Future for WA Initiative 1639?

Discussion in 'Firearm Legislation & Activism' started by uberguy, Dec 24, 2018.

Tags:
  1. uberguy

    uberguy
    Bend
    Bronze Supporter Bronze Supporter

    Messages:
    280
    Likes Received:
    450
    Seattle Times (12-24-2018)

    State appeals court strikes down Seattle’s hotel-worker rights law, citing faulty ballot measure

    A Seattle initiative from 2016 was just struck down for having too many parts; WA initiative requirements state they may have only one legal subject. Am hoping the same happens with 1639 as seems obvious since the initiative changed over a dozen existing laws, introduced a new crime (community endangerment) and a great many different topics.

    Advocates claim it all falls under 'gun safety' ... much like Seattle claimed this one all fell under 'hotel worker safety'. Thoughts / comments?
     
    Last edited: Dec 25, 2018
  2. Eveskcige28

    Eveskcige28
    Rochester wa
    Bronze Supporter Bronze Supporter

    Messages:
    127
    Likes Received:
    194
    Couldn't agree more. If anybody has any info on ways to help fight 1639 please let us know!
     
    uberguy and Taco_lean like this.
  3. GWS

    GWS
    Vancouver
    Bronze Supporter Bronze Supporter

    Messages:
    246
    Likes Received:
    519
    This is interesting. Looks like a clear precedent has just been set.
     
    AMT and uberguy like this.
  4. mortar maggot

    mortar maggot
    western wa
    Silver Supporter Silver Supporter

    Messages:
    345
    Likes Received:
    191
    It should by all laws and interpretation of laws be overturned.

    But I do not have a lot of faith in the courts.

    Also Olympia will just pass the same crap instead
     
    AMT, wp4, techiej and 1 other person like this.
  5. Slobray

    Slobray
    Yelm, WA
    Bronze Supporter Bronze Supporter

    Messages:
    2,241
    Likes Received:
    6,792
    None of that matters, because.........

    wssc.jpg

    the leftist partisan activists don't give a rats azz about precedent, the WA Constitution or the US Constitution. They only care about their politics and have already decreed their support for I-1639, thus ensuring it was put on the ballot.
    Dori: Corrupt WA Supreme Court's I-1639 ruling no surprise to anyone
    They damned sure won't let it it be struck down in any way, shape or form, especially by some right wing racist misogynistic mouth breather on a lower court.



    Ray
    PS-thank you @Stomper for the picture.
     
    AMT, wp4 and IOM like this.
  6. Stomper

    Stomper
    Shut Your Face!!
    Platinum Supporter Platinum Supporter Gold Supporter 2018 Volunteer

    Messages:
    22,626
    Likes Received:
    65,994


    No, thank YOU! I accidentally deleted that photo and was bummed that I couldn’t find it anywhere... now it’s locked up where it’s SAFE for future political commentary... and harassment. LOL!

    :s0155:
     
    Flymph and Slobray like this.
  7. deckert

    deckert
    Benton City, Wa
    Gold Supporter Gold Supporter Silver Supporter

    Messages:
    115
    Likes Received:
    315
    Here's some thoughts, albeit rather lengthy...and the route I would have taken in court. Although the SAF & NRA filed for relief under RCW 29A.72.240, I believe they erred and should have filed under RCW 29A.72.100

    I’m forced to ask why hasn’t the MEDIA & my ELECTED legislators stepped up and started asking about the illegally formatted petitions being allowed to be placed on the ballot when they clearly don’t meet the RCW’s as to the specified formatting as required by law? I asked but have never heard back from my elected officials nor any news agencies. Anyone besides me write/call & ask?

    On to the issue at hand..
    The Secretary Of State (Kim Wyman) was obligated by law to dismiss the illegally formatted petitions under (RCW 29A.72.100 “ be in the form required by RCW29A.72.110, 29A.72.120, or 29A.72.130, and have a readable, full, true, and correct copy of the proposed measure printed on the reverse side of the petition.”) but chose not to obey the law. The SOS then asserted a position by stating she lacked the authority to reject the illegally formatted petitions which was a lie. A Superior court judge recognized the petitions were illegal but the state supreme court decided otherwise in a convoluted decision under the order below.
    ORDER
    No. 96191-3
    Thurston County No.
    18-2-03747-3
    On July 27, 2018, two groups of plaintiffs timely brought similar preelection challenges
    in Thurston County Superior Court to the secretary's certification of the 1-1639 petition. Both
    groups of plaintiffs requested that the court review the petition for sufficient signatures under
    RCW 29A.72.240, a provision that authorizes judicial review of the number of signatures
    submitted in support of an initiative, and sought declaratory and injunctive relief. Both
    challenges are based on the contention that the print on the back of the I-l 639 petitions is not a
    true, accurate, and readable copy of the proposed measure presented to the secretary and was
    thus not the "full" text of the proposed measure. Wash. CONST, art. II, § 37; RCW 29A.72.100.

    Additionally.. this 'supreme court' ruled..
    But the statute governing certification of initiatives gives the secretary very limited authority to refuse to certify an initiative petition to the ballot: (1) for failure to substantially follow certain form requirements not applicable here,
    (2) for "clear[]" failure to collect sufficient signatures, or (3) for failure to file the initiative
    petition on time. RCW 29A.72.170. Accordingly, the secretary exercised her discretion to certify
    the 1-1639 petition for presentation to the voters.
    Now someone tell me how in the hell a court full of lawyers decides the form requirements are "not applicable here" when the RCW's are absolutely clear relative to the format of the petitions? I'm not a lawyer but I'm fairly certain I can understand and comprehend the English language.
    The secretary of state may refuse to file any initiative or referendum petition being submitted upon any of the following grounds:
    (1) That the petition does not contain the information required by RCW 29A.72.110, 29A.72.120, or 29A.72.130 under
    RCW 29A.72.170

    RCW 29A.72.180 clearly left an option for the SOS to let the superior court make the decision of the legality of the petitions since she refused to and hid behind part 2 & part 3 of RCW 29A.72.170 along with the backing of the so named supreme court and ignoring part 1.
    RCW 29A.72.180
    Petitions—Review of refusal to file.

    If the secretary of state refuses to file an initiative or referendum petition when submitted for filing, the persons submitting it for filing may, within ten days after the refusal, apply to the superior court of Thurston county for an order requiring the secretary of state to bring the petitions before the court, and for a writ of mandate to compel the secretary of state to file it. The application takes precedence over other cases and matters and must be speedily heard and determined.
    If the court issues the citation, and determines that the petition is legal in form and apparently contains the requisite number of signatures and was submitted for filing within the time prescribed in the Constitution, it shall issue its mandate requiring the secretary of state to file it as of the date of submission for filing.
    The decision of the superior court granting a writ of mandate is final.

    Here's Wymans oath... (I have the orginal pdf if you want it..)
    OATH FOR THE OFFICE OF SECRETARY OF STATE
    I, Kim Wyman, do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support the constitution of the United States and the Constitution and laws of the state of Washington, and that I will faithfully discharge the duties of Secretary of State to the best of my ability.
    Subscribed on this 11th day of January, 2017.

    Wyman CLEARLY DID NOT uphold her oath because she,
    1. Accepted & filed an illegal document in violation of her oath of office.
    This constitutes misfeasance of office. (specifically : the performance of a lawful action in an illegal or improper manner)
    or at the very least...: malfeasance wrongdoing or misconduct especially by a public official

    The gist of everything above is this, if I had the $$$ & the legal-ease to write my cases, I'd have been filing suits in the courts on Aug. 26th/2018. (That's when the supreme court filed their asinine opinion) Although I'd dearly like to do a recall on Wyman, the way the laws are written in this state have you virtually castrated. Just another thing my so called 'elected officials' won't undertake to change. I've tried. I'll darn sure lend my name & time to do whatevers' needed to fight this hogwash but I'm retired & out of funds sent to NRA/GOA/SAF and Sporting Systems.

    I'm off my :s0146: for the moment.. but am disgusted with my 'elected' officials.

    Dan
     
    nwslopoke, Slobray, GWS and 2 others like this.
  8. Nick Burkhardt

    Nick Burkhardt
    NE Oregon
    Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    3,634
    Likes Received:
    7,950
    What's the deal again? Will a Washington resident now need a CPL to buy any semi-automatic firearm?
     
  9. Boss

    Boss
    USA
    Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    327
    Likes Received:
    824
    No lawyer here, but it would appear most definitely clearly be in violation of the single-topic requirement...they're all over the place...age mandates, BGC's, training requirements, storage requirements, creating a new class of firearms...these aren't even close. It would NOT seem in the spirit of the law that an extremely ambiguous blanket term like 'safety' can be used as an umbrella to allow numerous different topics into a single initiative.

    This was brought up early on, and yet was still 'allowed' on the ballot...so the 'will of the people could speak!'...that and billionaires have invested millions into 1639, so...it'll probably stand until the US Supreme Court rightly strikes it down on this and other violations of the law.:oops:

    As a side note, I was in LGS the other day, quite busy...saw a nice young woman picking up an S&W MP Sport II AR. But there were AR's all over the wall...I'm surprised any are left to be found. The folks behind the counter were largely 'meh, business as usual...' Times are changing. Maybe the big rush will come in June? I dunno.

    Boss
     
    uberguy likes this.
  10. surevaliance

    surevaliance
    Auburn WA
    Active Member

    Messages:
    100
    Likes Received:
    120
    Vote No Washington I-1639 | Home
     
  11. Slobray

    Slobray
    Yelm, WA
    Bronze Supporter Bronze Supporter

    Messages:
    2,241
    Likes Received:
    6,792
    Nope.

    As it stands in WA right now (at least until the leftist legislature has their way this session) a CPL allows the holder to forgo the 10 day waiting period when purchasing a handgun. 1639 makes everyone who buys a semiautomatic rifle wait 10 days to pick it up, whether they have a CPL or not.



    Ray
     
  12. quneur

    quneur
    Mukilteo, Wa
    Member

    Messages:
    61
    Likes Received:
    31
    "Sec. 10. RCW 9.41.110 and 2009 c 479 s 10 are each amended toread as follows:...
    (3) No dealer may sell or otherwise transfer, or expose for sale or transfer, or have in his or her possession with intent to sell or otherwise transfer, any ammunition without being licensed as provided in this section...
    (5)(a)...No person shall qualify for a license under this section without first receiving a federal firearms license...
    (8)(c) The license fee for pistols shall be one hundred twenty-five dollars. The license fee for firearms other than pistols shall be one hundred twenty-five dollars. The license fee for ammunition shall be one hundred twenty-five dollars".

    Currently, there is no restriction on ammunition sales. If a person who applies for an ammunition dealers license only but does not have a FFL and is:

    1. Is not denied. Wouldn't that be 'discriminatory' to the licensee due having to pay the $125 fee when the general public has no restriction?
    2. Is denied. Again, 'discriminatory' considering its 'general use' or 'customary' for the public to acquire/sell ammunition at any unlicensed store, unlicensed person to person sale, via internet sales, etc?
     

Share This Page