Washington I-1639 Lawsuit filed

[American123]

House and Senate are the first two other jobs that come to mind, where they frequently say "nope don't want to do our job on that one"

Crazy idea: no more new laws... I mean seriously, how many more do we need! Haven't at this point in our society we covered all the basics and more complicated matters already. The work that the house and the senate both do, what exactly is it again? What can they point to and say, "because of our hard work and Tremendous wages we get paid for not doing a whole lot, we accomplished this"

Even the president at this point. As long as the country is defended (the original point of the federal government) the country pretty much runs itself. We could have a total government shutdown and most all of us would still go to work the next day and be unaffected entirely.

 

[GWS]

Regardless, the ball is rolling and I am hoping we'll see it reach its rightful conclusion in the Supreme Court.

 

[arakboss]

Crazy idea: no more new laws... I mean seriously, how many more do we need! Haven't at this point in our society we covered all the basics and more complicated matters already. The work that the house and the senate both do, what exactly is it again? What can they point to and say, "because of our hard work and Tremendous wages we get paid for not doing a whole lot, we accomplished this"

Even the president at this point. As long as the country is defended (the original point of the federal government) the country pretty much runs itself. We could have a total government shutdown and most all of us would still go to work the next day and be unaffected entirely.

Edit: never said anything about creating new laws.
Their job should be cutting rules and regs, getting rid of laws, downsizing gov and cutting our taxes and protecting our civil rights. Also they need to continue (speed up) their job of confirming non-activist judges. And approve the funding for the wall.

 

[Sporting Systems]

We filed in federal court, specifically to get around the leftist state court. SAF is lead counsel, NRA and SAF covering the legal bills. We..."Mitchell et al V Ferguson." I'm the lead plaintiff, Daniel Mitchell, along with another retailer in Spokane, 4 under 21 year olds, the NRA and SAF. There is likely to be several more plaintiffs added to the suit, but that's up to SAF and the NRA to announce. This is going to be a long an arduous road seeing this through.

 

[arakboss]

Edit: never said anything about creating new laws.
Their job should be cutting rules and regs, getting rid of laws, downsizing gov and cutting our taxes and protecting our civil rights. Also they need to continue (speed up) their job of confirming non-activist judges. And approve the funding for the wall.

We filed in federal court, specifically to get around the leftist state court. SAF is lead counsel, NRA and SAF covering the legal bills. We..."Mitchell et al V Ferguson." I'm the lead plaintiff, Daniel Mitchell, along with another retailer in Spokane, 4 under 21 year olds, the NRA and SAF. There is likely to be several more plaintiffs added to the suit, but that's up to SAF and the NRA to announce. This is going to be a long an arduous road seeing this through.

We'll be rooting for you here in OR!

 

[etrain16]

We filed in federal court, specifically to get around the leftist state court. SAF is lead counsel, NRA and SAF covering the legal bills. We..."Mitchell et al V Ferguson." I'm the lead plaintiff, Daniel Mitchell, along with another retailer in Spokane, 4 under 21 year olds, the NRA and SAF. There is likely to be several more plaintiffs added to the suit, but that's up to SAF and the NRA to announce. This is going to be a long an arduous road seeing this through.

That's awesome!! Thank you to you, SAF and the NRA for backing this up. We in OR are likely to be facing similar issues in the very near future. My hope is you win your case and it sets a precedent (depending on how they rule), that can help states around the country with their rights.

Is is best for folks that want to help to donate to a particular legal fund, or just contribute to SAF and the NRA?

 

[DB is Here]

SAF to the rescue again...Send a few bucks folks.

 

[Geardo]

We filed in federal court, specifically to get around the leftist state court. SAF is lead counsel, NRA and SAF covering the legal bills. We..."Mitchell et al V Ferguson." I'm the lead plaintiff, Daniel Mitchell, along with another retailer in Spokane, 4 under 21 year olds, the NRA and SAF. There is likely to be several more plaintiffs added to the suit, but that's up to SAF and the NRA to announce. This is going to be a long an arduous road seeing this through.

Hell yeah man. Good work.

 

[Geardo]

SAF to the rescue again...Send a few bucks folks.

And buy stuff at Sporting Systems!

 

[titsonritz]

They got right on that!

I'd bet they had it ready to roll out even before it passes.

 

[bbbass]

I've heard people talk about GOA... where are they?

Tom Gresham weighed into the fight recently: Motivation and Commitment | Gun Talk

 

[LibertyNews]

Best of luck to you all!

 

[44Brent]

We filed in federal court, specifically to get around the leftist state court. SAF is lead counsel, NRA and SAF covering the legal bills. We..."Mitchell et al V Ferguson." I'm the lead plaintiff, Daniel Mitchell, along with another retailer in Spokane, 4 under 21 year olds, the NRA and SAF. There is likely to be several more plaintiffs added to the suit, but that's up to SAF and the NRA to announce. This is going to be a long an arduous road seeing this through.

There's a couple of things that I'm going to be watching for as the case(s) unfolds:

1) Is the SAF or NRA going to file a complaint in a different US District Court to attack the law on a different set of issues (such as "safe storage" requirements designed to protect home invasion burglars and rapists)? If I was running the operation, I would want to have different judges hearing different complaints to increase the odds of getting a good judge.

2) If the plaintiffs win on the issue of out-of-state sales, does that then open up the possibility for a new line of attack on the "enhanced background checks" on the basis that the requirements for out-of-state buyers cannot be met due to conflicts between different state laws?

2) Will the SAF at some point file a complaint in the state courts to reopen an attack on procedure issues (unreadable petitions, etc)? If so, would that motivate the Washington Supreme Court to kill the law in order to prevent the US Supreme Court from using the case to set a precedent on substantive 2nd Amendment issues (such as the 18-21 age prohibition)?

 

[Sporting Systems]

There's a couple of things that I'm going to be watching for as the case(s) unfolds:

1) Is the SAF or NRA going to file a complaint in a different US District Court to attack the law on a different set of issues (such as "safe storage" requirements designed to protect home invasion burglars and rapists? If I was running the operation, I would want to have different judges hearing different complaints to increase the odds of getting a good judge.

2) If the plaintiffs win on the issue of out-of-state sales, does that then open up the possibility for a new line of attack on the "enhanced background checks" on the basis that the requirements for out-of-state buyers cannot be met due to conflicts between different state laws?

2) Will the SAF at some point file a complaint in the state courts to reopen an attack on procedure issues (unreadable petitions, etc)? If so, would that motivate the Washington Supreme Court to kill the law in order to prevent the US Supreme Court from using the case to set a precedent on substantive 2nd Amendment issues (such as the 18-21 age prohibition)?

It will be interesting. Grab your popcorn, sit back and be patient. This one is going to take a while.

 

[Boss]

We filed in federal court, specifically to get around the leftist state court. SAF is lead counsel, NRA and SAF covering the legal bills. We..."Mitchell et al V Ferguson." I'm the lead plaintiff, Daniel Mitchell, along with another retailer in Spokane, 4 under 21 year olds, the NRA and SAF. There is likely to be several more plaintiffs added to the suit, but that's up to SAF and the NRA to announce. This is going to be a long an arduous road seeing this through.

Thanks for the update and keep us posted.

Q: What will happen in the meantime while this working its way through the courts? Will it go into effect or be postponed? If it goes into effect, the other side would likely just drag this out for years, effectively nullifying and bankrupting the opposition.

Hopefully there's a counter suit in there to recover legal costs (at the very least) for our side.

I realize this is a piece of a larger strategy/plan, so keep up the good work.

As with everything involving courts & attorneys, sounds like we'll have to look at continued contributions to keep this battle going.


Boss

 

[Slobray]

We filed in federal court, specifically to get around the leftist state court. SAF is lead counsel, NRA and SAF covering the legal bills. We..."Mitchell et al V Ferguson." I'm the lead plaintiff, Daniel Mitchell, along with another retailer in Spokane, 4 under 21 year olds, the NRA and SAF. There is likely to be several more plaintiffs added to the suit, but that's up to SAF and the NRA to announce. This is going to be a long an arduous road seeing this through.

Since this is being filed in federal court and is only challenging certain parts of the law: the ban on 18-20 year old from buying rifles and the ban on out of state buyers. Doesn't that leave us still subjected to the rest of this abomination? Such as the ever increasing fee for the privilege of buying a rifle, "semiautomatic assault rifles", 10 day waiting period, being charged with "community endangerment" if guns are stolen, training requirements, long gun registry, etc......

NEW SECTION. Sec. 19. If any provision of this act or its application to any person or circumstance is held invalid or preempted by federal law, the remainder of the act or the application of the provision to other persons or circumstances is not affected.

Ray

 

[Boss]

^^ Don't have to be a rocket scientist figure out the real purpose of Section 19...bankrupting the opposition.

Which is likely why this was allowed to have multiple measures all rolled into one. It certainly doesn't seem to make sense that they can deliberately put in multiple measures in violation of the law, and then add in a specific section saying that all sections remain in effect unless individually struck down. That would seem, by design, to circumvent the single purpose stipulations of initiatives. But hey, if the laws/Constitutions were respected and followed, we wouldn't be here.



I'm not a lawyer, but one would think the most effective way to deal with this is to go after 1639 as a single, grossly flawed initiative and get it thrown out in its entirety. Otherwise we're getting sucked into drawn out, bit-by-bit battle and this will go on for years...arguing each and every component...the legal meter running the whole time...

And don't forget, we've got next session and Olympia to deal with on top of this.

Boss

 

[Sporting Systems]

^^ Don't have to be a rocket scientist figure out the real purpose of Section 19...bankrupting the opposition.

Which is likely why this was allowed to have multiple measures all rolled into one. It certainly doesn't seem to make sense that they can deliberately put in multiple measures in violation of the law, and then add in a specific section saying that sections remain in effect unless individually struck down. That would seem to be, by design, at odds with the single purpose stipulations of initiatives. But hey, if the laws/Constitutions were respected and followed, we wouldn't be here.

I'm not a lawyer, but one would think the most effective way to deal with this is to go after 1639 as a single, grossly flawed initiative and get it thrown out in its entirety. Otherwise we're getting sucked into drawn out, bit-by-bit battle and this will go on for years...arguing each and every component...the legal meter running the whole time...

And don't forget, we've got next session and Olympia to deal with on top of this.

Boss

Think big picture. If they can force a ruling on 18-20 year old prohibitions, that has NATIONAL implications, as does the commerce clause and HIPPA violations. This suit is bigger than WA. Most of the state stuff can't be challenged, yet. They need a resident with standing, who has been harmed.

 

[Boss]

Think big picture....

Understood.

Boss

 

[ThePhonMan]

We filed in federal court, specifically to get around the leftist state court. SAF is lead counsel, NRA and SAF covering the legal bills. We..."Mitchell et al V Ferguson." I'm the lead plaintiff, Daniel Mitchell, along with another retailer in Spokane, 4 under 21 year olds, the NRA and SAF. There is likely to be several more plaintiffs added to the suit, but that's up to SAF and the NRA to announce. This is going to be a long an arduous road seeing this through.

Any chance you can tell us the Spokane Retailer's name? I need to buy gun-related Christmas presents and would love to support anybody supporting us.

And thanks for putting yourself in the line of fire for the greater good!