Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 25 of 27

Thread: I donated to SAF today to fight I-594 in court -- you should too!

  1. #1
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    Olympia, WA
    Posts
    766

    I donated to SAF today to fight I-594 in court -- you should too!

    How does the prospect of living under the threat of vague and arbitrarily enforced laws against "transfers" sound? It doesn't sound very good so I donated to SAF today. I also called and asked them to file a lawsuit against I-594, and it turns out they already have this thing under a microscope.

    You should also donate to SAF, and here's how to do it.

    Go to: http://www.saf.org/
    Click the link for "Protect your Rights".
    Click the link for "Join SAF or make a donation"

  2. #2
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    earth's crust
    Posts
    17,838
    The courts will not strike it down for vagueness IMO. But one certainly can try...it does not need a harvard education to bring this point up to a court.

    Would one have to be charged to bring this point up?
    Last edited by davidmcbeth; 11-05-2014 at 04:38 PM.

  3. #3
    Regular Member acmariner99's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Location
    Renton, Wa
    Posts
    662
    Good thought, but I will not be giving anyone a dime until I see somebody take action.

  4. #4
    Regular Member jsanchez's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2010
    Location
    seattle
    Posts
    503
    all those SAF guys screwed it up

    all they had to do was put forward a bill that had background checks in it

    without all the vagueness and we wouldn't have this problem

  5. #5
    Regular Member EMNofSeattle's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Location
    S. Kitsap, Washington state
    Posts
    3,763
    Quote Originally Posted by jsanchez View Post
    all those SAF guys screwed it up

    all they had to do was put forward a bill that had background checks in it

    without all the vagueness and we wouldn't have this problem
    Like manchin Toomey and 1588?
    they love our milk and honey, but they preach about some other way of living, when they're running down my country man they're walkin' on the fightin side of me

    NRA Member

  6. #6
    Regular Member Difdi's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    Seattle, Washington, USA
    Posts
    996
    Quote Originally Posted by davidmcbeth View Post
    The courts will not strike it down for vagueness IMO.
    Mostly because it's not vague when read by a lawyer. It's only vague if a non-lawyer reads it, using common usage understanding instead of lawyerese.

    Quote Originally Posted by davidmcbeth View Post
    Would one have to be charged to bring this point up?
    Probably.

  7. #7
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    earth's crust
    Posts
    17,838
    Quote Originally Posted by Difdi View Post
    Mostly because it's not vague when read by a lawyer. It's only vague if a non-lawyer reads it, using common usage understanding instead of lawyerese.



    Probably.
    Well, when a lawyer or judge reads a sentence like: Mary had a little lamb.

    They read it to include dogs.

    They must have some course in college "forgetting all reasonableness in the english language, Course 101"

  8. #8
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    Olympia, WA
    Posts
    766
    Quote Originally Posted by jsanchez View Post
    all those SAF guys screwed it up

    all they had to do was put forward a bill that had background checks in it

    without all the vagueness and we wouldn't have this problem
    SAF screwed nothing up.

    SAF files lawsuit in court, they don't file legislation or write initiatives (especially anti-gun ones which jsanchez apparently desires).

  9. #9
    Regular Member Dave_pro2a's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    2,227
    Quote Originally Posted by jsanchez View Post
    all those SAF guys screwed it up

    all they had to do was put forward a bill that had background checks in it

    without all the vagueness and we wouldn't have this problem
    Giving up always leads to winning in the end, right?

  10. #10
    Regular Member aa1911's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Location
    Yelm, WA
    Posts
    106
    SAF screwed up by not pushing a bill for more restrictive gun legislation?!?!

    You've got me stumped, this does..... not.... compute....

    I'm sure you're referring to 'lesser of two evils' but it's quite dangerous to play that game with gun rights; we'll lose every time.

  11. #11
    Regular Member ()pen(arry's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2010
    Location
    Seattle, WA; escaped from 18 years in TX
    Posts
    740
    Quote Originally Posted by davidmcbeth View Post
    Would one have to be charged to bring this point up?
    One would need standing, which traditionally required real† damages. More modernly, one can establish standing in less obvious ways, but it's harder and more subject to the subjective discretion of judges. A range owner might be able to establish damages with reasonable facility.

    † Same root as "real estate". Look it up.

  12. #12
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    Seattle, Washington, USA
    Posts
    130
    I've donated to SAF just now, I also intend to attend the rally in Olympia on December 13th.
    WTT: Glock 27 for Glock 26

  13. #13
    Banned
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Location
    usa
    Posts
    691
    Alan Gottlieb's wallet thanks you.

  14. #14
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2014
    Location
    Redmond
    Posts
    29
    if there's any lawyer who could pull off a successful challenge to 594, it would be SAF's alan gura.

  15. #15
    Regular Member Geerolla's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    WA, USA
    Posts
    118
    Quote Originally Posted by Jeff. State View Post
    Alan Gottlieb's wallet thanks you.
    How are you supporting the fight?


    Sent from my UAV using Disposition Matrix 2.0

  16. #16
    Banned
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Location
    usa
    Posts
    691
    Quote Originally Posted by Geerolla View Post
    How are you supporting the fight?

    What fight?

    Your question should have been........... "How are you supporting the charade?"

    Washington is a lost State. Get over it.
    Last edited by Jeff. State; 11-08-2014 at 09:59 PM.

  17. #17
    Regular Member ()pen(arry's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2010
    Location
    Seattle, WA; escaped from 18 years in TX
    Posts
    740
    We are losing ground at a prodigious pace because too many of us insist on focusing the bulk of our energies on voting, rather than engaging in dialogue with those we encounter. No one ever changed a mind by voting, or by talking only to people who already agree with them.

  18. #18
    Regular Member Geerolla's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    WA, USA
    Posts
    118
    Quote Originally Posted by Jeff. State View Post
    What fight?

    Your question should have been........... "How are you supporting the charade?"

    Washington is a lost State. Get over it.
    I will not "get over it". How exactly is giving up the answer? Pathetic.


    Sent from my UAV using Disposition Matrix 2.0

  19. #19
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2014
    Location
    Redmond
    Posts
    29
    Quote Originally Posted by ()pen(arry View Post
    We are losing ground at a prodigious pace because too many of us insist on focusing the bulk of our energies on voting, rather than engaging in dialogue with those we encounter. No one ever changed a mind by voting, or by talking only to people who already agree with them.
    many gun owners voted for 594 because they didn't know what was in it. there was a lot of potentially low resistance conversions out there that were not pursued.

    should have been working the phone banks to call every single NRA member in the state, and every republican in the state.

  20. #20
    Banned
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Location
    usa
    Posts
    691
    Quote Originally Posted by Geerolla View Post
    I will not "get over it". How exactly is giving up the answer? Pathetic.


    Sent from my UAV using Disposition Matrix 2.0

    I didn't say "give up". Defiance, non-compliance and complete disregard for this and other unconstitutional laws is "the answer". Your State is full of Statist Sheep, the wolves in government will do as they please with an electorate like that. You will not find an "answer" in SAF/NRA/the system, the game is rigged.



    Quote Originally Posted by bani View Post
    many gun owners voted for 594 because they didn't know what was in it. there was a lot of potentially low resistance conversions out there that were not pursued.

    should have been working the phone banks to call every single NRA member in the state, and every republican in the state.
    I'm not a republican, and I'm not an NRA member and I have the common sense to read something before voting for it. Those "many gun owners" who voted for 594 out of complete ignorance deserve what they get.


    Silly me, there I go again talking about "voting", like it matters.

  21. #21
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2014
    Location
    Redmond
    Posts
    29
    refusing to vote, refusing to do anything other than ignore laws, that is giving up.
    Last edited by bani; 11-09-2014 at 04:48 PM.

  22. #22
    Banned
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Location
    usa
    Posts
    691
    Quote Originally Posted by bani View Post
    refusing to vote, refusing to do anything other than ignore laws, that is giving up.

    No, giving up would be recognizing the BS laws "voted" in as legitimate. They are NOT and will not be complied with, it is happening in many places. Connecticut is growing very close to "lines being crossed" and when they are a civil war will spread across this nation.

    Coming to the REALIZATION that the system is a charade and not participating in it, is not giving up.

  23. #23
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    earth's crust
    Posts
    17,838
    Quote Originally Posted by Jeff. State View Post
    No, giving up would be recognizing the BS laws "voted" in as legitimate. They are NOT and will not be complied with, it is happening in many places. Connecticut is growing very close to "lines being crossed" and when they are a civil war will spread across this nation.

    Coming to the REALIZATION that the system is a charade and not participating in it, is not giving up.
    CT residents do not have the fortitude my friend...even if the line is crossed.

  24. #24
    Banned
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Location
    usa
    Posts
    691
    Quote Originally Posted by davidmcbeth View Post
    CT residents do not have the fortitude my friend...even if the line is crossed.

    How about if the raids start?

  25. #25
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    earth's crust
    Posts
    17,838
    Quote Originally Posted by Jeff. State View Post
    How about if the raids start?
    I have already suggested to several 2nd amendment groups to take action to prevent such raids including holding drills in public to show that citizens are preparing/prepared. Nope. Not interested.

    Or to start contacting people who are pro-2nd to nullify any charges using jury nullification (that requires zero exposure to harm). Nope. Not interested.

    If you have any suggestions, post 'em ! Always willing to consider alternatives.

    Civil war is not going to happen. Armed resistance is not going to happen. Those folks who say that simply don't know~just "wishful" thinking. This is lilly white Connecticut you're talking about.

    The 2nd amendment groups that said "don't register" also had their spokesmen say "we personally don't have anything to register" at the same time. That's sticking your neck out, huh?
    Last edited by davidmcbeth; 11-10-2014 at 10:58 AM.

Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •