Messages
738
Reactions
2,677
Washington and Oregon Legal updates:

Our 1639 Legal Challenge back in the Western District Federal Court. As we move past the 4th year of the legal challenge to I-1639, we have some updates to share:
We have been in a holding pattern, due to similar cases pending in the 9th circuit court of appeals. In May, an update to the case was filed, asking that the lower courts decision be vacated, based on the judgement in California's Jones v. Bonta. In September, the court of appeals scheduled oral arguments for our case this winter. Since Bruen is now having an monumental redirection on activist courts, the State of Washington requested, and we did not oppose a motion to VACATE and REMAND the 1639 decision back to the Tacoma District of the Federal Court. Effective 12/2/22, we are back in the local court.

While other cases in California are likely to be decided prior to our case being argued again, this time on the strict scrutiny standard required by the SCOTUS Bruen decision. We should see some significant movement by the cases before the CA courts, fresh decisions, fresh appeals by the California AG Bonta, and some injunctions and restraining orders that will right OUR ship here in Washington.
The Legal challenge to the magazine ban (ESSB5078), filed by Silent Majority Foundation Brombach v. Ferguson and heard on November 23 in the Yakima District federal court, is showing great promise to see an injunction placed upon that unconstitutional restriction. It looks like, a great Christmas present shall be bestowed upon Washington citizen and standard cap mags will be available again real soon. This should also back up the SAF challenged with Sullivan v. Ferguson

Oregon, clearly in the news everywhere, now has 5 separate legal challenges to the magazine ban, as well as the permitting process. Personally, I fully expect the suit brought by @oregonfirearmsfederation will have an injunction in place by Tuesday, and the panic that exists south of our border due to Bowel Movement 114, will finally settle down.

The long march towards repressive gun control is cracking. Its not ever going to end, just evolve, so stay involved. The 2023 Legislative Session is going to be a bear in Washington and Oregon. Follow the good works from the Washington Civil Rights Association , Washington 2023 Legislative Action Group - Save your civil rights and in Oregon the Oregon Firearm Advocates.
Many thanks to all the plaintiffs, attorneys, supporters of these legal actions. Without y'all, we'd be screwed.
Second Amendment Foundation
NSSF—The Firearm Industry Trade Association
NRA - National Rifle Association of America
Firearms Policy Coalition
Washington Gun Law
Gun Owners of America
Rainier Arms
Sportsman's Warehouse
Sharp Shooting Indoor Range & Gun Shop
G4 Archery LLC
Grayguns

1639 brief.jpg 1639 page 2.jpg 20220512 Notice of Addl Auth re Jones_Page_1.jpg 20220512 Notice of Addl Auth re Jones_Page_2.jpg
 
Messages
66
Reactions
140
I simply don’t believe it, but I hope you’re right.

In Oregon there will be no injunction, you guys are kidding yourself. The judge in this case is a lifelong democrat living in Portland who received her law degree from UC Berkeley. Her circle of friends/colleagues in Portland are extreme leftists and possibly even communists (I know I live in the city). The fact she was appointed by Trump is meaningless, Trump had no idea who he was appointing he was just rubber stamping things people handed him.

Add to that Democrats are literally slobbering all over themselves with glee thinking about how they are stealing your rights. This is the greatest victory they could have ever imagined, they tricked the electorate by saying the law was simply a background check in the marketing of this law. There will be no injunction, the judges don’t even care if they are overturned on appeal, screwing you over for that 2-5 year period is a huge win to them either way.
 
Messages
72
Reactions
80
I simply don’t believe it, but I hope you’re right.

In Oregon there will be no injunction, you guys are kidding yourself. The judge in this case is a lifelong democrat living in Portland who received her law degree from UC Berkeley. Her circle of friends/colleagues in Portland are extreme leftists and possibly even communists (I know I live in the city). The fact she was appointed by Trump is meaningless, Trump had no idea who he was appointing he was just rubber stamping things people handed him.

Add to that Democrats are literally slobbering all over themselves with glee thinking about how they are stealing your rights. This is the greatest victory they could have ever imagined, they tricked the electorate by saying the law was simply a background check in the marketing of this law. There will be no injunction, the judges don’t even care if they are overturned on appeal, screwing you over for that 2-5 year period is a huge win to them either way.
Somebody pee in your wheaties?
 
Messages
99
Reactions
127
Just trying to wake you guys up from your delusion. Why would a judge who graduated from UC Berkeley care about gun owners or their rights? She is not going to issue an injunction and could care less if your rights are infringed.
I’m pretty sure she will enjoin both the magazine capacity limit and the permit regime. My experience as an attorney is that even those judges with political preferences try to follow the law, especially federal judges. Those folks are really smart.
 
Messages
3,851
Reactions
5,822
I’m pretty sure she will enjoin both the magazine capacity limit and the permit regime. My experience as an attorney is that even those judges with political preferences try to follow the law, especially federal judges. Those folks are really smart.
At the hearing, she asked the parties if they would consider combining the four that had been filed at that time. That was IF she were to agree a temporary injunction. The defense obviously jumped in and said yes, one of the plaintiffs said yes but John Kaempf for OFF said that he would need to confer with all parties before giving an answer.
 
Messages
99
Reactions
127
At the hearing, she asked the parties if they would consider combining the four that had been filed at that time. That was IF she were to agree a temporary injunction. The defense obviously jumped in and said yes, one of the plaintiffs said yes but John Kaempf for OFF said that he would need to confer with all parties before giving an answer.
I bet it’s because he is not sure what to do and those other guys understand strategy better.
 

Upcoming Events

Latest Resource Reviews

New Classified Ads

Back Top