I-1639 mega thread

[whacker1]

Looking ar DOJ involvement with civil rights and voting rights in other states, I believe they could.   I doubt they will because very onerous gun laws in NYC and other cities have been allowed to stand.

What I will be interested in is how the SCOWa views this initiave in the light of how many issues it addresses.  That was the down fall of many of Tim Eymans initiaves, which could indicate a couple of things
1) the late Paul Allen and firends hired a better lawyer to write it up.   
2) Tim Eyman didn't care if his initaive passed judiary scrutiny, his actual paying job was to get them to the ballot hell or high water.  That's why he repeated the same mistake over and over and he never learned to correct his ballot mistakes.
3) The SCOWa is jobbed against Eyman's initaives.

I think the answer is a combination of all three, probably in a ratio of 32.5/45/22.5

I view it in a similar fashion.  one thing that favors the Supreme court hearing this case is that they don't like to weigh in on intiatives pre-ballot on the merits of the legality of the initiative, because there is no standing in most cases until after the initiative has passed.  Now that the initiative has passed, there is a high probability of them hearing the merits of the law.  how they decide I am less confident in the outcome either way.

[Knocker of rocks]

Given the longstanding laws in NYC, Washington DC, etc, I think this will be heard in the SCOWa.   

[singleshot12]

Maybe initiatives like this are just another way to create more jobs for lawyers etc. Job security? Seems to be the root behind most unjust laws that violate our freedoms and the 2nd amendment But some evil *censored*s are intent on destroying our western civilization!

[saylean]

Looking at the map makes me wonder why I live in Clallam county, let alone this state any more. 5 more years until the kiddos are out of the house, then it off to Idaho or Alaska, whichever the wife chooses...

right there with you.

[KFhunter]

Not that our Washington constitution supersedes the US Constitution, but read article 1 section 24

The right of the individual citizen to bear arms in defense of himself, or the state, shall not be impaired, but nothing in this section shall be construed as authorizing individuals or corporations to organize, maintain or employ an armed body of men.

[Windwalker]

Petition asks Trump to block I-1639 
http://www.spokesman.com/stories/2018/nov/13/petition-asks-trump-to-block-i-1639/

NRA sues to stop I-1639's gun-control provisions
https://komonews.com/news/local/nra-sues-to-stop-i-1639s-gun-control-provisions

Police chief of Republic says he will not enforce I-1639
 http://www.ifiberone.com/columbia_basin/police-chief-of-republic-says-he-will-not-enforce-i/article_dab440d4-e86f-11e8-9122-db4b512111a7.html

Impact of I-1639 seen by local gun stores
http://www.nbcrightnow.com/story/39486182/impact-of-i-1639-seen-by-local-gun-stores

[HntnFsh]

my 2 cents in this discussion.

If this goes into effect as they plan,Natives with legal right  to buy firearms and under 21 should group together and go to as many sellers(walmart.cabelas fred meyers big 5 sportsmans warehouse etc) when told they can't purchase because of this law they should sue them all and this state collectively for denying their Constitutional right too do so.

1)they do not have to follow this state law and the feds are not behind it, (yet) take as much money from these commies as they can every time when they can.


2)if its for sale and they have the money to purchase the law is behind them to purchase,they can't be denied. 

I think this is a terrible idea. Why would you penalize the retailer? They had nothing to do with this law! No wonder prices on everything goes up. Frivolous lawsuits!

[KFhunter]

my 2 cents in this discussion.

If this goes into effect as they plan,Natives with legal right  to buy firearms and under 21 should group together and go to as many sellers(walmart.cabelas fred meyers big 5 sportsmans warehouse etc) when told they can't purchase because of this law they should sue them all and this state collectively for denying their Constitutional right too do so.

1)they do not have to follow this state law and the feds are not behind it, (yet) take as much money from these commies as they can every time when they can.


2)if its for sale and they have the money to purchase the law is behind them to purchase,they can't be denied. 

I think this is a terrible idea. Why would you penalize the retailer? They had nothing to do with this law! No wonder prices on everything goes up. Frivolous lawsuits!

I'm for doing that to Dicks and other retailers for pulling AR's and stuff off the shelves after that mass shooting,  but I'm not for doing this because of a voter initiative.

We have HW'rs who voted in favor of this thing.....

[KFhunter]

Why is it that every time someone brings up lawsuit its all about money?Bring the lawsuit against them and they in turn will fight the fight we want also.A lawsuit is very seldom about money.  the only ones that will pay a price will be this state because they are at fault for forcing this law on these retailers.winning will make all the money already spent pushing this law down our throats in a loss category.

Anyone wanna help translate this?  I'm lost   

not being a jerk, I just can't understand it.

[Knocker of rocks]

It will certainly help the gun stores in Republic if they sell guns to Washington residents without being encumbered by 1639

[KFhunter]

It will certainly help the gun stores in Republic if they sell guns to Washington residents without the encumberous of 1639

 

until the raids begin......

[Knocker of rocks]

It will certainly help the gun stores in Republic if they sell guns to Washington residents without the encumberous of 1639

 

until the raids begin......

Sad to say that is probably correct.

[SGTDuffman]

I’m curious to see what will actually change. For complete rifles obviously it’ll make a big deal. I just don’t see how it’s enforceable at all for stripped lowers. They’re not registered as firearms during the transfer, so this crap “law” will do nothing to stop them. A stripped lower is registered as other during purchase, or at least its supposed to be, because the dealer doesn’t know if you’re making s pistol or a rifle. This law only limits the sales of rifles. It does some other stuff with pistols as far as using a CPL for purchase and the like, but the big push is rifles. If you build your rifle, from a lower resigstered as other, I don’t see what they can do. The lower isn’t be registered as a part they’d be tracking, and everything else goes to your front door, so I don’t see how they could possibly keep an eye on anything. Just another useless feel good law that punishes law abiding citizens while doing nothing to make anyone any safer. If anything it will drastically increase the sales of de facto SBR style AR pistols AND 80% lowers to circumvent the law all together.

[KFhunter]

I’m curious to see what will actually change. For complete rifles obviously it’ll make a big deal. I just don’t see how it’s enforceable at all for stripped lowers. They’re not registered as firearms during the transfer, so this crap “law” will do nothing to stop them. A stripped lower is registered as other during purchase, or at least its supposed to be, because the dealer doesn’t know if you’re making s pistol or a rifle. This law only limits the sales of rifles. It does some other stuff with pistols as far as using a CPL for purchase and the like, but the big push is rifles. If you build your rifle, from a lower resigstered as other, I don’t see what they can do. The lower isn’t be registered as a part they’d be tracking, and everything else goes to your front door, so I don’t see how they could possibly keep an eye on anything. Just another useless feel good law that punishes law abiding citizens while doing nothing to make anyone any safer. If anything it will drastically increase the sales of de facto SBR style AR pistols AND 80% lowers to circumvent the law all together.

It does nothing for those shopping out of state OR if the Res is immune to this law,  will people be going to the rez to get a new rifle along with their cigs?

[Knocker of rocks]

I guess I don’t know how Cabela’s, much less smaller shops on other tribal lands handle state gun transfer laws