SAF sues to derail Washington State gun control initiative 594

Full article here.

The Second Amendment Foundation has filed a federal lawsuit in U.S. District Court in Tacoma, Wash., that challenges the constitutionality of portions of Initiative 594, the billionaire-backed 18-page gun control measure passed by voters Nov. 4 that could be the most important election issue of 2014.

“The broad and poorly constructed restrictions in I-594 render the enactment unconstitutional,” the lawsuit contends. So far, the complaint notes, the plaintiffs are not aware of any arrests, citations or prosecutions since the law took effect.

At the Olympia demonstration, hundreds of gun-toting activists either participated or watched as unloaded firearms were swapped back and forth under the eyes of onlooking State Patrol troopers.

“Shortly after I-594 passed,” the complaint says, “the Washington State Patrol, through its spokesman Bob Calkins, announced that the agency was not planning any arrests or citations of individuals planning to protest the passage of I-594 by trading firearms amongst themselves without subjecting the changes in possession to background checks.” Calkins at the time said, “We don’t think that we could prove that that’s a transfer.”


18 thoughts on “SAF sues to derail Washington State gun control initiative 594

    • I’m not convinced the court will uphold it. And if they do we will appeal the decision. And there is also the Washington State Court system. The Washington State constitution has a RKBA clause even stronger than the U.S. constitutions.

      • Hell even if the Judge picks partisan politics over his oath, this case is so solid an appeal would probably go well.

        Also given that Bloomberg wants to take his anti-freedom show in the road, a national ruling will nip that shit in the bud.

  1. Then we know a few more names for the list of people who spit on the Constitution and perjure their oath of office.

  2. “We don’t think that we could prove that that’s a transfer,” said Bob Calkins.
    But then, he’s a cop and not an ambitious District Attorney or a left-leaning activist Judge, so his opinion counts as much as mine in California does.

  3. Pingback: SayUncle » In WA

  4. One needn’t prove an illegal transfer occurred to infringe the right, to chill the exercise of the right.

    One need only arrest a suspect who maybe did an illegal transfer, and subject them to the process of incarceration, bail, legal fees, maybe even a trial if the charges aren’t dismissed. Many people will avoid that possibility, as it is inconvenient, expensive ruinous of reputation and potentially time consuming on the scale of years.

    Conviction would simply be the icing on that particular cake.

    The existence of the law chills the exercise of a right. Get rid of the law on that basis alone.

  5. Gottlieb’s ally and associate Dave Workman posted this today on the I-594 lawsuit:

    The really telling quote by Gottlieb:
    “We’re not trying to stop background checks,” Gottlieb said in his press release.

    In his support for Manchin-Toomey, he made a point of stating his support for universal checks. His position is truly clear & consistent at this point.

    Put not your faith in Judenräte.

    I became a life member of SAF and donated hundreds of $$$ to them due to Heller. It was a serious mistake on my part.

    • I’ve spent quite a bit of time talking to Alan one-on-one. Philosophically he is opposed to background checks. But publically advocating for their elimination would be just as poisonous for SAF as it would for Bloomberg and gang to say they want to ban all guns while pushing universal background check legislation.

      • “Philosophically he is opposed to background checks.”

        If that is truly his view then he should really STFU and stop saying he supports them or finds them inevitable. Every time he brings it up he allienates potential and actual supporters and gives ammunition to the antis. There are a LOT of gunnies that view his I-591 as a deliberate attempt to sabotage an effective defense against I-594 rather than just egotistical asshattery. Although at this point I think either could be true.

        • Exactly. This is why a number of JPFO supporters freaked out when JPFO was sold to him.

          • And that’s what rubs me wrong. I’d like to give Alan the benefit of the doubt, and believe his objective is different that what he says. But after Toomy-Manchin, and the effort to trade the background check for the pistol registry, added to his public statements on this lawsuit, he really makes me wonder what his objectives are.

            If SAF drops the suit in exchange for clarity in the language, I’m not sure if we have won much. We wouls still be stuck with the NICS check, the time, and the fees. If it’s a worthy action, it should go to trial.

  6. On its face this “initiative” passed by a simple majority is un-Constitutional. If I got an initiative passed that demanded background checks to exercise your First Amendment rights as a blogger or web poster, or to practice a religion it would be a clear and intolerable infringement. So, of course it is a bad law and should be struck down, but alas, we tolerate a lot of “horse dung” when it relates to our firearms.

  7. I’m a little puzzled. Alan seems to only want to use the suit as a bludgeon on the legislature, instead of simply striking down 594 in total. Why not just let it go to trial? If the suit is viable, why trade away the background checks in trade for clarity on many of the ‘what if’ scenarios being eliminated? Or is there a difference between what he is saying, and what he is thinking?

    • I’m not sure how you arrived at the conclusion that he only wants to “use the suit as a bludgeon on the legislature”. Could you elaborate on that? Did I miss something someplace?

      • Because Alan himself said so.

        “We’re not trying to stop background checks,”

        “Gottlieb said that the goal of the lawsuit is not to stop background checks, but to change the language surrounding the transfers. He said that by filing the lawsuit before the legislative session begins in January, he hoped lawmakers would take note.”

        “If the lawmakers were to amend 594 to take out the problems, it would render our suit moot and we’d be happy,” he said.

        • I had not seen that. I’m annoyed too.

          The only way I could defend this approach is that there is another lawsuit in the works that stands a better chance of getting rid of registration and background checks entirely.

          Such a lawsuit may be in the works. But I’m not in a position know about pending actions such as that. And if I were I wouldn’t be allowed to comment publically on it until it was general public knowledge.

          • I want to give him the benefit of the doubt, but his public statements are a constant source of anxiety and more doubt. He may be speaking this way for tactical purposes, but his past actions don’t give that idea much weight.

            I don’t know anymore whether to take him at his word, or remind him that when he’s speaking to one audience, the other is also listening.

            Worse yet, a lot of pro gun folks are signing onto what appears to be Alan’s objective of preserving the check, and narrowing the definition of a transfer. That’s very alarming.

Comments are closed.