JavaScript is disabled
Our website requires JavaScript to function properly. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser settings before proceeding.
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

I would like to go on record and ask "How much $$$ did it take to bribe her?":mad::mad::mad:

We live in a rigged system folks, time for the torches & pitchforks!!!
 
I would like to go on record and ask "How much $$$ did it take to bribe her?":mad::mad::mad:

We live in a rigged system folks, time for the torches & pitchforks!!!

I don't think it took that much money for her to "rule" in favor of the anti's, as I'm sure her main goal to "fundamentally transform the state of WA", just like they did with the PDRK down south. Partisan judges activists like her are already being handed $169,187 of our tax dollars a year to govern from the bench to promote their leftist/anti-gun agenda, so who knows if she got any money now or an IOU to be paid at the time of her next election.

By the way, this is the same judge activist that ruled that it's OK for a fellow lefty, Christine Gregoire, to hide things from the public because of "executive privilege". Judge's ruling weakensstate Public Records Act
Funny thing, Gregoire endorsed this partisan activist, when Murphy was running for office.............. Kind of makes you think.

She also took it easy on another leftist judge activist who violated campaign finance.......
Judge Larsen settles with state on alleged campaign finance violations | HeraldNet.com also mentioned here.
Had it been a Republican, you can bet she would have thrown the book at them. She's a good little drone, doing what she's told..............................


Ray
 
Last Edited:
I have little doubt that it will get on the ballot and 10 years ago I would have seriously doubted it would pass, now, with the CA exodus ramping up in the last few years, not so much.

It's 80%s on out for me until I can get over the mts into ID.

I wonder how this will affect out of state long gun purchases. Will Idaho recognize Washington's definition of an "assault weapon" and restrict WA sales? Will across state line sales be allowed, but it's up to the individual to provide the state proof of training and DOL registration?

I'm not playing, I'm just curious how it would shake out if it passes.
 
I don't think it took that much money for her to "rule" in favor of the anti's, as I'm sure her main goal to "fundamentally transform the state of WA", just like they did with the PDRK down south. Partisan judges activists like her are already being handed $169,187 of our tax dollars a year to govern from the bench to promote their leftist/anti-gun agenda, so who knows if she got any money now or an IOU to be paid at the time of her next election.

By the way, this is the same judge activist that ruled that it's OK for a fellow lefty, Christine Gregoire, to hide things from the public because of "executive privilege". Judge's ruling weakensstate Public Records Act
Funny thing, Gregoire endorsed this partisan activist, when Murphy was running for office.............. Kind of makes you think.

She also took it easy on another leftist judge activist who violated campaign finance.......
Judge Larsen settles with state on alleged campaign finance violations | HeraldNet.com also mentioned here.
Had it been a Republican, you can bet she would have thrown the book at them. She's a good little drone, doing what she's told..............................


Ray

:mad::mad::mad::mad::mad::mad::mad::mad::mad::mad::mad::mad::mad:
 
I'm not going to sit on my bubblegum and let this go.. Since I already know the local paper won't print anything opposing this initiative, I just bought a 4 week ad (see text below) in the Giant Nickel for the Tri-City area & Eastern Wa. $120.00 Anyone else gonna step up?
We can gripe/complain all we want here but the antis don't care unless we get info into the bigger world speaking out against their BS. We need to stop this from ever making the ballot like I-1491 did. To little-to-late and now we're saddled with an ignorant law by ignorant people. Buy some ads, write some letters...

Dan

I-1639=GUN LIES
If 1639 makes the ballot and gets passed, a simple little semi-auto 22 will become a "semi-automatic assault rifle" I-1639 provides NO more safety then what currently exists by law, creates a new State run gun registration agency and CREATES a "semi-automatic assault rifle" among other things. That gun stolen from your home and used in a crime will make you the felon. Please read 1639 fully before signing any petitions. I-1639 IS NOT a grass roots initiative! I-1639 is an anti-gun initiative funded by in/out of state billionaires using out of state paid signature gatherers.

I also wrote a letter to the editor but have doubts it'll ever make print:

Initiatives Gone Bad
Somewhere along the line the State initiative process has become woefully distorted. What used to be ideas and proposals by and for Washington State residents has become the target of out of state billionaires. Disgustingly enough, that big out of state money is buying initiatives that are not necessarily in your interests. And of course there's also in-state billionaire money to assist a like agenda. Two questions come to mind here. Why is an out of State billionaire sponsoring a particular initiative? Secondly, why is it permissible for any person(s) or entity(s) to contribute untold amounts of money, much less out-of-State money, to get an initiative passed? What used to be an avenue by and for the people of this state has now become the property of out-of-State funding. I-1639, that's being proposed, is just such an initiative. Carefully crafted language that hides the vicious and outrageous scope of I-1639 is alarming. As there's no way to cover the entire context in this letter, I would ask that everyone read I-1639 and understand the content before believing what you may be told by those paid signature gathers and the misleading ballot title & synopsis.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
The signature gathering has begun! Heading into Walmart, Hazel Dell, on Saturday and saw a table with " Sign for New Assault Rifle Law". Some just walked by but others signed without asking any questions. I didn't notice a copy of the proposed bill for people to read either.

Ran into 3 more at Chucks market. They are stating, "sign for raising the age to keep school age kids from buying assault rifles".
I asked if they read the bill, they said, No.
 
Last Edited:
The signature gathering has begun! Heading into Walmart, Hazel Dell, on Saturday and saw a table with " Sign for New Assault Rifle Law". Some just walked by but others signed without asking any questions. I didn't notice a copy of the proposed bill for people to read either.

Ran into 3 more at Chucks market. They are stating, "sign for raising the age to keep school age kids from buying assault rifles".
I asked if they read the bill, they said, No.


I saw this too. Wife wouldn't let me mess with the lady.

What are we legally allowed to do to throw a wrench in their gears?
 
I saw this too. Wife wouldn't let me mess with the lady.

What are we legally allowed to do to throw a wrench in their gears?

Once the signatures have been gathered and filed, the secretary of state verifies the signatures using a random sample method. If the sample indicates that the measure has sufficient signatures, the measure is certified for the ballot. However, if the sample indicates that the measure has insufficient signatures, every signature is checked. Under Washington law, a random sample result may not invalidate a petition. However, the secretary of state is not required to review any petition that "clearly bears insufficient signatures."

Observers representing proponents and opponents of the measure may be present to watch the verification process.
 
From the SOS office website...

What if I'm against an initiative or referendum? Do I have the right to urge people not to sign a petition?

Yes, as a matter of freedom of speech. Opponents of an initiative or referendum can certainly express the opinion that it would not be a good idea for a voter to sign a petition. An opponent, however, does not have the right to interfere with the petition process. In fact, it is a gross misdemeanor to interfere with somebody else's right to sign a petition, and there are also laws against assaulting people. You can certainly express your opinion, but you must remember that other people have rights to their opinions as well, including the right to sign petitions you may not like.
AND
What are the rules regarding the collecting of signatures at shopping malls, retail stores, etc.?
Gathering signatures for ballot measure petitions is a constitutionally guaranteed practice in the State of Washington. However, the right does not extend to all commercial private property open to the public. To what extent businesses and private property owners can exclude signature gatherers is not clearly spelled out in state law.
For further information on this subject, you may wish to have legal counsel review the principal Washington court decisions on the subject:
AND
Can the property owner restrict where, when, or how petitions can be circulated?
Yes, within limits. Washington courts have explained that when initiative or referendum supporters collect signatures on private property, there might be limits so that the activity does not interfere with what other people are doing on the property. Just what limits might be reasonable will depend on the circumstances, including how big the area is, the potential for blocking traffic or interfering with the business involved, or perhaps whether somebody else has already made arrangements to be on the property at a particular time. There might also be other reasonable concerns. The relevant case is Initiative 172 v. Western Washington Fair Assoc., 88 Wn. App. 579, 945 P.2d 761 (1997).

Dan
 
Once the signatures have been gathered and filed, the secretary of state verifies the signatures using a random sample method. If the sample indicates that the measure has sufficient signatures, the measure is certified for the ballot. However, if the sample indicates that the measure has insufficient signatures, every signature is checked. Under Washington law, a random sample result may not invalidate a petition. However, the secretary of state is not required to review any petition that "clearly bears insufficient signatures."

Observers representing proponents and opponents of the measure may be present to watch the verification process.


What you mean my legal name isn't Mr dickbutt?
 
I saw this too. Wife wouldn't let me mess with the lady.

What are we legally allowed to do to throw a wrench in their gears?

I am engaging the petitioners in conversation, politely... They are using misleading statements to get signatures and only read the bullet points on the back of the petition.
Maybe make up a sign "Don't be mislead by I-1639, here are the facts..." and stand next to them to offer a differing viewpoint.
When I go back to Chucks today I am going to ask the manager if you allow the petitioners to gather signatures how would you feel if a myself or a few people stood with signs about a differing view.
 
I am engaging the petitioners in conversation, politely... They are using misleading statements to get signatures and only read the bullet points on the back of the petition.
Maybe make up a sign "Don't be mislead by I-1639, here are the facts..." and stand next to them to offer a differing viewpoint.
When I go back to Chucks today I am going to ask the manager if you allow the petitioners to gather signatures how would you feel if a myself or a few people stood with signs about a differing view.
Chances are he would probably say no or he could ask them to leave also .
Because the last thing he wants is two groups PROTESTING against each other on his front door
 
The signature gathering has begun! Heading into Walmart, Hazel Dell, on Saturday and saw a table with " Sign for New Assault Rifle Law". Some just walked by but others signed without asking any questions. I didn't notice a copy of the proposed bill for people to read either.

Ran into 3 more at Chucks market. They are stating, "sign for raising the age to keep school age kids from buying assault rifles".
I asked if they read the bill, they said, No.
I'm pretty sure they have to have a copy of the bill there for people to read .
If they don't then all those signatures would be invalid . wouldn't they .
 

Upcoming Events

Tillamook Gun & Knife Show
Tillamook, OR
"The Original" Kalispell Gun Show
Kalispell, MT
Teen Rifle 1 Class
Springfield, OR
Kids Firearm Safety 2 Class
Springfield, OR

New Resource Reviews

New Classified Ads

Back Top