Legal challenge to WAGR gun control ballot title

[Dave Workman]

And so it begins....

An Everett attorney has filed a challenge to the ballot title of Initiative 594, the gun control measure being pushed by the Washington Alliance for Gun Responsibility.

<broken link removed>

Read More

 

[8ball]

Excellent.

WAGR just sent out one of their deceptively titled fundraising emails because of this. Did Zach Silk used to sell pills or fake Rolexes in his last gig?

 

[hermannr]

Surprise, Surprise: And what do we have for an AG these days??? That is what we get when someone that is just as much a lier as the author of 594 is as AG. The two of them probably share the same bed.

 

[Blitzkrieg]

I like the new more aggressive behavior of 2nd amendment activists.. we've stood and taken it WAY too long from domestic traitors

 

[8ball]

Surprise, Surprise: And what do we have for an AG these days??? That is what we get when someone that is just as much a lier as the author of 594 is as AG. The two of them probably share the same bed.

I don't get it Blitzkrieg. Ferguson isn't allowed to be involved with initiatives AFAIK?

 

[drew]

I don't get it Blitzkrieg. Ferguson isn't allowed to be involved with initiatives AFAIK?

1. You didn't quote Blitzkrieg.

2. I'm pretty sure the AG is involved with deciding the ballot title for an initiative. I'm not positive because I'm not very familiar with the WA process.

 

[duane black]

I like the new more aggressive behavior of 2nd amendment activists.. we've stood and taken it WAY too long from domestic traitors

Couldn't agree more.

 

[8ball]

1. You didn't quote Blitzkrieg.

2. I'm pretty sure the AG is involved with deciding the ballot title for an initiative. I'm not positive because I'm not very familiar with the WA process.

Oops, sorry about the misquote. You are right - I thought it was the Secretary of State, but it's the AG who determines the title. Dave actually said that in his article too but apparently I can't read.

Laws governing the initiative process in Washington - Ballotpedia

 

[drew]

I like the new more aggressive behavior of 2nd amendment activists.. we've stood and taken it WAY too long from domestic traitors

I also like a more aggressive approach. These people need to learn if you mess with a bull you get the horns. Wish I had a vote/signature to support your effort. I'll give some cash to the effort though. I know its minuscule compared to Bloomberg's money that will appear and your fellow Washingtonians bankrolling their efforts. I'm really hoping grassroots efforts continue to work.

 

[hermannr]

I don't get it Blitzkrieg. Ferguson isn't allowed to be involved with initiatives AFAIK?

As you quoted me, (hermannr, not Blitz) I will respond.

State law very specifically states what is to go in the initiative title.. The AG did not follow the law there, that is why he is being sued.

As for the AG, as a voting citizen, he can do what every other citizen can do. As AG, writing ballot titles for initiatives, no he must follow state law and not promote his position by giving that initiative a misleading title.

 

[Modeler]

What is the present ballot title that's being challenged?

 

[8ball]

What is the present ballot title that's being challenged?

Ballot Title

Initiative Measure No. 594 concerns background checks for gun sales and transfers.
This measure would apply the background-check requirements currently used for gun sales by licensed dealers to all gun sales and transfers, with specific exceptions, and require the checks be conducted through licensed dealers.
Should this measure be enacted into law? Yes [ ] No [ ]

Ballot Measure Summary

Current law requires background checks before a person may purchase a gun from a licensed dealer. This measure would extend this requirement to all gun purchases and transfers in Washington with specific exceptions, e.g., transfers within families, temporary transfers for self-defense and hunting, and antiques. Licensed firearms dealers would conduct the background checks and could charge a fee. It would allow additional background-check time for pistol purchases. Violation of these requirements would be a crime.

 

[Dave Workman]

Thursday hearing set in Thurston County on I-594 challenge

A hearing on challenges to the ballot title of Initiative 594 is scheduled Thursday afternoon in Thurston County Superior Court, and today backers of that gun control measure are using the occasion to solicit donations with an alarmist message once again blaming opposition on the National Rifle Association and “a tiny group of ideologues” that include two attorneys, one from Everett and the other from Vancouver.

<broken link removed>

 

[8ball]

Any updates?

 

[8ball]

So apparently the lawyers didn't turn up, so the judge and county clerk went way beyond certifying 594 and used a little known provision in the RCW to pass it via a bench vote, so it's law as of this morning?!?

Just kidding, but someone out there must know what really happened!

 

[drew]

Any updates?

I suspect there was a hearing and the judge will return a ruling in the next week or two. Pure speculation on my part though.

 

[Blitzkrieg]

If the judge has head screwed on straight, will want to produce a very well thought out answer, so be patient

 

[8ball]

According to an email I just got from WAGR, we lost.

At the end of last week, the judge ruled against our opponents' objections and gave us some very clear, very honest, language for our petition gathering, which will start in the next few days.

It's game time -- and now we need to get enough signatures to make sure that Washington can vote to protect our families by requiring a background check on all gun purchases.

 

[Blitzkrieg]

According to an email I just got from WAGR, we lost.

Link, please

 

[NotLoaded]

I am the Vancouver attorney who challenged the ballot title and ballot summary for Initiative 594. One of your contributors, Dave Workman, called my office on July 2. I did not respond until after 5 on July 12, after the hearing and after the trip back to my office. We have not talked.

If members of the forum are interested, I am willing to describe what led up to the hearing and the arguments made for and against the ballot title as drafted by the Attorney General. I am also willing to describe Judge Wickham's Order and explain why I filed the challenge. I can provide PDF copies of the briefs filed by all parties if there is any interest and a way to do so.

I will not participate in any discussion personally critical of Judge Wickham. Wickham was prepared, had read the briefs and listened to and considered my arguments. As an attorney, that is what I expect.

That said, I disagree with the result. I believe that the final ballot title is not the best description of the Initiative. But that is my opinion. I would be happy to share my analysis of the order and the initiative.

Even if this ends up being my only comment on this board, I wanted to thank those who posted positive comments.