Washington I-1639....

[gomi_otaku]

I'm seeing a lot of people who don't take the initiative to read the law, instead relying on others to interpret it for them. It's no wonder it passed.

 

[Sporting Systems]

Here's a copy of the lawsuit filed yesterday...

https://assets.documentcloud.org/do...4sHf9SX4D_xID4elYxRS2WSy5Wy6BfO_ZdmOowiqGRV_g

 

[GWS]

Did I miss it or is the waiver of medical privacy not a part of this suit?
Regardless--Go get 'em!

 

[gomi_otaku]

What about the suit regarding the petition that put this on the ballot in the first place? Because if, as the AG said, they have no mechanism for enforcing the regulations regarding petitions, then they are opening the floodgates.

 

[bentoncity]

I applaud the action being taken in the courts by the SAF & NRA. I sincerely hope other legal filings come forth against 1639 that addresses other aspects of this foul initiative.

Dan

 

[GWS]

I'm guessing that someone will have to get standing before we can sue over the other parts of 1639 like the medical waiver or the annual background check

 

[2A-Jay]

I just finished reading the Filed Law Suit, it is a long read, but they are going after every part of I-1639 and not in the W Supreme Court either, in the 9th Circuit court which just got some new Conservative Judges that's to POTUS.

 

[leadcounsel]

Didn't read all 7 pages, but hang in there. The NRA and SAF have filed a lawsuit challenging this. As a lawyer, I see so much illegal and unConstitutional stuff in this that I cannot fathom that it stands. It plainly violates some of Heller, for instance. Anyway, I'm hopeful that real Judges see this and strike it down as being in violation - in part or whole - of several laws, the BoR, and WA Constitution.

Hold the line.

 

[American123]

Unfortunate, all the legal quarreling, money and time wasted over the process of the left trying to eliminate rights and conservatives trying to retain them.

And for what? The left will just try any ruse to take rights away again.

Seems rather that a more ultimate type of decision is needed, all the people who want to infringe on Americans 2nd amendment rights can get on one side, the others will get on the other, whosever is left at the end of the day can decide what will happen. My somewhat satirical demeanor aside, I'm greatful for strong legal representatives to address this unconstitutional outrage of 1639.

 

[ACO]

Unfortunate, all the legal quarreling, money and time wasted over the process of the left trying to eliminate rights and conservatives trying to retain them.

And for what? The left will just try any ruse to take rights away again.

Seems rather that a more ultimate type of decision is needed, all the people who want to infringe on Americans 2nd amendment rights can get on one side, the others will get on the other, whosever is left at the end of the day can decide what will happen. My somewhat satirical demeanor aside, I'm greatful for strong legal representatives to address this unconstitutional outrage of 1639.

I think you nailed it right there. Even if it gets tossed out, four more attacks will already be on the ballots. Until there is a final ruling on all these attacks, they will just keep coming. Gaining a little ground each time until its all gone. We need a major supreme court ruling that lays down the law for all to see. Or, more accurately, upholds the constitutional rights as written for all to see.

 

[gomi_otaku]

Unfortunately, conservatives tend to argue in favor of "states rights" over centralized government. And this is what you get from "states rights" is fractured laws with no continuity or reciprocity. Liberal state is going to have liberal laws.
We need a law that says states can't have a law more restrictive that an existing law at the federal level. If there's a position not addressed by the federal laws, and it affects only regional governance (which this does not, guns are the same guns everywhere) then local laws can address that.
Country needs a reset. And the partisanship needs to end. Lot of stupid one-upmanship on either side for no real progress. All of these laws are like trying to hide candy from children- you can spend an hour hiding it, but they have 24/7 to find it. They'll keep trying until they pass a law that sticks.

 

[leadcounsel]

Well, between the Supremecy Clause in Article 6 para. 2, the 2nd Amendment "shall not infringe" clause, and most states Constitutions with similar language, all of these encroachments ARE NOT LAWFUL by the states. And yet we fail to have Judges who can read and apply laws as intended. It's infuriating, really. I don't see how ANY JUDGE can read "shall not infringe" and interpret it to mean it can be infringed "reasonably" and further, that "reasonableness":
* Nullified ownership for past and FUTURE criminals (using ex-parte restraining order and emergency protection order confiscations from innocent people)!
* Bans entire classes of common modern weapons from tens of millions of residents in 1/5th of the US
* Bans common accessories like mags, grips, stocks, etc.
* Bans entire classes of weapons due to arbitrary sizes (pistol, sbs, rifle, sbr, etc.)
* Bans common ammunition (hollow point)
* Bans on carry methods and locations
* Storage requirements. Transportation requirements.
* Age restrictions

And so forth. Seems like an awful lot of infringements going on...

 

[gomi_otaku]

So- where were your legislators when these laws were being introduced? If they knew attempts we're going to be made to restrict, they should have come in with common sense regulations that preempted and prevented these laws. Things like "permit to purchase" are not infringements, but would have gone a long way to satisfying the "mildly gun shy". Nothing will satisfy the rabid, but they can't win on their own- either side has to win over the middle, and gun rights should have been doing that.
NOBODY wins an argument, yet gun rights advocates think all they have to do is bubblegum about it and they will win. NO, you need a winning response (or preemptive strike)

 

[Caveman Jim]

My little county (Grays Harbor) voted against 1639 but marginally, even after all the effort from a grassroots movement that we amassed.

 

[ma96782]

Things like "permit to purchase" are not infringements

Making someone pay to exercise a RIGHT is not an infringement?

So then.....it would be OK if the Govt charged a fee to vote (speak in public, gather in groups to hear a speech, publish a book, attend church, report the news, etc...)?

Aloha, Mark

PS....you spouting "reasonable and common sense" affirms to me what bolt of cloth you were cut from.

Reasonable and common sense according to whom? The Democratic Party, the various gun grabber groups or any of the numerous anti-gun individuals?

Reasonable and common sense, according to the Dems.​

Preventing Gun Violence
With 33,000 Americans dying every year**, Democrats believe that we must finally take sensible action to address gun violence. While responsible gun ownership is part of the fabric of many communities, too many families in America have suffered from gun violence. We can respect the rights of responsible gun owners while keeping our communities safe. To build on the success of the lifesaving Brady Handgun Violence Prevention Act, we will expand and strengthen background checks and close dangerous loopholes in our current laws; repeal the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act (PLCAA) to revoke the dangerous legal immunity protections gun makers and sellers now enjoy; and keep weapons of war—such as assault weapons and large capacity ammunition magazines (LCAM's)—off our streets. We will fight back against attempts to make it harder for the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives to revoke federal licenses from law breaking gun dealers, and ensure guns do not fall into the hands of terrorists, intimate partner abusers, other violent criminals, and those with severe mental health issues. There is insufficient research on effective gun prevention policies, which is why the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention must have the resources it needs to study gun violence as a public health issue.

Taken from: Party Platform - Democrats

 

[Alexx1401]

Well, between the Supremecy Clause in Article 6 para. 2, the 2nd Amendment "shall not infringe" clause, and most states Constitutions with similar language, all of these encroachments ARE NOT LAWFUL by the states. And yet we fail to have Judges who can read and apply laws as intended. It's infuriating, really. I don't see how ANY JUDGE can read "shall not infringe" and interpret it to mean it can be infringed "reasonably" and further, that "reasonableness":
* Nullified ownership for past and FUTURE criminals (using ex-parte restraining order and emergency protection order confiscations from innocent people)!
* Bans entire classes of common modern weapons from tens of millions of residents in 1/5th of the US
* Bans common accessories like mags, grips, stocks, etc.
* Bans entire classes of weapons due to arbitrary sizes (pistol, sbs, rifle, sbr, etc.)
* Bans common ammunition (hollow point)
* Bans on carry methods and locations
* Storage requirements. Transportation requirements.
* Age restrictions

And so forth. Seems like an awful lot of infringements going on...

This is why voting is so important. I have till blue in the face told gun owners laws mean nothing. All that matters is what some judge says goes. The Judge gets his job from voters. A vast number of gun owners refuse to vote, or refuse to vote for their own interest. So liberals keep packing in the liberal judges. Unless this changes nothing will ever get better, only worse.

 

[gomi_otaku]

Things like "permit to purchase" are not infringements

Making someone pay to exercise a RIGHT is not an infringement?

So then.....it would be OK if the Govt charged a fee to vote?

Aloha, Mark

Mark- you technically do NOT pay to have your NICS done. The police department does it for FREE. But when you go to a gun shop they aren't making money off your private sale/trade- so they charge you.
In Minnesota, you go to the police department and show ID, fill out a form. In a few days, you get a HARD CARD permit to purchase that is good for a year (back when I bought my first gun you only got a piece of paper)
Of course, the requirement to use an FFL was another anti-gun law. But in MN, even private trades on Armslist say "show CPL or PTP".
Would you feel infringed upon having a background check, if it meant preempting further legislation?

 

[ma96782]

"Technically" And, BTW...the subject is "I-1639". So whatever.....

Then.....
Really? What a _____ of getting out of or avoiding responsibility. IMHO, like the Clinton play with the meaning of is, "is"?

So, are you for or against......YES or NO? Spending your own money and having your medical records examined/searched by the Govt in order to further the process of buying a firearm?

IF you are OK with it.
Then.....at what price would it take for you to object?

See how that works?*

And....if you didn't find paying money to exercise a RIGHT objectionable.

Then, I guess that you have no problem with making people pay to vote. Call at a user fee or BGC if you like. Hey, we should be able to confirm that only US Citizens vote...Rrrright?

Funny......that the SCOTUS has ruled against, even asking for an ID to vote in some states.

Aloha, Mark

PS...….*Would you feel infringed upon having a background check, if it meant preempting further legislation?

You let the nose of the camel under the tent....and what happens next?

BTW....in HAWAII there was a permit to acquire process. IMHO....it was stupid. Not to mention that it also infringed on my RIGHT. No matter who ended up with the money.

 

[gomi_otaku]

Mark-
I'm not talking using a police NICS check in conjunction with the current (I1639) or the preceding (594?) laws. I'm saying, before EITHER of those laws got passed, pro-gun legislators should have taken the offensive and passed laws that would NOT be objectionable to gun rights, rather than taking the defensive and trying to get a "no" vote on the ballot (with voters who arent involved in the discussion unlikely to read the terms of the proposal) or trying to uproot them once they've been voted into law.
I'm not the enemy here. You don't need to get the claws out.
But I understand- you don't want anything at all, even background checks. It's an infringement. So how would you propose (in the days before the last two laws were passed) a law that would satisfy the public that something was "being done" rather than letting the anti-gun activists write the legislation? Because gun rights proponents can SAY that it's the people , not the guns- (and we should address mental health, separate issue from guns) how do you put a limit on who gets those guns, rather than a blanket proposal that affects everyone?

 

[ma96782]

Mark-
So how would you propose.....

Well first...…..you and the rest of your kind...….have to understand that a firearm is just an object. Most anything (even easily found objects) can be misused.

You can legislate behavior. Murder, Manslaughter, Assault, Arson, etc..... it's already there on the books. So WHY do you feel a need to legislate against objects when the harmful behaviors are already against the law?

Speaking of the "mentall ill". Well even without a BGC....they have access to knives, hammers, pressure cookers, etc...…

The test is to determine if the mentally ill and some other people (say a convicted Felon, etc..), are a danger to themselves or others. And subsequently.....IF, they should or shouldn't be allowed to walk amongst others.

BUT THEN......in some cases BOTH are allowed to vote and that might just be even more dangerous to society.

Aloha, Mark