2A win in washington

[barrintp]

Saw today we got a win in federal court in washington, one step closer to get rid of mag ban. 2A

Read More

 

[GWS]

Link?
More info please

 

[barrintp]

 

[barrintp]

Link?
More info please

Posted

 

[barrintp]

Link?
More info please

Did you not get the link???

 

[GWS]

Did you not get the link???

There was no link in your 1st post, just your statement. After I asked, you posted the video, if that's the link you're speaking of. Otherwise there was no link
Thanks for thevideo

 

[barrintp]

Yea the video, if you want court records its public info...knock yourself out

 

[bcp]

For those like me who don't like 5 minute videos for two sentences of information:

"The United States District for the Western District of Washington rejected Washington State's attempt to dismiss a constitutional challenge against the so-called Large Capacity Magazine ban law. Defendants sought to escape the lawsuit but failed to do so."

Bruce

 

[CV-66]

Outstanding - love the 2ndAmendment Foundation. Just wish we could find a way back to going on the offensive.

 

[Stomper]

Outstanding - love the 2ndAmendment Foundation. Just wish we could find a way back to going on the offensive.

Ummmm…. isn't all of the recent 2A victories across the country not a sign of being on the offensive?

 

[salmon creek gary]

OK, happy to learn that the court ruled against the defendants' motion to dismiss the lawsuit against the WA mag ban. However, the ruling simply allows the case to move forward, which seems awfully thin to be trumpeted as a "victory". The case still remains to be argued (sometime in the vague future), meaning we're still waiting for the injunctive relief sought by the lawsuit.

Meanwhile, a number of us still feel compelled to cautiously keep our "banned" standard capacity magazines unloaded except at home and while at a firing range. Others among us remain vulnerable to prosecution for (either defiantly or unwittingly) taking reasonable self-defense measures (decreed unlawful by The State of Washington) as we go about our lawful daily activities in public, as well as for engaging in certain (prohibited) acts of commerce that are wholly lawful in most other states.

 

[bcp]

I think this is the full court document.

https://assets.nationbuilder.com/firearmspolicycoalition/pages/6471/attachments/original/1666647760/Sullivan_v_Ferguson_Order_on_Motions_to_Dismiss.pdf?1666647760

And conclusion:
=============================================================
IV CONCLUSION
Accordingly, and having considered the King and Kitsap County Defendants' motions to dismiss (Dkt. Nos. 44, 62), the briefing of the parties, and the remainder of the record, the Court finds and ORDERS as follows:

(1) The King and Kitsap County Defendants' motions to dismiss for lack of subject
matter jurisdiction pursuant to Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1) and
12(c) are DENIED.

(2) Additionally, the Court DENIES the King and Kitsap County Defendants'
motions to dismiss for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted
insofar as they apply to Plaintiffs' Ex parte Young claims for declaratory and
injunctive relief.

(3) The Court GRANTS the King and Kitsap County Defendants' motions to dismiss
Plaintiffs' claims based on 42 U.S.C. § 1983 for failure to sufficiently plead a
Monell claim.
Dated this 24th day of October, 2022.
=========================================================
Hoping someone can translate it into standard English.

Bruce

 

[Nosferatu]

OK, happy to learn that the court ruled against the defendants' motion to dismiss the lawsuit against the WA mag ban. However, the ruling simply allows the case to move forward, which seems awfully thin to be trumpeted as a "victory". The case still remains to be argued (sometime in the vague future), meaning we're still waiting for the injunctive relief sought by the lawsuit.

Meanwhile, a number of us still feel compelled to cautiously keep our "banned" standard capacity magazines unloaded except at home and while at a firing range. Others among us remain vulnerable to prosecution for (either defiantly or unwittingly) taking reasonable self-defense measures (decreed unlawful by The State of Washington) as we go about our lawful daily activities in public, as well as for engaging in certain (prohibited) acts of commerce that are wholly lawful in most other states.

It's OK to have SOME joy in your life and call even minor progressions a "victory".

This is just part of the process. What you want to call it is up to you, but being a killjoy just brings everyone down.

The judge very well could have dismissed. Would you not call that a defeat?

 

[GWS]

Ummmm…. isn't all of the recent 2A victories across the country not a sign of being on the offensive?

More like a counterattack to get back lost territory. Regardless of what we call it, they're doing a great job.

 

[Nwcid]

Meanwhile, a number of us still feel compelled to cautiously keep our "banned" standard capacity magazines unloaded except at home and while at a firing range. Others among us remain vulnerable to prosecution for (either defiantly or unwittingly) taking reasonable self-defense measures (decreed unlawful by The State of Washington) as we go about our lawful daily activities in public, as well as for engaging in certain (prohibited) acts of commerce that are wholly lawful in most other states.

Apparently I missed something. What magazines are ban? Why would I not be able to keep them loaded in places other than home and a "firing range"? What is legally defined as a firing range?

 

[Stomper]

OK, happy to learn that the court ruled against the defendants' motion to dismiss the lawsuit against the WA mag ban. However, the ruling simply allows the case to move forward, which seems awfully thin to be trumpeted as a "victory". The case still remains to be argued (sometime in the vague future), meaning we're still waiting for the injunctive relief sought by the lawsuit.

Meanwhile, a number of us still feel compelled to cautiously keep our "banned" standard capacity magazines unloaded except at home and while at a firing range. Others among us remain vulnerable to prosecution for (either defiantly or unwittingly) taking reasonable self-defense measures (decreed unlawful by The State of Washington) as we go about our lawful daily activities in public, as well as for engaging in certain (prohibited) acts of commerce that are wholly lawful in most other states.

The "ban" affects the purchase, sale, or manufacture of magazines after the effective date of said (illegal) legislation. Not the possession and use of magazines owned prior to effective date of said (illegal) legislation.

 

[salmon creek gary]

It's OK to have SOME joy in your life and call even minor progressions a "victory".

This is just part of the process. What you want to call it is up to you, but being a killjoy just brings everyone down.

The judge very well could have dismissed. Would you not call that a defeat?

Yup, I sure would call dismissal a defeat, even if temporary, but would you consider that keeping the ruling against dismissal "in perspective" is only a downer for those who have a little trouble with reality? At this point, "Yay!", a fist pump & even a happy "All Right!" is warranted. But stay aware that there is still a lot of road to travel before we "win" an injunction against enforcement.

Once we have that injunction in place (see how positive I made that?), we can enjoy our standard capacity mags just as we used to without fear of enforcement. If reality creeps in, though, it will remind us that the bad law is still on the books and the injunction only permits us to stand still exactly where we were on June 30th, 2022.

It will take traveling another whole highway (or more) before constitutionality of that WA law is ever considered by any court. For us, winning that one would be the cherry on top of the sundae.

[ BTW, here's where I'm coming from. I am nearly 78 years old now and not likely to live long enough for a glimpse of that "cherry on top" so long as the state AG has our tax dollars to throw into the legal battle against it . . . unless, of course, the citizens of Washington throw all those bums out so we get an AG that will actually uphold the constitution. ]

 

[salmon creek gary]

The "ban" affects the purchase, sale, or manufacture of magazines after the effective date of said (illegal) legislation. Not the possession and use of magazines owned prior to effective date of said (illegal) legislation.

Oops, i must've missed the update about permitting us to actually load standard mags into our EDC and go about our lawful daily business. My mind was still stuck in an earlier interpretation (maybe it was someone's misinterpretation) that we could load 'em at home or load 'em at a firing range, but not elsewhere (whew, I guess I am unwittingly not a felon after all).

 

[Stomper]

Oops, i must've missed the update about permitting us to actually load standard mags into our EDC and go about our lawful daily business. My mind was still stuck in an earlier interpretation (maybe it was someone's misinterpretation) that we could load 'em at home or load 'em at a firing range, but not elsewhere (whew, I guess I am unwittingly not a felon after all).

 

[GWS]

OK, happy to learn that the court ruled against the defendants' motion to dismiss the lawsuit against the WA mag ban. However, the ruling simply allows the case to move forward, which seems awfully thin to be trumpeted as a "victory". The case still remains to be argued (sometime in the vague future), meaning we're still waiting for the injunctive relief sought by the lawsuit.

Meanwhile, a number of us still feel compelled to cautiously keep our "banned" standard capacity magazines unloaded except at home and while at a firing range. Others among us remain vulnerable to prosecution for (either defiantly or unwittingly) taking reasonable self-defense measures (decreed unlawful by The State of Washington) as we go about our lawful daily activities in public, as well as for engaging in certain (prohibited) acts of commerce that are wholly lawful in most other states.

There's nothing restricting the use of the magazines or having them loaded. Only transferring/selling "hicap" magazines within the state or importing them. Where did you hear this other stuff?