BREAKING! SAF lawsuit challenges I-594

Monica Cowles · Mar 6, 2015

Fascinating...how do you get this info so fast?
I haven't even heard from our lawyers yet-They are usually pretty quick at keeping us 'plaintiffs' up to date...

Dave Workman · Mar 6, 2015

Monica Cowles said:
Fascinating...how do you get this info so fast?
I haven't even heard from our lawyers yet-They are usually pretty quick at keeping us 'plaintiffs' up to date...

You should find this interesting, then:
https://www.northwestfirearms.com/threads/grassroots-wa-the-sleeping-giant-is-awakened.192142/

Stomper · Mar 6, 2015

I wonder if the anti's feel the same way about popular vote approved bans on gay marriage and public funding of illegals in schools getting overturned? Neither of which are SPECIFICALLY enumerated in the B.O.R. in the Constitution.

I don't wonder, actually. (Sarcasm)

44Brent · Mar 6, 2015

I-594 supporters are promoting extolling the virtues of gun prohibition in the comments section of this story: <broken link removed>
I-594 supporters claim that since the state doesn't actually enforce the law, that the law doesn't exist and there is nothing to worry about.

Dave Workman · Mar 6, 2015

Brent: All that proves is that low information voters are also low IQ Seattle Times readers.

44Brent · Mar 9, 2015

PLAINTIFFS' RESPONSE TO CHERYL STUMBO, WASHINGTON ALLIANCE FOR GUN RESPONSIBILITY, AND EVERYTOWN FOR GUN SAFETY ACTION FUND FOR I-594'S MOTION TO INTERVENE AS DEFENDANTS
======================================

The addition of the proposed intervenors as parties to this action will provide no assistance to the Court in determining the legal issues before it. Instead, the proposed intervenors pose a significant risk of redundancy, delay, and prejudice to all parties. The more appropriate and practical role for the proposed intervenors is as amici curiae, which would allow them to provide the Court with their largely irrelevant perspective on the initiative process without any of the risks associated with making them parties.
.
.
.
Finally, the proposed intervenors seek to use this case as a means to further their fundraising and public policy efforts outside the courtroom, presenting a significant risk that their participation will delay the case and prejudice the parties. Specifically, the Washington Alliance for Gun Responsibility has sent at least two fundraising emails announcing its motion to intervene. The first email, sent the day the motion to intervene was filed states: "It's official ...We're In. We have formally filed papers to intervene ... it's up to all of us to join in the fight. Make a donation right now. Let's build the 594 Legal Defense Fund." Declaration of Steven Fogg, Ex. A. The second email, sent a week later proclaimed "Getting sued is no fun. Most people try to avoid it. But not us", before asking for $35,000 in donations by the end of the day so it can "show the gun lobby that we won't back down!" Declaration of Steven Fogg, Ex. B. These emails demonstrate how problematic the proposed intervenors would be: Plaintiffs fear that I-594's extensive reach and vague wording will result in unconstitutional criminal sanctions and ask the Court to address these specific legal issues, while the Defendants are the properly designated government entities and officers responsible for defending the law to the extent it can be defended. In contrast, the proposed intervenors seek to elbow their way into a case for which they are neither necessary nor helpful, in order to advance a separate public policy agenda. This incentive endangers the efficient and fair operation of the case by allowing the proposed intervenors to engage in redundant and potentially inflammatory discovery and motions simply so they can appease their benefactors and "earn" the money they have raised.

Stomper · Mar 9, 2015

That is the most eloquent declaration of calling WORTHLESS GRIFTERS out for what they truly are... worthless grifters.

44Brent · Mar 23, 2015

From the latest batch of filings it appears that the case is likely to get bifurcated (split into parts), with a new lawsuit to be filed in state court.