Effect of 1639 on existing owners?

[Sporting Systems]

This may not be an easy question to answer, however I thought that initiatives were supposed to only address one subject in order to be a valid initiative. When reading all 30 pages of 1639, it struck me that it addresses many subjects, and therefore should not be valid. Is there any hope that it could be struck down because of this?

You're correct. That is one of the secondary legal challenges of the initiative. Their argument is it's all about gun safety, everything is related to that subject. The Supreme Court has made that judgement before, however, we've already seen the prejudice of that court related to firearms.

 

[sasquatch]

You're correct. That is one of the secondary legal challenges of the initiative. Their argument is it's all about gun safety, everything is related to that subject. The Supreme Court has made that judgement before, however, we've already seen the prejudice of that court related to firearms.

Is the SAF one of the parties involved in that specific legal challenge? I guess I need to send them a decent-sized contribution.......

 

[Sporting Systems]

Is the SAF one of the parties involved in that specific legal challenge? I guess I need to send them a decent-sized contribution.......

Yes. SAF and the NRA are working together on the legal challenges. SAF and their counsel will be working on our federal challenge as well. They are prioritizing how to attack the measure, and in what order. They've got their plan, and we're pleased to be participating in this part of the battle as well.

 

[sasquatch]

Yes. SAF and the NRA are working together on the legal challenges. SAF and their counsel will be working on our federal challenge as well. They are prioritizing how to attack the measure, and in what order. They've got their plan, and we're pleased to be participating in this part of the battle as well.

Thanks for answering my questions, and thank you for your efforts. I would like nothing more than to see these liberal morons go down in flames on this one.....................

 

[WALawyer]

This may not be an easy question to answer, however I thought that initiatives were supposed to only address one subject in order to be a valid initiative. When reading all 30 pages of 1639, it struck me that it addresses many subjects, and therefore should not be valid. Is there any hope that it could be struck down because of this?

Unlikely, all sections pertain to firearms in some way. It isn't like the initiative seeks to regulate firearms and then also adds a state income tax or something completely unrelated.

 

[sasquatch]

Unlikely, all sections pertain to firearms in some way. It isn't like the initiative seeks to regulate firearms and then also adds a state income tax or something completely unrelated.

So, by your line of reasoning, they could have outlawed all hollow-point ammo, restricted all magazines to 5 rounds, and required every citizen of the state of Washington to possess a permit to buy ammunition, all in that same bill?

 

[Sporting Systems]

So, by your line of reasoning, they could have outlawed all hollow-point ammo, restricted all magazines to 5 rounds, and required every citizen of the state of Washington to possess a permit to buy ammunition, all in that same bill?

Yup. I guess we should be happy they didn't throw those in too.

 

[cascadian]

This may not be an easy question to answer, however I thought that initiatives were supposed to only address one subject in order to be a valid initiative. When reading all 30 pages of 1639, it struck me that it addresses many subjects, and therefore should not be valid. Is there any hope that it could be struck down because of this?

In my humble opinion, yes. Dependent on the state supreme court being objective and consistent with past rulings.

Initiative 722 (2000) is worthy of consideration. The subject was limiting taxes. Had three provisions to it, nullify some 1999 state tax increases, exempting vehicles from property taxes and limiting property tax increases to 2% annually.

Struck down because of multiple subjects. Yet each fell under the named heading.

Washington Initiative 722 (2000) - Ballotpedia

https://www.sos.wa.gov//elections/initiatives/text/i722.pdf

The Supreme Court's opinion is as follows

1-722. Kiga, 44 Wn.2d at 823. Never lifted, this injunction became permanent when the Superior Court granted summary judgment declaring 1-722 to be unconstitutional on February 23, 2001. Id. On September 20, 2001, the Supreme Court affirmed the trial court's decision to permanently enjoin 1-722, reasoning, "Because we cannot know if either subject of I722 would have garnered popular support standing alone, we must declare the entire initiative void." Kiga, 44 Wn.2d at 828

Ultimately, the initiative tried to make two modifications to Referendum 47. The subject was limiting taxes, the two provisions dealt with the same existing law.

Yet, the Supreme Court determined that there were two subjects in it. The test then became whether one initiative that created multiple questions was constitutional. There was no way to determine whether each of the provisions would have garnered popular support alone.

So, while one could create an initiative with the subject "Peace, love, contentment, safety and rainbows for all," one couldn't just start tossing a mix of things into it and make it happen.

Now, don't get me wrong.... I did not go to lawyer school or anything. And I am not so blinded that I cannot imagine the supreme court ruling pleasing to the left regardless of incongruities...

But... this is a huge violation of the tests put forth in the I-722 case. And should be thrown out on its head. And so problematic that injunctions against the whole initiative should be emplaced. For the damage to the population should these measures, once started, would not be able to receive relief after.

 

[Pops1911]

Just sent in my annual contribution to SAF. On behalf of all of us I hope they and the NRA can work some magic with this new legal landscape.

 

[cascadian]

My contribution isn't far behind

 

[cascadian]

And yes... in my own little weird way, I am chuckling that something that the anti-Eyman folks hold up as gospel issued forth on the mountain could very well be used against their little partisan usurpation of law, civility and personal rights

I am sure that there are more than a few anti-Eyman types who are pro 1639

(One of the cautions I give to the youngsters of today who rely on momentum type populism to declare 'mandates' and force their 'views' or 'values' on the rest of us the concept of precedent

That someday, their side will not have the power they do at this moment. And that, with a shift in political winds, there are those who would use the precedent that these folks would push in ways to gore their ox later. Most ignore it as they anticipate that today is only the beginning of their utopia. That we are so 'enlightened' that there is no chance that it cannot be but what they want and get today.

Sadly, things like civics, legal process, precedent, and the actual means of government with checks and balances aren't understood.

Thereby, we have instilled hubris into our younger folks... Sad... Moreover, there is a skewed sense of personal rights we see each day. I do not envy law enforcement who have to deal with people who 'know my rights.'

One example we will be seeing on payback will come into being with the next Congress in January. Plans for supeonas (sp), indictments, articles of Impeachment, defunding programs and generally going after 'enemies' of the new Congressional regime are coming.

 

[Sporting Systems]

And yes... in my own little weird way, I am chuckling that something that the anti-Eyman folks hold up as gospel issued forth on the mountain could very well be used against their little partisan usurpation of law, civility and personal rights

I am sure that there are more than a few anti-Eyman types who are pro 1639

(One of the cautions I give to the youngsters of today who rely on momentum type populism to declare 'mandates' and force their 'views' or 'values' on the rest of us the concept of precedent

That someday, their side will not have the power they do at this moment. And that, with a shift in political winds, there are those who would use the precedent that these folks would push in ways to gore their ox later. Most ignore it as they anticipate that today is only the beginning of their utopia. That we are so 'enlightened' that there is no chance that it cannot be but what they want and get today.

Sadly, things like civics, legal process, precedent, and the actual means of government with checks and balances aren't understood.

Thereby, we have instilled hubris into our younger folks... Sad... Moreover, there is a skewed sense of personal rights we see each day. I do not envy law enforcement who have to deal with people who 'know my rights.'

One example we will be seeing on payback will come into being with the next Congress in January. Plans for supeonas (sp), indictments, articles of Impeachment, defunding programs and generally going after 'enemies' of the new Congressional regime are coming.

Oh my, like you pulled the thought right out of my brain! That was refreshing. Thank you.

 

[Certaindeaf]

First a sanctuary state and now a sanctimonious state.
yays

 

[Pops1911]

Now that's funny right there. I don't care who you are.

 

[Jonnyuma]

New question(s):
What is the nature of the annual BGCs? Similar to the check when you fill out a 4473? If it is, how will information that may have previously triggered a delay (at point of sale) be handled?

If you're one of the people who get a periodic delay (once every 5 yrs, like clockwork for me) that's a pretty big concern. Not getting your new gun for a few hours or days can be annoying and inconvenient, but having coppers at your door to take your property is just uncivilized.

 

[Sporting Systems]

New question(s):
What is the nature of the annual BGCs? Similar to the check when you fill out a 4473? If it is, how will information that may have previously triggered a delay (at point of sale) be handled?

If you're one of the people who get a periodic delay (once every 5 yrs, like clockwork for me) that's a pretty big concern. Not getting your new gun for a few hours or days can be annoying and inconvenient, but having coppers at your door to take your property is just uncivilized.

Same as it is now. The Washing Association of Sheriffs and Police Chiefs will have the information forwarded to their pseudo-govt agency and they'll contact the LE agency where that citizen lives. The agency will further investigate (or won't) the individual. The number of false denials/BGC fails are going to create a massive backlog and delay to real enforcement. They know this and fear the consequences to their departments. I had this discussion with them a couple weeks ago, it's a HUGE problem statewide. And unfounded. And the govt is immune if they mess up or fail to issue to eligible people.

 

[No_Regerts]

Thereby, we have instilled hubris into our younger folks... Sad... Moreover, there is a skewed sense of personal rights we see each day. I do not envy law enforcement who have to deal with people who 'know my rights.'

The biggest challenge is not to laugh when they get that shocked look on their face that says, "Oh my God! He's really pulling me out of the car by my hair!"

 

[Jonnyuma]

Same as it is now. The Washing Association of Sheriffs and Police Chiefs will have the information forwarded to their pseudo-govt agency and they'll contact the LE agency where that citizen lives. The agency will further investigate (or won't) the individual. The number of false denials/BGC fails are going to create a massive backlog and delay to real enforcement. They know this and fear the consequences to their departments. I had this discussion with them a couple weeks ago, it's a HUGE problem statewide. And unfounded. And the govt is immune if they mess up or fail to issue to eligible people.

Okay... so it'll be the massive cluster-flop I was expecting.
Good to know

 

[Sporting Systems]

Okay... so it'll be the massive cluster-flop I was expecting.
Good to know

Indeed. The agencies across the state are not set up for this, no budget, no personnel, no system for the massive influx of data that's is going to be processed by each agency. All NICS checks for handguns with or without cpl, all checks for semi auto rifles. The annual checks on everyone who's ever purchased. And then, the false denials on those annual check ups. Mark my words, The state legislature is going to figure out at 1639 is going to cost them in excess of $150 million a year across the state.

 

[WALawyer]

Even worse than the state not having enough resources to throw at all of this regulation is that some counties (read: King) will budget enforcement, while others will not, leading to uneven enforcement across the state.