Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 25 of 26

Thread: SAF lawsuit challenges I-594!

  1. #1
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    1,863

    SAF lawsuit challenges I-594!

    SAF files federal lawsuit against I-594

    The Second Amendment Foundation today filed a federal lawsuit in U.S. District Court in Tacoma, challenging provisions of Initiative 594, the 18-page gun control measure passed by voters Nov. 4, on constitutional grounds.

    http://www.examiner.com/article/brea...llenging-i-594


    story in the gun mag...

    http://www.thegunmag.com/saf-sues-de...nitiative-594/

  2. #2
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    earth's crust
    Posts
    17,838
    Petitioning the gov't to address the abortion of this law may result in the court saying "Its Great!" ... then LEOs will start arresting everyone who touches a gun.

    Have fun in WA !

  3. #3
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    Olympia, WA
    Posts
    766
    Quote Originally Posted by davidmcbeth View Post
    Petitioning the gov't to address the abortion of this law may result in the court saying "Its Great!" ... then LEOs will start arresting everyone who touches a gun.
    That's not how things work in the legal system or in reality.

  4. #4
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2014
    Location
    Tempe, Arizona
    Posts
    189
    Glad it's been challenged. Now we wait for it to grind through.

  5. #5
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2014
    Location
    Tempe, Arizona
    Posts
    189
    Unfortunately Gottlieb is quoted as saying ""We're not trying to stop background checks". I think it would be better to directly attack the background checks as unconstitutional - period.

  6. #6
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    Olympia, WA
    Posts
    766
    I read the complaint and am pleased with the work that the SAF's attorney's have performed. Therefore, I'll be sending another donation to the SAF.

  7. #7
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    earth's crust
    Posts
    17,838
    Quote Originally Posted by PeterNSteinmetz View Post
    Unfortunately Gottlieb is quoted as saying ""We're not trying to stop background checks". I think it would be better to directly attack the background checks as unconstitutional - period.
    He's a lawyer .. he'll want more $$$ to argue that.

    Another case perhaps.

  8. #8
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    Olympia, WA
    Posts
    766
    This case is assigned to Judge Ben Settle. For background information regarding this judge, see

    PROFILE OF JUDGE BENJAMIN H. SETTLE by Paula T. Olson
    http://www.fba-wdwash.org/newsletters/FBAFall07.pdf (pp. 7-8)

    http://judgepedia.org/Ben_Settle

    http://seattletrademarklawyer.com/bl...districts.html

    http://seattletrademarklawyer.com/bl...published.html

  9. #9
    Regular Member Grim_Night's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Location
    Pierce County, Washington
    Posts
    792
    Quote Originally Posted by 44Brent View Post
    This case is assigned to Judge Ben Settle. For background information regarding this judge, see

    PROFILE OF JUDGE BENJAMIN H. SETTLE by Paula T. Olson
    http://www.fba-wdwash.org/newsletters/FBAFall07.pdf (pp. 7-8)

    http://judgepedia.org/Ben_Settle

    http://seattletrademarklawyer.com/bl...districts.html

    http://seattletrademarklawyer.com/bl...published.html
    Same judge that was assigned to my lawsuit against my former landlord. He dismissed my case as frivolous because I didn't provide cites in my complaint despite the fact that the forms I used to file my complaint specifically said NOT to use cites. Also despite the fact that I later filed the documents that proved that my case was not frivolous.
    Armed and annoyingly well informed!

    There are two constants when dealing with liberals:
    1) Liberals never quit until they are satisfied.
    2) Liberals are never satisfied.

  10. #10
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    Olympia, WA
    Posts
    766
    Grim_Night, if you are unhappy with this judge, you are not alone. I would guess that at least 50% of the litigants that came into his court think he issued the wrong rulings. The only people that are guaranteed to be happy in the court rooms are lawyers -- they generally don't care too much about the outcomes just so long as they get paid in full and on time.

  11. #11
    Campaign Veteran MAC702's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Location
    Nevada
    Posts
    6,520
    Quote Originally Posted by 44Brent View Post
    This case is assigned to Judge Ben Settle. For background information regarding this judge, see...http://judgepedia.org/Ben_Settle...
    I must be missing something. Here is the one brief paragraph I've read so far.
    NLRB case dismissed (2013)
    United States District Court for the Western District of Washington ((dead link) Hooks v. Kitsap Tenant Support Services Inc., C13-5470 BHS)

    On August 13, 2013, Judge Settle dismissed a case against Kitsap Tenant Support Services Inc. The case brought by the National Labor Relations Board(NLRB) was dismissed by the judge on the grounds that the panel did not have a proper quorum. The panel had two members that were appointed President Obama, by way of recess appointment. The problem arrived because these members were appointed incorrectly since the Senate was in session.[3]
    Am I reading this correctly? He dismissed a case just because the judges themselves were not correctly in place to try the case?
    "It's not important how many people I've killed. What's important is how I get along with the people who are still alive" - Jimmy the Tulip

  12. #12
    Campaign Veteran marshaul's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Fairfax County, Virginia
    Posts
    11,487
    "Well, we thought about hearing your case, but then we were like, 'nah, never mind.'"
    Last edited by marshaul; 12-31-2014 at 05:40 AM.

  13. #13
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    earth's crust
    Posts
    17,838
    http://www.laborrelationstoday.com/w...s-v-Kitsap.pdf

    Judge dismissed the case because Hooks [Director of NRLB] did not have the authority to file such a complaint under 29 USC 160 seq ... http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/29/160

    From what I see online...
    Last edited by davidmcbeth; 12-31-2014 at 06:01 AM.

  14. #14
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    Olympia, WA
    Posts
    766
    I was initially surprised the complaint was filed in Federal District Court instead of State Court. But, after thinking about it it became clear to me that it was likely necessary to do so as the Attorney General might be able to raise endless jurisdiction issues in State Court. The vulnerable areas of I-594 are the portions that are in direct conflict with Federal law. For examples of conflicts between Federal law and I-594, see these examples.

    10. Plaintiff JOE WALDRON (“Waldron”) is a resident of Florida. Waldron is the legislative director for the Citizen's Committee for the Right to Keep and Bear Arms (“CCRKBA”), the Chairman/Treasurer of Gun Owner's Action League of Washington, and is a registered Washington state lobbyist; he travels to Washington frequently for business related to those positions. When traveling in Washington, Waldron exercises his right to carry a firearm for self-defense pursuant to a valid Washington State concealed pistol license. Waldron would check a firearm in his luggage but cannot determine whether the act of “transferring” the firearm to or from an airline employee is governed by I-594. Waldron would also borrow a pistol from Plaintiff Alan Gottlieb, but federal law prohibits a licensed dealer in Washington from transferring a handgun to non-resident

    11. Plaintiff GENE HOFFMAN (“Hoffman”) is a resident of California. Hoffman is the Chairman of the CalGuns Foundation and a board member of Plaintiff Second Amendment Foundation. When traveling in Washington, Hoffman exercises his right to carry a firearm for self-defense pursuant to license which allows him to carry a concealed firearm under Washington law. Hoffman would check a firearm in his luggage, but cannot determine whether the act of “transferring” the firearm to or from an airline employee is governed by I-594. Hoffman would also borrow a pistol from Plaintiff Alan Gottlieb, but federal law prohibits a licensed dealer in Washington from transferring a handgun to non-resident Hoffman, making I-594’s requirement of transfers through a licensed dealer impossible for Hoffman. In the past, Hoffman has kept his boat at various marinas in the Puget Sound for vacation and business use. He intends to either purchase a larger boat in the Puget Sound or bring his current boat back to the Puget Sound for cruising. He would leave his firearms with friends who are Washington residents before traveling into Canadian waters as bringing a handgun into Canada is generally prohibited for U.S. Citizens, a practice in which Hoffman cannot engage due to the restrictions imposed by the combination of I-594 and federal law.
    Last edited by 44Brent; 12-31-2014 at 11:52 AM.

  15. #15
    Regular Member Grim_Night's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Location
    Pierce County, Washington
    Posts
    792
    The nice thing about this being filed in Tacoma is that I should be able to attend the court hearings.
    Armed and annoyingly well informed!

    There are two constants when dealing with liberals:
    1) Liberals never quit until they are satisfied.
    2) Liberals are never satisfied.

  16. #16
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    Olympia, WA
    Posts
    766
    Has anyone noticed that the news of this lawsuit is conspicuously absent from the Seattle Times web site? Fortunately, there is nothing that prevents citizens from posting comments about the I-594 web site as responses to non-I-594 stories on the Seattle Times web site. For example, see my response to their story about "How the Seahawks exploded 5 preseason myths this season"

    http://discussions.seattletimes.com/comments/2025347942

    Feel free to post comments all over the Seattle Times web site about this lawsuit as much as you would like.

  17. #17
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Location
    northern wis
    Posts
    3,194
    Typical old liberal media non reporting of things they do not agree with.
    Last edited by Firearms Iinstuctor; 12-31-2014 at 12:39 PM.
    Personal Defensive Solutions professional personal firearms, edge weapons and hands on defensive training and tactics pdsolutions@hotmail.com

    Any and all spelling errors are just to give the spelling Nazis something to do

  18. #18
    Regular Member Dave_pro2a's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    2,227
    Quote Originally Posted by Firearms Iinstuctor View Post
    Typical old liberal media non reporting of things they do not agree with.
    Yeah, the media sucks.

    Wait a second...
    "I'm just a no-account screed-peddler" Dave Workman http://goo.gl/CNf6pB

    "We ought to extend the [1994] assault weapons ban" George W Bush

    "The Bush Administration declared a permanent ban today on almost all foreign-made semiautomatic assault rifles." George Bush Sr, New York Times on July 8, 1989

    "I support the Brady bill and I urge the Congress to enact it without delay." Ronald Regan.

    "Guns are an abomination." Richard Nixon

  19. #19
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    1,863
    Quote Originally Posted by 44Brent View Post
    Has anyone noticed that the news of this lawsuit is conspicuously absent from the Seattle Times web site? Fortunately, there is nothing that prevents citizens from posting comments about the I-594 web site as responses to non-I-594 stories on the Seattle Times web site. For example, see my response to their story about "How the Seahawks exploded 5 preseason myths this season"

    http://discussions.seattletimes.com/comments/2025347942

    Feel free to post comments all over the Seattle Times web site about this lawsuit as much as you would like.
    Actually, the Times did have a story up for a while, but it's disappeared as a link. BUT NOT before I caught the link (inserted into my Examiner column about the Hayden tragedy yesterday)

    http://blogs.seattletimes.com/today/...-page-subtitle

    It's got a conversation already going that might be good for participation.
    -----------
    -----------------------------------------
    Hayden tragedy tests media, brings out the anti-gun extremists
    http://www.examiner.com/article/hayd...gun-extremists

  20. #20
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    Olympia, WA
    Posts
    766

    Specific individuals need to testify in Olympia regarding I-594

    I am going to write a letter to my pro-gun state senator requesting the the following people be issued summons to appear at any legislative hearings regarding possible revisions to I-594.

    1) Bill Gates
    2) Nick Hanauer
    3) Paul Allen
    4) Dan Satterburg
    5) Any other anti-rights propagandists and disinformation artists.

    Each of these individuals SHOULD testify as they promoted this initiative, either through public statements or through funding the disinformation campaign. Each of them should be asked to provide their interpretations of

    1) How the initiative should be interpreted with respect to each of the key scenarios outlined in the SAF lawsuit?
    2) Does the initiative conflict with existing federal law?
    3) How should conflicts between existing federal law and I-594 should be resolved by prosecutors?
    4) Does the initiative conflict with existing state law?
    5) How should conflicts between existing state law and I-594 should be resolved by prosecutors?

    If these legal geniuses testify, I predict they will have a very hard time getting their stories coordinated. Also, if sufficiently embarrassed by getting caught in their web of deceit, they might be think twice about running another disinformation campaign in the future. I want them to think of their million dollar checks as expensive tickets to ring side seats of their own legislative grilling sessions.

  21. #21
    Regular Member OC for ME's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    White Oak Plantation
    Posts
    12,272
    I thought top cops weren't going to arrest folks at Lowes or Wally World because that is not what "transfer" means as far as they are concerned.
    "I would rather be exposed to the inconveniences attending too much liberty than to those attending too small a degree of it." - Thomas Jefferson.

    "Better that ten guilty persons escape, than that one innocent suffer" - English jurist William Blackstone.
    It is AFAIK original to me. Compromise is failure on the installment plan, particularly when dealing with so intractable an opponent as ignorance. - Nightmare

  22. #22
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    Olympia, WA
    Posts
    766
    Quote Originally Posted by NavyLCDR View Post
    I think they filed the wrong type of lawsuit in the wrong court. IMHO, they should have filed in a purely state court contending that I-594 did not meet the requirements for a legal initiative. Remember the Seattle gun ban? The Federal court upheld the ban. My prediction is the SAF is going to lose this one.
    NavyLCDR, I believe that you have left out some important parts of the history of the Seattle Parks ban, so I'll point them out here:

    1) Robert Warden thought that Federal Court was going to be the best venue and that it was best framed as a 2nd Amendment issue. He filed a lawsuit against the City of Seattle in Federal Court and lost. You can verify this through this document.
    http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/ABP...659.1420234568

    2) SAF thought that the state court was the best venue, and that it was best framed as a pre-emption issue. SAF filed a lawsuit in the state courts and won.

    My conclusion: SAF's attorneys are competent in selecting the venue and framing the issue in a way that is most likely to yield the best results for gun owners.

    That's not to say that there is no value in someone filing a complaint against I-594 in the state courts, and if someone does, I will donate money to their cause. If you organize a lawsuit in the state court, I will definitely support you by making a donation.

  23. #23
    Regular Member Alpine's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Location
    Mercer Island
    Posts
    661
    I appreciate what SAF is doing. That said I think they also need to launch a "single subject" lawsuit in state court.

    695 from `1999 was thrown out for covering "more than 1 subject" and it was only 2 or 3 MAX if you realllly stretched it out and over-interpreted it.

    594 covers:
    Tax law
    Inheritance law
    Firearms sales/gifts/loans
    Hunter education
    Range rules
    etc

  24. #24
    Campaign Veteran MSG Laigaie's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Location
    Philipsburg, Montana
    Posts
    3,137
    Quote Originally Posted by NavyLCDR View Post
    It appears as if nobody has any interest in enforcing this law until...............
    I think this is the point we should worry about. Who gets to make the decisions? DOL? LEOs? A "judge"?
    As soon as a gun owner is involved in anything, I expect to see an in depth scrutiny of every firearm owned.

    Bad law. This only creates criminals out of innocents. Almost sounds like a revenue generating law.
    "Firearms stand next in importance to the Constitution itself. They are the people's liberty teeth (and) keystone... the rifle and the pistol are equally indispensable... more than 99% of them by their silence indicate that they are in safe and sane hands. The very atmosphere of firearms everywhere restrains evil interference .When firearms go, all goes, we need them every hour." -- George Washington

  25. #25
    Banned
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Location
    usa
    Posts
    691
    Quote Originally Posted by davidmcbeth View Post
    Petitioning the gov't to address the abortion of this law may result in the court saying "Its Great!" ... then LEOs will start arresting everyone who touches a gun.Have fun in WA !
    Probably the "enemy in a Bow Tie"'s idea.


    Gottlieb will find a way to make things worse for those in Washington, and he will move on to make more $heckle$ in other States "defending their rights".


    He has ALWAYS been a Wolf in sheeps clothing. The only reason he ever got in "gun rights" was for the silver and gold.

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
  •