• 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.

Court setback for I-594 lawsuit

D

Dave Workman

Regular Member
Joined
May 23, 2007
Messages
1,874
Location
, ,
SAF mulls next move after court setback on I-594 lawsuit

Second Amendment Foundation Executive Vice President Alan Gottlieb is mulling his next move after a federal district court judge today dismissed without prejudice the lawsuit against provisions of Initiative 594, the 18-page gun control measure passed by voters in November following a multi-million dollar campaign push by the gun prohibition lobby.

http://www.examiner.com/article/saf-mulls-next-move-after-court-setback-on-i-594-lawsuit
 
Alpine

Alpine

Regular Member
Joined
Aug 10, 2012
Messages
671
Location
Idaho
Time to go for the single subject rule violation in state court. If I-695 in 1999 got thrown out for that, then surely I-594 must get thrown out. It covers tons of different subjects. Trying to claim that anything having to do with "guns" is a single subject is absurd, then I-695 from 1999 should have stood because it covered "taxes."
 
BB62

BB62

Accomplished Advocate
Joined
Aug 17, 2006
Messages
4,069
Location
Cincinnati, Ohio, USA
NavyLCDR said:
I sent this to my representative...feel free to use it to send to yours:

Rep. Hayes,

Can you please request an Attorney General's opinion regarding the sale of 12 Gauge Flare Guns at thousands of retail stores across Washington state in violation of RCW 9.41.113? I believe that a formal opinion from the Attorney General would greatly help in the fight to overturn this law.

Noedel Scientific has determined, correctly, that 12 Gauge Signal Flare Guns such as those manufactured by Orion and sold at Wal Mart are firearms, meeting the definition of such contained in RCW 9.41.010:
http://www.noedelscientific.com/user/flaregun1.pdf

These "guns" are sold right off the shelves at thousands of retail stores across Washington without the background check required by RCW 9.41.113. As I am sure you will agree, the Attorney General, after supporting I-594, has completely washed his hands of the mess it's passage has created and it is time to hold him accountable.

Thank you for your support,
I greatly look forward to your reply,

Very Respectfully,
Click to expand...
FYI:

it's = it is
its = possessive form of "it"
 
R

randian

Regular Member
Joined
Mar 10, 2011
Messages
380
Location
Phoenix, AZ
Alpine said:
Time to go for the single subject rule violation in state court. If I-695 in 1999 got thrown out for that, then surely I-594 must get thrown out. It covers tons of different subjects. Trying to claim that anything having to do with "guns" is a single subject is absurd, then I-695 from 1999 should have stood because it covered "taxes."
Click to expand...
You don't seem to comprehend liberal genius. 695 is multiple subjects because it would constrain the taxing power of the government, which cannot be countenanced, while 594 is a single subject because gun ownership cannot be countenanced.
 
Alpine

Alpine

Regular Member
Joined
Aug 10, 2012
Messages
671
Location
Idaho
randian said:
You don't seem to comprehend liberal genius. 695 is multiple subjects because it would constrain the taxing power of the government, which cannot be countenanced, while 594 is a single subject because gun ownership cannot be countenanced.
Click to expand...
Then explain their refusal to overturn Chan v Seattle.

There is a chance they'll keep 594,but what do we have to lose? The longer 594 is on the books the more chance they'd keep it in the end anyway if the same suit gets brought years later. There is literally nothing to lose.
 
Alpine

Alpine

Regular Member
Joined
Aug 10, 2012
Messages
671
Location
Idaho
randian said:
Sometimes things are a little too black letter even for them. That doesn't change their general propensity.
Click to expand...
So what do we have to lose? Leaving the law on the books? Looks like that will happen regardless. At least with the suit there's a chance it will be thrown out.
 
Whitney

Whitney

Regular Member
Joined
Jan 12, 2010
Messages
435
Location
Poulsbo, Kitsap County, Washington, USA
Sales Tax

NavyLCDR said:
And nobody that has the authority will request an attorney general's opinion regarding Wal Mart and other sporting goods stores performing sales that are felonies, which I don't understand why because it would be an official record how ridiculous the law is.
Click to expand...

It just occurred to me the sales tax caveat in 594 should apply to places like Wal Mart and WestMarine.
I believe the sales tax can not be charged if the transfer is between unlicensed dealers?

My local Wal Mart is not a dealer and should not be able to charge me sales tax on a flare gun. I do not believe there is an exception if the unlicensed dealer just happens to be a retail store.

I suppose the worst they could do is kick me out for trying.

~Whitney
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top