Post by: bearpaw on December 30, 2014, 11:11:47 PM
Help Undo the Damage of I-594!
SAF SPEARHEADS FEDERAL LAWSUIT AGAINST I-594
For Immediate Release - Contact: Alan Gottlieb (425) 454-7012
BELLEVUE, WA – The Second Amendment Foundation today filed a lawsuit in federal district court in Tacoma, seeking a permanent injunction against enforcement of portions of Initiative 594, the 18-page gun control measure that took effect Dec. 4, alleging that “portions of I-594…are so vague that a person of ordinary intelligence cannot understand their scope,” and that other parts violate the Second Amendment outright.
Joining SAF in this action are the Northwest School of Safety, Puget Sound Security, Inc., the Pacific Northwest Association of Investors, the Firearms Academy of Seattle, six individual citizens including SAF founder and Executive Vice President Alan Gottlieb and the Gottlieb Family Trust. They are represented by Seattle attorneys Steven Fogg and David Edwards, and Bellevue attorney Miko Tempski.
Named as defendants are Attorney General Bob Ferguson and Washington State Patrol Chief John Batiste, in their official capacities.
“We took this action due to the confusing and arbitrary language and nature of I-594,” Gottlieb explained.
“Three of our plaintiffs, including my son, are residents of other states and cannot legally borrow handguns for personal protection while traveling in Washington. Under I-594, all transfers must be done through federally-licensed firearms dealers, but under federal law, dealers cannot legally transfer handguns to residents of other states. I-594 also essentially prohibits our non-resident plaintiffs from storing their own firearms here.
“This measure effectively infringes upon, if not outright prohibits, the exercise of their constitutionally-protected right to bear arms under the Second Amendment,” he added.
Gottlieb pointed to a recent directive from the state Department of Fish and Wildlife to its volunteer hunter education instructors regarding firearms transfers in class that amount to “straw-man transfers.” The lawsuit also notes that the State Patrol said it could not prove that a change of possession not covered by an I-594 exemption was a “transfer,” making enforcement of the new law “difficult if not impossible.”
“We’re not trying to stop background checks,” Gottlieb said. “We’re taking action against a poorly-written and unconstitutionally vague measure that criminalizes activities that are perfectly legal anywhere else in the country, thus striking at the very heart of a constitutionally-protected, fundamental civil right.”
The Second Amendment Foundation (www.saf.org (http://www.saf.org)) is the nation’s oldest and largest tax-exempt education, research, publishing and legal action group focusing on the Constitutional right and heritage to privately own and possess firearms. Founded in 1974, The Foundation has grown to more than 650,000 members and supporters and conducts many programs designed to better inform the public about the consequences of gun control.
-END-
WWW.WAGUNRIGHTS.ORG (http://WWW.WAGUNRIGHTS.ORG)
Post by: Fl0und3rz on December 30, 2014, 11:27:03 PM
Post by: huntnphool on December 31, 2014, 12:55:54 AM
Post by: Windwalker on December 31, 2014, 12:58:35 AM
SAF SPEARHEADS FEDERAL LAWSUIT AGAINST I-594 :chuckle: :IBCOOL:
https://www.saf.org/?page_id=66 (https://www.saf.org/?page_id=66)
http://www.ccrkba.org/?page_id=3252 (http://www.ccrkba.org/?page_id=3252)
https://secure.piryx.com/donate/AOaM4TFe/Protect-Our-Gun-Rights-YES-on-I-591/ (https://secure.piryx.com/donate/AOaM4TFe/Protect-Our-Gun-Rights-YES-on-I-591/)
Post by: Wacenturion on December 31, 2014, 06:14:10 AM
Post by: idahohuntr on December 31, 2014, 06:36:41 AM
Good....legal route is best way to beat these morons.:yeah:
Post by: Fl0und3rz on December 31, 2014, 07:53:15 AM
Yes it was posted on the other board but- makes me happy every time I see it.
SAF SPEARHEADS FEDERAL LAWSUIT AGAINST I-594 :chuckle: :IBCOOL:
https://www.saf.org/?page_id=66 (https://www.saf.org/?page_id=66)
http://www.ccrkba.org/?page_id=3252 (http://www.ccrkba.org/?page_id=3252)
https://secure.piryx.com/donate/AOaM4TFe/Protect-Our-Gun-Rights-YES-on-I-591/ (https://secure.piryx.com/donate/AOaM4TFe/Protect-Our-Gun-Rights-YES-on-I-591/)
I did not notice that it was the off-topics board. I wish Dave W. would post his stuff in the Outdoor Advocacy board.
A few other things of note:
People need to realize that this is not about the whole enchilada of private sales AND transfers; this is about private, non-commercial transfers only.
Quote
Gottlieb said that the goal of the lawsuit is not to stop background checks, but to change the language surrounding the transfers. He said that by filing the lawsuit before the legislative session begins in January, he hoped lawmakers would take note.
http://www.komonews.com/news/local/Lawsuit-filed-against-new-gun-background-check-law-287169301.html (http://www.komonews.com/news/local/Lawsuit-filed-against-new-gun-background-check-law-287169301.html)
Caution: The comments there from the anti's are mindnumbingly stupid.
One comment I would have liked to have left: It's obvious that people like calapete and unitedwalk have not fully read and understand the complaint. I doubt that they have even read and understood the civil rights impacts (and the failures to address issues of illegal gun possession and use) of I-594. And I am getting the sense that they may not have even fully read this article. It's time to have a dialog about universal aptitude and reading comprehension tests for the first amendment.
Post by: Fl0und3rz on December 31, 2014, 08:26:28 AM
I like how the suit identifies WDFW and WSP as offering conflicting guidance on whether certain "transfers" were transfers subject to the exemption requirements (WDFW) or were not transfers WSP, based on some secret understanding of what is actually an enforceable I-594 "transfer."
After having fully read the complaint, here are the main causes of action (Second Amendment and Void as being Unconstitutionally Vague):
Quote
53. I-594, with its amendments to RCW 9.41 relating to non-commercial transfers of firearms, as well as Defendants’ enforcement of the same, prohibit, substantially interfere with, inhibit access to, and infringe upon the right to possess firearms and thus infringe Plaintiffs’ rights under the Second and Fourteenth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution as well as the rights in Article I, Section 24 of the Washington State Constitution.
54. By maintaining and enforcing a set of laws infringing on the Plaintiffs’ access to firearms, Defendants are creating and following customs, policies, and practices that violate the Second Amendment, both facially and as applied against the individual Plaintiffs in this action, thereby injuring Plaintiffs in violation of 42 U.S.C. § 1983.
55. Because Plaintiffs are being deprived of their constitutional rights, Plaintiffs’ injuries are irreparable and subject to declaratory, preliminary, and permanent injunctive relief against the Defendants’ improper customs, policies, and practices.
http://www.thegunmag.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/12/NWSSvFergie.pdf (http://www.thegunmag.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/12/NWSSvFergie.pdf)
Quote
59. The portions of I-594 that regulate non-commercial transfers are so vague that a person of ordinary intelligence cannot understand their scope, which renders it subject to arbitrary enforcement. The potential for arbitrary and inconsistent application of I-594 chills the exercise of the right to bear arms and violates the guarantee of due process of law in the Fourteenth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution and Article I, Section 3 of the Washington State Constitution. These portions of I-594 ar e accordingly void for vagueness, both facially and as applied against the individual Plaintiffs in this action.
60. Because Plaintiffs are being deprived of their constitutional rights, Plaintiffs’ injuries are irreparable and subject to declaratory, preliminary, and permanent injunctive relief.
Id.
While I would have preferred a challenge to background checks on sales as well, or striking the entire law based on numerous grounds, this is a solid first step at some of the low hanging fruit. I understand the need to choose worthy plaintiffs and causes of action and not muddying the waters with a multitude of ancillary issues. Preserve those for other suits and another day. Bravo to SAF and their attorneys.
I also note that a lot of these issues raised in the complaint were discussed here on hunt-wa. Thanks, Dale, for providing this forum to hash out a lot of these issues.
Some other potential avenues for legal challenges are addressed here.
I-594, generally:
http://hunting-washington.com/smf/index.php/topic,164066.msg2164019.html#msg2164019 (http://hunting-washington.com/smf/index.php/topic,164066.msg2164019.html#msg2164019)
Legal marijuana, possession, private sales/transfers and the Second and Fifth Amendments
http://hunting-washington.com/smf/index.php/topic,165175.msg2179383.html#msg2179383 (http://hunting-washington.com/smf/index.php/topic,165175.msg2179383.html#msg2179383)
Post by: huntrights on December 31, 2014, 08:46:14 PM
"SAF SPEARHEADS FEDERAL LAWSUIT AGAINST I-594"
http://www.saf.org/?p=4877 (http://www.saf.org/?p=4877)
http://www.saf.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/12/NWSSvFergie.pdf (http://www.saf.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/12/NWSSvFergie.pdf)
The Second Amendment Foundation (SAF) is fighting for us. Please JOIN/CONTRIBUTE/SUPPORT SAF:
https://www.saf.org/?page_id=66 (https://www.saf.org/?page_id=66)
Post by: Hi-Liter on January 02, 2015, 10:51:35 AM
Post by: Fl0und3rz on January 02, 2015, 10:55:51 AM
I read the complaint. To me I would have just went after the entire initiative not just transfers.
That would be my preference as well, but as far as the most blatant abuses and easiest low hanging fruit, this makes perfect sense.
If the legislature is listening, a CPL exemption would make perfect sense and be in perfect harmony with the stated goals of I-594 (although not in harmony with what I suspect are its true purposes).
Post by: huntnphool on January 02, 2015, 11:04:08 AM
I read the complaint. To me I would have just went after the entire initiative not just transfers.
That would be my preference as well, but as far as the most blatant abuses and easiest low hanging fruit, this makes perfect sense.
If the legislature is listening, a CPL exemption would make perfect sense and perfect harmony with the stated goals of I-594 (although not in harmony with what I suspects are its true purposes).
Bingo!
Post by: JimmyHoffa on January 02, 2015, 12:01:16 PM
Post by: Fl0und3rz on January 02, 2015, 12:06:46 PM
I agree. I think it intentionally meant to be vague. The writers want people to be confused and 'err on the safe side', which means just avoid firearms and you won't break the law. A form of legislative social engineering.
The law-abiding tend to do that. Criminals? Well, by definition, they remain undeterred. "What's another misdemeanor?"
:bash: