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

[Ralph 1]

I am an attorney in Washington litigating for 30 years. I was fairly shocked by this activist, biased judge. The one good thing he did by his rambling, senseless diatribe was to set a very good record for a win for the 2nd amendment on appeal. I have practiced before these types of judges and it is both frustrating an astonishing at the same time. If Trump isn't elected we will see hundreds of these kinds of rulings. Be tough!

 

[Free_Patriot]

The GOA action covers more than whether the filing met state requirements. It's a good read:

https://gunowners.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/08/200813.pld_.Complaint-with-Exhibits.pdf

 

[Nutknocka]

The GOA action covers more than whether the filing met state requirements. It's a good read:

https://gunowners.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/08/200813.pld_.Complaint-with-Exhibits.pdf

I wonder why they didn't raise the single subject issue as well. That's how the state sunk the $30 car tab initiative way back when. It would have cost nothing to add it to the complaint, and I would throw everything I could on there because you never know what will stick.

 

[GWS]

I wonder why they didn't raise the single subject issue as well. That's how the state sunk the $30 car tab initiative way back when. It would have cost nothing to add it to the complaint, and I would throw everything I could on there because you never know what will stick.

IIRC, the issue on the car tab is still in the courts. I personally recommend sitting back and letting the court decide the issue. If they do knock out the car tab on that issue then they set the precedent for us to get 1639 tossed for the same reason
"Never interrupt an enemy while they're making a mistake..."

 

[Nutknocka]

IIRC, the issue on the car tab is still in the courts. I personally recommend sitting back and letting the court decide the issue. If they do knock out the car tab on that issue then they set the precedent for us to get 1639 tossed for the same reason
"Never interrupt an enemy while they're making a mistake..."

The current iteration of the car tab initiative is in the courts. The original one from the late 90s was struck down years ago for violating the single-subject rule. I would imagine something from that case would be relevant.

You aren't generally allowed to amend a complaint after the fact to add other issues, so unless someone is planning a fourth lawsuit about this, the time to bring up potential violations of the single-subject rule was in the initial complaint.

This is how the SC dodged the NY transport ban case: "you didn't ask for damages from the beginning, so you're not allowed to ask for them now to keep the case from becoming moot."

In contrast, the lawsuit against Obamacare that made it to the SC challenged virtually every aspect of the law from every possible angle. The argument that everyone thought would win, that the penalty was not a tax, ultimately lost. It was an obscure argument about Medicare reimbursement that was upheld and gutted a good portion of the law. The lesson being that you throw everything you possibly can and see what sticks.

 

[No_Regerts]

Court rules voter-approved Initiative 1639 is constitutional

A federal judge in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Washington ruled that Initiative 1639 is constitutional and will remain law.

mynorthwest.com

 

[Diamondback]

How much to take this to the Ninth?

 

[Caveman Jim]

How much to take this to the Ninth?

That's the only way to reverse unjust laws.

 

[GWS]

Court rules voter-approved Initiative 1639 is constitutional

A federal judge in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Washington ruled that Initiative 1639 is constitutional and will remain law.

mynorthwest.com

Damn.
On to the 9th, I guess

 

[eklarsen]

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.

I dont believe "proof" is required

 

[Phather]

I dont believe "proof" is required

From RCW 9.41.090:

"(2) In addition to the other requirements of this chapter, no dealer may deliver a semiautomatic assault rifle to the purchaser thereof until:
(a) The purchaser provides proof that he or she has completed a recognized firearm safety training program within the last five years that, at a minimum, includes instruction on:
(i) Basic firearms safety rules;
(ii) Firearms and children, including secure gun storage and talking to children about gun safety;
(iii) Firearms and suicide prevention;
(iv) Secure gun storage to prevent unauthorized access and use;
(v) Safe handling of firearms; and
(vi) State and federal firearms laws, including prohibited firearms transfers.
The training must be sponsored by a federal, state, county, or municipal law enforcement agency, a college or university, a nationally recognized organization that customarily offers firearms training, or a firearms training school with instructors certified by a nationally recognized organization that customarily offers firearms training. The proof of training shall be in the form of a certification that states under the penalty of perjury the training included the minimum requirements;"

Proof is a certificate claiming under penalty if perjury that the above requirements were met. It doesn't state however that the instruction must be in person or that it must take up a certain amount of time.

 

[Free_Patriot]

Not surprised. Stupid is as stupid does. My faith will now lie in the cradle of the GOA action filed a few weeks back. The entire initiative should have been invalidated yet it was allowed to fly. With luck a temporary injunction will be filed by the court.

Fingers crossed...

 

[eklarsen]

I stand corrected,.

 

[Sporting Systems]

I wonder why they didn't raise the single subject issue as well. That's how the state sunk the $30 car tab initiative way back when. It would have cost nothing to add it to the complaint, and I would throw everything I could on there because you never know what will stick.

The State supreme court has already discussed, the single subject is covered by the cloud "gun safety".

 

[Sporting Systems]

From RCW 9.41.090:


Proof is a certificate claiming under penalty if perjury that the above requirements were met. It doesn't state however that the instruction must be in person or that it must take up a certain amount of time.

Only "proof" is checking "Yes" on Box 3 of the Firearm Transfer Application. There is no need for a certificate, the buyer "certifies, under penalty of perjury", that they have completed said course.

 

[Diamondback]

The State supreme court has already discussed, the single subject is covered by the cloud "gun safety".

Ain't it funny how WSSC ALWAYS gives their side huge umbrellas but would find "single subject violations" in just a one-sentence initiative from us?

 

[Sporting Systems]

the Federal challenge to 1639 has been dismissed by the Judge. After 18 months of work, he dismissed it officially on Monday. Second Amendment Foundation has approved the costs to file the appeal to 9th circuit court of appeals. We all knew this would end up in the 9th, that has been the objective, develop broader case law to protect all Americans rights, not just those here in WA. The road is long, and the path difficult, but this is what it takes to protect ourselves from the well funded, anti gun community.

 

[American123]

Which is why all my donations go to the 2nd Amendment foundation.

 

[No_Regerts]

Just donated another $100 to NRA-ILA, keep up the good work!

 

[G1GRANDEUR]

thank you for all your hard work