BREAKING! SAF lawsuit challenges I-594

[U201491]

I am not unwilling to use civil disobedience. I never said that I was. What I said was that it wasn't going to happen any time soon. How many people typically show up in Salem for a rally? We can't even get 10,000, much less 100,000 or 800,000. We're lucky to get 1000. Unwilling? No. Realist? Yes.

Yep you hit that dead center. There lies the problem, right back to people's apathy and unwillingness to put their time and physical beings to anything that might inconvenience. That is what my biggest gripe is all about.
I pound and yell and throw things in hopes someday it might change things if people get pizzed enough, but it just seems hopeless. It angers me that no one will act, other than the safe way or the convenient way but they whine and cry when the laws get passed. They cant be inconvenienced on their TV time or what ever it is they do.
Why waste the time. Have only been doing this crap since the 50's and it never gets better.
Apathy has beaten us every time.

/

 

[Caveman Jim]

That's why I put out the battle cry for the "I will not comply" rally in Dec. on 5 other boards!!! I had to get angry to get people to climb off the friggin couch to commit or give a reason why.
I get to the point of not wanting to do all the work for the lazy ones who want their rights but are not willing to.

I guess there are not many patriots out there....

 

[Caveman Jim]

The far more important question is why do gun owners always have to argue amongst themselves?

<broken link removed>

Wow Dave. Thanks for the sellout there Dave. WOW. Now you are a cheerleader for the anti side? That's all I can say.

 

[U201491]

<broken link removed>
Wow Dave. Thanks for the sellout there Dave. WOW. Now you are a cheerleader for the anti side? That's all I can say.

That is what I read too. I do not understand that story. It seems to give a lot of publicity to the anti's and portrays pro gun folks not in a good way.
How am I misreading all that ??? Its kind of black and white.
Puts more sympathy bull on the Gifford things.... WTH
Then portrays and or calls attention to bickering on a forum not publicized all over the net till the story......................

 

[forefathersrback]

I never compromise ever. The only thing that compromising does is put you on the defensive. Meanwhile those that want you to compromise are on the offense. My rights are NON~NEGOTIABLE. The only thing that compromise means is that they keep taking, and we keep giving. What's next? Jus primae noctis? Except your the victim, without vaseline of course. In the sake of compromise.

 

[RW-Ore]

What say you Dave ?

 

[Gunguy45]

WHO HERE IS SUGGESTING COMPROMISE? Go ahead, name someone on this thread.

If ya'll are still busy trying to damn Gottlieb becauase he got legislators to insert national CCW reciprocity as the price for BG checks on private sales, I will point out to you that Manchin-Toomey DID NOT PASS. -Largely in part to Gottleib's "compromise" language.

So we didn't get Manchin-Toomey.

Instead we got a horrible initiative that's unlikely to survive legal challenges brought by that well-known "anti" Gottleib. -You know, the guy who got us the Macdonald ruling. The guy who helped fund Heller vs. DC.

So on one hand we have a bunch of irate people calling Gottlieb some kind of traitor who have ZERO actual, productive, useful solutions to change the law, and on the other hand, the people who are smart enough to know that taking on 594 on anything BUT the grounds it's being challenged on, is a doomed effort.

SHAME on you people trying to make Dave Workman into some anti-gunner or compromiser. He's not, he's never said a thing to suggest that he was. Apparently thumping your chest and shouting "I will not comply" to people who aren't listening and don't give a damn is more important than actual productive action to change the facts on the ground.

You tell the cops when they arrest your butt that "I will not comply." They'll pat you on the head as they handcuff you. That's the only result.

On the other hand, SAF's actions are likely to overturn most, if not all of this law.

When the people condemning Dave, Gottlieb and others advocating working within the system have some specific ideas on what will work and how, SPECIFICALLY that would play out, I'm writing you off as blowhards.

I'm open to other alternatives, including civil disobedience. That was tried Dec 5 and the state refused to take the bait, leaving us with nothing. As for the CT experience, HOW MANY CT A/R OWNERS ARE GOING TO 3-GUN COMPETITIONS IN CT?

Cause that's really the question. Massive Non-compliance may stop, in the short term, widespread enforcement. But when you need to HIDE your guns, you've lost the fight. That's not the way forward for us.

Taku talked about knocking on 200 doors. THAT is the way we win this fight. One voter at a a time. We have all the facts on our side. We blew it on 594 for a lot of reasons. But I have yet to speak to any but a few die-hard gun haters that can't grasp that the AR is not different from Uncle Bob's hunting rifle if it's explained to them.

BGCs are another issue and a much harder sell. -Which is why Gottlieb said he thought they were inevitable. That doesn't make him a compromiser or anti, it makes him a realist. He NEVER SAID he liked the idea. He said we probably were going to eventually lose that fight.

If you're reading comprehension is so poor that you can't tell the difference, I don't know what to say to you.

 

[U201491]

All I am going to say to you is:
national CCW reciprocity turns over control of the CHL/CCW over to the feds and that just plain sucks and a very bad move. Keep control in the states not the fed !!!
Anyone itchy to pass another damned law should pass one that stops any further legislation or laws or attacks of any kind on the 2nd Amendment. Then you might have something. Otherwise it it's time to begin LAW reduction. There are 2,000 laws each already to cover every possible thing that anyone can do. No one knows what they all are and it is azzenine. That is not freedom. That is borderline tyranny .......Get rid of 99% of them.
Laws are only job security for attorneys and legislators anymore and that is about it. And they are control mechanisms for tyrants.
We do not need more laws we need FAR FEWER LAWS.

 

[ZigZagZeke]

WHO HERE IS SUGGESTING COMPROMISE? Go ahead, name someone on this thread.

If ya'll are still busy trying to damn Gottlieb becauase he got legislators to insert national CCW reciprocity as the price for BG checks on private sales, I will point out to you that Manchin-Toomey DID NOT PASS. -Largely in part to Gottleib's "compromise" language.

So we didn't get Manchin-Toomey.

Instead we got a horrible initiative that's unlikely to survive legal challenges brought by that well-known "anti" Gottleib. -You know, the guy who got us the Macdonald ruling. The guy who helped fund Heller vs. DC.

So on one hand we have a bunch of irate people calling Gottlieb some kind of traitor who have ZERO actual, productive, useful solutions to change the law, and on the other hand, the people who are smart enough to know that taking on 594 on anything BUT the grounds it's being challenged on, is a doomed effort.

SHAME on you people trying to make Dave Workman into some anti-gunner or compromiser. He's not, he's never said a thing to suggest that he was. Apparently thumping your chest and shouting "I will not comply" to people who aren't listening and don't give a damn is more important than actual productive action to change the facts on the ground.

You tell the cops when they arrest your butt that "I will not comply." They'll pat you on the head as they handcuff you. That's the only result.

On the other hand, SAF's actions are likely to overturn most, if not all of this law.

When the people condemning Dave, Gottlieb and others advocating working within the system have some specific ideas on what will work and how, SPECIFICALLY that would play out, I'm writing you off as blowhards.

I'm open to other alternatives, including civil disobedience. That was tried Dec 5 and the state refused to take the bait, leaving us with nothing. As for the CT experience, HOW MANY CT A/R OWNERS ARE GOING TO 3-GUN COMPETITIONS IN CT?

Cause that's really the question. Massive Non-compliance may stop, in the short term, widespread enforcement. But when you need to HIDE your guns, you've lost the fight. That's not the way forward for us.

Taku talked about knocking on 200 doors. THAT is the way we win this fight. One voter at a a time. We have all the facts on our side. We blew it on 594 for a lot of reasons. But I have yet to speak to any but a few die-hard gun haters that can't grasp that the AR is not different from Uncle Bob's hunting rifle if it's explained to them.

BGCs are another issue and a much harder sell. -Which is why Gottlieb said he thought they were inevitable. That doesn't make him a compromiser or anti, it makes him a realist. He NEVER SAID he liked the idea. He said we probably were going to eventually lose that fight.

If you're reading comprehension is so poor that you can't tell the difference, I don't know what to say to you.

You are exactly correct in everything you've said here. Having a 100% compliant echo chamber in which they can thump their chests and make bold pronouncements is more important to some folks than actually accomplishing something. Repealing 99% of all laws isn't going to happen. It's not compromising when somebody accepts that reality. We stand a very good chance of overturning some of the worst laws in court. We can all work together to do that, or we can sit on the sidelines and take potshots at those who are doing something. Which do you think is more helpful?

Do people understand that if we can change a few words in the voter registration statutes here in Oregon that we can take thousands of votes away from people like Burdick by making college kids vote where their parents live, instead of where they go to school? Do people understand what effect that would have, not just on gun laws, but in general in places like Portland, Eugene, and Marion County? That's a practical step we can take, instead of spouting radical feel-good rhetoric and pissing into the wind.

 

[tommy98466]

I urge all gun owners and Constitution lovers in this State to make a donation to SAF to fight this terrible law that is now on the books. Get your wallet out, check book or credit card and call them 1-425-454-7012. Make a donation, I did.

 

[GunRightsCoalition]

All I am going to say to you is:
national CCW reciprocity turns over control of the CHL/CCW over to the feds and that just plain sucks and a very bad move. Keep control in the states not the fed !!!
Anyone itchy to pass another damned law should pass one that stops any further legislation or laws or attacks of any kind on the 2nd Amendment. Then you might have something. Otherwise it it's time to begin LAW reduction. There are 2,000 laws each already to cover every possible thing that anyone can do. No one knows what they all are and it is azzenine. That is not freedom. That is borderline tyranny .......Get rid of 99% of them.
Laws are only job security for attorneys and legislators anymore and that is about it. And they are control mechanisms for tyrants.
We do not need more laws we need FAR FEWER LAWS.

We are losing this fight one state at a time, one city at a time, one county at a time. Why? Because even though we know it is an inherent right belonging to everyone we are scared to take it on as such. Does the right change when we cross the border into another state? No it does not and yet (as a whole) we are willing to accept it and encourage it by saying it needs to stay in the control of the states. No, we need to take it head on as a right for all and demand that the US Government protect it equally with everyone, everywhere. Are we scared that it will be easier to pass these laws federally than it is state by state? Look at where that is getting us if so. How we go about fixing it I cannot answer but I do know that it will ultimately require the federal government recognizing that the right applies equally to everyone and that states don't get to incrementally take it away as they are currently doing.

 

[Brigadier]

<broken link removed>

http://sipseystreetirregulars.blogspot.com/2014/12/were-not-trying-to-stop-background.html?m=1

http://www.thetruthaboutguns.com/20...ttleib-on-background-checks-lets-make-a-deal/

It's guys like these that would be mad at the Super Bowl Champion Seahawks because Denver scored points and it wasn't a perfect shutout. Or they didn't vote for McCain cuz he wasn't conservative enough. or didn't vote for Romney cuz he was a Mormon, etc.......Now we have 8 years of Benito Hussein Obama. Nice, huh?

We have a saying in engineering - perfection is the enemy of good enough.

Come on guys.....

BTW, donation to SAF completed...I put my $$ where my mouth is.

 

[chariot13]

We are losing this fight one state at a time, one city at a time, one county at a time. Why? Because even though we know it is an inherent right belonging to everyone we are scared to take it on as such. Does the right change when we cross the border into another state? No it does not and yet (as a whole) we are willing to accept it and encourage it by saying it needs to stay in the control of the states. No, we need to take it head on as a right for all and demand that the US Government protect it equally with everyone, everywhere. Are we scared that it will be easier to pass these laws federally than it is state by state? Look at where that is getting us if so. How we go about fixing it I cannot answer but I do know that it will ultimately require the federal government recognizing that the right applies equally to everyone and that states don't get to incrementally take it away as they are currently doing.

I agree and the anti's are the people trying to trade background checks in exchange for permission to carry nationally. Gotta pass a background check to gain permission in that permit. The national permit would force the states who recognize constitutional carry and don't require any permit to then go to a actual permit. Taking away constitutional carry. That's what SAF wants. Don't be fooled.

 

[GunnyG]

I agree and the anti's are the people trying to trade background checks in exchange for permission to carry nationally. Gotta pass a background check to gain permission in that permit. The national permit would force the states who recognize constitutional carry and don't require any permit to then go to a actual permit. Taking away constitutional carry. That's what SAF wants. Don't be fooled.

And at a very basic level, it could also give a DiFi or Chuck Schumer-type the influence to make getting, keeping and utilizing a permit in WA or OR just as hard as it is NY. Been there, don't want to go back.

 

[Brigadier]

Taking away constitutional carry. That's what SAF wants. Don't be fooled.

You gotta be kidding, right? If you seriously think that, you are really out there.

 

[44Brent]

Do you believe that acquiring a concealed carry license is a "compromise", that that you should carry in violation of the law, even when licenses are available in your state?

Do you believe that every infringing law should be openly ignored and violated?

Do you believe that every infringing law should be challenged in court exclusively using the 2nd Amendment as the basis of the lawsuit, and not be challenged on other issues?

Do you believe that the proper tactic to handle police at your front door demanding your guns, is to shoot the police in the face on your doorstep?

If you answered yes to the above questions, there's an excellent video for you titled
"When they come for your guns"

 

[chariot13]

You gotta be kidding, right? If you seriously think that, you are really out there.

There's no question that forcing a national standard upon the State's that have constitutional carry, would remove constitutional carry completely. It would harm those states and require the people there to pass a background check and be issued a permit in order to exercise the right they currently retain without either of those infringements. Not only that, the bill Alan and SAF originally authored for the Toomey/Manchin bill, would have completely removed private sales without a background check in all 50 States. Non compliance has become the only way to defeat infringement. Lessening an infringement is a psychological ploy. An infringement is always going to be an infringement.

 

[GunnyG]

We were discussing the ramifications of 594's passage over at the ST: http://discussions.seattletimes.com/comments/2025372670

Since WA offers a CPL, while maintaining the option of no permit required-open carry for a legal alternative, that is how requiring a permit to carry above what is normally afforded to the citizens of WA passes constitutional muster.

Here is where I want to take SAF to task: I-594 shouldn't pass such a muster, because (and as much as I like SAF premises for the lawsuit, I think they have neglected to address one constituency in the lawsuit):

RCW 9.41.240

Possession of pistol by person from eighteen to twenty-one.

Unless an exception under RCW 9.41.042, 9.41.050, or 9.41.060 applies, a person at least eighteen years of age, but less than twenty-one years of age, may possess a pistol only:

(1) In the person's place of abode;

(2) At the person's fixed place of business; or

(3) On real property under his or her control.

[1994 sp.s. c 7 � 423; 1971 c 34 � 1; 1909 c 249 � 308; 1883 p 67 � 1; RRS � 2560.]

Other than the outright immediate familial gift allowed under I-594, how can that 18 but not 21 year old get a handgun legally in WA now, since any other way now requires a BC through a FFL whose federal license won't allow such a transfer? There really is no other legal option for that block of voters to exercise in acquiring a pistol.

Before this, an 18+ year old had a legal alternative where they could legally purchase through a FTF sale without needing a BC, so I certainly cite this as one more instance where -594 is impairing rights.

 

[GunRightsCoalition]

GunnyG, WA CPL still fails to pass muster as there are places that require a CPL to legally carry a loaded firearm. In particular inside of an automobile. Get that off the books and it would barely do so as you could legally carry a firearm (with narrow exceptions where no firearms are allowed at all) without asking for permission to exercise your right. That a CPL gets you a pass in a vehicle where you could not otherwise carry means that for all practical purposes you must ask permission to carry legally and therefore fails the test.

BTW, this is on my list of things to try to get changed. In OR and ID you can open carry in a vehicle without a CPL.

 

[GunnyG]

GunnyG, WA CPL still fails to pass muster as there are places that require a CPL to legally carry a loaded firearm. In particular inside of an automobile. Get that off the books and it would barely do so as you could legally carry a firearm (with narrow exceptions where no firearms are allowed at all) without asking for permission to exercise your right. That a CPL gets you a pass in a vehicle where you could not otherwise carry means that for all practical purposes you must ask permission to carry legally and therefore fails the test.

Agreed. But we're slipping backwards. At this moment, I think we should probably be paying more attention to bailing out our leaking rowboat, than we should to raising the boat's gunwales.