|
|
|
It is currently Wed Apr 24, 2024 2:53 am
|
I-594 Lawsuit rejected...but is it a loss?
Author |
Message |
Dave Workman
Site Supporter
Location: Ahead of the pack Joined: Tue Mar 22, 2011 Posts: 3434
|
9th Circuit Rejects I-594 Lawsuit, But after Law AmendedA 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/
_________________ "The essential American soul is hard, isolate, stoic, and a killer." - D.H. Lawrence
|
Fri Oct 27, 2017 7:50 am |
|
|
danoh
Site Supporter
Location: Sumner, WA Joined: Mon Oct 15, 2012 Posts: 3026
Real Name: Dan
|
Quote from the article: Quote: "More than three years later, researchers have concluded that the new laws had little measurable effect, probably because citizens simply decided not to comply and there was a lack of enforcement by authorities.”— So where does this leave us? We just ignore the law? Another quote from the article: Quote: "The newspaper was reporting about a study “conducted by some of America’s most well-respected gun violence researchers,” calling it “a setback for a growing gun control movement that has centered its national strategy on precisely the kind of state laws passed in Colorado and Washington.” Huh? They think its a setback?
_________________ US2A.org is done. Closed.
From a blog: Political Correctness - the belief that one can pick up a turd by the clean end.
Benjamin Franklin: It is the (civic) responsibility of every citizen to question authority.
|
Fri Oct 27, 2017 8:07 am |
|
|
jackass
Site Supporter
Location: Burien Joined: Sun Sep 22, 2013 Posts: 5884
|
That fact was specifically noted in the four-page decision, which was unanimous. The three-judge panel consisted of one Barack Obama appointee, one Bill Clinton appointee and one George W. Bush appointee.
|
Fri Oct 27, 2017 10:31 am |
|
|
Dave Workman
Site Supporter
Location: Ahead of the pack Joined: Tue Mar 22, 2011 Posts: 3434
|
jackass wrote: That fact was specifically noted in the four-page decision, which was unanimous. The three-judge panel consisted of one Barack Obama appointee, one Bill Clinton appointee and one George W. Bush appointee. Elections matter. If you don't vote, you have no right to complain.
_________________ "The essential American soul is hard, isolate, stoic, and a killer." - D.H. Lawrence
|
Fri Oct 27, 2017 1:11 pm |
|
|
deadshot2
Site Supporter
Location: Marysville, WA Joined: Fri Jul 22, 2011 Posts: 11581
Real Name: Mike
|
Dave Workman wrote: jackass wrote: That fact was specifically noted in the four-page decision, which was unanimous. The three-judge panel consisted of one Barack Obama appointee, one Bill Clinton appointee and one George W. Bush appointee. Elections matter. If you don't vote, you have no right to complain. And yet some of the most vocal among the complainers are often non-voters. Their talk is greater than their walk. How hard is is to take the ballot out of the envelope, cast your vote, and drop it in a drop box if you're too cheap to put a stamp on it? Non-Voting might have been a legitimate excuse when one had to take some time off work, stand in line for unknown amounts of time, just to cast their vote.
_________________ "I've learned from the Dog that an afternoon nap is a good thing"
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
"For he to-day that sheds his blood with me Shall be my brother" - William Shakespeare
|
Fri Oct 27, 2017 1:43 pm |
|
|
Jonathan Brown
Site Supporter
Location: SnoCo Joined: Thu Mar 17, 2011 Posts: 2360
|
What does this actually mean? Dumb it down for me.
_________________ "The faster you shoot, the less shot you will get."
|
Fri Oct 27, 2017 2:49 pm |
|
|
leadcounsel
Site Supporter
Location: Can't say Joined: Sun Sep 7, 2014 Posts: 8134
|
9th Circuit fails again. Kicked it on a technicality - Ruling there was no standing because nobody has yet been arrested. While reasonable people would disagree with the 9th on this, clearly Alan needed a better argument and a trial attorney on this one. Alan Gottlieb needs to retain my firm.
For the non-lawyers, standing is created by parties that received harm due to the law. It's not limited to jail. It can be economic. What about the deceptive ways I594 was advertised and voted on? I recall there being material rule breaking. Is that not harm? Finally, the bar to harm for standing is lowered, I believe, for fundamental constitutional rights. This isn't a parking ticket. It's a direct infringement on property and gun rights, so intangible but important. Requiring standing prevents suing against make believe future harm or paranoia. The standing argument was predictable and from the article the argument to the court was the wrong one.
I get what he was saying with the 1A, but it's not a strong argument to the anti-gun 9th Circuit. I see how he smartly tried to tie it to the 1A, which they are more inclined to understand.
Going on that path, let's say Washington passes a law that allows troops to be quartered in your home without permission. Clearly that's an infringement, even if it's limited to just the guest room or the garage. There would be default standing, one would assume. I digress...
A stronger argument is that yes, there is in fact harm. How many millions of dollars in extra fees have gun owners spent to simply transfer property? I spent $20 today, just to comply with I594 and exercise my rights. I've been harmed and also significantly inconvenienced. How about the truck loads of money spent fighting this infringement? Surely that is economic harm. I digress.
Not a surprise. I hope this gets to the SCOTUS.
Alternately, a long time ago, if one wasn't filed, an injunction should have been filed to prevent I594 until it could be settled. Spilled milk at this point.
_________________ I defend the 2A. US Army Combat Veteran and Paratrooper: OIF Veteran. BSM and MSM recipient. NRA Lifetime. Entertainment purposes only. I'm a lawyer, but have not offered you legal advice.
|
Fri Oct 27, 2017 5:48 pm |
|
|
Stokes
Site Supporter
Location: Oly Joined: Thu Oct 4, 2012 Posts: 1343
|
The issues surrounding 18-20yo pistol purchasers should be enough standing to challenge the law. Maybe I'm missing something, but I'd think that SAF would be aware of this issue and would run with it. If they know of it and ignore it, it might suggest they are more interested in fighting than winning.
|
Sat Oct 28, 2017 8:42 am |
|
|
PMB
In Memoriam
Joined: Wed Mar 6, 2013 Posts: 12018
|
Stokes wrote: The issues surrounding 18-20yo pistol purchasers should be enough standing to challenge the law. Yes! This is outrageous and patently unconstitutional, yet here we are. This enrages me. Children of 2A parents are entitled to exercise their Liberty, but all others are denied the basic human right. Stokes wrote: Maybe I'm missing something, but I'd think that SAF would be aware of this issue and would run with it. If they know of it and ignore it, it might suggest they are more interested in fighting than winning. This has been a concern of mine since a couple of conversations with SAF leadership, including a face to face. But honestly, I seem to have very few 2A organizational allies who feel as strongly as I do on the topic.
|
Sat Oct 28, 2017 12:53 pm |
|
|
Selador
Site Supporter
Location: Index Joined: Thu Aug 23, 2012 Posts: 12963
Real Name: Jeff
|
PMB wrote: Stokes wrote: The issues surrounding 18-20yo pistol purchasers should be enough standing to challenge the law. Yes! This is outrageous and patently unconstitutional, yet here we are. This enrages me. Children of 2A parents are entitled to exercise their Liberty, but all others are denied the basic human right. Stokes wrote: Maybe I'm missing something, but I'd think that SAF would be aware of this issue and would run with it. If they know of it and ignore it, it might suggest they are more interested in fighting than winning. This has been a concern of mine since a couple of conversations with SAF leadership, including a face to face. But honestly, I seem to have very few 2A organizational allies who feel as strongly as I do on the topic. 2A orgs were missing, when it was time to fight this thing passing in the first place. Why should they fight it before it passed, when once it passed, it would provide plenty of fodder to beg for donations with... If that was too convoluted.... They make more money fighting it after it is passed, than they do preventing it in the first place. The state gets to line their pockets with the tax money. The 2a orgs get to line their pockets with our donations. Win-win, as far as they are concerned. It's not about our rights for any of them. It's about our money.
_________________ -Jeff
How can I help you, and/or make you smile, today?
You are entitled to your opinion. You are not entitled to tell me what mine must be.
Do justice. Love mercy.
“I would rather have questions that can't be answered than answers that can't be questioned.” ~ Richard P. Feynman
|
Sat Oct 28, 2017 1:55 pm |
|
|
ANZAC
Site Supporter
Location: 12 Acres in Eastern WA Joined: Sat Nov 10, 2012 Posts: 7251
|
After the first setback, wasn't there some advice offered here about finding plaintiffs with actual standing?
Shocker, it was ignored.
|
Sat Oct 28, 2017 4:09 pm |
|
|
ANZAC
Site Supporter
Location: 12 Acres in Eastern WA Joined: Sat Nov 10, 2012 Posts: 7251
|
Stokes wrote: The issues surrounding 18-20yo pistol purchasers should be enough standing to challenge the law. Maybe I'm missing something, but I'd think that SAF would be aware of this issue and would run with it. . Yes, it was mentioned here and Dave/SAF ignored that.... because they had "top men" working the case.
|
Sat Oct 28, 2017 4:12 pm |
|
|
Dave Workman
Site Supporter
Location: Ahead of the pack Joined: Tue Mar 22, 2011 Posts: 3434
|
ANZAC wrote: Stokes wrote: The issues surrounding 18-20yo pistol purchasers should be enough standing to challenge the law. Maybe I'm missing something, but I'd think that SAF would be aware of this issue and would run with it. . Yes, it was mentioned here and Dave/SAF ignored that.... because they had "top men" working the case. In case you missed it, in this state, pistols/handguns cannot be legally sold to anyone under age 21, so your suggestion is pointless.
_________________ "The essential American soul is hard, isolate, stoic, and a killer." - D.H. Lawrence
|
Tue Oct 31, 2017 4:31 pm |
|
|
Dave Workman
Site Supporter
Location: Ahead of the pack Joined: Tue Mar 22, 2011 Posts: 3434
|
deadshot2 wrote: And yet some of the most vocal among the complainers are often non-voters. Their talk is greater than their walk.
How hard is is to take the ballot out of the envelope, cast your vote, and drop it in a drop box if you're too cheap to put a stamp on it? Non-Voting might have been a legitimate excuse when one had to take some time off work, stand in line for unknown amounts of time, just to cast their vote. BINGO! I get that a lot from people who bitch, piss and moan about something and yet they admit they don't vote because "my vote doesn't matter." Of course not, when you don't use it. Multiply that a thousand fold and you've got passage of crap like I594 because the gun people just plain didn't turn out en masse.
_________________ "The essential American soul is hard, isolate, stoic, and a killer." - D.H. Lawrence
Last edited by Dave Workman on Tue Oct 31, 2017 7:43 pm, edited 1 time in total.
|
Tue Oct 31, 2017 4:35 pm |
|
|
Massivedesign
Site Admin
Location: Olympia, WA Joined: Fri Mar 11, 2011 Posts: 38309
Real Name: Dan
|
Dave Workman wrote: ANZAC wrote: Stokes wrote: The issues surrounding 18-20yo pistol purchasers should be enough standing to challenge the law. Maybe I'm missing something, but I'd think that SAF would be aware of this issue and would run with it. . Yes, it was mentioned here and Dave/SAF ignored that.... because they had "top men" working the case. In case you missed it, in this state, pistols/handguns cannot be legally sold to anyone under age 21, so your suggestion is pointless. It’s not pointless. 18-20 could legally buy pre594. Just not from an FFL.
|
Tue Oct 31, 2017 4:48 pm |
|
|
|
Who is online |
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 18 guests |
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot post attachments in this forum
|
|