Washington Washington needs your help - I-1639 moving forward

[Sporting Systems]

The legal challenge is next. Sounds like SAF, NRA and another private party are preparing challenges to 1639 petitions on a number of technicalities. Hoping they find a pile of other basis to challenge the bill in it's entirety. Oregon, help your neighbors out, because if this passes here, you know it's coming at you next. Here's to hoping the legal challenges get the ballot petitions thrown out.

1639 classifies ALL semiautomatic rifles as "assault weapons". This terminology was voided by the Oregon Supreme court yesterday, as inaccurate, inconsistent, and of no legal value. By passing this initiative in Washington, the term is in the books and the next step is the assault weapons ban that they tried like heck to pass in the last legislative session.

Requires a concealed carry permit to purchase a handgun or semiautomatic rifle, a defacto approval to purchase card. Adds delays and costs to a purchaser.

Adds lifetime annual background checks and adds $25 to price of each firearm to cover the lifetime check, adjustable by COLA AND as determined by the state to continue making these checks (think the state will do a million background checks a year indefinitely for a flat $25 fee?)

Lifetime waiver of health records privacy. And state is charge of those.

Sales to all non-residents are prohibited. I believe there may be some restriction of trade issues here based on Federal interstate commerce laws.

Washington residents can still purchase out of state and avoid all the proposed Washington fees, training and permit requirements

Creates an economic barrier for citizens to purchase a firearm.
$25 fee (or more) for each firearm.
$57 fee for a concealed carry permit to purchase any semi auto rifle or pistol.
Plus the cost of the state approved training course.
Recurring cost of keeping the concealed carry permit active ($15 per year)

Creates a substantial delay/waiting period, upwards of 40 days. A right delayed is a right denied.
Up to 30 days for issuance of a concealed carry permit
10 day waiting period for delivery of any pistol or semi automatic rifle

Safe storage - Already beaten in federal court, this is illegal and the proposed law actually says that "this law does not mandate how and where the firearms must be secured".

Establishes 2 new criminal charges for violation of safe storage. Adds criminal liaility of the gun owner if the firearm is stolen. I liken this to the rapist who contracts VD from his rape victim, and then sues the survivor for exposing him to VD. Criminalizing the victim.

Indemnification of state and local agencies if they choose to NOT issue a permit to a QUALIFIED person. So, if the city of Seattle decides they don't want you to have a gun, they'll deny you and you can do nothing about it.

Read More

 

[slimmer13]

The way I read it, a CPL is needed to purchase, along with proof of training, or the waiting periods and approval from the chief LE officer in your area.

Basically it's the same as handguns are now, extended to what they call "assault rifles".

Still awful and needs kicked to the curb, but just saying, I don't think it's the same as a firearm approval card.

 

[nammac]

How does the Oregon Supreme Court ruling yesterday regarding the definition of "assault weapon" play into the challenges being waged against 1639? Would think it might be helpful to destroying the insensing term. Basically, OSC said that wording cannot be used going forward. Just thinking including that language in a challenge might be beneficial....

 

[Sporting Systems]

How does the Oregon Supreme Court ruling yesterday regarding the definition of "assault weapon" play into the challenges being waged against 1639? Would think it might be helpful to destroying the insensing term. Basically, OSC said that wording cannot be used going forward. Just thinking including that language in a challenge might be beneficial....

Agreed, this is a legal precedent for calling the terminology BS. but, they are also creating the definition, which I don't know if IP43 glossed over or just ignored, thinking it is actually part of the legal lexicon.

 

[Sporting Systems]

The way I read it, a CPL is needed to purchase, along with proof of training, or the waiting periods and approval from the chief LE officer in your area.

Basically it's the same as handguns are now, extended to what they call "assault rifles".

Still awful and needs kicked to the curb, but just saying, I don't think it's the same as a firearm approval card.

Actually, under this law, the CPL is a REQUIREMENT TO PURCHASE A PISTOL OR SEMIAUTOMATIC RIFLE. Currently, there is no requirement to possess the CPL in order to purchase a rifle or pistol. The CPL only grants you the ability to carry concealed AND the NICS check can be performed by the dealer at time of purchase rather then sending it to local enforcement for the NICS check and waiting up to 10 business days for approval.

 

[nammac]

Agreed, this is a legal precedent for calling the terminology BS. but, they are also creating the definition, which I don't know if IP43 glossed over or just ignored, thinking it is actually part of the legal lexicon.

I believe the OSC identified an assault weapon as being fully automatic, I could be wrong there, and according to the wife have been known to be in the past...

 

[slimmer13]

Actually, under this law, the CPL is a REQUIREMENT TO PURCHASE A PISTOL OR SEMIAUTOMATIC RIFLE. Currently, there is no requirement to possess the CPL in order to purchase a rifle or pistol. The CPL only grants you the ability to carry concealed AND the NICS check can be performed by the dealer at time of purchase rather then sending it to local enforcement for the NICS check and waiting up to 10 business days for approval.

Actually if you read RCW 9.41.090, the language for current dealer pistol transfer rules, is identical to the proposed initiative.

(

1) In addition to the other requirements of this chapter, no dealer may deliver a pistol to the purchaser thereof until:
(a) The purchaser produces a valid concealed pistol license and the dealer has recorded the purchaser's name, license number, and issuing agency, such record to be made in triplicate and processed as provided in subsection (5) of this section. For purposes of this subsection (1)(a), a "valid concealed pistol license" does not include a temporary emergency license, and does not include any license issued before July 1, 1996, unless the issuing agency conducted a records search for disqualifying crimes under RCW 9.41.070 at the time of issuance;
(b) The dealer is notified in writing by the chief of police or the sheriff of the jurisdiction in which the purchaser resides that the purchaser is eligible to possess a pistol under RCW 9.41.040 and that the application to purchase is approved by the chief of police or sheriff; or

RCW 9.41.090: Dealer deliveries regulated—Hold on delivery.

Language in I 1639

NEW SECTION. Sec. 2. SHORT TITLE. This act may be known and
cited as the public safety and semiautomatic assault rifle act.
Sec. 3. ENHANCED BACKGROUND CHECKS. RCW 9.41.090 and 2018 c
201 s 6003 are each amended to read as follows:
(1) In addition to the other requirements of this chapter, no
dealer may deliver a pistol to the purchaser thereof until:
(a) The purchaser produces a valid concealed pistol license and
the dealer has recorded the purchaser's name, license number, and
issuing agency, such record to be made in triplicate and processed
as provided in subsection (((5))) (6) of this section. For purposes
of this subsection (1)(a), a "valid concealed pistol license" does
not include a temporary emergency license, and does not include any
license issued before July 1, 1996, unless the issuing agency
conducted a records search for disqualifying crimes under RCW
9.41.070 at the time of issuance;
(b) The dealer is notified in writing by (i) the chief of police
or the sheriff of the jurisdiction in which the purchaser resides

Also, I don't see a CPL requirement in the NRA summary of I 1639

NRA-ILA | West Coast Plutocrats Target Washington State Gun Owners… Again (Initiative 1639)

 

[Sporting Systems]

Actually if you read RCW 9.41.090, the language for current dealer pistol transfer rules, is identical to the proposed initiative.

(

RCW 9.41.090: Dealer deliveries regulated—Hold on delivery.

Language in I 1639



Also, I don't see a CPL requirement in the NRA summary of I 1639

NRA-ILA | West Coast Plutocrats Target Washington State Gun Owners… Again (Initiative 1639)

Yes, the NRA summary was brief, it touched on a few big parts and missed the other pile of manure stuffed into this bag. Look at the synopsis images attached to the original post (reposted here to make it easier). So, you just posted the CPL requirement, called out in section 3 of the bill. And yes, the purchase of a semi automatic rifle would be identical to that of a pistol, EXCEPT for the requirement that you must now possess a CHP to even purchase a pistol or semi auto rifle, that's beyond the requirement of a LEO NICS check on pistol purchases without a CPL (so you can leave with the firearm same day, and that too goes away under this law, with a mandatory 10 day waiting period).

 

[RaceFan]

The link to the Oregon Supreme Court ruling regarding IP43 (semi-automatic firearms and standard capacity magazine ban) is below.

http://www.oregonfirearms.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/06/p17027coll3_6796.pdf

To answer the inquiry regarding the "assault weapon" definition in their ruling, the following excerpt is from pages 166 through 168 …

Petitioners raise another challenge to the caption that merits discussion. They argue that the terms "assault weapons" and "large capacity magazines" do not reasonably identify the subject matter of IP 43, and, instead, are impermissibly deceptive, confusing, and underinclusive. They assert that voters would share no common understanding of either term, except perhaps in reference to military-style weapons and their magazines (e.g., automatic weapons, such as machine guns; or military-style semiautomatic weapons, such as AR-15s or AK-47s). In petitioners' view, however, IP 43 would prohibit possession of a "wide array of commonly owned" semiautomatic weapons and their magazines. For example, one definition of "assault weapon" in IP 43 is a semiautomatic rifle with the capacity to accept a detachable magazine and having at least one of several other identified features, IP 43, § 3(1)(a)(A), but petitioners contend that many of the listed features—as well as detached magazine capacity—are standard.7 They offer many additional examples, citing various IP 43 definitions involving rifles, shot- guns, and pistols, to contend that the proposed measure is exceptionally broad in scope.8 The same is true, petitioners add, of magazines falling within the definition of "large capacity magazine"—that is, "any ammunition feeding device with the capacity to accept more than 10 rounds" or a conversion kit, with exceptions. IP 43, § 3(6). They empha- size that, (1) contrary to its own definition in IP 43, "large" suggests a number far exceeding 10; (2) most modern semi-automatic pistols are equipped with standard-issue maga- zines capable of holding 14-18 rounds; and (3) magazines holding more than 10 rounds also are standard for most handguns and rifles. It follows, they conclude, that "virtually all," "almost all," or "most" semiautomatic rifles, shotguns, and pistols, and their magazines, would be subject to IP 43, but voters likely would not recognize that many "commonly used" items would be so "[en]snared."

The Attorney General acknowledges the lack of a shared understanding of the terms "assault weapons" and "large capacity magazines," but she contends that it is impossible to craft more accurate definitions—without omission or oversimplification—in the 15 words allotted for the caption.

In the Attorney General's view, the use of quotation marks surrounding those terms, coupled with the elaborating signals, "(defined)," sufficiently conveys that the measure itself defines the terms "assault weapon" and "large capacity magazine." See Chamberlain v. Myers, 344 Or 612, 616, 188 P3d 240 (2008) (court has required the Attorney General to place quotation marks around a term taken from a proposed measure, when the meaning is ambiguous); Carley/Towers v. Myers, 340 Or 222, 232-33, 132 P3d 651 (2006) (requiring, at the least, that a signal such as "(defined)" accom- pany an unfamiliar, quoted abbreviation, when the abbrevi- ation would lead to unnecessary confusion). Petitioners, in turn, disagree that the quotation marks and accompanying "(defined)" signals render the caption substantially compli- ant with ORS 250.035(2)(a).10 For the reasons explained below, we agree with petitioners.

 

[EPS]

I see law suits in the future .
But that doesn't change anything .
They will just change the wording and carry on they have deep pockets . unlimited amount of money

 

[ma96782]

"lifetime annual background checks."

WTF does that mean????

Lifetime, is for a lifetime.

Annual, means yearly (annually).

So, which is it?????

Aloha, Mark

PS....not to worry......I'm OPPOSED to fees being charged, to exercise a RIGHT. Maybe the Government should start charging fees to run background checks on those who attend church?
_____

We should all know, how it works......

Report: NJ Gov. Proposes 2,400% Fee Hike on Handgun Permits

Then next year.....it could be $50 or $100. Actually....why not make it $1000? After all, it's more about discouraging behavior, that the LEFT finds abhorrent.

 

[CountryGent]

Mother of God ... that is one nasty bill. Indeed, anything us friends to the south can do to help is a good idea. Just point us in the right direction. The NRA is an obvious choice. What state-level groups need backing in the Evergreen State?

 

[CamoDeafie]

"lifetime annual background checks."

WTF does that mean????

Lifetime, is for a lifetime.

Annual, means yearly (annually).

So, which is it?????

Every year for the rest of your life they do a BG check on you, paid out of your pockets.

Lets say someone 21 gets cpl and gun, then they have to undergo a BG check every year until they either relinquish cpl, guns, or die... assuming 90 years average, that means 69 BG checks performed on this sole person.

I do not think even a police officer has a bg check performed on them as frequently?

 

[ma96782]

Every year for the rest of your life they do a BG check on you, paid out of your pockets.

Lets say someone 21 gets cpl and gun, then they have to undergo a BG check every year until they either relinquish cpl, guns, or die... assuming 90 years average, that means 69 BG checks performed on this sole person.

I do not think even a police officer has a bg check performed on them as frequently?

Nor do they run yearly checks on employees in the Public School sector. Hell, while they are at it.......why not do yearly BGCs on any profession where a Govt Lic. is required for employment?

Then....let's expand on this.

Why shouldn't a BGC be done on the owners and employees that are responsible for doing my yard work, auto repairs, home repairs, hospital staff, fast food employees, etc...?

I certainly don't want a prohibited person anywhere near me or my property.

See how that works?

LOL.....as a group.....gun owners are usually the most trust worthy of the general public. Afterall, they have been check out by the Govt. LOL.

Aloha, Mark

 

[Caveman Jim]

I'm in the Oly/Aberdeen area and have been questioning the paid/out of state signature gatherers on a regular basis. If this makes it to the ballot I fear it will pass unless WE ALL get the word out that ALL gun owner have to at least VOTE NO on I1639!!

 

[Diamondback]

If you're a gun owner and support 1639... you're a Rat's-A** Traitor, a regular g.d. Kapo just like Soros.

 

[GUNARCHER]

Pray for a 2nd amendment SCOTUS in our future

 

[Sporting Systems]

I'm in the Oly/Aberdeen area and have been questioning the paid/out of state signature gatherers on a regular basis. If this makes it to the ballot I fear it will pass unless WE ALL get the word out that ALL gun owner have to at least VOTE NO on I1639!!

We spent Saturday questioning them ourselves...it was amusing.

https://www.facebook.com/video.php?v=1871570266237876

https://www.facebook.com/video.php?v=1871608782900691

 

[Sporting Systems]

Mother of God ... that is one nasty bill. Indeed, anything us friends to the south can do to help is a good idea. Just point us in the right direction. The NRA is an obvious choice. What state-level groups need backing in the Evergreen State?

Not sure who will be in the drivers seat for the best chance at defeating this in the courts before the ballot. Second Amendment Foundation, NRA, GOA, or another local organization.

 

[Caveman Jim]

We spent Saturday questioning them ourselves...it was amusing.

https://www.facebook.com/video.php?v=1871570266237876

https://www.facebook.com/video.php?v=1871608782900691

Great job!!! I've been mainly targeting the would be signers with the SOS "Decline to Sign I-1639!" handout. NO ON I-1639 - SAVE OUR SECURITY - Washington State anti-gun initiative
Mentioning that billionaires are buying gun control, deception of ballot title, gatherers making $5-10 per signature, does not toughen schools (still GFZ), does nothing for mental health & just turns the law-abiding gun owners into felons overnight....

every one of us needs to do their part to stop this madness, get out and change some minds!