I-594 isn't the end of it, either. Sandy Brown, President of the Center for Gun Responsibility, had this to say:
From Rep. Ruth Kagi:
The Big Washington I-594 Thread: Direct all questions and concerns here
- Thread starter JimDandy
- Start date
I was at the Spokane gun show last weekend, and there was a PA announcement about 594, and how,if it passed, they would be working with the Spokane Sheriff for guidance (once the Sheriff gets his marching orders), and they would then tell us how things would work.
Promised the rest of the shows this year would be held as usual.
Now I'm wondering how long we have to wait before the law here says we cannot buy a Big Gulp....
Promised the rest of the shows this year would be held as usual.
Now I'm wondering how long we have to wait before the law here says we cannot buy a Big Gulp....
2ndsojourn
New member
"...more gun-safety laws."
Don't you love it when they advance their agenda with the safety smokescreen when it has nothing to do with safety.
Don't you love it when they advance their agenda with the safety smokescreen when it has nothing to do with safety.
I am no expert, but in order to take legal action to attempt to invalidate a law, don't you have to show a court that the law has harmed you? If so, how would you do that other than getting yourself arrested for something like a transfer to a friend without going through an FFL? Could you claim that the expense and delay of going through an FFL is itself harmful? That would be a stretch, since we already go through an FFL for plenty of transactions.
What you're talking about sounds like "standing"
Let's say there's a 51'st state admitted to the Union called Rainbows and Unicorn Land. They require a FOID style permit to even touch a firearm. They won't issue these cards to non-residents. Any non-resident who plans to go there - and I'm not sure but I think that's an important part of it but not sure - is harmed by the prohibition on 2A rights before they even get on the plane. They have at least two rights involved here-
They want to travel to another State in the Union (How they travel may not be a right, but traveling there however they do is a right)
They want to exercise their second amendment rights while there.
I'm no legal expert either, but as I understand it you generally can't be forced to trade one right (2A) for another (Travel). Being forced to choose between them is the harm., whether you are arrested or not.
I think that's the basics, or at least close to them, but if not I suspect Frank, Spats, or another of the real lawyers will come in and correct/expand on that.
Let's say there's a 51'st state admitted to the Union called Rainbows and Unicorn Land. They require a FOID style permit to even touch a firearm. They won't issue these cards to non-residents. Any non-resident who plans to go there - and I'm not sure but I think that's an important part of it but not sure - is harmed by the prohibition on 2A rights before they even get on the plane. They have at least two rights involved here-
They want to travel to another State in the Union (How they travel may not be a right, but traveling there however they do is a right)
They want to exercise their second amendment rights while there.
I'm no legal expert either, but as I understand it you generally can't be forced to trade one right (2A) for another (Travel). Being forced to choose between them is the harm., whether you are arrested or not.
I think that's the basics, or at least close to them, but if not I suspect Frank, Spats, or another of the real lawyers will come in and correct/expand on that.
Spats McGee
Administrator
If you want to know more about standing, go find Lujan v. Defenders of Wildlife. (Not sure about the second half of the name, but "Lujan" should be right.)
First, now that it's passed, does anyone know when it actually goes live?
Edit Nevermind, looks like all initiatives take effect 30 days after the election, unless they state otherwise.
What do the lawyers in here think of this exemption:
Specifically, limiting it to bona fide gift. For me, that's one of the biggest individual problems with the initiative. The fact that Grandpa can give little Johnny a rifle (almost anywhere), but can't let him JUST handle it(almost anywhere)?
I can't come up with any scenario where the government's interests are served by banning a temporary transfer, but not a permanent one between the same two people. Is there a scenario I'm failing to consider? How would they defend/explain why they're worried about Grandpa showing Johnny how to hold it, but not Grandpa giving it to him for his birthday.
Edit Nevermind, looks like all initiatives take effect 30 days after the election, unless they state otherwise.
What do the lawyers in here think of this exemption:
Specifically, limiting it to bona fide gift. For me, that's one of the biggest individual problems with the initiative. The fact that Grandpa can give little Johnny a rifle (almost anywhere), but can't let him JUST handle it(almost anywhere)?
I can't come up with any scenario where the government's interests are served by banning a temporary transfer, but not a permanent one between the same two people. Is there a scenario I'm failing to consider? How would they defend/explain why they're worried about Grandpa showing Johnny how to hold it, but not Grandpa giving it to him for his birthday.
carguychris
New member
I think that the same logic applies to the exemption for temporary transfers that applies "while hunting" but NOT at the lodge. What government interest is possibly served by allowing John to handle Kate's new rifle while afield, but not while they're relaxing after dinner?JimDandy said:
There will be claims that the interest is public safety. That'll be the argument they'll use to defend against a court challenge.
In reality, the only interest is in curtailing gun ownership.
Bloomberg's spokespeople are claiming that state ballot referendums are the way to go. I'm hearing rumors that Nevada is the next target state for this.
This is just positively disgusting. I don't even live in WA, and this whole ordeal makes me want to just vomit.
I really hope this "law" can be challenged and modified at the very least. A few friends of mine said the NRA was virtually silent the entire time Bloomberg and crew were dumping funds into the advertising propaganda campaign.
Makes me wonder what in the world they were doing, since this as such a high profile law, it should have been right up their on the radar.
I really hope this "law" can be challenged and modified at the very least. A few friends of mine said the NRA was virtually silent the entire time Bloomberg and crew were dumping funds into the advertising propaganda campaign.
Makes me wonder what in the world they were doing, since this as such a high profile law, it should have been right up their on the radar.
RampantAndroid
New member
While I agree this is in part due to gun owners, it's also the fact that the 594 people had ads plastered on TV 24/7.
Someone over on AR15.com contacted the NRA-ILA and was told they didn't want to compete with the 10mil dumped into 594 and would rather challenge it in court.
Someone over on AR15.com contacted the NRA-ILA and was told they didn't want to compete with the 10mil dumped into 594 and would rather challenge it in court.
Yep, and most of those ads promised a bill that would keep guns away from the mentally ill and stop school shootings, all with minimal imposition on the RKBA.
The reality is far worse. Washington Arms Collectors has a rundown on the bill here. Dozens, if not hundreds, of people are going to find themselves in serious legal trouble in the first year.
Hopefully that's the case. If so, they'll be able to make a big impact with less expenditure. I'd like to know what grounds they'll be suing on.
Hi Steve 4102: I live in Washington state, and if NRA dumped money into this fight, I did not see a dime's worth. I read the papers, watch broadcast TV, and drive around on a regular bases. NRA was not on regular TV. They had no advertizing that I saw; not in the papers, not on billboards, nothing that I saw anywhere. If they spent money here, they were grossly unintelligent about it.
cjwils said:
Just because the NRA Logo was not plastered all over hell does not mean they were not there. Before you go bitching about the NRA and how they do or do not spend their money, check out their web site for updates.
https://www.pdc.wa.gov/rptimg/default.aspx?batchnumber=100607498
http://blogs.seattletimes.com/polit...aising-disclosures-on-time-in-i-594-campaign/
Might want to tell all your friends that stayed home on election day that , Hey, the NRA was there, where were you.
In order to get out the vote, the public must be able to see and hear something, but there was nothing to see and hear from NRA. At least not in the most populous part of the state, and not on the state's biggest media. NRA's money bought nothing that mattered as far as I could tell. I stand by what I said above. I am not trying to argue with Steve4102. I am simply stating the obvious.
RampantAndroid
New member
I live on the East side; all I ever saw were NO 594/YES 591 signs. Not a peep on TV...
While I hope the NRA helps defeat it, the bigger problem is that 594 will snowball now into other states. Stopping it here MAY have stopped any momentum Bloomberg had along the initiative lines. Or at least slowed him some. Instead, it passed 60/40 and will now go infect other states.
Tom Servo said:
While I hope the NRA helps defeat it, the bigger problem is that 594 will snowball now into other states. Stopping it here MAY have stopped any momentum Bloomberg had along the initiative lines. Or at least slowed him some. Instead, it passed 60/40 and will now go infect other states.
That money doesn't appear out of thin air. It comes from direct donations, and it's not unlimited.
The plain fact is, Steve Ballmer, Bill Gates, and of course, Michael Bloomberg poured millions of dollars into I-594. They had more money, and that was their sole focus.
On the other hand, the ILA has a smaller budget, and they were spread thin with Senate and Governor's races across the country.