Quantcast

WA State: Federal Judge Dismisses Challenge to I-594

Discussion in 'Legal' started by Dain Bramage, May 9, 2015.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. Dain Bramage

    Dain Bramage Member

    Joined:
    Jan 2, 2003
    Messages:
    1,303
    Location:
    Arlington, WA
    SAF and Allan Gottlieb decided to challenge provisions of Washingtons universal background check Initiative 594 through the federal courts. Yesterday, the judge threw out the case based on a lack of standing.

    WA state has avoided arrests even when activists broke the transfer portion of the law during protests. So we are at a standoff. If anyone gets charged under the law, they get "standing" in federal court.

    Meanwhile, Gottlieb is appealing the decision.

    Link to local CBS news story
     
  2. CoalTrain49

    CoalTrain49 Member

    Joined:
    Jan 10, 2014
    Messages:
    3,735
    Location:
    Somewhere in WA.
    I think this one will have to get worked out when someone gets charged. How do you defend yourself if there is no legal precedent and not one single case has been to court. Lets see if any elected prosecutor has the cahones to prosecute something like this. My guess there won't be very many.

    Good luck whoever the guinea pig is.
     
  3. bikemutt

    bikemutt Member

    Joined:
    Dec 24, 2010
    Messages:
    4,459
    Location:
    Vancouver, WA
    I think a more productive approach may be to have WA exempt CPL holders from the NICS BG check. I believe it's already been approved by ATF, just not implemented.
     
  4. ConstitutionCowboy

    ConstitutionCowboy member

    Joined:
    Mar 15, 2006
    Messages:
    3,230
    Location:
    Oklahoma
    Standing

    That federal judge should throw the case out. HIS COURT is not in a position to accept such a case because it involves a state. The Supreme Court has original jurisdiction in such matters. (Article III, Section 2, Clause 2.)

    Woody
     
  5. KyJim

    KyJim Member

    Joined:
    Jan 20, 2007
    Messages:
    424
    Location:
    Kentucky
    The Supreme Court's original jurisdiction relates to suit between states, not individuals or organizations suing a state. For example, suits between the states over boundary line disputes caused by a change in the flow of the Ohio River.
     
  6. dwh4784

    dwh4784 Member

    Joined:
    Feb 8, 2012
    Messages:
    23
    Location:
    Spokane, WA
    It will be nice if they ever actually do some clarification on "transfers". From the article;
    That's great and all, but my interpretation is that it is still a crime to share shotguns between friends out on your own property while shooting clay pigeons. Or any number of other common occurrences between responsible casual shooters. Sure, they can say they won't "consider" it illegal and point out that nobody has been arrested/prosecuted for it. The law has specified exemptions, and that isn't one of them. Telling us not to worry about it and that it will take someone actually getting in trouble for it before they'll clear up the language is crazy.
     
  7. JSH1

    JSH1 Member

    Joined:
    Jun 12, 2013
    Messages:
    1,733
    Location:
    PDX
    My personal opinion is that first case will be when a gun shows up at a crime scene that was originally sold after law went into effect. It is only a matter of time.
     
  8. RetiredUSNChief

    RetiredUSNChief Member

    Joined:
    Jul 9, 2012
    Messages:
    7,779
    Location:
    SC (Home), VA (Work)
    They won't ever come to a clarification on transfers UNLESS they actually make an arrest and press charges based on an illegal transfer per the I-594 law.

    The easiest way to avoid any serious challenge to this law, now that it's in place, is to avoid just this sort of issue.

    I rather suspect that any actual charges of an illegal transfer under I-594 will be as additional charges to more serious ones. This makes challenging the law by someone extremely difficult. What an attorney really needs to challenge the law is someone who is an otherwise upstanding citizen (at least no criminal history) whose only criminal involvement has to do with I-594 issues.

    You won't see many attorneys trying to battle something like I-594 by using hardened criminal cases.
     
  9. Jackal

    Jackal Member

    Joined:
    Mar 9, 2006
    Messages:
    4,876
    Location:
    Northwest Washington
    I for one have seen many, many guns sold private party at flea markets/garage sales/face to face transfers post I594. People are ignorant of the "law" and about 90% of the ones that arent ignorant ignore it entirely. I've never seen a "law" so widely ignored. No one in the courts wants to deal with it either. Heck, the Attorney General doesnt want to touch on it...
     
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
    By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.
    Dismiss Notice