Post by: slavenoid on February 02, 2019, 12:44:41 PM
Initiative 1639, which was passed by a vote of the people, makes significant changes to the firearm laws of the State of Washington. The initiative is being challenged in court. The Clark County Sheriff’s Office will evaluate the statutory requirements of initiative 1639 and will adopt policy consistent with state law and any subsequent judicial rulings. The Clark County Sheriff's Office will adhere to the law as passed by a vote of the people unless a court rules that it is unconstitutional.
Post by: Jason on February 02, 2019, 03:14:23 PM
Post by: 3dvapor on February 02, 2019, 04:16:08 PM
Post by: Knocker of rocks on February 02, 2019, 04:46:54 PM
Post by: Lucky1 on February 02, 2019, 05:39:45 PM
Remember the outrage on this board when the police refuse to enforce laws on drugs, immigration status without probable cause and homelessness, among other examples. If the police were in the wrong then for not following state law, why are they wrong now for following state law?When the people vote in a unconstitutional law. I believe that it is unconstitutional to inforce it.
Post by: Knocker of rocks on February 02, 2019, 05:46:51 PM
Remember the outrage on this board when the police refuse to enforce laws on drugs, immigration status without probable cause and homelessness, among other examples. If the police were in the wrong then for not following state law, why are they wrong now for following state law?When the people vote in a unconstitutional law. I believe that it is unconstitutional to inforce it.
Who said it was unconstitutional? Court challenges to that effect are nowhere to be seen. Now that it has been law for a month there has been time to get this to court.
Post by: HntnFsh on February 02, 2019, 06:09:05 PM
Remember the outrage on this board when the police refuse to enforce laws on drugs, immigration status without probable cause and homelessness, among other examples. If the police were in the wrong then for not following state law, why are they wrong now for following state law?When the people vote in a unconstitutional law. I believe that it is unconstitutional to inforce it.
Who said it was unconstitutional? Court challenges to that effect are nowhere to be seen. Now that it has been law for a month there has been time to get this to court.
I don't think there has been time t get it to court. I may be wrong but doesn't somebody have to be charged with an I1639 crime before it can be challenged?
Post by: Knocker of rocks on February 02, 2019, 06:29:06 PM
I don't think there has been time t get it to court. I may be wrong but doesn't somebody have to be charged with an I1639 crime before it can be challenged?
I think that is the most common avenue, but I think there are other ways too, including the feds. I am really shocked nothing has been done yet. One thing that strikes me is that the initiative deals with too many subjects, the same problem that Tim Eyeman’s initiatives fail at. This could also be explained away by I-1693 hiring better (or even any) lawyers to help write the initiative. Unlike Eyeman, the backers of I 1639 wanted their initiative to pass legal scrutiny, where as Eyeman has a vested interest in his iniatives failing in court and he can run the same thing out year after year and pad his pockets.
Post by: Lucky1 on February 02, 2019, 06:31:18 PM
I believe it is being challenged in the courts. I will try to find a link.Remember the outrage on this board when the police refuse to enforce laws on drugs, immigration status without probable cause and homelessness, among other examples. If the police were in the wrong then for not following state law, why are they wrong now for following state law?When the people vote in a unconstitutional law. I believe that it is unconstitutional to inforce it.
Who said it was unconstitutional? Court challenges to that effect are nowhere to be seen. Now that it has been law for a month there has been time to get this to court.
I don't think there has been time t get it to court. I may be wrong but doesn't somebody have to be charged with an I1639 crime before it can be challenged?
The part of the law that has already kicked in violates the rights of 18 to 21 year old people to purchase firearms. I think that is in litigation.
I believe the ballot initiative itself did not meet the requirements of the laws that regulate the initiative process, but a liberal judge let it go on the ballot anyway. If it had been a initiative that Tim Eyman had brought to try to put the brakes on our tax and spend legislative body, I believe it would have been thrown out. :twocents:
:bash:
Post by: 700xcr on February 02, 2019, 06:36:33 PM
Remember the outrage on this board when the police refuse to enforce laws on drugs, immigration status without probable cause and homelessness, among other examples. If the police were in the wrong then for not following state law, why are they wrong now for following state law?Like Spokane County Sheriff said How can they enforce it? Like the gun storage?
https://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/fourth_amendment
Post by: slavenoid on February 02, 2019, 08:24:25 PM
Post by: Lucky1 on February 02, 2019, 08:31:56 PM
https://www.seattletimes.com/seattle-news/politics/gun-rights-advocates-file-lawsuit-to-block-i-1639-the-gun-regulations-measure-approved-by-washington-voters/
Post by: Knocker of rocks on February 02, 2019, 08:46:11 PM
Post by: Lucky1 on February 02, 2019, 08:59:02 PM
If you have a judge with a agenda they seem to be able to speed things along, or slow them down.
Post by: Mongo Hunter on February 21, 2019, 01:29:24 PM
Statement on I-1639
The Clark County Sheriff's Office will adhere to the law as passed by a vote of the people unless a court rules that it is unconstitutional.
It is unconstitutional you TWIT! do you wait for the court to approve you to wipe your butt too?
Post by: KFhunter on February 21, 2019, 02:51:01 PM
I believe it is being challenged in the courts. I will try to find a link.Remember the outrage on this board when the police refuse to enforce laws on drugs, immigration status without probable cause and homelessness, among other examples. If the police were in the wrong then for not following state law, why are they wrong now for following state law?When the people vote in a unconstitutional law. I believe that it is unconstitutional to inforce it.
Who said it was unconstitutional? Court challenges to that effect are nowhere to be seen. Now that it has been law for a month there has been time to get this to court.
I don't think there has been time t get it to court. I may be wrong but doesn't somebody have to be charged with an I1639 crime before it can be challenged?
The part of the law that has already kicked in violates the rights of 18 to 21 year old people to purchase firearms. I think that is in litigation.
I believe the ballot initiative itself did not meet the requirements of the laws that regulate the initiative process, but a liberal judge let it go on the ballot anyway. If it had been a initiative that Tim Eyman had brought to try to put the brakes on our tax and spend legislative body, I believe it would have been thrown out. :twocents:
:bash:
:yeah:
It never should have made it on the ballot to begin with and therein lies the problem. If the initiative screening process is broken (injunctions, lawsuits etc) then literally anything could be put to the voters, and if its a FOTM issue..... it'll pass! 'cause people are st000pid!
Post by: Stein on February 21, 2019, 04:49:43 PM
I'm not sure you really want some committee in Olympia deciding what initiatives should be on the ballot. The process is designed so the people can work around them and letting them control that spigot would defeat the whole process.
Post by: 700xcr on February 21, 2019, 05:24:17 PM
Post by: Stein on February 21, 2019, 06:07:53 PM
Actually we need an electoral votes. That way all counties are accounted for all votes. Not just one or two counties getting the majority of votes on these initiatives initiative.
Every registered voter gets one vote. I don't like the outcome, but that is what the majority of people in the state wanted. It's also why I am looking at moving to another state.