WA I594 Injunction filed

[leadcounsel]

http://www.thegunmag.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/12/NWSSvFergie.pdf

Rally to be held on 15 January at the Capitol. Be there, responsibly dressed and, if armed, do so responsibly.

 

[bikemutt]

Here's the press release:


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) 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-

 

[ohbythebay]

Dang...

You beat me to it !!! Wahooo !!!

 

[JTHunter]

Good luck to them!

 

[Old Dog]

Not real excited about the injunction. Doesn't challenge the issue of requiring background checks for private sales, which was the impetus for the actual initiative. Nor is the state's collecting of "use tax" not challenged -- the state is cleverly making money by requiring all private sales to go through FFLs, which is ... bull excrement. Finally -- the fact that a state that formerly did NOT have formal registration of firearms now does ... the grounds under which I594 was challenged, alas, are not the chief issues for Joe Citizen (assuming someone checks in and provides a little clarity on some of the more ambiguous language of the law).

 

[bikemutt]

Not real excited about the injunction. Doesn't challenge the issue of requiring background checks for private sales, which was the impetus for the actual initiative. Nor is the state's collecting of "use tax" not challenged -- the state is cleverly making money by requiring all private sales to go through FFLs, which is ... bull excrement. Finally -- the fact that a state that formerly did NOT have formal registration of firearms now does ... the grounds under which I594 was challenged, alas, are not the chief issues for Joe Citizen (assuming someone checks in and provides a little clarity on some of the more ambiguous language of the law).

Old Dog, I believe SAF was never opposed to BG checks on private sales per se, they were primarily opposed to the expansion of handgun registration. They had even tried to strike a deal that included UBCs as long as handgun registration was repealed. Obviously the other side didn't have to negotiate much; they got both anyway with I-594.

There really is no point trying to challenge the UBC element of I-594 IMO, not when 60% of the voters who actually voted, voted for it.

With respect the State now having formal registration of firearms, nothing much has changed. The State has always had handgun registration, still does, never had long gun registration, still doesn't. The exception being what happens after a gun owner dies; I-594 does appear to require registration within 60 days.

As to the "use" tax versus "sales" tax issue, how's anyone going to challenge that? It's the law now and has always been the law. The fact that few, if any, pay the use tax is beside the point. Will the State now have a tool to more effectively collect use tax on private firearm sales? Sure, in the case of handguns because they will now be registered. Long guns? Not really, those aren't registered with the State. The State did nothing clever here; the architects of I-594 did.

When is use tax due?
Use tax is due if:

...
Goods are purchased from someone who is not authorized to collect sales tax. For example, purchases of furniture from an individual through a newspaper classified ad or a purchase of artwork from an individual collector....

http://dor.wa.gov/content/findtaxesandrates/usetax/

 

[Ryanxia]

Hopefully they get somewhere with it. Otherwise it's proof that outside money can be thrown at a state and convince its people that anything is good.

 

[CoalTrain49]

Old Dog, I believe SAF was never opposed to BG checks on private sales per se, they were primarily opposed to the expansion of handgun registration. They had even tried to strike a deal that included UBCs as long as handgun registration was repealed. Obviously the other side didn't have to negotiate much; they got both anyway with I-594.

There really is no point trying to challenge the UBC element of I-594 IMO, not when 60% of the voters who actually voted, voted for it.

Here is where the SAF stands on background checks.

http://www.thetruthaboutguns.com/20...ttleib-on-background-checks-lets-make-a-deal/

Alan Gottleib wanted to cut a deal with the gun control folk; he offered a national concealed carry reciprocity law in exchange for “expanded background checks.” Alan’s deal and the Manchin-Toomey bill failed.

So here we are almost a year later with a UBC in WA. We didn't get anything in return for it and neither will any other state that gets an initiative on their ballot. I believe OR and NV are next on the list.

It's obvious to me that anywhere these BC's pop up people are going to vote for them. In WA. they voted for them and didn't even read the initiative. Who's going to take the time to read an 18 page initiative? Most people won't even take the time to vote.

So I'm thinking the next time something like a UBC comes up in congress or a state legislature people better start thinking about what they might get in return for a UBC. We didn't get anything but more taxes, transfer fees, and more gun registration.

If we are going to get background checks shoved down our throats maybe the right to CC where we want with one CC license. Some of us actually have to travel for work or want to go south for the winter.

Our counter to a UBC should be nat'l reciprocity and no new registration, neither of which would effect a background check.

 

[OilyPablo]

leadcounsel - do I know you?

SAF. Doing what our NRA dollars aren't.

 

[Jim Watson]

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.

 

[Ryanxia]

Coaltrain - I-594 had millions of dollars poured in from outside sources, they won't do that for every state. It also took enough people to get it on the ballot by the people instead of letting it die in the state senate like several other states have done. I don't see this becoming the norm for all other states and I for one am done compromising.

 

[CoalTrain49]

I don't see this becoming the norm for all other states and I for one am done compromising.

I understand that. I didn't vote for I-594 because 1) I know that BC's don't work and 2) it led to more taxes and registration, two of the things that are high on my radar when I vote. But evidently I was in the minority as it passed anyway.

All that has to happen in any state is for a BC to get on a ballot and the millions will start rolling in from all over country. If the NRA isn't going to fund any counter ads, and they won't, it will be a rout just like it was in WA. It isn't hard to get a BC on an initiative. My wife even signed the I-594 initiative and she had an an informed opinion from me about exactly what it did. She didn't see anything wrong with a BC and didn't understand the actual effect or didn't care.

You could be right, but if we see the same thing happen in NV and OR I would say it's time to change our tactics.

 

[Ryanxia]

The NRA spent hundreds of thousands to stop I-594, but like you said, you were in the minority of voters. In the end it came down to a lot of money spent on misinformation to get the people to vote for it. (Which is why the Bill of Rights was created, to take subjects like keeping and bearing arms off the table for a debate in the first place).

 

[Tcruse]

UBC - Not OK

UBC is not something that we should agree to as long as the current NICS database is in use. The idea that non-elected officials can administratively change the denied list (e.g. ex-military and VA doctors ) is not acceptable. So, my take is that we have to re-examine the reasons for denial and come up with some simple and enforceable rules that allow for automatic appeal/review and removal of outdated information. Much as our "friend" Holder wants to do with the vote for ex-felons.
One approach would be anyone that can vote can own a gun.
Second approach would be that any individual that does not have a special relationship with police (e.g. police accepts responsibility to provide individual protection) should be allowed to own a gun.

Anyone with a better idea?

 

[OilyPablo]

NRA help against 594 was minimal at best. They even stated they would run TV commercials on the top 3 stations and never did. They spent maybe $250K, right?

But it's not necessarily the money - but those TV commercials could have easily one by one countered the absolute lies. This was a complete dropped ball by the NRA. I called them at least 10 times and sent a bunch of emails telling them this. I will add that the NRA directed lied to me on the subject. They said the local stations refuse to run any commercial from NRA. Not true.

I remain a Life NRA member, but this left a very sour taste in my mouth. Now the good news is the two local hired people, those gals are GREAT. The guys who covered the shows were pretty good as well.

 

[Ryanxia]

I understand your frustration Oilypablo, but if an organization spent a quarter of a million dollars helping me fight for MY Rights I wouldn't look back at them and complain it wasn't enough.

Remember, the NRA-ILA is what spends money on activism like this, it has nothing to do with your regular NRA membership dues. This money comes from a separate organization, and they get their money from people like me who donate every paycheck so they can help causes like defeating I-594. Unfortunately for all of us, it's not an endless pit of money.

Good luck on the injunction guys.

 

[silicosys4]

I understand your frustration Oilypablo, but if an organization spent a quarter of a million dollars helping me fight for MY Rights I wouldn't look back at them and complain it wasn't enough.

Remember, the NRA-ILA is what spends money on activism like this, it has nothing to do with your regular NRA membership dues. This money comes from a separate organization, and they get their money from people like me who donate every paycheck so they can help causes like defeating I-594. Unfortunately for all of us, it's not an endless pit of money.

Good luck on the injunction guys.

I guarantee you more than $250k in membership dues came out of Washington state last year.
NRA dropped the ball plain and simple, and pissed a bunch of Washington state residents off
I know If I'm going to spend money to belong to a pro-2a organization, I'm not going to look specifically to the NRA for support anymore.

 

[Ryanxia]

I guarantee you more than $250k in membership dues came out of Washington state last year.
NRA dropped the ball plain and simple, and pissed a bunch of Washington state residents off
I know If I'm going to spend money to belong to a pro-2a organization, I'm not going to look specifically to the NRA for support anymore.

Like my post said, they are two separate organizations. Unless you donated to the ILA separately from your NRA dues, you didn't contribute anything to the NRA-ILA.

 

[OilyPablo]

I don't hate on NRA or NRA-ILA, but they really were not there when push came to shove, late in getting people on the ground, too few signs, slow material distributions, no rebuttal then truth commercials, etc. The other side spent millions. I know we did NOT need to match dollar for dollar, but if the stupid time wasting 591 (NOT NRA's fault) had not been there and the NRA-ILA/SAF/ CCRKBA would have at least had some mid level agreement on cooperation, we would have had a chance to get the message out via some sharp TV commercials. The worst thing about this lack of strategy it left us vulnerable........because one of the messages should always be "anti-gunners ALWAYS come back asking for more when their lies don't work"

 

[silicosys4]

Like my post said, they are two separate organizations. Unless you donated to the ILA separately from your NRA dues, you didn't contribute anything to the NRA-ILA.

So my "membership" is really just a magazine subscription and permission to be spammed by an unending stream of "pro2a" literature?
I have to donate separately aside from my membership dues to a separate entity than the NRA to actually make a contribution towards the pro2a fight?

Which begs the question....what good is an NRA membership then? All I know is I WAS a member of an organization that touts their defense of 2a rights as a huge reason for joining but who then did practically nothing to prevent a huge loss of 2a rights from a significant portion of their membership, not to mention allowed the stage to be set for future transgressions.

Like I said, in the future the NRA is getting none of my money if they won't put it to use protecting the 2a rights like they say they will.
There are other organizations that are much more proactive about 2a rights in Washington stte right now. The NRA is false advertising and wasted money to me at this point.

 

[leadcounsel]

Not real excited about the injunction. Doesn't challenge the issue of requiring background checks for private sales, which was the impetus for the actual initiative. Nor is the state's collecting of "use tax" not challenged -- the state is cleverly making money by requiring all private sales to go through FFLs, which is ... bull excrement. Finally -- the fact that a state that formerly did NOT have formal registration of firearms now does ... the grounds under which I594 was challenged, alas, are not the chief issues for Joe Citizen (assuming someone checks in and provides a little clarity on some of the more ambiguous language of the law).

I felt the suit lacked attacks on the representation and manner in which it was sold to the public as dishonest - even in the brochure.

However, I didn't feel it lacked in attacks on background checks. It attacked the very essence of BG checks on 'transfers' that were not bona fide FFL sales. I don't recall the language, but onerous burden on personal property sales and transfers was referenced. Perhaps it could have been explored more, but it was in there.

Part of the key to drafting legal challenges is "less is more" and you have to narrow the argument to the best ones... and that's where judgement enters.

 

[barnbwt]

"So my "membership" is really just a magazine subscription and permission to be spammed by an unending stream of "pro2a" literature?"
The main organization does lots of lobbying, as opposed to legal system work. Different fronts (I agree that you probably get better bang for your buck with the ILA, though it is also important to grease palms of congressmen)

TCB

 

[2bfree]

This was the response from the NRA posted on another forum.

Thank you for contacting the NRA-ILA regarding Initiative 594 in Washington State.

The NRA strongly opposed I-594, a comprehensive and very well-funded attempt to restrict the rights of law-abiding gun owners in Washington State. While we were disappointed that a majority of Washington voters decided to vote in favor of I-594, NRA was very actively involved in defeating the measure:
NRA spent more than $500,000 on the campaign to defeat I-594.
NRA formed a separate political action committee (PAC) -- National Rifle Association of America Washingtonians Opposed to 594 -- to defeat I-594.
NRA launched a website --Vote No 594 -- specifically to defeat I-594.
NRA led the outreach effort to Washington law enforcement, garnering the support of 27 of the 39 County Sheriffs and virtually all rank-and-file law enforcement in opposition to I-594.
NRA released articles in our magazines and websites regarding I-594, and the cover story in the September issue of America's 1st Freedom was an article on I-594, which informed every member in the state of Washington about the initiative.
NRA included a "VOTE NO 594" flyer and bumper sticker in the October issue of NRA members' magazines that were sent to every member in the state of Washington.
NRA sent mailers and made phone calls to hundreds of thousands of targeted non-member voters in the state of Washington, asking them to "VOTE NO 594".
NRA bought billboard messages in key areas around the state.
NRA had an aggressive social media outreach effort.
NRA ran hundreds of thousands of dollars of targeted digital media advertising for several months (see videos here, here, and here).
In addition to the regular staff who coordinate our efforts in Washington State, the NRA hired two, full-time Campaign Field Representatives whose sole charge was to educate gun owners and Second Amendment supporters of the threat I-594 posed to their rights and to ensure they voted against the initiative.

Our field staff accomplished the following in support of our cause in Washington:
Signed up tens of thousands of supporters and encouraged them to vote against I-594
Distributed 60,000 flyers
Printed and disseminated 8,000 yard signs, 30,000 door hangers, 10,000 bumper stickers, buttons and other items
Knocked 18,000 doors
Made 7,000 phone calls
Attended hundreds of events
Conducted three Grassroots Workshops
Signed up nearly 900 new FrontLines™ Volunteers to help us in our campaign to defeat I-594
Recruited more than 20 new Second Amendment Activist Centers
More than doubled our number of Election Volunteer Coordinators
Please also bear in mind that, in our fight to defeat I-594, NRA faced unprecedented spending by a handful of billionaires and wealthy elitists, who gave the anti-gun lobby over $10 million to spend in support of I-594. And, while we were fighting in Washington State, we were simultaneously engaged in battles on multiple fronts, in all 50 states, requiring NRA resources to be spread over a vast political landscape.

NRA was fighting battles in both the U.S. Senate and the U.S. House of Representatives, in thousands of state legislative races, and in numerous gubernatorial and attorney general races. In the end, we were successful in achieving a number of very significant victories in elections all across the country, most notably electing a pro-gun U.S. Senate, which will pay dividends for gun owners nationwide (for more information on some of our victories, please click here).

Further, NRA was fully engaged in Washington state legislative races. We won virtually every critical race and will be aided by a philosophically supportive majority in Olympia.

Moving forward, NRA will continue to focus public awareness on the ineffectiveness of I-594 to stem violence or prevent determined criminals from getting guns. We will also expose gun control supporters’ attempts to transform the federal and state background check systems into registries of gun transfers and, ultimately, registries of gun possession.

Obviously, we are disappointed in the outcome of I-594 and are committed to doing everything we can to mitigate the damage caused to our members in Washington State. We are already in discussions about legislative remedies to the most onerous provisions. As always, we will continue to work in whatever arena is realistic – legislative, legal or political – to address the concerns of our members.

Respectfully,

Rocco P

NRA-ILA, Grassroots Division

 

[CoalTrain49]

The bottom line is the NRA can't match the billionaires throwing millions of dollars into these initiatives. They might as well sit it out and spend their money someplace where it will do some good like congressional campaigns. The problem with initiatives is the AG crowd can spend as much as they want to push one through. It's a little different with politicians in congress. You can buy votes there a lot cheaper than you can counter an initiative. The half mil that the NRA spent in WA could have funded several election campaigns. Don't look to the NRA to counter any more of these initiatives because it's money that could be better used in other places. I wouldn't blame the NRA if they didn't spend another dime on an state initiative.

The key to this is getting state legislators to gut these initiatives or like the SAF, try to get some judicial relief if they pass. The NRA is focused on national politics and for the most part does a pretty good job. When you get down to local politics, which an initiative is, they can't really afford to spend a lot of money in one state. The NRA knows how to influence the national legislative process but so far has not demonstrated a desire to play hard ball at the state level.

Lets lighten up on the NRA. They do what they know how to do. I-594 has passed and all we can do now is petition the courts and our legislators to gut it. I think the SAF will prevail and I support them. I also support the NRA because without them we would be in serious trouble.

 

[OilyPablo]

I got the same form response. Posting it here, now actually angers me a bit.

Most of that stuff is puffery. Sorry, but the phone calls for example were by us. PAC, launched a website, released a few articles......made no difference. "aggressive social media outreach effort" - what does that even mean???

No commercials!!!!!!!!!!! WE NEEDED TV COMMERCIALS.