance will claim victory and vindication over citizens they have in fact violated numerous laws and found a judge to agree that it's ok...because all kids are crazy and federal commerce laws can be violated.

This ride just got a lot longer and more expensive. If the judge rules as he has indicated, this WILL BE be appealed to the 9th circuit court of appeals. The state has a bad track record at the appeals court, and they have a terrible hand to play. However, this is part of the grand plan, to establish appellate and supreme court victories nationwide, to solidify the 2A for our next generations.
I am also pleased to report that a state action was just filed in Tacoma by the Gun Owners of America, challenging the 1639 petitions themselves, the violations of Washington law that allowed the initiative on the ballot in the first place.

Moral to the story, the fight for your 2A is only going to intensify in this election, and future legislative sessions. We must work together to defeat anti gun candidates, to elect pro 2A candidates and continue to support those groups fighting for our rights at the local, state and federal level. Don't get caught up in other issues, stay laser focused on the 2A and work to restore and preserve our rights. A huge thank you to all the individuals, dealers and manufacturers that have supported this fight. Dealers that filed statements about the common use of semi auto rifles, and raised funds for the Second Amendment Foundation and the NRA. I am thankful to be a part of this journey, rest assured, I will not give up.

Yours in service to the 2A,
Daniel Mitchell
Sporting Systems Vancouver.

Keep fighting! The judge is being purposely difficult and NOT following the law. He expects the case to be appealed, so he's allowed himself to go off into the weeds and express his personal prejudices. If he isn't reversed at the 9th, he and the 9th will be at the USSC.

 

[SquirrelSlayer]

Second Amendment Foundation.

Thank You! Please keep fighting the good fight, if I make it over to that side of the state I'll stop by the shop and spend some dollars in support.

 

[AMT]

Second Amendment Foundation.

Got them on my smile.amazon donation list!

 

[Diamondback]

Keep fighting! The judge is being purposely difficult and NOT following the law. He expects the case to be appealed, so he's allowed himself to go off into the weeds and express his personal prejudices. If he isn't reversed at the 9th, he and the 9th will be at the USSC.

Don't count on it with John Roberts at the helm...

 

[GWS]

Isn't Seattle or the state suing about the Eyman car tax over the same grounds we lost earlier. Something like the bill wasn't for one item only or something like that?
My point is,if they win on the Eyman bill, we should be able to get a win on knocking 1639 out on the same grounds. Am I right or missing something here?

 

[Diamondback]

Isn't Seattle or the state suing about the Eyman car tax over the same grounds we lost earlier. Something like the bill wasn't for one item only or something like that?
My point is,if they win on the Eyman bill, we should be able to get a win on knocking 1639 out on the same grounds. Am I right or missing something here?

State courts and Federal courts are two different animals, though, with different jurisdictions. You bring a suit on State Constitution grounds in Fed court, they're gonna tell you "dismissed, try Local."

 

[BrentN]

Second Amendment Foundation.

Thank you. Joined the Defenders Club.

 

[Caveman Jim]

Because he is a bought and paid for liberal progressive judge like so many are on the left coast.

 

[whitney]

Code of Judicial Conduct.
This might need to be a separate thread but seems relevant the news reported here.
There are several canons of conduct or ethics the judiciary is to adhere. http://www.courts.wa.gov/content/publicUpload/Supreme Court Code of Judicial Conduct Task Force Committe/CodeOfJudicialConduct.pdf
You can visit the link for 48 pages of ethics rules but the notable one is number one. I encourage you to read through the pdf it will astonish some and be no surprise to others.

CANON 1. A JUDGE SHALL UPHOLD AND PROMOTE THE INDEPENDENCE, INTEGRITY, AND IMPARTIALITY OF THE JUDICIARY, AND SHALL AVOID IMPROPRIETY AND THE APPEARANCE OF IMPROPRIETY.

With that said, there are ways to admonish the judges who do not want to keep with the ethics proscribed and while it may not create an immediate effect, admonishment by the commission on judiciary conduct will stay with them and be public record.

You can file an online complaint at the following link. CJC - Commission on Judicial Conduct for the State of Washington

~Whitney

 

[Nutknocka]

State courts and Federal courts are two different animals, though, with different jurisdictions. You bring a suit on State Constitution grounds in Fed court, they're gonna tell you "dismissed, try Local."

True, but the GOA action challenging the validity of the petitions was filed in state court, as was the earlier challenge that initially succeeded in Thurston county. Elements of the car tab decision would applicability there.

Sporting Systems has the federal case and they're looking at interstate commerce and other federal-type issues.

 

[spookshack]

But, but, but, @Sporting Systems your not open Sunday or Monday. I'm not retired so I can't camp out in your parking lot all day and wait for the line to go down. You guys totally suck!

 

[Sporting Systems]

But, but, but, @Sporting Systems your not open Sunday or Monday. I'm not retired so I can't camp out in your parking lot all day and wait for the line to go down. You guys totally suck!

Exactly.

 

[Patriot1775]

Ask Gun owners in Connecticut and New York about following unconstitutional leftists infringements on the 2A. My family is back in Upstate NY. Not one of them registered their AR's. Tyranny needs to be opposed.

 

[ACO]

I'm still surprised at the points that are being contested and considered. The whole being forced to give up a right (hippa) to exercise another right (2A) seems a huge deal. But its obviously a case the judge has predetermined a ruling before hearing any arguments, so that should be a factor to appeal it higher up.

 

[Whiskey_Irish]

Sorry I'm trying to catch up. Is this to stop 18-21 year olds from owning semi-autos or simply any firearm?

I just bought 10-22's to shoot with our boys and can't believe I need to prove I've been through the same "assault rifle" training that I had to go through to buy my AR-15. And my wife is asking me why I drink so much after reading the news. Good lord.

 

[Phather]

Sorry I'm trying to catch up. Is this to stop 18-21 year olds from owning semi-autos or simply any firearm?

I just bought 10-22's to shoot with our boys and can't believe I need to prove I've been through the same "assault rifle" training that I had to go through to buy my AR-15. And my wife is asking me why I drink so much after reading the news. Good lord.

That is only one of the sections in the bill. It also added a definition for semi automatic assault rifles as ANY semi automatic rifle, and requires proof of completion of a training course before you can purchase them. They are also to be listed with handguns on your cpl return.

 

[Diamondback]

That is only one of the sections in the bill. It also added a definition for semi automatic assault rifles as ANY semi automatic rifle, and requires proof of completion of a training course before you can purchase them. They are also to be listed with handguns on your cpl return.

This is why you buy bare receivers or 80%'s and learn to Roll-Yer-Own... EAT A FAT BROWN BUTTLOG, FERG!

 

[Whiskey_Irish]

That is only one of the sections in the bill. It also added a definition for semi automatic assault rifles as ANY semi automatic rifle, and requires proof of completion of a training course before you can purchase them. They are also to be listed with handguns on your cpl return.

Thanks that helps.