Washington Superior Judge reverses lower court ruling: I-1639 ballot WILL appear in November

[Dwesson]

Their argument is summed up here:

"The plain language of RCW 29A.72.240 limits the court to examining whether the petitions 'contain the requisite number of signatures of legal voters'."

Their argument is that no court has the ability, except via RCW 29A.72.240, to contest the ability for an initiative to appear on the ballot and that, otherwise, that purview lies with the SoS.

They also state, the SoS has NO mandatory duty to NOT certify an initiative pursuant to 170 (linked below) so that mandamus cannot be brought.

With that being said, we have a number of RCWs with regard to initiative preparation.

RCW 29A.72.170 - The SoS can reject an initiative per this RCW for not following the below RCWs

RCW 29A.72.110 - ".. a full, true, and correct copy of which is printed on the reverse side of this petition..."

RCW 29A.72,100 - Describes the paper size and further states "have a readable, full, true, and correct copy of the proposed measure printed on the reverse side of the petition."

RCW 29A.72.140 - Statement requirements

RCW 29A.72.240 - Count of signatures this is the RCW that the supreme court ruled can be used to issue an injunction/writ of mandamus, but that was not used in this case.

Because Wyman didn't have the testicular fortitude to throw this out for violating RCW 100 and 110, she essentially vacated the above RCWs governing the initiative requirements process.

Here is the telling part in their order on Page 2 lines 5-8:

"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. Accordingly, the secretary exercised her discretion to certify the I-1639 petition for presentation to the voters".

She could have forced this discussion IF she had tossed it for this reason.

Legally, we have no requirements that must be followed, short of signature count, that can be enforced via the courts if the SoS elects to certify an initiative.

I fully hold Wyman to account for this, but I also have no doubt that had she tossed this, the supreme court justices would have found reason for it to be on the ballot.

I fully expect the contents of the law to be challenged once it passes. I won't vote for Wyman again (I doubt she will run again anyway).

 

[Boss]

DWesson^^, thanks for the insight.

That's the difference between 'may/can' and 'shall.'

1639 should have been stopped in its tracks long before it was sent out for signatures. There should have been a 'Wait a minute...age requirements? Training requirements? Storage requirements? More??' Negative Ghostrider. Pick one or file these separately.

The arguments that those that signed 'knew what they were signing' is disingenuous at best. How did they know? MSM isn't accurately reporting it (of course). The copies of the lengthy copies of the initiative on the signature ballots were to not true and correct, not to mention too small to read. And the signature gatherer I asked a simple, fundamentally important ~4 word question 'What's an assault rifle?' couldn't/wouldn't provide me a meaningful answer. So, how did they actually know what they were really signing?

Answer: In most cases, they probably didn't. They heard 'safe' and 'schools' and 'kids' and/or 'lower taxes' and they signed away.

Safe bet the vast majority of the people that signed the petitions would fail miserably if you started to ask them about the some of the 'fine print' of 1639.

70 days and counting folks. Seven-Zero. Might as well throw the end of this week (holiday), so more like 60 days. That's all. 6 November will be here. With the hectic start of the school year, it'll be here a lot sooner than you think.

Spread.The.Word...as far and wide as you possibly can. Actively Participate. You've got to do more than just read this forum. Pick a lawful activity and make it happen. Email, visit shops/shows/ranges, mail out flyers. Support SOS, SAF, NRA, etc. any way you can.

On the plus side, GOAL (Gun Owners Action League of WA) is also well aware of 1639 in their capacity as well.

BOSS

 

[CrankyGuy]

Their argument is summed up here:

"The plain language of RCW 29A.72.240 limits the court to examining whether the petitions "contain the requisite number of signatures of legal voters."

Their argument is that no court has the ability to, except via RCW 29A.72.240, to contest the ability for an initiative to appear on the ballot and that, otherwise, that purview lies under the SoS.

They also state, the SoS has NO mandatory duty to NOT certify an initiative pursuant to 170 (linked below) so that mandamus cannot be brought.

With that being said, we have a number of RCWs with regard to initiative preparation.

RCW 29A.72.170 - The SoS can reject an initiative per this RCW for not following the following RCWs

RCW 29A.72.110 - ".. a full, true, and correct copy of which is printed on the reverse side of this petition..."

RCW 29A.72,100 - Describes the paper size and further states "have a readable, full, true, and correct copy of the proposed measure printed on the reverse side of the petition."

RCW 29A.72.140 - Statement requirements

RCW 29A.72.240 - Count of signatures this is the RCW that the supreme court ruled can be used to issue an injunction/write of mandamus, but that was not used in this case.

Because Wyman didn't have the testicular fortitude to throw this out for violating RCW 100 and 110, she essentially vacated the above RCWs governing the initiative requirements process.

Here is the telling part in their order on Page 2 lines 5-8:

"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. Accordingly, the secretary exercised her discretion to certify the I-1639 petition for presentation to the voters".

She could have forced this discussion IF she had tossed it for this reason.

Legally, we have no requirements that must be followed, short of signature count, that can be enforced via the courts if the SoS elects to certify an initiative.

I fully hold Wyman to account for this, but I also have no doubt that had she tossed this, the supreme court justices would have found reason for it to be on the ballot.

I fully expect the contents of the law to be challenged once it passes. I won't vote for Wyman again (I doubt she will run again anyway).

Nice break down, thank you.

 

[Sporting Systems]

NRA no on 1639 Workshop - Vancouver Area - Sporting Systems - September 13th

Last week, the state Supreme Court made the decision to reverse the ruling made by the Thurston County Superior Court regarding the NRA lawsuit against the Secretary of State urging for the removal of Initiative 1639 from the November ballot. Washingtonians and the National Rifle Association for Freedom has been following through with our strong opposition campaign, but we can't do it alone. We need your help to get the word out about the negative impact Initiative 1639 would have on our Second Amendment rights here in Washington.

We have a number of workshops across the state intended to inform those in attendance about ways they can help our efforts on the ground. On top of workshops, we will also be having a booth at the Washington State Fair, and could use help in keeping it staffed.

Below is a roster of our first round of workshops. If you are able to attend, please click on the link to RSVP. If none of these locations are convenient for you to attend, stay tuned for workshops in your area in the coming weeks.



Vancouver GR Workshop

 

[Boss]

∆∆

 

[Boss]

And right on cue, from the cover of the ST today...

In some countries, the odds of getting shot are 1 in a million. In the U.S., it's 1,000 times higher.

An article from the LA Times using a 2014 photo.

Hmmm, allegedly 251,000 gun deaths world wide divided by 7,600,000,000 (current world population) = .00003303, or .003303%.

Buried within the article "...between 1990 and 2016, world wide rates of gun deaths decreased by close to 1 percent per year."

Funny, they speak favorably of Japan- chance of being killed by a bullet as 1 in 2 million. Yet they leave out the fact that Japan has a higher suicide rate of 19.5 (per 100,000) as opposed to the US at 13.4 as of 2014. In 2016, Japan had 21,897 suicides, the lowest it had been in 22 years. Which is right around the US, perhaps a little higher, despite Japan having a population less than half the size of the US (127M vs 300M, respectively).

So I guess as long as you're not committing suicide by 'scary' firearm, it's somehow different?

Maybe the perfect utopia of Japan isn't the best example the ST should be using on the front page on this particular topic
​

And Singapore (reportedly #1 place where you're least likely to be killed by a bullet)...they have a whole different level of behavior enforcement over there. Cane anyone?

On the third page, they also have an article on the sales of the 3D printed gun, complete with photo.

Rest assured, the MSM is going to have us portrayed baby seal clubbing, puppy kicking knuckle draggers. It's vitally important that we show them we're anything but.

On the plus side, stopped in a fun shop on the way home, spent a little time bringing the folks behind the counter up to speed, and they're now a lot more aware. They sell a good number of EBR's...The 'How long can you stay in business if you're having to turn away cash-in-hand customers because they haven't had 'approved training'? registered pretty clearly (along with the some of the issues).

You have to put it in terms folks can relate to.

Spread.The.Word. 6 November: 69 days and counting.

BOSS

 

[WasrNwarpaint]

The way I take this ruling is that the rule of law in WA no longer exists. That being said, if those leftist partisan activists on the WA supreme court decide to legislate from the bench and only choose to follow the laws that push their agenda, then we all have the obligation to ignore every law we find unjust.



Ray

agreed, apparently the entire leftist sanctuary left coast doesnt have to follow the law ...........then nor should you ...to adopt the liberal snowflake motto .... "you just do you"

 

[Boss]

Good morning.

Updated posts/info on three other forums to help spread the word (https://www.initiative1639.org/)

​

Two other interesting questions came to mind:​

​

A. So, what's the state's proposal to all the 18-21 year olds who've lawful purchased semi-auto rifles? And are mostly certainly going to be doing so in the very near future with this looming? So a 19 or 20 year old living on his own, paying their own bills, making they're own way, maybe serving in the military, who bought a Ruger 10/22 or an AR? What's s/he supposed to do?​

​

B. As it stands, there's no LE exemption for I-1639? So if a LEO wants to buy a Ruger 10/22, s/he is going to have to comply in all the same fashion, including waiving medical privacy for life, etc?​

​

Back on track:​

​

Right now this is a voting contest...he with the most wins, so registered voters are needed!

You can easily registered online in a couple minutes, but it must be done by Oct. 8. Link:
https://weiapplets.sos.wa.gov/MyVoteOLVR/MyVoteOLVR​

​

This will be on the 6 Nov. Ballot folks. That's 68 days and counting.

Boss​

 

[Sporting Systems]

Yes, LEO will have to obtain a concealed pistol license in order to buy a 10/22. Wait 10 days. Pay $25 gun tax (to start, this is open ended and no way $25 is going to pay for a LIFETIME of background checks by local law enforcement).

The 19 YO can possess on private property, or while travelling to sell the rifle, or to another piece of his property. No exception for hunting, competition, range, etc. Only between his property or selling the gun.

 

[Boss]

Yes, LEO will have to obtain a concealed pistol license in order to buy a 10/22. Wait 10 days. Pay $25 gun tax (to start, this is open ended and no way $25 is going to pay for a LIFETIME of background checks by local law enforcement).

Well, hopefully some are paying attention to that.

The 19 YO can possess on private property, or while travelling to sell the rifle, or to another piece of his property. No exception for hunting, competition, range, etc. Only between his property or selling the gun.

So, unless they're fortunate enough to own enough property to legally shoot on, they'll have lawfully obtained piece of sporting equipment they can't use. Yep, totally 'common sense'

And the only way to avoid this (if enacted) will be to NOT buy a semi-auto rifle (which is of course, part of the plan).

68 Days folks...Spread.The.Word.

BOSS ​

 

[Slobray]

Yes, LEO will have to obtain a concealed pistol license in order to buy a 10/22. Wait 10 days. Pay $25 gun tax (to start, this is open ended and no way $25 is going to pay for a LIFETIME of background checks by local law enforcement).

Well, hopefully some are paying attention to that.

The 19 YO can possess on private property, or while travelling to sell the rifle, or to another piece of his property. No exception for hunting, competition, range, etc. Only between his property or selling the gun.

So, unless they're fortunate enough to own enough property to legally shoot on, they'll have lawfully obtained piece of sporting equipment they can't use. Yep, totally 'common sense'

And the only way to avoid this (if enacted) will be to NOT buy a semi-auto rifle (which is of course, part of the plan).

68 Days folks...Spread.The.Word.

BOSS ​

We all know damned well, that after this is rammed through, the first thing that the legislature will do is to exempt LEO's. The politicians and both parties will do everything they can to cater to the police unions, they would never do anything that might upset said unions, as that might jeopardize their support; meaning endorsements and dollars.



Ray

 

[Sporting Systems]

We all know damned well, that after this is rammed through, the first thing that the legislature will do is to exempt LEO's. The politicians and both parties will do everything they can to cater to the police unions, they would never do anything that might upset said unions, as that might jeopardize their support; meaning endorsements and dollars.

Ray

Not a chance of a LEO exemption. They didn't do it under I-594. They didn't do it to concealed carry permits for LEO (for same day purchase). In fact, they are looking to make life tougher on officers this year. My bigger concern, the bill allows that $25 fee to be raised, if the DOL determines that it cannot do a lifetime annual background check for $25...that fee will go through the roof.

 

[Diamondback]

Not a chance of a LEO exemption. They didn't do it under I-594. They didn't do it to concealed carry permits for LEO (for same day purchase). In fact, they are looking to make life tougher on officers this year. My bigger concern, the bill allows that $25 fee to be raised, if the DOL determines that it cannot do a lifetime annual background check for $25...that fee will go through the roof.

So we need to make sure the cops know that gun-grabbers hate them too...

 

[Boss]

Not a chance of a LEO exemption. They didn't do it under I-594. They didn't do it to concealed carry permits for LEO (for same day purchase). In fact, they are looking to make life tougher on officers this year. My bigger concern, the bill allows that $25 fee to be raised, if the DOL determines that it cannot do a lifetime annual background check for $25...that fee will go through the roof.

My bigger concern will be this as a stepping stone to overturn state pre-emption per King Co's stated Action Plan...that will be UGLY folks.

BOSS

 

[Slobray]

Not a chance of a LEO exemption. They didn't do it under I-594. They didn't do it to concealed carry permits for LEO (for same day purchase). In fact, they are looking to make life tougher on officers this year. My bigger concern, the bill allows that $25 fee to be raised, if the DOL determines that it cannot do a lifetime annual background check for $25...that fee will go through the roof.

You know as well as I do, that the $25 fee is a starting point and will increase exponentially every year.



Ray

 

[Slobray]

My bigger concern will be this as a stepping stone to overturn state pre-emption per King Co's stated Action Plan...that will be UGLY folks.

BOSS

If the primary is any indication (with republicans/conservatives failing to turn out) as to where the state is headed, preemption will be gone this next legislative session.



Ray

 

[Sporting Systems]

If the primary is any indication (with republicans/conservatives failing to turn out) as to where the state is headed, preemption will be gone this next legislative session.



Ray

They tried last sessions and couldn't get it done. There are a few holdouts on the left side of the aisle that know the pre-emption law is a good thing.

 

[No_Regerts]

Not a chance of a LEO exemption. They didn't do it under I-594. They didn't do it to concealed carry permits for LEO (for same day purchase). In fact, they are looking to make life tougher on officers this year. My bigger concern, the bill allows that $25 fee to be raised, if the DOL determines that it cannot do a lifetime annual background check for $25...that fee will go through the roof.

This is correct.

 

[partsed]

 

[Slobray]

They tried last sessions and couldn't get it done. There are a few holdouts on the left side of the aisle that know the pre-emption law is a good thing.

I only know of two dems that think that way, but as I inferred earlier, if we can't get those who'll vote against the dems to come out of hiding, we're most likely done for. As it looks, the dems will hold a solid majority in both houses of the legislature, that coupled them already owning every position in the executive branch, means those couple of hold outs won't be enough to stop their fellow leftists from getting rid of preemption.

Let's not forget that the subjects of this thread (those leftist partisan activists that legislate from the bench) and Turd Ferguson will be there to do what the legislature can't.

God, I hope you're right, but my pessimistic nature says otherwise.



Ray