Posted on 01/01/2015 12:46:58 PM PST by Kaslin
The Second Amendment Foundation has never been one to let the rights of law-abiding citizens get trampled on without putting up a fight. It should come as no surprise, then, that they’ve taken Washington state’s gun control Initiative 594 to court. Well, parts of it at least.
Via SAF:
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 said in a statement. “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.
He continued: “This measure effectively infringes upon, if not outright prohibits, the exercise of their constitutionally-protected right to bear arms under the Second Amendment.”
Aside from the fact that it is nearly impossible to enforce, will not make anyone safer, and is a waste of law enforcement resources, this was one of the reasons the vast majority of sheriffs in the state fiercely opposed the initiative from the get-go.
“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.”
GOOD.
Once again the NRA is AWOL.
Part of the problem with the drift of the territory once known as “the United States of America” into a state of anarchy, lies with the passage of vaguely worded and contradictory legislation at all levels, resulting in an interpretation by courts, up to and including the US Supreme Court, that challenges established existing law, and creates a hodgepodge that makes the Biblical Tower of Babel seem to be a paragon of understanding.
If someone were a FEDERAL firearms licensee, what difference would it make what state the tranferee resided in? Doesn’t federal supremacy trump state matters? It might make sense for State Firearms llcensee to be prohibited from transferring firearms to someone from another state, but these are FFLs - Federal Firearms Licensees. (I know, I know, the law is not logical.)
Bump.
“Once again the NRA is AWOL.”
Yeah, the are becoming the “Chamber of Commerce for Guns.” I dropped my membership years ago. They support RATs.
Isn’t family friend, Don Feder, heat of the 2nd Amendment Foundation? A Conservative organization can have no better leader than he.
So did I vette....the very day I learned that one of the islamic muslim terrorist’s front groups, C.A.I.R.,s agenda setters, policy makers, lobbyists and overall heavy hitters, the muslim brotherhood’s Grover Norquist, was an NRA board member!!! And they know of his anti-American dealings very well but STILL did not/would not remove him from their board!!! Nice huh?
WA Ping We knew this was coming. The constitutional flaws in this bill were widely discussed. Yet, the liberals of the I-5 corridor supported it anyway - (with a little help from Bloomberg)!
This was filed in federal court not state court. Washington State's RKBA constitutional provision is more clear than the 2nd amendment (in my opinion). WA State Supreme Court is much too liberal, so federal may be the right approach.
I would have liked that lawsuit to focus on a number of federal issues that would require federal judges to get involved.
For example, under I-594, If I go to the airport with a rifle in a properly locked case and check it in as checked baggage under federal FAA regulations, has a transfer occurred per state law? After my Alaskan hunting trip ends, and I come home, can I legal get my firearm returned to me at the airline baggage area or would that be considered a transfer that is not exempted because the folks that wrote the law were too stupid?
There are other issues that are counter to federal regulations. For example I-594 requires the FFL is required to treat the firearm as if it were part of their inventory, but I-594 also specifies some handling requirements that conflict with regulations on FFL dealers.
Hopefully, the lawsuit will have both laser accuracy to that they get standing as opposed to a general lawsuit that a federal judge can either say should be handled in State Court or for which they view their is no federal interest.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.