SAF I-594 Appeal Filed

[rcarter]

SAF FILES NOTICE OF APPEAL IN CHALLENGE TO WASHINGTON GUN CONTROL LAW
5 Jun 2015 | News & Releases

Tags: 594 · I-594 · Initiative 594

BELLEVUE, WA – The Second Amendment Foundation today filed notice of appeal in their challenge of Initiative 594, in which a district court judge in Tacoma dismissed without prejudice last month on the grounds that SAF and its co-plaintiffs lack standing because none of them have so far been criminally cited or prosecuted under the new law.

The request for review of that ruling, by federal District Judge Benjamin H. Settle, is being made to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals in San Francisco.

SAF is joined in its lawsuit by the Northwest School of Safety, Puget Sound Security, Inc., the Pacific Northwest Association of Investigators, Inc., Firearms Academy of Seattle, Inc., Darryl Lee, Xee Del Real, Joe Waldron, Gene Hoffman, Andrew Gottlieb, Alan Gottlieb and the Gottlieb Family Revocable Living Trust. The lawsuit challenges the constitutionality of several tenets of the 18-page gun control measure, passed by voters in November.

“We believe an appeal will result in the case being remanded for full hearing because there are serious issues at stake,” said SAF founder and Executive Vice President Alan Gottlieb. “Citizens should not have to actually be criminally prosecuted in order to challenge the constitutionality of a poorly-written law.”

Gottlieb noted that his legal team has been joined by California-based attorney Donald E.J. Kilmer, Jr., who has considerable experience before the Ninth Circuit. He has already been fully briefed on the background by SAF’s team, including Seattle attorneys Steven W. Fogg and David B. Edwards with Corr Cronin Michelson Baumgardner Fogg & Moore LLP, and Bellevue attorney Miko Tempski.

“We’ve worked with Don in the past,” Gottlieb said, “and we’re delighted to have him on board for this next step in the process. His experience at the Ninth Circuit will be invaluable.”

 

[tyeo098]

Wasn't this voted in by the population though?
If the sheep vote to be slaughtered, who are you to stop them?

 

[Lord Teapot]

Wasn't this voted in by the population though?
If the sheep vote to be slaughtered, who are you to stop them?

the problem is the sheep vote for YOU to be disarmed with them.

 

[JTHunter]

Lord Teapot said:

The problem is the sheep vote for YOU to be disarmed with them.

As long a you aren't a "prohibited person", nobody has the right to tell you what you can own, any more than they can tell you where to live or what to eat.

I know - they are trying to do just that now but that still doesn't make it "constitutional".

 

[Midwest]

The fine citizens of Washington State were sold down the river with I-594 by big money from out of state 'interests'. The citizens were misled into believing that it was just about a simple question on the ballot about universal background checks when in fact it turned out to be much more....18 pages of anti-gun legislation allegedly written by out of state interests.

Good luck guys, I wish you the best of luck. We have to stop UBC from spreading like a cancer to other states. If you guys can get I-594 repealed, overturned or declared unconstitutional. It could send a strong message to others attempting this in other states.
.

 

[pdsmith505]

Wasn't this voted in by the population though?
If the sheep vote to be slaughtered, who are you to stop them?

This is why we live in a Constitutional Republic. So that the masses don't have the authority to violate the rights of the individual.

In theory, works great. In practice, well, you know the story.

 

[bikemutt]

The initiative process in WA is somewhat like mob rule. It rubs both ways; I recall being thrilled when the $30 car tab one passed years ago, WA had out of control vehicle licensing fees. I-594, not so much thrilled

 

[txblackout]

The fine citizens of Washington State were sold down the river with I-594 by big money from out of state 'interests'. The citizens were misled into believing that it was just about a simple question on the ballot about universal background checks when in fact it turned out to be much more....18 pages of anti-gun legislation allegedly written by out of state interests.

Good luck guys, I wish you the best of luck. We have to stop UBC from spreading like a cancer to other states. If you guys can get I-594 repealed, overturned or declared unconstitutional. It could send a strong message to others attempting this in other states.

Could you be more explicit? I read the text and it seems to be about universal background checks. Things like in house transfers dont need it, person to person transactions dont require sales tax collection, person to person transactions do need a background check.

 

[Midwest]

Could you be more explicit? I read the text and it seems to be about universal background checks. Things like in house transfers dont need it, person to person transactions dont require sales tax collection, person to person transactions do need a background check.

Here are several points on I-594 taken from a THR page

http://www.thehighroad.org/archive/index.php/t-769725.html



"I 594 has also made the 03 C&R an utterly useless license. Even if you have a C&R, you still need a background check to buy an eligible firearm now....

Black powder guns now need a background check.

594 redefined what an "antique" firearm is.

"Antique firearm" means a firearm or replica of a firearm not
designed or redesigned for using rim fire or conventional center fire
ignition
with fixed ammunition and manufactured in or before 1898,
including
any matchlock, flintlock, percussion cap,
or similar type
of
ignition
system and also any firearm using fixed ammunition
manufactured
in or before 1898, for which ammunition is no longer
manufactured in the United States and is not readily available in the
ordinary channels of commercial trade

594 also redefined what a "gun" is... Any internal combustion engine is now a gun, if you use the literal definition from the Initiative."

---

"The exemption for shooting at a range is only valid at a "state recognized range." So if my friends and I want to go shooting somewhere other than a designated range, (like the 20 acres one friend has) we cannot shoot or handle each other's firearms... "

---

" Before 594 yes there was no waiting period with your CPL and a 5 day wait without. After 594 they left the CPL no wait the same but changed the wait to 10 days without."
(The wait to buy a firearm went from 5 days to TEN days without a CPL. We just saw an example of a lady who was murdered in her driveway in NJ while waiting for permission to exercise her second amendment right. Now someone with need a means to defend themselves will have to wait even longer with I-594...if they don't have a CPL )


---



"The most onerous part of the new law is the broad definition of "change of possession" as a registerable "transfer."


---

"The antis will steamroller private sale background checks and temporary loans as "transfers" through the voter initiative process everywhere it is available.
Legislators can be lobbied, but voters will swallow propaganda without checking the actual provisions."


---

How the law was worded on the ballot versus when it really means.

http://www.thehighroad.org/archive/index.php/t-723341.html


"Especially when the question asked on the ballot barely represents the proposed law

This is what my ballot said:

-------------------------------------

This measure would apply currently used criminal and public safety background checks by licensed dealers to all firearm sales and transfers, including gun show and online sales, with specific exceptions.

Should this measure be enacted into law?
[ ] Yes
[ ] No

-------------------------------------

Doesn't mention anything about registration, increased waiting periods, etc, that are included in 594. Possibly the worst case of bait-and-switch I've ever seen. If this passes I will seriously consider moving to another state..."


---

Why was Bloomberg involved with I-594? He doesn't live in Washington State! WHY did he contribute another $285,000 to I-594?



http://www.examiner.com/article/will-michael-bloomberg-s-gun-control-agenda-become-law-of-the-land


"Yesterday’s Publicola revelation that anti-gun billionaire Michael Bloomberg has personally contributed another $285,000 to pass Initiative 594 in Washington state suggests that the former New York mayor will stop at nothing to push his brand of restrictive gun control into law across the country, worried activists suggest. "
.

 

[steelerdude99]

Here are several points on I-594 taken from a THR page

http://www.thehighroad.org/archive/index.php/t-769725.html

...
594 also redefined what a "gun" is... Any internal combustion engine is now a gun, if you use the literal definition from the Initiative."[/I]

... and many more great points about the negative effects of I-594.

Midwest, I saw your post and commend you with your great response to the uninformed view that "I-594 is just in favor background checks, what's the matter with that?" You even touched on a few points that I forgot about in the I-594 SCAM. I am calling it a SCAM as the facts were misrepresented in order to get voters to take the ill-advised action of voting YES on the this terrible initiative. Politicians can even claim the voters enacted it; not them.

I even saw a few "facebook headlines" leading up to the 594 vote day where some narrow-mined FFLs did not oppose I-594 as it would increase business. Indeed, a short sighted point of view.

I am going to conclude with this, Home Depot will need an FFL on staff (sarcasm intended): http://www.guns.com/2014/12/02/questions-raised-on-further-unintended-consequences-of-i-594/ It's titled "Does Washington’s I-594 measure cover nail guns?".

chuck