WaGuns.org

The new magazine ban law contains a provision that hasn’t been discussed yet on these 2A forums. It states that the violation of SB5078 is an unfair practice for purposes of the Washington Consumer Protection Act. The CPA is a pro-plaintiff law that allows private persons or the Attorney General to sue for up to treble damages and attorney’s fees and a court order to halt the practice. Normal commercial general liability policies often exclude this type of suit from coverage. There would be a likely defense (to private plaintiffs but not the AG) that any plaintiff the anti-gun groups send into stores to try and find mags for sale would not be “injured in their person or property” but you can expect they’d argue they were injured by the “huge, certain” risk of being shot by someone with a standard magazine. BS, yes, but look at how anti-2A the courts are.

Any stores which are going to have mags for sale, to exempt buyers of course, after July 1st might want to put up a sign saying “RCW exempt buyers only” or something similar.

https://www.popehat.com/2009/01/06/morally-disabled/

This is the model that plaintiffs attorneys and anti gun groups in Washington might attempt to use with the CPA and gun stores.

Can a mod move this to the big FFL forum? I accidentally posted it inside Dana’s subforum.

Moved.

Thank you.

So the CPA puts a retailer at fault/liable for offering the sale of restricted items without having properly notified a potential consumer?
Similar to all the BS signs we're already required to post?

dreadi wrote:So the CPA puts a retailer at fault/liable for offering the sale of restricted items without having properly notified a potential consumer?
Similar to all the BS signs we're already required to post?

I think the bigger issue is that the CPA can get the plaintiff an injunction against the seller, and violation of the injunction has some pretty massive penalties.

scrid2000 wrote:

dreadi wrote:So the CPA puts a retailer at fault/liable for offering the sale of restricted items without having properly notified a potential consumer?
Similar to all the BS signs we're already required to post?

I think the bigger issue is that the CPA can get the plaintiff an injunction against the seller, and violation of the injunction has some pretty massive penalties.

Can I get an injunction against 5078?

dreadi wrote:

scrid2000 wrote:

dreadi wrote:So the CPA puts a retailer at fault/liable for offering the sale of restricted items without having properly notified a potential consumer?
Similar to all the BS signs we're already required to post?

I think the bigger issue is that the CPA can get the plaintiff an injunction against the seller, and violation of the injunction has some pretty massive penalties.

Can I get an injunction against 5078?

Possibly, but you wouldn't want to try to bankroll it on your own. Maybe reach out to SAF, GOA, FPC, etc, and see if any of them are looking to help.