SAF setback on I-594, but it' ain't over

[Dave Workman]

SAF mulls next move after court setback on I-594 lawsuit

Second Amendment Foundation Executive Vice President Alan Gottlieb is mulling his next move after a federal district court judge today dismissed without prejudice the lawsuit against provisions of Initiative 594, the 18-page gun control measure passed by voters in November following a multi-million dollar campaign push by the gun prohibition lobby.


<broken link removed>


PLEASE LEAVE A COMMENT IN THE EXAMINER "COMMENTS
SECTION. It's important for the anti-gunners who read that column - and a lot do - to see the reaction.

Read More

 

[Monica Cowles]

ARGH!

What an appalling lack of concern for the burdensome shackles put on law abiding citizens in Washington State. Essentially they are saying, "Since you are not going to break the law, it must not be that big of a deal, so go play." What a flagrant disregard for the solemn and normally useful application of law for daily living. Truly, 'the more laws, the less justice'. Making everyone a potential criminal gives much bargaining or extortion power to those who have the authority to enforce the law willy nilly according to the latest PC convulsions!

I'm still not sure how crippling a small business' ability to develop product (my live fire pistol training courses) is NOT considered a lack of standing. *Sigh*

 

[Just Jim]

Really the courts are stacked so no surprise on this. It going to take a different fight to get rid of the corruption. A peaceful but aggressive approach against corruption. I think I have the way but not the help to fight this corruption in both states. We will win or lose due to the efforts of the common person.

 

[etrain16]

I'm sorry to hear that, I hope there will be a chance to turn this around. I sent money to SAF a little while ago to help with this.

I'm also hopeful in both Oregon and Washington that the 2016 Elections will show that a LOT of people who have been shocked into an awakened state will send very clear messages to Salem and Olympia respectively that these gun control measures are unacceptable. I suspect, and I could be wrong, that many gun owners were sadly misinformed or completely unaware of these bills/laws going on. Now that they are both reality (well 941 by Monday), hopefully it will really get a much larger voter base mobilized.

Just curious, is it possible in Washington to put a ballot measure on the ballot for a vote to overturn I-594? I know we can put one together in opposition to SB941 here in Oregon, but I'm not as familiar with Washington rules.

 

[Norm0931]

Dave, has anyone figured out what you do now for the private sale of an NFA item? I was just thinking about this down here in Oregon since our law is about to be enacted. Does it mean if you now have to Form 4 it to a dealer then form 4 it to the buyer? That adds an extra $200 AND at least 2 to 8 months.

BTW if SAF decides to look at SB 941 in Oregon for legal action, I would suggest looking at the lack of a Financial Impact Statement attached to the bill. Especially when law enforcement is so concerned with the financial impact on their ability to enforce it. I know SAF works in other states, but not sure how you guys judge your ability to fight these crap laws.

 

[boogerhook]

SAF mulls next move after court setback on I-594 lawsuit

Second Amendment Foundation Executive Vice President Alan Gottlieb is mulling his next move after a federal district court judge today dismissed without prejudice the lawsuit against provisions of Initiative 594, the 18-page gun control measure passed by voters in November following a multi-million dollar campaign push by the gun prohibition lobby.


<broken link removed>


PLEASE LEAVE A COMMENT IN THE EXAMINER "COMMENTS
SECTION. It's important for the anti-gunners who read that column - and a lot do - to see the reaction.

We need a guinea pig to volunteer being prosecuted so that we can challenge the constitutionality of the whole thing - that's what Judge "Settle" (what a name for a judge ;-) ) is saying. Any takers?

 

[SCARed]

Dave, has anyone figured out what you do now for the private sale of an NFA item? I was just thinking about this down here in Oregon since our law is about to be enacted. Does it mean if you now have to Form 4 it to a dealer then form 4 it to the buyer? That adds an extra $200 AND at least 2 to 8 months.

For an individual, it doesn't do anything for a NFA transfer. The NFA process IS a BGC. This is why a dealer doesn't have to do a 4473 when you pick up a can.

For trusts, it's almost as easy. The paperwork comes back approved, you and the seller go to a FFL and do the BGC since you as the trustee are taking possession of the can.

There's no reason you would need to transfer it to a dealer.

 

[boogerhook]

Although I tend to support the plebiscite process, where the people actually vote on a specific subject, it has certain risks, as we can see with 594. Untruthful advertizing and campaigning, gullible public (with less gun owners than non-gun owners), and tons of money behind it, we now have a law that would not have passed as writ, if it had been a House Bill. I don't want to sound elitist, but sometimes lawmakers protect minority interests. Still believe in campaign finance reform to limit special interest, but the Initiative process has its own set of problems. Kind of an eye-opener for me.

 

[boogerhook]

Really the courts are stacked so no surprise on this. It going to take a different fight to get rid of the corruption. A peaceful but aggressive approach against corruption. I think I have the way but not the help to fight this corruption in both states. We will win or lose due to the efforts of the common person.

I agree, we need to get rid of corruption (see what "represent.us" is up to). That said, I think the judge probably got it right on "technical" grounds. The rules are probably in place to protect the courts from over-burden. I believe that SCOTUS however has the option to perform judicial review on anything they deem appropriate.

 

[Norm0931]

For an individual, it doesn't do anything for a NFA transfer. The NFA process IS a BGC. This is why a dealer doesn't have to do a 4473 when you pick up a can.

For trusts, it's almost as easy. The paperwork comes back approved, you and the seller go to a FFL and do the BGC since you as the trustee are taking possession of the can.

There's no reason you would need to transfer it to a dealer.

Actually, you still do a 4473, there is just a box for no check required due to NFA item. However, any NFA item is still considered a "firearm." Therefore, if you are "transferring" the "firearm" under both laws you would be required to have a dealer in the middle.

 

[SCARed]

Oops, yep, your right on the first point.
I guess I've got a couple question then on the second.
Under the old rules for WA, could I as a private party, call and get a NICS check if I wanted to? I know I could in OR.
When a FFL does a BGC for someone buying from out of state, say from OR into WA, are they actually transferring it from the seller, to themselves, then transferring it to the actual buyer?
How does Silencer shop's dealer direct work? They seem to be able to skip any F3.

 

[Norm0931]

Oops, yep, your right on the first point.
I guess I've got a couple question then on the second.
Under the old rules for WA, could I as a private party, call and get a NICS check if I wanted to? I know I could in OR.
When a FFL does a BGC for someone buying from out of state, say from OR into WA, are they actually transferring it from the seller, to themselves, then transferring it to the actual buyer?
How does Silencer shop's dealer direct work? They seem to be able to skip any F3.

The SOT I run is in OR so, I'm not 100% on WA, but if you bought a can from silencer shop they would form 3 it to us, then we would form 4 it to you. Not sure if there is another way of doing it.

As far as the BCG, only dealers have access to NICS to my knowledge. In OR you are only supposed to use FICS if you are at a gun show as a private citizen, otherwise you are supposed to go to an FFL. Now that SB 941 is about to become law I think you'll have to go to a dealer regardless, not sure.

 

[Browning55]

The very existence of a confusing and poorly written law poses a risk of arrest and prosecution to every citizen. How "imminent" that risk may be to any given individual can be debated. Waiting for actual arrest(s) and/or prosecution(s) goes beyond mere risk.

 

[Dave Workman]

Dave, has anyone figured out what you do now for the private sale of an NFA item? I was just thinking about this down here in Oregon since our law is about to be enacted. Does it mean if you now have to Form 4 it to a dealer then form 4 it to the buyer? That adds an extra $200 AND at least 2 to 8 months.

BTW if SAF decides to look at SB 941 in Oregon for legal action, I would suggest looking at the lack of a Financial Impact Statement attached to the bill. Especially when law enforcement is so concerned with the financial impact on their ability to enforce it. I know SAF works in other states, but not sure how you guys judge your ability to fight these crap laws.

Thanks for that input. I can pass that along, since it's certainly not my call on how litigation is picked or pursued. I just write about it.

 

[RB87]

The very existence of a confusing and poorly written law poses a risk of arrest and prosecution to every citizen. How "imminent" that risk may be to any given individual can be debated. Waiting for actual arrest(s) and/or prosecution(s) goes beyond mere risk.

Not according to that judge and supposed legal precedent. The feds have said the same thing on suing the TSA. The logic is flawed of course but the courts don't care.

You can't fight these people in just the courts and legislature now. That is painfully obvious. The gun grabbers have learned from Heller/McDonald and stacked the deck there even more.