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

[Diamondback]

Recall 'Em All, and Spineless Wyman while we're at it. Seriously, does EVERY little picayune detail need to be spelled out in law? Does she need an RCW authorization to take a break and go do #2, or to have her printer-paper reloaded?

When she was a kid, if she needed to be excused from class for the loo, did she also insist on having separate permission for each and very little step all the way from standing up to opening the valves down there and then to sitting back down again?

 

[nammac]

Excerpts from the article:

Thurston County Superior Court Judge James Dixon initially blocked the petition because it did not follow election law.

"There is no legislative mandate that the secretary must decline to certify and present to voters an initiative based on failure to comply with the requirement that a 'readable, full, true, and correct copy' of the initiative appear on the back of every petition," the justice said, according to AP.

"This clears the way for our preparations to put I-1639 before voters in time for ballots to be printed," Wyman said in a statement. "My priority is protecting Washington citizens' right to make informed use of our state constitution's initiative process."
​

WTF? How is not following election law by not including a copy of the initiative on the back of a petition making informed use of the state constitution's initiative process?
I smell a SCOTUS challenge.

Talk about speaking outta both side of your mouth, sounds like the judge is a left leaning judge...

 

[DuneHopper]

Germany had once such a judicial system, its what the state wants not the people.
Our justice system, is neither neutral nor just.

 

[Gator Monroe]

Democrats have it in for 2A/RTKBA , we have two choices in November .

 

[Boss]

Well, crap. If there is anything us neighbors to your south can do to help, I am all ears.

Support Save our Security (saveoursecurity.net) as well as SAF, GOA, as much as you can, any way you can.

If you have any friends, relatives, etc. in WA. make sure they're educated on this, and to spread it to all their friends.

If you're on FB/social media, spread this around:

Vote "NO" on Initiative 1639

BOSS

 

[whitney]

Stay with me a minute here neighbors. Suppose this comes to fruition how will the new "law" look? The code reviser is limited in what they are allowed to revise. If the law takes effect as written on the petition there will be standing to overturn. The code reviser and the Statute Law Committee may NOT make changes to the meaning, they may only make corrections to the syntax of the text.
This is far from a done deal folks.

Code Reviser Statute Law Committee

Chapter 1.08 RCW: STATUTE LAW COMMITTEE (CODE REVISER)

~Whitney

 

[etrain16]

If I say what I really think, I'll get in trouble with the mods. I have a feeling my sentiments are already deeply felt by everyone else here These judges are traitors, plain and simple.

 

[WALawyer]

The supreme court's decision had to do only with whether the lower court had the authority to rule as it did, and not whether the lower court was correct in its reasoning or not. The statute under which the challenge was filed limits the lower court to reviewing the legitimacy of the signatures (which was not challenged). The lower court ruling to keep the initiative off the November ballot was an exercise of power that it does not legally have. Surely we can all get behind the reigning in of any government actor that is overstepping its bounds.

The supreme court's decision does not mean that the initiative cannot be challenged later, should it pass.

 

[Gator Monroe]

The 9th Jerkit court of schlemiels ?

 

[Caveman Jim]

The supreme court's decision had to do only with whether the lower court had the authority to rule as it did, and not whether the lower court was correct in its reasoning or not. The statute under which the challenge was filed limits the lower court to reviewing the legitimacy of the signatures (which was not challenged). The lower court ruling to keep the initiative off the November ballot was an exercise of power that it does not legally have. Surely we can all get behind the reigning in of any government actor that is overstepping its bounds.

The supreme court's decision does not mean that the initiative cannot be challenged later, should it pass.

It should NEVER get on the ballot!!! It is not lawfully complied.

 

[Boss]

Stay with me a minute here neighbors. Suppose this comes to fruition how will the new "law" look? The code reviser is limited in what they are allowed to revise. If the law takes effect as written on the petition there will be standing to overturn. The code reviser and the Statute Law Committee may NOT make changes to the meaning, they may only make corrections to the syntax of the text.
This is far from a done deal folks.

Code Reviser Statute Law Committee

Chapter 1.08 RCW: STATUTE LAW COMMITTEE (CODE REVISER)

~Whitney

​

I'd bet dimes to doughnuts that they're already working on hard on this, so they're all ready to go.

A thought came to me the other day...the 'training requirements' don't appear to have any actual shooting stages (so far). Could easily be made into an online course (like getting your boater's card). What do you think the changes of that happening are?

The supreme court's decision had to do only with whether the lower court had the authority to rule as it did, and not whether the lower court was correct in its reasoning or not. The statute under which the challenge was filed limits the lower court to reviewing the legitimacy of the signatures (which was not challenged). The lower court ruling to keep the initiative off the November ballot was an exercise of power that it does not legally have. Surely we can all get behind the reigning in of any government actor that is overstepping its bounds.

The supreme court's decision does not mean that the initiative cannot be challenged later, should it pass.

That's a very well-reasoned, logical post. However, it requires believing the laws are actually going to be followed. If that were the case, we wouldn't be here in the first place, as the I-1639 isn't a single issue initiative as required by law, the petitions are invalid as they didn't have true and correct readable copies of the initiative as required by law, and well, of course the 2A and WA. State Constitutions. The law(s) are only as good as their application and enforcement, and as we can blatantly see in this case, those are subject to manipulation. Call me skeptical, pessimistic in my old age...

Two other thoughts came to mind:

A. The anti's have probably just become 'salesmen of the year' as there's going to be a whole bunch of AR's and semi-autos that get purchased in the very near future, adding to probably already 10's of thousands already out there. Good job snowflakes!

B. These snowflakes fail to realize/acknowledge that they're surrounded by the very things they irrationally fear, all.the.time. I'd bet the vast majority of these snow flakes probably have dozens of AR's and other such 'evil' devices within a square miles of them at just about any given moment, owned by decent, law-abiding citizens with plenty of common sense that lawfully use them numerous times a year. And yet the world doesn't spin out of orbit nor are the streets running with blood (as they seem to delude themselves into thinking). Huh, well...not like you can reason or speak logic to those with irrational fears...

Read some of the comments on some of the MSM media sites...there's some seriously misguided folks over there (I'd bet most have never even so much as actually having handled a firearm)...some of the best are those that suggest guns are only for killing people and murder...huh, I guess all the thousands of guns used to win Olympic medals over the decades have been malfunctioning? I dunno...

BOSS

 

[Gator Monroe]

California Legislature antics have given a great between the lines guidebook on these overreaches and revisions ...

 

[CountryGent]

@Boss, thanks for the link.

 

[titsonritz]

The supreme court's decision had to do only with whether the lower court had the authority to rule as it did, and not whether the lower court was correct in its reasoning or not. The statute under which the challenge was filed limits the lower court to reviewing the legitimacy of the signatures (which was not challenged). The lower court ruling to keep the initiative off the November ballot was an exercise of power that it does not legally have. Surely we can all get behind the reigning in of any government actor that is overstepping its bounds.

The supreme court's decision does not mean that the initiative cannot be challenged later, should it pass.

Thank you for that professional legal analysis. Not what people want to hear but sounds spot on.

 

[GWS]

So lets get started now.
Start talking to friend and neighbors, people at the range. Tell them their vote matters and we need it more than ever.
If we can beat this initiative in November, we won't have to fight it in the courts.
Vote this POS down!

 

[WasrNwarpaint]

I didn't get the memo that judges now run the show.

they do in corrupt sanctuary rouge states democrats have tied up our govt for more than a year with frivolous lawsuits mostly from west coast judges

 

[Gator Monroe]

Democrats have their sights on the Wyoming Governorship , we better get the word out that it is no longer kosher to vote Democrat or Turd Party (Enablers of Democrats) .

 

[MDL]

Email from SOS, Phil Watson:


In a controversial reversal, the Washington State Supreme Court has revived I-1639, placing it on the November ballot and throwing out a lower court decision.

This means the campaign will continue. Currently, the combined Pro-1639 forces have raised more than $4 million dollars. The groups which comprise the NO on I-1639 coalition haven't even been able to raise %10 of that amount. We'll need to be able reach the public with our message, and that takes funding.

People Power

We still need to get the word out and turnout all of our voters in the general election. So be sure to volunteer, subscribe, forward our emails and website links, share on social media, and donate if you're able.

The Media Game

We'll also keep you updated on the media circus. Here's two recent media interviews with S.O.S. campaign chair Phil Watson:

• <broken link removed>
• Link to 770 KTTH interview with Todd Herman

Stay tuned...

And don't give up the fight!

 

[Slobray]

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

 

[Black Dog]

Washington high court reverses I-1639 decision, measure back on ballot

I have not seen anything posted about this. If there has please Delete.