National $2,752,564,540.00

[Boss]

If every NRA member donated just $20 (much more plausible) that would be around $100,000,000. That's not chump change, particularly if spent wisely. But one has to remember, there's 49 other states and whole heckava lot of legal battles going on, all.the.time.

Perhaps a topic for another thread, but why does it seem there are no pro-2A state legislators even trying introduce bills to protect law abiding gun owners? If nothing else, it would/could make a statement as well as expose the other side's true agenda. Start by Introducing legislation that just says law abiding gun owners shouldn't have to worry about what they may currently own. Those that would oppose something like that make their future plans pretty clear.

But more immediately, we've got to get people!e to VOTE to protect their rights. It's looking like literally going door-to-door is the only way you're going to reach some people, and even then it may be a toss up.

$.02.

Boss

 

[Diamondback]

Why no legislators? Because this is what we're up against, where even the Repubs here are frequently paid-for agents of the Left:
http://www.northwestgrassroots.com/_downloads/Mainstream_Republicans.pdf

 

[bentoncity]

But more immediately, we've got to get people!e to VOTE to protect their rights. It's looking like literally going door-to-door is the only way you're going to reach some people, and even then it may be a toss up.
$.02.
Boss

Even at that, we have people like this Nov. 29th writer below that cause me to wonder what in the he## were they thinking? On the other hand, there was this Nov. 18th editorial in the Walla Walla Bulletin.

Dan
..........................................
I-1639 vote was to send message
Regarding the Walla Walla Union-Bulletin editorial on I-1639 reprinted in the Herald on Nov. 25, which scolded the voters for passing what is likely an unconstitutional Initiative: I knew I-1639 was flawed.

I think it will be thrown out by the courts. I voted for it anyway. I voted for it because I know that more than 70 percent of the suicides in Washington involve a firearm.

I'm sick and tired of the gun violence in our society. I voted yes because it sends a message to our state and federal elected officials that their constituents want some meaningful action on this issue. Too bad it takes passing a probably unconstitutional Initiative to deliver that message.
KIRK WILLIAMSON, KENNEWICK
...........................................

Editorial:Initiative 1639 — a sweeping package of gun regulations — was approved easily by Washington state voters this month. The measure passed with 60 percent of the vote statewide.

The people have spoken.

However, that does not guarantee I-1639 will become law — nor should it.

All initiatives approved by the people, as well as laws passed by the Legislature, must be constitutional. That's a higher threshold than approval by a simple majority of voters or legislators. It's necessary to protect the rights of all.

The constitutionality of I-1639, as well as the way the signatures were gathered to put the measure on the ballot, are questionable. The concerns were challenged in court but were correctly denied because it is imperative the people not be denied the opportunity to vote on the initiative. The court said the time to challenge the constitutionality of the initiative is after it has been approved.

The time is now. In order for constitutional status of an initiative to be legally confirmed, it must be challenged in court and make its way through the judicial system until the appeals process is exhausted. An opinion from the Attorney General's Office is not legally binding, nor are public comments.

A few likely legal challenges to I-1639 seem to have merit, starting with the process of getting it on the ballot. State law requires a "readable, full, true, and correct" description of the measure to be printed on the reverse side of the petition, and the text of the I-1639 petition sheets lacked underlining and strikethroughs to explain its changes to existing law.

The size of the print describing the intent of the initiative was challenged as too tiny to be read, and so, too, was the way the proposed changes were not clearly marked.

This could be enough to invalidate I-1639.

It is also possible the initiative will be challenged as an abridgment of the Second Amendment right to "keep and bear arms."

The initiative, among several other things, raises the legal age to buy any semi-automatic rifle to 21 from the current 18. People wanting such a rifle would also have to pass an enhanced background check, show proof they have taken a firearms-training course and wait 10 business days before they take possession of the weapon.

Another constitutional issue with the initiative is that it might pertain to more than one subject, which is not allowable in Washington state.

Ultimately, it will be up to the state Supreme Court, or perhaps the U.S. Supreme Court, to determine whether I-1639 was approved correctly and is constitutional.

If the initiative is overturned, it must not be looked as usurping the will of the people — it is merely upholding the constitution of this state or the nation.

 

[E4mafia]

To abolish unlawful, unjust, and unconstitutional gun laws in Washington state (I-1639). | We the People: Your Voice in Our Government

Heres the link you had mentioned.

Repeal the NFA | We the People: Your Voice in Our Government

This link was near the bottom of the top link. Its gotten enough signed votes. Wonder if there was an update?

About We the People | We the People: Your Voice in Our Government

Dunno if others from WA and 1639 seen but theres a petition going for it that may be worth a shot?