It looks like #I1639 will pass

At 8:30 PM with 63.45% of the precincts reporting I-1639 is passing 60.69% to 39.31%. Unless eastern Washington hasn’t sent in any results yet and they voted something like 90% against it means the next step is to take it to court.

The last time I talked to someone in the office of the Second Amendment Foundation they expected to win in court but I’m not quite as confident as they appeared to be.


24 thoughts on “It looks like #I1639 will pass

  1. It’s probably not a bad idea to speak with our local sheriffs and police and see where they stand on that obscure notion of upholding the constitution, i.e. whether they intend to enforce this initiative.

    Back in the 1990s, Washington’s I676 was voted down something like 69/31. Have the People really changed that much, from a blow-out against gun restrictions to a blow-out in favor, in only 20 years? If that’s true, what does it portend for the next twenty?

    Sure, I gave money to the cause, but something tells me that money cannot buy principles, resolve, courage or intelligence, and I’m thoroughly convinced that it cannot buy faith, yet we need all of those things in plenty or we will surely fall.

  2. I think the court fight will be a two-pronged approach. First the procedural errors – the screwed up signature collecting and the fact that initiatives are only to address a single action, not safe storage + training + waiting periods ++++++. The second prong would be the multiple violations of the WA constitution and HIPAA.

    • The “HIPAA waiver” thing won’t fly for a second. HIPAA is federal law imposing requirements on health care providers. The statement in the initiative that a signed CPL application or handgun or SA longgun purchase ‘shall be considered a HIPAA waiver’ is all fine and dandy for the state government to consider it one, but I sure as hell don’t and if a healthcare provider buys that line of malarkey, it’s federal court they’re going to end up in.

      Also, a AR-15 type lower receiver, even completed with a parts kit, with no upper has no action at all. Could be a bolt action. Could be a crossbow. If you wanna be double-sure, remove the recoil buffer and spring from the buffer tube. Voila, not a semi-automatic long arm. Buy your accessories later.

        • With a NICS check I think you can even purchase a receiver out of state. The rest of the components are unrestricted.

          • Curious. You can’t buy a firearm out of state, but if you disassemble it you can buy all the pieces? I understand we’re dealing with politicians here, but that seems surprising.

          • A lawyer told me that, in general, because a AR-15 lower was not a handgun it could be sold to someone out of state and because was not a “semi-automatic assault rifle” by Washington state law there was no restriction on the FFL selling it to a Washington state resident.

            However I just researched it and, the ATF says that a FFL cannot sell a receiver out of state. The law they quote says the FFL may only sell rifles and shotguns to out of state residents.

            So… modifying my previous suggestion some, you can purchase a AR-15 lower configured with a single shot upper (perhaps with no gas tube or, if necessary, a bolt action) out of state. I-1639 does not prohibit the manufacture or construction of a “semi-automatic assault rifle”…

          • You could even purchase an AR-15 lower configured with a bolt action upper in Washington if you were just wanting to avoid the class, waiting period, and extra fee.

    • Don’t put any hope in the Washington state Constitution actually being applied. The state Supreme Court is a bunch of Western Washington liberals who will ignore it to return the result they prefer, namely gun control.

    • I fear the too small a print claim will be dismissed with “Can you show enough signers, who claim they would not have signed had they been able to read the entire petition, such that the petition would have failed?”

      The single action claim will be dismissed with, “It all about guns. Therefore, it is a single issue.”

  3. Pingback: As a Nation, We Like Ourselves Some Gridlock | Shall Not Be Questioned

  4. Stupid question time: is the bill structured in such a way that it could be partially struck down without having the whole thing wiped?

    • If it is struck down on the initiative procedures being violated then it would be all gone. I suspect that if something such as safe storage or 18 year-olds unable to purchase were unconstitutional then the other parts would stand.

  5. “At 8:30 PM with 63.45% of the precincts reporting…”

    I’m not saying there’s any chance that the results of 1639 could change, but it should be clear that, because all WA State ballots are mail-in, and because voters have until the end of Election Day to mail their ballots, reporting of “results” on election night in WA is substantially more preliminary than it is in other states. In moderately close races the results could very well change, days later. This one appears to be a blowout.

  6. Can they start the law suits and fight this right away or is it one of those things where they have to wait until someone suffers actual damages (like having to incriminate themselves for a poorly stored and stolen firearm)?

    • The petition failures (too small a print, etc) can start immediately. The unconstitutional aspects probably (I am not a lawyer) need someone with standing.

  7. Oh my fuck. You people literally just voted to implement a law classifying squirrel guns as assault rifles. Washington is so fucked.

    • There is no in between. All semi auto rifles are now assault rifles. So it’s bolt action and assault (fear my deadly Marlin 60). Next they say “why doesn’t this apply to those deadly semi-auto assault pistols?” and we’re left with revolvers and bolt actions.

      • Since a double action revolver fires one shot with each pull of the trigger, are they not as much semiauto firearms as an AR, an M1 Garand, or an M1911?

        • Shh! They’ll hear you. The bill specifically defines only “semiautomatic assault rifles”. My 300blk ar pistol isn’t included.

          • Unfortunately, it is. The “assault rifles” are now treated the same way as handguns for the tracking and registration. All sorts of “enhancements” made by the initiative.

            So if you transfer a AR-15 receiver as a pistol, you still go through the process. Transfer it as a receiver only (long gun), and buy your upper from wherever you want.

Comments are closed.