• We are now running on a new, and hopefully much-improved, server. In addition we are also on new forum software. Any move entails a lot of technical details and I suspect we will encounter a few issues as the new server goes live. Please be patient with us. It will be worth it! :) Please help by posting all issues here.
  • The forum will be down for about an hour this weekend for maintenance. I apologize for the inconvenience.
  • If you are having trouble seeing the forum then you may need to clear your browser's DNS cache. Click here for instructions on how to do that
  • Please review the Forum Rules frequently as we are constantly trying to improve the forum for our members and visitors.

SAF lawsuit challenges I-594!

Dave Workman

Regular Member
Joined
May 23, 2007
Messages
1,874
Location
, ,

davidmcbeth

Banned
Joined
Jan 14, 2012
Messages
16,167
Location
earth's crust
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 !
 

PeterNSteinmetz

Regular Member
Joined
Apr 20, 2014
Messages
177
Location
Tempe, Arizona
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.
 

44Brent

Regular Member
Joined
May 21, 2006
Messages
772
Location
Olympia, WA
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.
 

44Brent

Regular Member
Joined
May 21, 2006
Messages
772
Location
Olympia, WA

Grim_Night

Regular Member
Joined
Aug 5, 2012
Messages
776
Location
Pierce County, Washington

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.
 

44Brent

Regular Member
Joined
May 21, 2006
Messages
772
Location
Olympia, WA
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.
 

MAC702

Campaign Veteran
Joined
Jul 31, 2011
Messages
6,331
Location
Nevada
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?
 

44Brent

Regular Member
Joined
May 21, 2006
Messages
772
Location
Olympia, WA
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:

44Brent

Regular Member
Joined
May 21, 2006
Messages
772
Location
Olympia, WA
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.
 

Dave Workman

Regular Member
Joined
May 23, 2007
Messages
1,874
Location
, ,
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...yer-background-checks/#comments-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/hayden-tragedy-tests-media-brings-out-the-anti-gun-extremists
 

44Brent

Regular Member
Joined
May 21, 2006
Messages
772
Location
Olympia, WA
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.
 
Top