This drives me nuts. I think like 1/2 of the state is too lazy to vote, and gets ruled by Seattle and Tacoma, and then complains about it.

True.

False.

Explain please. Because I don't agree with your "False" In fact, I'm sort of shocked that you'd say that.

The sentiment is nice - as an encouragement to vote.
However, just like self-defense, the right to complain about something is not lost based on whether one voted on the subject or not.
One can vote for something, then reconsider it after learning more.
A person can be undecided and decide not to vote because he thinks he doesn't know enough about the subject, or any number of other reasons.
I have not voted between two candidates MANY times if I do not know enough about either/both, yet if the winner turned out to be a shitty person, I do not relinquish my right to make my voice heard.

In a nutshell, telling someone that they can't complain if they didn't vote is an empty aphorism that sounds better than it relates to reality.
To wit, people who don't vote still complain, therefore they obviously can.
I prefer thoughtful and careful voters. The same aphorism is used by the anti-2A people to encourage people to vote for gun control.
Anyway, the sentiment is a good one when encouraging people to vote, but it's a pithy little saying that doesn't make sense when held up to close scrutiny.

A small part of me believes the non voter is the only one that can complain since they are not the one who put the elected officials in office.

Not anymore, but only because the passage of I594 requires 18-20yo to purchase/transfer their guns from FFL holders who are not allowed to sell/transfer to them.

Prior to I-594, those same 18-20YO were legally able to purchase from a private party.

If I'm wrong on this, please point me to where the pre-I594 prohibition to 18-20yo buying pistols from private parties was codified in state law. Do that, and I'll make $100 donation to SAF. It'd be worth the $100 for me to get the education.

That's a false premise. Not voting also has an effect on the outcome.

Don't worry - Dave has his fingers firmly glued in his ears.

We were told to not worry about it, that they had top people working on it, and were getting plaintiffs that had standing.
Turns out, not so much.

I wonder how much SAF collected to fight 594? I wonder how much they spent?

I'm too lazy to dig up the thread, but all of the above points about standing were made there.

The impact on 18-20yo's is something I wanted to see straightened out - either by the leg or the courts.

The volume was low enough that I thought a possible solution would have been for local LE to do the background checks (like they do for a CPL) and "approve" the transaction without involving an FFL. If the courts had ruled against that piece of 594 the leg would have been forced to act.

Three of the plaintiffs in this case essentially had their complaint answered by legislation that "clarified" the law. They dropped out of the case, and that allowed the 9th circus panel to find the excuse they needed -- nobody's been arrested yet -- to hand down their decision. You evidently didn't read the story, or else you simply didn't want to understand it. Here, read it again (reposted here because of your self-confessed laziness about looking up something):

9th Circuit Rejects I-594 Lawsuit, But after Law Amended

A U.S. Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals panel yesterday rejected a lawsuit challenging Washington State’s Initiative 594 requiring so-called “universal background checks,” but the ruling came only after the State Legislature had amended provisions in the law about when such checks are required.

http://libertyparkpress.com/9th-circuit ... w-amended/


When the case was originally filed, these were good plaintiffs. The case dragged through the courts for, what, a couple of years?

It's easy to criticize from the cheap seats, which you do so well. I seem to recall you weren't so alarmed by I594 back when it was on the ballot.

You seem to have all the answers. Show me your lawsuit. Show me your lobbying work in Olympia. Show me anything you've done beyond pissing and moaning on this forum about something someone else did or didn't accomplish.

Dave, what about the rest of us pissing and moaning. Don’t just focus on Anzac, a lot of us here donated, volunteered and went to the Capitol to fight this too.

We donated and volunteered because SAF is supposed to be our lawyer, our advocate, our voice.

Nobody from SAF has answered the 18-20 question. Why do so many think it’s a slam dunk? Why should we hire a lawyer when SAF should be able to easily say “this is why”.

An 18–20 year old cant be arrested for 594 because he can’t even be involved in the process that 594 is about. Infringe, impair, whatever.

What did SAF do to try to prevent 594 from passing?

Oh I shook off the laziness....

viewtopic.php?f=59&t=56297

June 2015....





Then...



All you had to do was have a 20 year old go to an FFL with a proposed private purchase from another person, and have the FFL refuse.
There's your standing and specific issue right there. You don't need to be arrested or have the "threat" of arrest. Right there a person would have been denied their right. Infringed.

Suggesting we file our own suit is just laughable -- SAF are the ones who SOLICITED donations!

If this wasn't so tragic it would be funny.
The SAF is never getting a cent of my money.

SAF, by law, could not participate in the political process, but the Citizens Committee for the Right to Keep and Bear Arms -- SAF's sister organization -- was part of the Protect Our Gun Rights effort. There was also an alternative measure , I-591 but that one lost.

A lot of people have a mistaken impression that SAF is a lobbying group. It's not. Federal law prohibits that, but a lot of people out there seem to have the notion that this is somehow not the case.
SAF is a foundation whose activities are legal action and education. That's why SAF gets involved in so many lawsuits and CCRKBA rarely does.
CCRKBA is involved in grassroots activism, such as the POGR effort.

If I recall correctly, without looking up the PDC reports, I believe I-594 opponents spent about $2 million in the opposition efforts, including money to promote I-591. The Washington Arms Collectors and CCRKBA were the main donors to the POGR effort and NRA spend their own money independently, about a half-million, IIRC.
On the other side, the I-594 crowd (thanks to Bloomberg, Gates, Hanauer, Allen, Ballmer and a handful of others) spent about $10.4 million. Clearly, it was no match financially and their television advertising blitz was the only side of the argument anyone really saw.

SAF has a pretty good track record in court, contrary to what might be said here. It's not perfect of course. SAF didn't pick the 9th Circuit judges, for example. How they decide on any issue is really out of the hands of plaintiffs or their attorneys.
SAF lawsuits forced the Chicago gun ban to end (7th circuit, SCOTUS) and Illinois to adopt concealed carry (7th circuit again), for example.


Remember the SAF/NRA/WAC/ lawsuit against the Seattle parks gun ban? There was another lawsuit filed by some guy on 2A grounds and a lot of people declared that was the winner, that would be THE case, and it got tossed out of court, while SAF et.al won their case...using the same legal team as in the I-594 case, and the same attorneys represented SAF and TheGunMag/Senior Editor Dave Workman in the successful lawsuit to force Seattle to disclose its gun tax revenue earlier this year.

My cheap seat is worth $100 today.

Has SAF ever gotten a cent of your money, or just your scent?

While you're being so industrious, go back and pull up all of your quotes about I-594. That might make some interesting historical reading.