BREAKING! SAF lawsuit challenges I-594

[jeffery_1965]

All very interesting comments. I do find it interesting that for our state, Washington, and quite a few others as a matter of fact, our State Constitution is clearer in it's writing about some of our rights than the US Constitution. Article 1, Section 24 is pretty clear:

SECTION 24 RIGHT TO BEAR ARMS. The right of the individual citizen to bear arms in defense of himself, or the state, shall not be impaired, but nothing in this section shall be construed as authorizing individuals or corporations to organize, maintain or employ an armed body of men.

Seems to me that for I-594 types of arguments, we should be quoting Section 24 more than the US 2nd amendment. No need to try and convince anyone who has the right in Washington State to bear arms, and there is the "shall not be impaired" which is pretty simple as well.

Since this is a State issue, shouldn't we see more use of section 24 verbiage rather than talking about the 2nd?

Jeff

 

[U201491]

All very interesting comments. I do find it interesting that for our state, Washington, and quite a few others as a matter of fact, our State Constitution is clearer in it's writing about some of our rights than the US Constitution. Article 1, Section 24 is pretty clear:

SECTION 24 RIGHT TO BEAR ARMS. The right of the individual citizen to bear arms in defense of himself, or the state, shall not be impaired, but nothing in this section shall be construed as authorizing individuals or corporations to organize, maintain or employ an armed body of men.

Seems to me that for I-594 types of arguments, we should be quoting Section 24 more than the US 2nd amendment. No need to try and convince anyone who has the right in Washington State to bear arms, and there is the "shall not be impaired" which is pretty simple as well.

Since this is a State issue, shouldn't we see more use of section 24 verbiage rather than talking about the 2nd? Jeff

That is good, and so does Oregon, but there is nothing as clear as the 2nd Amendment to the US Constitution and it does not put limitations on it and was intended to be for the protection of the entire Constitution by the people not just the individual's protection.
The US Constitution and the BOR are supreme and quite clear.

The state constitutions are great. The 2nd Amendment is still the one that rules.

 

[GunnyG]

That is good, and so does Oregon, but there is nothing as clear as the 2nd Amendment to the US Constitution and it does not put limitations on it and was intended to be for the protection of the entire Constitution by the people not just the individual's protection.
The US Constitution and the BOR are supreme and quite clear.

The state constitutions are great. The 2nd Amendment is still the one that rules.

I'm going to argue this from the perspective that I-502 illustrates:

Despite federal law being much more stringent regarding just the possession on recreational MJ, WA state law makes it legal to possess all of the way down to the individual level.

As it has never been found to be in conflict with federal law, in all of its 126 years of existence, Article 1 section 24 is not contradictory (the key element needed for a supremacy clause imposition), and is at very least complementary, to the federal BoR's affirmation. In that light, it (and the other 43 state constitutions where the individual right to keep and bear arms is affirmed) is just as relevant to the discussion.

From " STATE CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS TO KEEP AND BEAR
ARMS" by EUGENE VOLOKH

<broken link removed>

I. INTRODUCTION
Debates rage about the meaning of the Second Amendment; but observers often miss that there are forty-five right-to-bear arms provisions in American constitutional law, not just one. Forty-four states have state constitutional rights to bear arms. Most are written quite differently from the Second Amendment.
Nearly all secure (at least in part) an individual right to keep some kinds of guns for self-defense. Some date back to the Framing; some have been enacted in the last four decades...

Even if it was contradictory, does the federal government, who is currently unable and unwilling to impose its will on MJ users in WA, really have the power to go after the individual right affirmed by Article 1 section 24?

I think not.

 

[Dave Workman]

Even if it was contradictory, does the federal government, who is currently unable and unwilling to impose its will on MJ users in WA, really have the power to go after the individual right affirmed by Article 1 section 24?

I think not.

Just wait until we get an AG who wants to crack down on pot smokers with guns.

It's a conspiracy of the LEFT I tell ya! A CONSPIRACY!

They'll lull everybody into thinking that they're not going to enforce the pot law until the can figure out a way to bag a lot of people with pot and guns, thus denying them the right to have guns by convicting them of the federal crime..

(Hey that sounded pretty good, didn't it? About "It's a CONSPIRACY. I tell ya?")

I need a new hat. Off to Safeway for more tinfoil

 

[GunnyG]

Just wait until we get an AG who wants to crack down on pot smokers with guns.

...

Stop harshin' the buzz, man...

 

[firstsgt]

This just in:

SAF files federal lawsuit against I-594

The Second Amendment Foundation today filed a federal lawsuit in U.S. District Court in Tacoma, challenging provisions of Initiative 594, the 18-page gun control measure passed by voters Nov. 4, on constitutional grounds.

<broken link removed>

http://www.thegunmag.com/saf-sues-derail-washington-state-gun-control-initiative-594/

I am a resident of Oregon. While visiting my son in washington he was showing me a new pistol he had just purchased. I asked him if I could inspect it. He said, "No dad, it's against the law for me to hand it to anyone except a law enforcement official or a licensed dealer. The licensed dealer couldn't hand it to you because your'e not a resident of the state ". It looks like my son and I won't be going to the range again unless he comes to Oregon.

 

[44Brent]

PUBLIC ANNOUNCEMENT -- The Attorney General Has Assigned his "A" Team Members to Uphold I-594

Attorney General Bob Ferguson has assigned three of his finest attorneys to defend I-594 in Federal Court. The three crack members of his "A" team are:

Noah G. Purcell
[email protected]
(360)753-2536
WSBA #43492

Rebecca R. Glasgow
[email protected]
(360)664-3027
WSBA #32886

Jeffrey T. Even
[email protected]
(360)586-0728
WSBA #20367

The Attorney General would like to request that the public refrain from performing activities that would impair their ability to file all required documents according to the strict deadlines imposed by the court. Failure to meet deadlines could cause the case to be won by default in favor of the plaintiffs. Therefore, the Attorney General requests that members of the public refrain from distracting the attorneys through the following activities:

• E-mailing and calling the the attorneys with questions about the case.
• E-mailing and calling the attorneys with suggestions on how to handle the case.
• Submitting Open Records Act requests to provide documents about the case.
• E-mailing and calling the attorneys with questions about other cases in which the Attorney General's office is involved.
• E-mailing and calling the attorneys with requests to provide directions to the Attorney General's office.
• E-mailing and calling the attorneys with questions as to what the proper procedure is for conducting a firearms "transfer".
• E-mailing and calling the attorneys with questions as to whether nail guns, glue guns, fire crackers, and other items meet the definition of "firearm" under I-594.
• E-mailing and calling the attorneys with offers to go duck hunting.
• E-mailing and calling the attorneys with job offers.
• E-mailing and calling the attorneys with questions as to whether they will be attending their next High School Reunion.
• E-mailing and calling the attorneys with requests for referrals as to where the best divorce lawyers can be found.
• E-mailing large attachment documents to the attorneys that contain analysis about the Bill of Rights and related legal issues.

 

[GunnyG]

PUBLIC ANNOUNCEMENT -- The Attorney General Has Assigned his "A" Team Members to Uphold I-594

Attorney General Bob Ferguson has assigned three of his finest attorneys to defend I-594 in Federal Court. The three crack members of his "A" team are:

Noah G. Purcell
[email protected]
(360)753-2536
WSBA #43492

Rebecca R. Glasgow
[email protected]
(360)664-3027
WSBA #32886

Jeffrey T. Even
[email protected]
(360)586-0728
WSBA #20367

The Attorney General would like to request that the public refrain from performing activities that would impair their ability to file all required documents according to the strict deadlines imposed by the court. Failure to meet deadlines could cause the case to be won by default in favor of the plaintiffs. Therefore, the Attorney General requests that members of the public refrain from distracting the attorneys through the following activities:

• E-mailing and calling the the attorneys with questions about the case.
• E-mailing and calling the attorneys with suggestions on how to handle the case.
• Submitting Open Records Act requests to provide documents about the case.
• E-mailing and calling the attorneys with questions about other cases in which the Attorney General's office is involved.
• E-mailing and calling the attorneys with requests to provide directions to the Attorney General's office.
• E-mailing and calling the attorneys with questions as to what the proper procedure is for conducting a firearms "transfer".
• E-mailing and calling the attorneys with questions as to whether nail guns, glue guns, fire crackers, and other items meet the definition of "firearm" under I-594.
• E-mailing and calling the attorneys with offers to go duck hunting.
• E-mailing and calling the attorneys with job offers.
• E-mailing and calling the attorneys with questions as to whether they will be attending their next High School Reunion.
• E-mailing and calling the attorneys with requests for referrals as to where the best divorce lawyers can be found.
• E-mailing large attachment documents to the attorneys that contain analysis about the Bill of Rights and related legal issues.

 

[Member 5605]

PUBLIC ANNOUNCEMENT -- The Attorney General Has Assigned his "A" Team Members to Uphold I-594

Attorney General Bob Ferguson has assigned three of his finest attorneys to defend I-594 in Federal Court. The three crack members of his "A" team are:

Noah G. Purcell
[email protected]
(360)753-2536
WSBA #43492

Rebecca R. Glasgow
[email protected]
(360)664-3027
WSBA #32886

Jeffrey T. Even
[email protected]
(360)586-0728
WSBA #20367

The Attorney General would like to request that the public refrain from performing activities that would impair their ability to file all required documents according to the strict deadlines imposed by the court. Failure to meet deadlines could cause the case to be won by default in favor of the plaintiffs. Therefore, the Attorney General requests that members of the public refrain from distracting the attorneys through the following activities:

• E-mailing and calling the the attorneys with questions about the case.
• E-mailing and calling the attorneys with suggestions on how to handle the case.
• Submitting Open Records Act requests to provide documents about the case.
• E-mailing and calling the attorneys with questions about other cases in which the Attorney General's office is involved.
• E-mailing and calling the attorneys with requests to provide directions to the Attorney General's office.
• E-mailing and calling the attorneys with questions as to what the proper procedure is for conducting a firearms "transfer".
• E-mailing and calling the attorneys with questions as to whether nail guns, glue guns, fire crackers, and other items meet the definition of "firearm" under I-594.
• E-mailing and calling the attorneys with offers to go duck hunting.
• E-mailing and calling the attorneys with job offers.
• E-mailing and calling the attorneys with questions as to whether they will be attending their next High School Reunion.
• E-mailing and calling the attorneys with requests for referrals as to where the best divorce lawyers can be found.
• E-mailing large attachment documents to the attorneys that contain analysis about the Bill of Rights and related legal issues.

Bump...

Don't distract them folks...

 

[44Brent]

PUBLIC ANNOUNCEMENT -- The Attorney General Has Assigned a "B" Team Member to Uphold I-594

Attorney General Bob Ferguson has assigned July Simpson as the solo member of his "B" team to defend I-594 in Federal Court. July is a recent graduate of law school from the East Coast, and was also recently appointed as Board Member of the American Humanist Association. "As a board member, my goal is to serve the American Humanist Association with the same vigor and enthusiasm as my father and my mentor, as I strive to live my life as a 'happy humanist,' [FREE OF GUNS]" said Simpson. "I am proud to further the organization's mission of advocating for the separation of church and state and the rights of humanists, atheists and the growing number of Americans [EXCEPT GUN OWNERS] that do not identify with any religion, " she added.

http://americanhumanist.org/news/de...mpson-elected-to-the-american-humanist-associ



R. July Simpson
WSBA #45869
[email protected]
(360)534-4850

Once again, the Attorney General would like to request that the public refrain from performing activities that would impair the "B" team member's ability to file all required documents. Therefore, the Attorney General requests that members of the public refrain from distracting July Simpson through the following activities:

E-mailing and calling the attorney with requests for dates. (new)
E-mailing and calling the attorney with offers to buy her free drinks during happy hour. (new)
E-mailing and calling the attorney with questions about the American Humanist Association. (new)
E-mailing and calling the the attorneys with questions about the case.
E-mailing and calling the attorney with suggestions on how to handle the case.
Submitting Open Records Act request to provide documents about the case.
E-mailing and calling the attorney with questions about other cases in which the Attorney General's office is involved.
E-mailing and calling the attorney with requests to provide directions to the Attorney General's office.
E-mailing and calling the attorney with questions as to what the proper procedure is for conducting a firearms "transfer".
E-mailing and calling the attorney with questions as to whether nail guns, glue guns, fire crackers, and other items meet the definition of "firearm" under I-594.
E-mailing and calling the attorney with offers to go duck hunting.
E-mailing and calling the attorney with job offers.
E-mailing and calling the attorney with questions as to whether they will be attending their next High School Reunion.
E-mailing and calling the attorney with requests for referrals as to where the best divorce lawyers can be found.
E-mailing large attachment document to the attorneys that contain analysis about the Bill of Rights and related legal issues.

 

[Diamondback]

I'd like to request the Attorney General suck his own you-know-what and choke on it.

 

[John H]

Well if he says don't, then doesn't that mean we have to then???

Email bombard commencing in 3, 2,1

Therefore, the Attorney General requests that members of the public refrain from distracting the July Simpson through the following activities:

E-mailing and calling the attorney with requests for dates. (new)
E-mailing and calling the attorney with offers to buy her free drinks during happy hour. (new)
E-mailing and calling the attorney with questions about the American Humanist Association. (new)
E-mailing and calling the the attorneys with questions about the case.
E-mailing and calling the attorney with suggestions on how to handle the case.
Submitting Open Records Act request to provide documents about the case.
E-mailing and calling the attorney with questions about other cases in which the Attorney General's office is involved.
E-mailing and calling the attorney with requests to provide directions to the Attorney General's office.
E-mailing and calling the attorney with questions as to what the proper procedure is for conducting a firearms "transfer".
E-mailing and calling the attorney with questions as to whether nail guns, glue guns, fire crackers, and other items meet the definition of "firearm" under I-594.
E-mailing and calling the attorney with offers to go duck hunting.
E-mailing and calling the attorney with job offers.
E-mailing and calling the attorney with questions as to whether they will be attending their next High School Reunion.
E-mailing and calling the attorney with requests for referrals as to where the best divorce lawyers can be found.
E-mailing large attachment document to the attorneys that contain analysis about the Bill of Rights and related legal issues.

 

[44Brent]

The AG's email system can handle attachments of up to 17MB, and possibly larger. It would be interesting to know the exact limit of the system.
______________________________________________________
From : R. July Simpson (ATG) <[email protected]>
Subject : RE: 3:14-cv-6026 BHS
To : ***** ****** <**********@*******.net>
Cc : Jeff Even (ATG) <[email protected]>, Rebecca Glasgow (ATG) <[email protected]>, Ajai Singh Khalsa (ATG) <[email protected]>
Mon, Jan 26, 2015 07:32 PM

Dear Mr. ******,

Thank you for your email. I believe you are reaching out to me due to my involvement with the AHA. However, you are contacting me at my AGO email and in my capacity as an Assistant Attorney General. Unfortunately, because of my work I am unable to discuss this topic with you either in my capacity as an AAG or as a Humanist. I believe you would be best served by contacting the AHA directly. Their website has the ability for you to contact someone who would be better able to assist you. For future contacts please contact the AHA as I am unable to discuss personal business using my AGO email.

I hope you find this email helpful.
______________________________________________________
From: ***** ***** [mailto:**********@*******.net]
Sent: Thursday, January 22, 2015 6:58 PM
To: Simpson, R. July (ATG)
Cc: Even, Jeff (ATG); Glasgow, Rebecca (ATG)
Subject: 3:14-cv-6026 BHS

Dear Ms. R. July Simpson:

The position you have taken on I-594 in Case:14-cv-6026 BHS is consistent with many of the opinions on your web site at <broken link removed> However, the position taken by the American Humanist Association doesn't accurately represent a Humanist perspective.
The correct Humanist position to take on gun control is presented in the video titled "Bitcoin 2012: Cody Wilson - Gun printing as a humanism" which is available on YouTube at

I have attached a copy of the video in MP3 format, and encourage you to watch it as I have been thinking about submitting it to the Judge in the case on your behalf as a fellow Humanist.

Sincerely,
B. ***** ******

 

[Diamondback]

I'd say you SHOULD submit a copy to the Judge, or see if Monica & Co.'s counsel will call you as a witness to rip Ms. Simpson's humanist cred to shreds.

Be sure you're squeaky clean, because they will try to use this entire website against you by painting you as one of us "right-wing extremists."

 

[44Brent]

I'd say you SHOULD submit a copy to the Judge, or see if Monica & Co.'s counsel will call you as a witness to rip Ms. Simpson's humanist cred to shreds.

I don't think Ms. "R's" credentials will become an issue unless she makes them an issue. However, do remember that the Attorney General did ask that people not do things to distract the attorneys. Note that the time response between my question and her response was 4 days. The size of the attachment was 17MB. If anyone succeeded in sending an attachment(s) > 17 MB without crashing the e-mail server , I'd be interested in knowing the results.

 

[Caveman Jim]

How should one present an application to the Open Records Act to Submitting Open Records Act request to provide documents about the case? And would it be acceptable to send it to each of the bubblegums; er, I mean, the 3 crack members of the A team and the douche; er, I mean, B team member?

 

[CarlMc]

I'm going to step into this carefully. There are some OC folks who set the cause back a LOT recently in the state capital, and these events are what the anti-gun side drools for. Whoever this lawyer is and whatever her political and religious views should be off limits. You will only harden her heart when she gets harassed. You argue the facts with a lawyer; you will win nothing and lose more when you make it personal.

You would be surprised how many Jewish lawyers wind up defending Nazi's, black lawyers defending white supremacists, and so on.

 

[Gunguy45]

The AG's email system can handle attachments of up to 17MB, and possibly larger. It would be interesting to know the exact limit of the system.
______________________________________________________
From : R. July Simpson (ATG) <[email protected]>
Subject : RE: 3:14-cv-6026 BHS
To : ***** ****** <**********@*******.net>
Cc : Jeff Even (ATG) <[email protected]>, Rebecca Glasgow (ATG) <[email protected]>, Ajai Singh Khalsa (ATG) <[email protected]>
Mon, Jan 26, 2015 07:32 PM

Dear Mr. ******,

Thank you for your email. I believe you are reaching out to me due to my involvement with the AHA. However, you are contacting me at my AGO email and in my capacity as an Assistant Attorney General. Unfortunately, because of my work I am unable to discuss this topic with you either in my capacity as an AAG or as a Humanist. I believe you would be best served by contacting the AHA directly. Their website has the ability for you to contact someone who would be better able to assist you. For future contacts please contact the AHA as I am unable to discuss personal business using my AGO email.

I hope you find this email helpful.
______________________________________________________
From: ***** ***** [mailto:**********@*******.net]
Sent: Thursday, January 22, 2015 6:58 PM
To: Simpson, R. July (ATG)
Cc: Even, Jeff (ATG); Glasgow, Rebecca (ATG)
Subject: 3:14-cv-6026 BHS

Dear Ms. R. July Simpson:

The position you have taken on I-594 in Case:14-cv-6026 BHS is consistent with many of the opinions on your web site at <broken link removed> However, the position taken by the American Humanist Association doesn't accurately represent a Humanist perspective.
The correct Humanist position to take on gun control is presented in the video titled "Bitcoin 2012: Cody Wilson - Gun printing as a humanism" which is available on YouTube at

I have attached a copy of the video in MP3 format, and encourage you to watch it as I have been thinking about submitting it to the Judge in the case on your behalf as a fellow Humanist.

Sincerely,
B. ***** ******

And good for her and frankly shame on all of you wackjobs for intentionally interfering with the AG's legitimate business because you don't approve of a DAG's personal politics.

This kind of nonsense is EXACTLY what gets us all referred to as psychos. We HAVE a legit lawsuit. It's the AG's JOB to defend state law against challenges, whether or not he believes the challenges are a good idea.

What does this gain us? NOTHING. what does it cost us? Well, God help the person who has a legitimate issue they need that same DAG to address, because she's busy dealing with your crap.

WTF? Has everyone addressing this thread suddenly become the age of 12?

We have SOLID claims. We have a SOLID lawsuit. (SAF is no known for BS lawsuits, quite the contrary).

This produces no results at all, but WILL result in a MUCH more robust defense than we otherwise might have expected.

You guys with the long-guns in the statehouse gallery and the email advice? PLEASE GO AWAY. The grownups are actually trying to produce a result here.

 

[Dave Workman]

All very interesting comments. I do find it interesting that for our state, Washington, and quite a few others as a matter of fact, our State Constitution is clearer in it's writing about some of our rights than the US Constitution. Article 1, Section 24 is pretty clear:

SECTION 24 RIGHT TO BEAR ARMS. The right of the individual citizen to bear arms in defense of himself, or the state, shall not be impaired, but nothing in this section shall be construed as authorizing individuals or corporations to organize, maintain or employ an armed body of men.

Seems to me that for I-594 types of arguments, we should be quoting Section 24 more than the US 2nd amendment. No need to try and convince anyone who has the right in Washington State to bear arms, and there is the "shall not be impaired" which is pretty simple as well.

Since this is a State issue, shouldn't we see more use of section 24 verbiage rather than talking about the 2nd?

Jeff

Jeff:
SAF filed a fedral lawsuit challenging the measure on federal constitutional grounds (vagueness, violates 2A rights of non-WA residents) which takes the battle OUT of the state courts.

If you can find an attorney to file a state-level lawsuit, I'd say go for it. Round up some good plaintiffs and flesh out the arguments.

 

[Dave Workman]

MEANWHILE...

CCRKBA says it will support bill to repeal I-594

The Citizens Committee for the Right to Keep and Bear Arms yesterday declared its support for legislation that would repeal Initiative 594, but the effort may be up against something of a stacked deck, because the chair of the House Judiciary Committee, where the bill was referred, belongs to a national legislative "gun violence prevention" group.


<broken link removed>