Washington the public safety and semiautomatic assault rifle act

[bentoncity]

As you know, Oregonians are commenting on proposed gun control initiatives. The following thread link presents a legal challenge prepared for the Oregon Outdoor Council. For those planning to comment on the WA proposal, this may provide some guidance relative to approach. The next link is to the challenge document itself by legal counsel on behalf of the Oregon Outdoor Council. The document is worth a read.
Outdoorcouncil legal submission against IB 43
http://oregonoutdoorcouncil.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/05/2018.05.08-comments-on-IP-43.pdf

I've read the entire letter and can state it's outstanding. Everyone should read it. As to whether the Ore. AG does a rewrite or not is questionable. I'm guessing the AG will disregard the letter forcing the issue into a court challenge IF someone (Oregon resident) will do it. I'll gladly throw in $100.00 for legal fees if it comes to that and someone lets me know it's going to court.. I'm not exactly rich but I'll do what I can. Maybe someone in Ore. could start a go fund me thing?
I'm going to follow up on the Washington SOS document, from Slobray as well, and see where we can go in Wa. Now if we could get a letter as nice as the one from the Oregon Outdoor Council, wouldn't that be sweet!

I'm fighting ignorance & false Op-ed articles here in my own area. Very fortunate the TCH (anti-gun) paper even printed my rebuttal.
False Op-ed here: Guest Opinion: Mid-Columbia groups want more congressional support for gun safety laws
My Rebuttal here: Guest Opinion: Limiting gun rights not the answer
More false (from same author) here: Letter: Reasons to fear concealed carry act

There's a single consistency with the anti's I keep seeing. They cherry pick data that supports their views even if there's no hard data to support said views. If you read the 3 articles above, you'll notice the author points out/uses polls and a single newspaper story to validate her views/opinions in her 2nd letter. An 88% opinion poll by WHO? And the author believes polls are actually correct and unbiased or skewed? Most anyone can point out how many polls are deficient or skewed?

The author goes on to state how 1400 CWP's were issued in Florida to felons. What she failed to state was, that incident (reported by ONE newspaper (Florida Sun Sentinel)) occurred in 2007 and has no legal nor verifiable data to support her statement. (That I've been able to find) On the premise 1400 CWP's were issued, then perhaps the state of Florida should have amended their ways. But more to the point, is the same occurring today? And if not, then the Concealed Carry Act poses no danger as the author implies. I loved her last sentence,"Dan Newhouse and other Washington politicians should ignore the vocal minority;" Yesiree bob, just shut the hell up you pro 2nd amendment so-n-so's.

The old adage of keep telling the lies long, loud and often enough and it'll become the truth is the mantra of the antis' today.

Dan

 

[Caveman Jim]

I ventured out to the Evergreen Sportsmen's Club this morning to run some tests loads through the evil Black Rifle. I had armed myself with printouts from an article about I-1639 and wouldn't you know it, out of the first six people that came in they all had no earthly idea that this was going on. In fact two older gentleman that I spoke to were more concerned about no training required to buy a firearm in Washington. I then went on to explain to them after one mentioned common sense, that the person should have the common sense to make sure that they had training before they purchased a firearm. There doesn't need to be another law telling us what we should do. He didn't get it.

This is very concerning to me, just like it was with i-594, the gun-owning community hadn't a clue of what was actually going on and I 591 was total confusion for them that did want to vote. Washington citizens were totally complacent, oblivious to the asshattery that Olympia was up to no good but could not pass legislation.

I do not trust government one bit because all too often we have been bitten over and over again by politicians for whatever reason where it be taxes, fees, health-care or oppressive gun hating.

So I do not know how people can hold in all that anger when talking to people that are willing to vote for these bassturds who want to disarm law-abiding citizens, this ain't Germany!!!

 

[bentoncity]

I could not, in good conscience, let the 2nd letter by Ms. Burrows go unanswered. Unknown if the TCH will print it but here's my response;

It's interesting that Ms. Burrows references the Public Policy Polling as a valid source in support of her ideologies. I've yet to see any poll that can't be countered with another, much less the methodology used. Show me quantifiable facts, not opinions, and we'll have a basis to begin a discussion on! Wording in any poll is to subjective.

What Ms. Burrows failed to disclose about the 1400 felons with concealed permits (apparently true) is that data, in so far as I'm able to determine, is from late 2006 or early 2007. I consider the reference to be misleading given the time frame of the data. The more pertinent factor is whether or not Florida has taken steps to assure this never happens again.

In spite of our views, I believe we do have common ground. Per my Op-ed, single type issue permits, although I don't believe in them, for states that mandate them. Same permitting requirements for every state that mandates them.

Per Ms. Burrows, "Dan Newhouse and other Washington politicians should ignore the vocal minority;" Really? The rationale for a discussion of differing views is to shut people up? I think not! I enjoy my Constitutional rights.

Dan

 

[whitney]

Well, after looking l little better, we have until 16 May to challenge the title and summary.

https://www.sos.wa.gov/_assets/elections/initiatives/initiative and referenda handbook 2017 .pdf


I will be working on something the next couple of days and try to mention about the term "semi automatic assault rifle", the registration, the fee to buy a firearm, unconstitutional gun storage and everything else I can find.

I hope more WA gun owners will be willing to do the same.


Ray

@Slobray Ray, et al you should be aware of the Thurston County Court Rules. The first 18 pages are the relevant sections regarding ballot title challenges. I tried to scan and upload but am having technology issues.
The meat and potatoes starts on page 9 with LCR3 Commencement of actions, note paragraph (J) on page 10.
Page 10 LCR5 Service and filing of pleadings and other papers Note paragraph (G) Ballot title appeals;
Page 11 LCR 7 Pleadings allowed; forms of motions paragraph (1)How made;
Page 12 paragraph (6)(C) take note the last few lines, The following types of motions must be........... ;
Page 13 paragraph (e)Ballot Title Appeals SPECIAL PROCESS.
Page 17 LCR 40 paragraph (2) scheduling questionaire , down the page to (A)(i) Generally. In all cases submect to this rule except ballot title appeals........... down the page to (ii) Ballot title appeals...... down the page to (B)(ii) Ballot title appeals.
Page 18 paragraph (E) Ballot title appeals ....down the page to (4) the last few lines. A partyt in a ballot title appeal may be sanctioned by the court, after prior notice.......

Those are the details for the court procedures, there are also forms to file and notices to serve. I cannot attend court due to my job. The Internet makes it easy to communicate across the globe but does not make easy travel. I have some other thoughts on this but did not do anything serious as I believe they will get the initiative on the ballot. My plan was to write short columns for the local / regional papers "letter to the editor" sections.

If you do follow the procedure you will get a hearing, additionally RCW 29A.36 states the cost for ballot title appeals must be heard at no cost to either party.

PM me if you want some additional help or post on the board here.

~Whitney

 

[bentoncity]

Unk. if I covered everything, much less correctly. Is/can anyone go to court and file before the 16th?
Yes, I plagiarized parts of the letter by Mr. Day. I can only ask for forgiveness.

The Honorable Kim Wyman
Elections Division
ATTN: Initiative and Referendum
PO Box 40220
Olympia, WA 98504-0220
Re: Initiative No. 1639

Dear Secretary Wyman:
For clarity, you may consider my comments reflect on the concise description as well as the Ballot Measure Summary in the letter provided to your office from the AG's office dated May 9, 2018 by Anne E. Egeler/Deputy Solicitor General.

As a resident and registered voter in Washington State, I offer the following per 29A.72.050
Ballot title—Formulation, ballot display.

(1) The ballot title for an initiative to the people, an initiative to the legislature, a referendum bill, or a referendum measure consists of: (a) A statement of the subject of the measure; (b) a concise description of the measure; and (c) a question in the form prescribed in this section for the ballot measure in question. The statement of the subject of a measure must be sufficiently broad to reflect the subject of the measure, sufficiently precise to give notice of the measure's subject matter, and not exceed ten words. The concise description must contain no more than thirty words, be a true and impartial description of the measure's essential contents, clearly identify the proposition to be voted on, and not, to the extent reasonably possible, create prejudice either for or against the measure.

The caption serves as the "cornerstone for the other portions of the ballot title" and therefore must identify the proposed measure's true subject matter "accurately and in terms that will not confuse or mislead potential petition signers and voters." The caption, which is the first information that most potential petition signers and voters will see, is pivotal. A caption should not ''understate or overstate the scope of the legal changes that the proposed measure would enact."

I've read the ballot title letter, submitted to your office from the attorney general's office, for I-1639 and find the ballot title, description and summary to be misleading, untruthful and insufficient. The ballot measure summary fails completely in describing what's in the initiative. What makes this so appalling is the AG is a staunch supporter of gun control and his office drafted the title and summary. The context of the ballot title letter affirms the bias from the AG's office. While I would consider that to be a severe conflict of interest, I would hope the AG's office would rewrite the Ballot Title and remove the misleading non-defined items (semiautomatic assault rifle) from the Ballot Title and reword the summary to accurately reflect the true nature of I-1639.

The concise description, of the AG I-1639 letter, introduces inflammatory and misleading context wherein it seeks to affirm such an item as a semiautomatic assault rifle actually exists. The term "semiautomatic assault rifle" is used by the chief petitioners of I-1639 to capitalize on the recent popularity of the idea of "banning" "assault weapons". There can be no legitimate argument to the contrary. The use of the phrase "semiautomatic assault rifle" is nothing more than a transparent attempt by the chief petitioners of I-1639 to garner support for their measure. By including the phrase "semiautomatic assault rifle" in the concise description, the Attorney General is playing right into the hands of the chief petitioners and doing a disservice to the voters of the state. There's no mention, in the concise description that I-1639 will provide a definition of what the sponsors of I-1639 believe a semiautomatic assault rifle should be.

Any measure purporting to infringe upon the fundamental civil rights of Washington voters should be carefully crafted to protect the fundamental freedoms our founding fathers deemed to be so important. I-1639 falls well short of this standard. Likewise, an explanation of a ballot measure – like I-1639 – that would substantially impact the basic civil rights of Washington residents must be equally well crafted with a particular eye towards fully informing the signers and/or voters of the repercussions of such a measure. The ballot title letter also falls well short of this standard.

This proposed initiative, cited as public safety and semiautomatic assault rifle act, is extremely misleading. The concise description does not inform the voter that the term "semiautomatic assault rifle", as used in I-1639, is far broader than the term would imply. Accordingly, the concise description must inform the voter of the breadth of I-1639's reach, rather than simply parroting a politically charged term used by the chief petitioners to garner support for I-1639. The concise description does not inform the voter of the full effect of I-1639. Because this proposed initiative seeks to infringe upon a citizens constitutional right to privacy through coercion, Sections 7 and 8, the concise description should reflect this in some manner or form.

Furthermore, the concise description fails to clearly affirm a new State mandated gun registration database (Sec. 3. 3b) in I-1639, will be in direct violation of Federal law.

(Firearms Owners' Protection Act/ 05/19/1986 Became Public Law No: 99-308.)​

No such rule or regulation prescribed [by the Attorney General] after the date of the enactment of the Firearms Owners Protection Act may require that records required to be maintained under this chapter or any portion of the contents of such records, be recorded at or transferred to a facility owned, managed, or controlled by the United States or any State or any political subdivision thereof, nor that any system of registration of firearms, firearms owners, or firearms transactions or disposition be established. Nothing in this section expands or restricts the Secretary's authority to inquire into the disposition of any firearm in the course of a criminal investigation.​

Whereas the Washington State Attorney's Office has, by the very nature of their Ballot Title to your office, mislead and patently obfuscated the real aspects of this requested initiative, it must be halted at all costs until such action can be taken to correct the deficiencies in the Ballot Title.

Sincerely,
Dan Deckert
206 Alma
Benton City, WA. 99320
509-588-8842

adding my Notice of Deficiency to my email to Sec. Wyman..
Secretary Wyman,

I'm attaching a file, for your review, in the hope something can be done to correct the deficiencies in the I-1639 Ballot Title before May, 16, 2018.

The public deserves the right, per 29A.72.050, to clearly understand the intent of a given measure as it pertains to signature gathering.

(1) The ballot title for an initiative to the people, an initiative to the legislature, a referendum bill, or a referendum measure consists of: (a) A statement of the subject of the measure; (b) a concise description of the measure; and (c) a question in the form prescribed in this section for the ballot measure in question. The statement of the subject of a measure must be sufficiently broad to reflect the subject of the measure, sufficiently precise to give notice of the measure's subject matter, and not exceed ten words. The concise description must contain no more than thirty words, be a true and impartial description of the measure's essential contents, clearly identify the proposition to be voted on, and not, to the extent reasonably possible, create prejudice either for or against the measure.​

The Washington State AG office has clearly gone beyond 29A.72.050 by introducing undefined prejudicial language in the Ballot Title. This is unacceptable and unlawful. I urge your office to review this issue ASAP and request the State AG office correct their synopsis.

And to the ATG office;
Subject: I-1639 Ballot Title Illegality
Your Office is in violation of 29A.72.050 with the ballot title you submitted to Wyman on I-1639! It's prejudicial in every sense of the word and demands a rewrite from an unbiased source. I'm requesting your office retract the May 9th, 2018 letter to the SOS office and correct the unlawful act by your office.

 

[ma96782]

FYI......

The city of Huntington Beach filed a lawsuit against Daniel Horgan for drafting a gun control initiative

"His initiative squarely hits the Second Amendment between the eyes and puts the city in opposition to state and federal law. We don't leave anything to chance," City Attorney Michael Gates told Orange County Coast. "I've heard comments that filing the lawsuit was not necessary," he said. "But I took an oath to uphold and defend the Constitution, and I believed this was the best way to fulfill that obligation."

Even CA has some hope to stem this tide.

Aloha, Mark

 

[Slobray]

Unk. if I covered everything, much less correctly. Is/can anyone go to court and file before the 16th?
Yes, I plagiarized parts of the letter by Mr. Day. I can only ask for forgiveness.

The Honorable Kim Wyman
Elections Division
ATTN: Initiative and Referendum
PO Box 40220
Olympia, WA 98504-0220
Re: Initiative No. 1639

Dear Secretary Wyman:
For clarity, you may consider my comments reflect on the concise description as well as the Ballot Measure Summary in the letter provided to your office from the AG's office dated May 9, 2018 by Anne E. Egeler/Deputy Solicitor General.

As a resident and registered voter in Washington State, I offer the following per 29A.72.050
Ballot title—Formulation, ballot display.

(1) The ballot title for an initiative to the people, an initiative to the legislature, a referendum bill, or a referendum measure consists of: (a) A statement of the subject of the measure; (b) a concise description of the measure; and (c) a question in the form prescribed in this section for the ballot measure in question. The statement of the subject of a measure must be sufficiently broad to reflect the subject of the measure, sufficiently precise to give notice of the measure's subject matter, and not exceed ten words. The concise description must contain no more than thirty words, be a true and impartial description of the measure's essential contents, clearly identify the proposition to be voted on, and not, to the extent reasonably possible, create prejudice either for or against the measure.

The caption serves as the "cornerstone for the other portions of the ballot title" and therefore must identify the proposed measure's true subject matter "accurately and in terms that will not confuse or mislead potential petition signers and voters." The caption, which is the first information that most potential petition signers and voters will see, is pivotal. A caption should not ''understate or overstate the scope of the legal changes that the proposed measure would enact."

I've read the ballot title letter, submitted to your office from the attorney general's office, for I-1639 and find the ballot title, description and summary to be misleading, untruthful and insufficient. The ballot measure summary fails completely in describing what's in the initiative. What makes this so appalling is the AG is a staunch supporter of gun control and his office drafted the title and summary. The context of the ballot title letter affirms the bias from the AG's office. While I would consider that to be a severe conflict of interest, I would hope the AG's office would rewrite the Ballot Title and remove the misleading non-defined items (semiautomatic assault rifle) from the Ballot Title and reword the summary to accurately reflect the true nature of I-1639.

The concise description, of the AG I-1639 letter, introduces inflammatory and misleading context wherein it seeks to affirm such an item as a semiautomatic assault rifle actually exists. The term "semiautomatic assault rifle" is used by the chief petitioners of I-1639 to capitalize on the recent popularity of the idea of "banning" "assault weapons". There can be no legitimate argument to the contrary. The use of the phrase "semiautomatic assault rifle" is nothing more than a transparent attempt by the chief petitioners of I-1639 to garner support for their measure. By including the phrase "semiautomatic assault rifle" in the concise description, the Attorney General is playing right into the hands of the chief petitioners and doing a disservice to the voters of the state. There's no mention, in the concise description that I-1639 will provide a definition of what the sponsors of I-1639 believe a semiautomatic assault rifle should be.

Any measure purporting to infringe upon the fundamental civil rights of Washington voters should be carefully crafted to protect the fundamental freedoms our founding fathers deemed to be so important. I-1639 falls well short of this standard. Likewise, an explanation of a ballot measure – like I-1639 – that would substantially impact the basic civil rights of Washington residents must be equally well crafted with a particular eye towards fully informing the signers and/or voters of the repercussions of such a measure. The ballot title letter also falls well short of this standard.

This proposed initiative, cited as public safety and semiautomatic assault rifle act, is extremely misleading. The concise description does not inform the voter that the term "semiautomatic assault rifle", as used in I-1639, is far broader than the term would imply. Accordingly, the concise description must inform the voter of the breadth of I-1639's reach, rather than simply parroting a politically charged term used by the chief petitioners to garner support for I-1639. The concise description does not inform the voter of the full effect of I-1639. Because this proposed initiative seeks to infringe upon a citizens constitutional right to privacy through coercion, Sections 7 and 8, the concise description should reflect this in some manner or form.

Furthermore, the concise description fails to clearly affirm a new State mandated gun registration database (Sec. 3. 3b) in I-1639, will be in direct violation of Federal law.

(Firearms Owners' Protection Act/ 05/19/1986 Became Public Law No: 99-308.)​

No such rule or regulation prescribed [by the Attorney General] after the date of the enactment of the Firearms Owners Protection Act may require that records required to be maintained under this chapter or any portion of the contents of such records, be recorded at or transferred to a facility owned, managed, or controlled by the United States or any State or any political subdivision thereof, nor that any system of registration of firearms, firearms owners, or firearms transactions or disposition be established. Nothing in this section expands or restricts the Secretary's authority to inquire into the disposition of any firearm in the course of a criminal investigation.​

Whereas the Washington State Attorney's Office has, by the very nature of their Ballot Title to your office, mislead and patently obfuscated the real aspects of this requested initiative, it must be halted at all costs until such action can be taken to correct the deficiencies in the Ballot Title.

Sincerely,
Dan Deckert
206 Alma
Benton City, WA. 99320
509-588-8842

adding my Notice of Deficiency to my email to Sec. Wyman..
Secretary Wyman,

I'm attaching a file, for your review, in the hope something can be done to correct the deficiencies in the I-1639 Ballot Title before May, 16, 2018.

The public deserves the right, per 29A.72.050, to clearly understand the intent of a given measure as it pertains to signature gathering.

(1) The ballot title for an initiative to the people, an initiative to the legislature, a referendum bill, or a referendum measure consists of: (a) A statement of the subject of the measure; (b) a concise description of the measure; and (c) a question in the form prescribed in this section for the ballot measure in question. The statement of the subject of a measure must be sufficiently broad to reflect the subject of the measure, sufficiently precise to give notice of the measure's subject matter, and not exceed ten words. The concise description must contain no more than thirty words, be a true and impartial description of the measure's essential contents, clearly identify the proposition to be voted on, and not, to the extent reasonably possible, create prejudice either for or against the measure.​

The Washington State AG office has clearly gone beyond 29A.72.050 by introducing undefined prejudicial language in the Ballot Title. This is unacceptable and unlawful. I urge your office to review this issue ASAP and request the State AG office correct their synopsis.

And to the ATG office;
Subject: I-1639 Ballot Title Illegality
Your Office is in violation of 29A.72.050 with the ballot title you submitted to Wyman on I-1639! It's prejudicial in every sense of the word and demands a rewrite from an unbiased source. I'm requesting your office retract the May 9th, 2018 letter to the SOS office and correct the unlawful act by your office.

That letter is great and I'll most likely steal some of your ideas to church mine up, as I'm not as eloquent as you.

If you haven"t sent it yet, one thing I would like to point out, the paragraph below where you point to Ferguson supporting gun control.................. he not only supports gun control, he's officially came out in support of this initiative, so you might want to mention that, as I will.

In Unusual Move, Washington Attorney General Endorses Gun-Related Ballot Measure

I've read the ballot title letter, submitted to your office from the attorney general's office, for I-1639 and find the ballot title, description and summary to be misleading, untruthful and insufficient. The ballot measure summary fails completely in describing what's in the initiative. What makes this so appalling is the AG is a staunch supporter of gun control and his office drafted the title and summary. The context of the ballot title letter affirms the bias from the AG's office. While I would consider that to be a severe conflict of interest, I would hope the AG's office would rewrite the Ballot Title and remove the misleading non-defined items (semiautomatic assault rifle) from the Ballot Title and reword the summary to accurately reflect the true nature of I-1639.

Ray

 

[bentoncity]

I called the Secretary of State this morning and was told there are 3 challenges to the ballot summary that Ferguson wrote. They only had 1 name they remembered, Paul Kramer. He's the one that sponsored this. I-1639 Unknown when/where the petitions will show up for review. Supposedly, the hearing for the appeals will be heard on May 24 @ the Thurston County courthouse.

Received...
Mr. Deckert,
My manager has asked me to let you know that you will need to contact our Records person and submit a Public Records Request for copies of the ballot title challenges. We have received three challenges so far and expect a fourth this afternoon. Because of the multiple challenges, requests have to go through Ms. Galarza.
Please contact Brenda Galarza, [email protected] to submit a request.
Thank you

 

[SUPER X]

Sounds like they want to turn the gun fee's into a cash cow to fund more crap on mental illness, another Political creation that has failed...

Once again, why is it only gun owners are being held up for ransom...???

Great A gun fee zone

 

[LibertyNews]

Workman has an article on the challenges - Ballot Title Challenges Filed v. WA Gun Control Initiative - Liberty Park Press

 

[mrblond]

I wish they would call these bills what they really are. like " we are your betters and you should not have items that may hurt us " bill.

 

[bentoncity]

What I received today from the ATG office. And below that is ONE of the 4 cases filed. No info there because UNFORTUNATELY they don't tell you you have to register AND PAY to actually see/read the filed public documents. The 'free version' from one of the case #'s is shown. Even at that, not every county has access. Sure is nice the public has no free access to public documents...
Dan

Good afternoon Mr. Deckert,
I've been asked to respond to your email to Secretary of State Wyman, regarding the ballot title for Initiative 1639. We appreciate your interest in this issue. State law requires the Attorney General to prepare the ballot titles for statewide initiatives and referenda. The Attorney General's Office strives to adhere to the requirement that the title "be a true and impartial description of the measure's essential contents, clearly identify the proposition to be voted on, and not, to the extent reasonably possible, create prejudice either for or against the measure." Accordingly, each ballot title goes through an extensive review process before it is sent to the Secretary of State for publication. Any person dissatisfied with a ballot title may appeal to Thurston County superior court by following the requirements set forth in RCW 29A.72.080. As you may be aware, four challenges were filed to the ballot title for Initiative 1639. Although the time period for filing a challenge to the ballot title has now passed, you may track the cases by going to the Thurston County Clerk's Online Records Website, https://odysseyportal.courts.wa.gov/odyportal, and entering the docket number 18-2-02506-34, 18-2-02564-34, 18-2-02579-34, or 18-2-02551034.
{The last # is wrong, it should have been 18-2-02551-34}
I hope this is of assistance to you. Thank you again for your correspondence.
Anne Egeler
Deputy Solicitor General
Washington State Attorney General's Office
(360) 753-7085

Case Information
18-2-02506-34 | JOE WILSON vs STATE ATTORNEY GENERAL
Case Number-18-2-02506-34
Court-Thurston
File Date-05/16/2018
Case Type-BAT Ballot Title
Case Status-Active
Party
Respondent -STATE ATTORNEY GENERAL
Petitioner -JOE WILSON
here's the other 3 petitioners- GLEN MORGAN, NATIONAL RIFLE ASSOCIATION-
and of course... the people that started this dog & pony show--KRAMER, PAUL & SAFE SCHOOLS SAFE COMMUNITIES

NOTE: The hearing date below is ONLY FOR Joe Wilson Case!!!
Events and Hearings

1. 05/16/2018 Case Information Cover Sheet
2. 05/16/2018 Petition
3. 05/16/2018 Notice of Assignment
4. 05/24/2018 Assignment for Trial Setting

Judicial Officer-Murphy, Carol
Hearing Time-9:00 AM
Comment-Ballot Title

 

[bentoncity]

Here are the appeals filed in Thurston County Court against 1639. I wish at least one of them would have addressed the aspect of 1639 CREATING a NEW weapon definition, "semiautomatic assault rifle" , that doesn't exist. And yes, even your 10/22 would be a "semiautomatic assault rifle" as is the ol' model 60..

I had to append Challenge 2 due to file size. I just dropped the text of the initiative, I didn't append any data relative to the appeal.

Dan

 

[whitney]

Here are the appeals filed in Thurston County Court against 1639. I wish at least one of them would have addressed the aspect of 1639 CREATING a NEW weapon definition, "semiautomatic assault rifle" , that doesn't exist. And yes, even your 10/22 would be a "semiautomatic assault rifle" as is the ol' model 60..
View attachment 462048
I had to append Challenge 2 due to file size. I just dropped the text of the initiative, I didn't append any data relative to the appeal.

Dan

Ballot Title Challenge 1,3 & 4 have the trial setting date, dated May 24 2017. The date to set the trial has elapsed. I will send an email to the county clerk addressing this deficiency.

~Whitney

 

[Jabba]

Here's more proof the ballot title is confusing: article in willy week talking about automatic weapons:

Blazers Owner Paul Allen Contributes $1 Million to Washington Gun Control Measure

 

[bentoncity]

I called the SOS yesterday and she/they informed me June 7 was the date for the ballot challenge hearing.

Dan

 

[whitney]

I called the SOS yesterday and she/they informed me June 7 was the date for the ballot challenge hearing.

Dan

So.... what happened today with this ???

~Whitney

 

[LibertyNews]

Judge approved the wording as is I guess? ACTION ALERT – DON'T SIGN I-1639 | Save Our Security | No on I-1639

 

[Slobray]

Judge approved the wording as is I guess? ACTION ALERT – DON'T SIGN I-1639 | Save Our Security | No on I-1639

I had hope, but didn't really expect anything different from the partisan leftist judges activists, that have infected Washington state, who rule from the bench instead of upholding the constitution and/or justice.



Ray

 

[bentoncity]

Here's the court ordered change. It's still ugly in its context.
I'll be taking out ads in the Nickels to speak against it.

Dan