Washington Why no effort to repeal I-1639?

[quneur]

Hindsight is 20/20 but if we would have started the campaign just before the stay-at-home order we could have easily gathered enough signatures. All we would have needed is to target gun stores. Minimal canvasing needed. Imagine all those panic first time buyers, "You want to buy a gun? Want to be on a registry with a yearly background check and lifetime HIPPA waiver? No? Sign here."

We always say of the left, "they never let a good crisis go" and also say, "we should use the tactics of the gun grabbers." Well, we missed the boat.

Read More

 

[arakboss]

What does the repeal process involve?

 

[Andy54Hawken]

Its been tried already...not enough signatures to go ahead....
At : www.change.org there is a petition to repeal I - 1639.
Andy

 

[DB is Here]

Washington - www.wacivilrights.org- statewide gunrights and activisim

Please visit and share this website across Washington. We used it during the repeal effort and it was an amazing resource. We will continue to using it as clearinghouse for information, activism, contracting reps, providing original content relevant to Washington laws, calendar of events...

www.northwestfirearms.com

 

[Nosferatu]

There have been efforts, largely lead by Sporting Systems. Unfortunately, it didn't get enough backing from us gun owners to move forward.

 

[2A2Dend]

We (they?) missed the boat.

Not necessarily, This Covid crap isn't going away anytime soon.
All that would be needed are signs (big enough to easily read) in shop windows, pointing out the objective.
So there's an immense amount of new gun owners, so there are already a LOT of them that have bought (taken possession) firearms, they still have needs. I think most of them would return to said shop(s) to get more for their needs. (If you build it, they will come) It's never too late.

Covid (amongst other deemed needs) is not going away anytime soon. Times have changed. At least I feel they have.
Since the subject of I-1639 is again a topic, why not get the info out there to all the new gun owners?
Our stance as a whole is MUCH stronger than before.
The times now is a wake-up call.

 

[Alexx1401]

Hindsight is 20/20 but if we would have started the campaign just before the stay-at-home order we could have easily gathered enough signatures. All we would have needed is to target gun stores. Minimal canvasing needed. Imagine all those panic first time buyers, "You want to buy a gun? Want to be on a registry with a yearly background check and lifetime HIPPA waiver? No? Sign here."

We always say of the left, "they never let a good crisis go" and also say, "we should use the tactics of the gun grabbers." Well, we missed the boat.

We tried. One of the great vendors here, Sporting Systems spent a LOT of money and time and guess what happened? We could not get enough gun owners to bother to sign. Then gun owners wonder why these laws come about?

 

[arakboss]

We (they?) missed the boat.

Not necessarily, This Covid crap isn't going away anytime soon.
All that would be needed are signs (big enough to easily read) in shop windows, pointing out the objective.
So there's an immense amount of new gun owners, so there are already a LOT of them that have bought (taken possession) firearms, they still have needs. I think most of them would return to said shop(s) to get more for their needs. (If you build it, they will come) It's never too late.

Covid (amongst other deemed needs) is not going away anytime soon. Times have changed. At least I feel they have.
Since the subject of I-1639 is again a topic, why not get the info out there to all the new gun owners?
Our stance as a whole is MUCH stronger than before.
The times now is a wake-up call.

I think we confuse gun owners (especially new ones) with strong 2A supporters. It's seems to be herculean task to get strong 2A supporters to join together for a task, getting new gun owners on board will probably be an even greater challenge. I am guessing many new gun owners are probably fine with background checks and other aspects of laws like those in I-1639.
I might be wrong and I think it's worth trying again to repeal I-1639. But I am not going to believe that someone who purchases their first firearm is going to change who they typically vote for.

 

[2A2Dend]

And you could be right.
I've yet to talk to (or meet) any new gun owners.

My being an introvert gun enthusiast, my eyes have been glazed (IDGAF) (regarding all the BS laws entailed) for years.

 

[quneur]

We did not get enough signatures to get it on the ballot. One reason was due to the short time allowed. The environment is different now. Yes, there are still crowds at my local super gun stores but a lot of new gun owners have already received their firearms. And many veteran gun owners are already stocked up and I doubt they're willing to go out just to sign a petition.

I'm also kicking myself for not thinking of this earlier but was too worried about Covid (stocking up on food, getting prepared, etc.)

 

[Diamondback]

Nutshell, because most gun owners are pussies who won't stand up and fight even when their personal ox gets gored.

 

[bentoncity]

If anyone remembers, (if I get this right) the SAF, SS & others filed an appeal to the state supreme court over the legality of the ballots and the court basically gave the go ahead for Wyman to accept them even though she had the legal right to refuse them over the illegal format of them per the RCW'S.

Main problem with doing a repeal is, IMHO, this.....$$ and this...VOLUNTEERS, and 1st time owners that actually know what 1639 did so they'd support the effort.

Dan

 

[Diamondback]

If anyone remembers, (if I get this right) the SAF, SS & others filed an appeal to the state supreme court over the legality of the ballots and the court basically gave the go ahead for Wyman to accept them even though she had the legal right to refuse them over the illegal format of them per the RCW'S.

Main problem with doing a repeal is, IMHO, this.....$$ and this...VOLUNTEERS, and 1st time owners that actually know what 1639 did so they'd support the effort.

Dan

With R's like Worthless Wyman, who needs D's?

 

[Diamondback]

If anyone remembers, (if I get this right) the SAF, SS & others filed an appeal to the state supreme court over the legality of the ballots and the court basically gave the go ahead for Wyman to accept them even though she had the legal right to refuse them over the illegal format of them per the RCW'S.

Main problem with doing a repeal is, IMHO, this.....$$ and this...VOLUNTEERS, and 1st time owners that actually know what 1639 did so they'd support the effort.

Dan

To elaborate, if more people would have taken a break from beating their chests and playing Internet Tough Guy Wannabe to go out and sign petitions and more importantly VOTE, maybe this outcome wouldn't have happened.

This sh*t happens because people don't resist it at the ballot box and their legislators' office mailboxes. If you're not part of the solution, you're either part of the problem or part of the landscape. But I bet that even after these uprisings of rioting spoogestain terrorists there are still lots of people, some on this very site, who refuse to get in the fight and oppose the officeholders who push this horsecrap... Offended, Snowflake? GOOD, you SHOULD be, because we're here thanks to each and every one of you who threw your fellow gun owners under the bus by refusing to stand with us when it was easy and cheap.

 

[bentoncity]

I tried to fight 1639 but got NADA from the powers that be....not 1 reply from any of the following...
I'm pretty sure my 'letter' po'd some people but I had nothing to lose since none of them adhered to the law.
(FYI, IF anyone believes it's easy to do a recall, go read up and let me know how it goes. I've done 1 on the local level with no legal help and lost in the same damn supreme court that allowed 1639 to pass.) "Technicality" vs the Law!

Dan

[email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected]

Wed 1/2/2019
I'm forced to ask why hasn't the MEDIA & my ELECTED legislators stepped up and started asking about the I-1639 illegally formatted petitions being allowed to be placed on the ballot when they clearly don't meet the RCW's as to the specified formatting as required by law? Every city, county, state elected official swore to uphold the laws of the state but haven't made any effort one to do so! Why is that?

I asked but have never heard back from 99% of my elected officials nor any news agencies. ??? Nary response 1 from any (99%) of you? Why is that? Are you to lazy? To ignorant? Don't give a bubblegum? What's your excuse? I'm sure this sounds offensive but I really don't care because my elected officials and news agencies are just ignoring/avoiding the issue in so far as I'm able to ascertain. If I'm wrong, then by all means feel free to provide data that contradicts my opinion.

On to the issue at hand..Illegal acts by Kim Wyman concerning I-1639
The Secretary Of State (Kim Wyman) is and was obligated by law to dismiss the illegally formatted petitions under (RCW 29A.72.100 " be in the form required by RCW29A.72.110, 29A.72.120, or 29A.72.130, and have a readable, full, true, and correct copy of the proposed measure printed on the reverse side of the petition.") but chose not to obey the law. The SOS then asserted a position by stating she lacked the authority to reject the illegally formatted petitions which was a lie. A Thurston County Superior court judge recognized the petitions were illegal but the state supreme court decided otherwise in a convoluted decision under the order below.

ORDER
No. 96191-3
Thurston County No.
18-2-03747-3
On July 27, 2018, two groups of plaintiffs timely brought similar preelection challenges
in Thurston County Superior Court to the secretary's certification of the 1-1639 petition. Both
groups of plaintiffs requested that the court review the petition for sufficient signatures under
RCW 29A.72.240, a provision that authorizes judicial review of the number of signatures
submitted in support of an initiative, and sought declaratory and injunctive relief. Both
challenges are based on the contention that the print on the back of the I-l 639 petitions is not a
true, accurate, and readable copy of the proposed measure presented to the secretary and was
thus not the "full" text of the proposed measure. Wash. CONST, art. II, § 37; RCW 29A.72.100.

Additionally.. this 'supreme court' ruled..as an opinion only (no case law to validate the opinion)
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. RCW 29A.72.170. Accordingly, the secretary exercised her discretion to certify
the 1-1639 petition for presentation to the voters.

Now someone tell me how in the hell a supreme court full of lawyers decides the form requirements are "not applicable here" when the RCW's are absolutely clear relative to the format of the petitions? I'm not a lawyer but I'm fairly certain I can understand and comprehend the English language.

By LAW, The secretary of state may refuse to file any initiative or referendum petition being submitted upon any of the following grounds:
(1) That the petition does not contain the information required by RCW 29A.72.110, 29A.72.120, or 29A.72.130 under RCW 29A.72.170

RCW 29A.72.180 clearly left an option for the SOS to let the superior court make the decision of the legality of the petitions since she refused to and hid behind part 2 & part 3 of RCW 29A.72.170 along with the backing of the so named supreme court and ignoring part 1.
RCW 29A.72.180
Petitions—Review of refusal to file.
If the secretary of state refuses to file an initiative or referendum petition when submitted for filing, the persons submitting it for filing may, within ten days after the refusal, apply to the superior court of Thurston county for an order requiring the secretary of state to bring the petitions before the court, and for a writ of mandate to compel the secretary of state to file it. The application takes precedence over other cases and matters and must be speedily heard and determined.
If the court issues the citation, and determines that the petition is legal in form and apparently contains the requisite number of signatures and was submitted for filing within the time prescribed in the Constitution, it shall issue its mandate requiring the secretary of state to file it as of the date of submission for filing.
The decision of the superior court granting a writ of mandate is final.

Here's Wymans oath... (I'm including her orginal pdf oath of office..)
OATH FOR THE OFFICE OF SECRETARY OF STATE
I, Kim Wyman, do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support the constitution of the United States and the Constitution and laws of the state of Washington, and that I will faithfully discharge the duties of Secretary of State to the best of my ability.
Subscribed on this 11th day of January, 2017.

Wyman CLEARLY DID NOT uphold her oath because she,
1. Accepted & filed an illegal document in violation of her oath of office.
This constitutes misfeasance of office. (specifically : the performance of a lawful action in an illegal or improper manner)
or at the very least...: malfeasance wrongdoing or misconduct especially by a public official

The gist of everything above is this, if I had the $$$ & the legal-ease to write my cases, I'd have been filing suits in the courts on Aug. 26th/2018. (That's when the supreme court filed their asinine opinion) Although I'd dearly like to do a recall on Wyman, the way the laws are written in this state have you virtually castrated. Just another thing my so called 'elected officials' won't undertake to change. I've tried. I'll darn sure lend my name & time to do whatevers' needed to fight this hogwash but I'm retired & out of funds sent to NRA/GOA/SAF and Sporting Systems.

I'm disgusted with my 'elected' officials and so called 'news agencies' inaction to address the illegal actions surrounding I-1639. What legal rights are any of you going to forego next by your inaction? Free speech? Religion? Assembly? Unreasonable search & seizure? Some billionaire money can apparently buy any laws they want. No need to validate the accuracy or facts, just vote for it.

Just how damn far are any of you going to go before you step up, declare enough is enough, and start fighting back with the truth as elected officials sworn to uphold the laws of the land?
Then ask yourself why 99% of the Sheriffs in the state were & are not in support of the I-1639? Or go ask them for yourself. And while you're at it, try calculating how many law abiding citizens this asinine initiative will make into felons by merely implementing it!

You people had better get/pull your heads out of your backsides and start understanding where your constitutional rights are headed for.

 

[bentoncity]

And the lies began...

 

[Diamondback]

We need to Primary her out... she's as bought and paid for by Soros as the Dems she runs "against."

 

[Stomper]

Not to mention.... even IF you get enough signatures, your SoS will "disqualify" enough of the signatures and kill it anyway.... Oregon routinely does this.

 

[Bam]

Being realistic here, have any of you taken a look at the demographics of your state? How are you going to vote anybody out when you belong to the minority vote?

You really think you are going to change enough minds on the other side? These are blind stupid people that are fine being lead to slaughter by wolves.

Real change will require tearing it all down and starting from scratch.

 

[Diamondback]

Being realistic here, have any of you taken a look at the demographics of your state? How are you going to vote anybody out when you belong to the minority vote?

You really think you are going to change enough minds on the other side? These are blind stupid people that are fine being lead to slaughter by wolves.

Real change will require tearing it all down and starting from scratch.

Have you looked at the details of WA elections? At MOST we get 40% of ballots returned. Seattle-King County IIRC usually have much higher turnout, though haven't been so brazen as to do "more votes than voters" like some other Bluedouche shizholes. Wheen Seattle marches in goosestep and the silent majority continue to sit with their thumbs up their Inslees, what do you THINK is gonna happen?