I-594 Lawsuit rejected...but is it a loss?

[BoydK425]

Ah, now I remember why it's been so many years since I logged in;

"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..."

You really have to have an internet forum to concentrate such profound ignorance. Washington Arms Collectors is still trying to recover from the tens of thousands we pumped into the battle against 594. I was in meetings with Alan and Adina and Keely et al working to fight that thing. Posted signs, handed out stickers, talked to folks at the show and the grocery store and the water cooler. Testified in Olympia, interviewed on KOMO and then after all the hard work came to nothing had people came up to the table I volunteered at (I've volunteered for SAF at the Puyallup shows for over a decade) and folks literally yelled this at me as if I personally had caused the passage of this registration law for personal gain.

Not everyone who _was_ there, doing the work, seeing the money pumped in can hear things like this and not take it personally. One of the other folks who helped out at the table, someone who (IIRC) put his name on the permit for the rally in Oympia 1/2015 (and built websites and volunteered hosting, security /admin services etc etc etc) doesn't volunteer to absorb flack any more. We lose people to backbiting. Hope the rest of you will keep working together to build laws and a society that understands freedom. I will.

[PMB]

SAF didn't pick the 9th Circuit judges, for example.

This is the biggest point in all of this discussion.
We shouldn't lose sight of our real problem in all of this. The fact that I am not 100% happy with SAF, NRA, et al, does not make them my enemies.
We're allies.

[RENCORP]

594 was well funded. So what - far more lopsided battles have been won by truly focused dedicated true opposition.

Opposition to 594 was a Three Stooges farce once 591 was thrown into the mix to confuse the crap out of the voting public, and split the potential resistance vote against 594.

If all the supposed money, time, and resources had been funneled into merely opposing 594, I truly do believe the outcome would have been different. Many gun owners said as much at the time, myself included.

It all kinda reminds me of the WAC building fund fiasco, and the WAC anti member drive pushing private sellers to get business licenses and collect taxes for the state on private sales.

That was followed by the dirty politics employed to eliminate the Tacoma gun show as competition the year 594 went into effect.

With that kind of track record, it makes you wonder who Gottlieb and Company were actually working for - themselves, their incomes, and the Powers That Be, or gun owners ?

Well, shucks, I guess we will let their track record speak for itself.

As for the current state of the WAC, look no farther than the wonder kids who administratively ran the organization right into the ground.

Those are the facts, ma'am, just the facts. Call them what you will, but the facts remain.

[ANZAC]

The SAF is never getting a cent of my money.

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.

Dave, I'm not the one who solicited donations to fight this, ignored what people were saying here about standing (or lack thereof), or repeatedly ignored the 18-20yo issue, telling people to go file their own lawsuit!!

Yep, I supported 594, and I also acknowledged the 18-20yo issue VERY early on (before the vote) and wanted it fixed. I lobbied directly to Hanauer/WAGR to fix it, and to the legislature. (with no result). But I didn't solicit any donations.

Dave - you're missing the point. SAF solicited donations to fight 594. The strategy turned out to be a failure.
There was a lot of discussion around standing here, which turned out to be the point of failure.
Do you dispute any of those facts?

[Dave Workman]

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.

Actually Dan, an 18-20 yr old just might get arrested for taking a handgun to an FFL for a transfer, under the parameters of RCW 9.41.240

Possession of pistol by person from eighteen to twenty-one.
Unless an exception under RCW 9.41.042, 9.41.050, or 9.41.060 applies, a person at least eighteen years of age, but less than twenty-one years of age, may possess a pistol only:
(1) In the person's place of abode;
(2) At the person's fixed place of business; or
(3) On real property under his or her control.
[ 1994 sp.s. c 7 § 423; 1971 c 34 § 1; 1909 c 249 § 308; 1883 p 67 § 1; RRS § 2560.]

Notice that this dates back decades. Well before anybody heard of I-594.
Someone else here was suggesting that all we needed to do was have someone in that age bracket take a handgun to an FFL for a transfer and be turned down and we'd have someone with "standing."
No, maybe not; you'd quite possibly have some poor kid sacked for violating 9.41.240 because he possessed a handgun in some other place than his own property, business or abode.
No FFL would okay such a transfer even before I-594 because of the federal laws.

Does that answer your question about "this is why?"

Remember, back when I even suggested that if someone wanted to try a case like this, it "might be interesting" and I suggested talking to a lawyer.


I'm not saying I agree with any of this. SAF had a specific case with specific issues. I read the briefs, the arguments and it seemed pretty solid to me when I wrote about it.
IMHO, the court would have screwed gun owners even if SAF had have walked into court representing Mother Theresa.

[PMB]

Actually Dan, an 18-20 yr old just might get arrested for taking a handgun to an FFL for a transfer, under the parameters of RCW 9.41.240

Possession of pistol by person from eighteen to twenty-one.
Unless an exception under RCW 9.41.042, 9.41.050, or 9.41.060 applies, a person at least eighteen years of age, but less than twenty-one years of age, may possess a pistol only:
(1) In the person's place of abode;
(2) At the person's fixed place of business; or
(3) On real property under his or her control.
[ 1994 sp.s. c 7 § 423; 1971 c 34 § 1; 1909 c 249 § 308; 1883 p 67 § 1; RRS § 2560.]

Notice that this dates back decades. Well before anybody heard of I-594.
Someone else here was suggesting that all we needed to do was have someone in that age bracket take a handgun to an FFL for a transfer and be turned down and we'd have someone with "standing."
No, maybe not; you'd quite possibly have some poor kid sacked for violating 9.41.240 because he possessed a handgun in some other place than his own property, business or abode.
No FFL would okay such a transfer even before I-594 because of the federal laws.

Does that answer your question about "this is why?"

Remember, back when I even suggested that if someone wanted to try a case like this, it "might be interesting" and I suggested talking to a lawyer.


I'm not saying I agree with any of this. SAF had a specific case with specific issues. I read the briefs, the arguments and it seemed pretty solid to me when I wrote about it.
IMHO, the court would have screwed gun owners even if SAF had have walked into court representing Mother Theresa.

Since it looks like we are brainstorming for a solution here (haha) why not have a father and 18 year old son walk into that FFL to do the transfer?

[Dave Workman]

Yep, I supported 594, and I also acknowledged the 18-20yo issue VERY early on (before the vote) and wanted it fixed. I lobbied directly to Hanauer/WAGR to fix it, and to the legislature. (with no result).

Looks like everybody ignored you, then, eh? Maybe there's a reason for that.

You supported I594 and now you're in here raising hell about SAF's rejected attempt to have the case against it heard in court.

The case didn't lose because the court never heard the case. The court pulled the "standing" excuse for not hearing it.

Yeah a lot of people donated money and time and effort to beat 594 at the election, and later in court. But apparently not you. All you wanted to do was "fix it." I know Boyd, who weighed in above. Maybe everyone ought to read and re-read what he has to say about this.

[ANZAC]

Actually Dan, an 18-20 yr old just might get arrested for taking a handgun to an FFL for a transfer, under the parameters of RCW 9.41.240

Possession of pistol by person from eighteen to twenty-one.
Unless an exception under RCW 9.41.042, 9.41.050, or 9.41.060 applies, a person at least eighteen years of age, but less than twenty-one years of age, may possess a pistol only:
(1) In the person's place of abode;
(2) At the person's fixed place of business; or
(3) On real property under his or her control.
[ 1994 sp.s. c 7 § 423; 1971 c 34 § 1; 1909 c 249 § 308; 1883 p 67 § 1; RRS § 2560.]

Actually, the person selling the gun would be the one taking it for a transfer. The 18-20 would be the prospective buyer.
And the FFL should not allow the transfer to take place.

[ANZAC]

You supported I594 and now you're in here raising hell about SAF's rejected attempt to have the case against it heard in court.

The case didn't lose because the court never heard the case. The court pulled the "standing" excuse for not hearing it.

Yeah a lot of people donated money and time and effort to beat 594 at the election, and later in court. But apparently not you. All you wanted to do was "fix it." I know Boyd, who weighed in above. Maybe everyone ought to read and re-read what he has to say about this.

Dave, you can attack me all you want. (well, within the terms of service)

The SAF collection of donations, and the results of the lawsuit speak for themselves.
A lot of people here raised concerns about the case and standing, and pointed out the the 18-20yo issue as possibly a better route, and your response then and now was to "go file a lawsuit yourselves!"

Pot. Kettle. Black.

[Massivedesign]

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.

Actually Dan, an 18-20 yr old just might get arrested for taking a handgun to an FFL for a transfer, under the parameters of RCW 9.41.240

Possession of pistol by person from eighteen to twenty-one.
Unless an exception under RCW 9.41.042, 9.41.050, or 9.41.060 applies, a person at least eighteen years of age, but less than twenty-one years of age, may possess a pistol only:
(1) In the person's place of abode;
(2) At the person's fixed place of business; or
(3) On real property under his or her control.
[ 1994 sp.s. c 7 § 423; 1971 c 34 § 1; 1909 c 249 § 308; 1883 p 67 § 1; RRS § 2560.]

Notice that this dates back decades. Well before anybody heard of I-594.
Someone else here was suggesting that all we needed to do was have someone in that age bracket take a handgun to an FFL for a transfer and be turned down and we'd have someone with "standing."
No, maybe not; you'd quite possibly have some poor kid sacked for violating 9.41.240 because he possessed a handgun in some other place than his own property, business or abode.
No FFL would okay such a transfer even before I-594 because of the federal laws.

Does that answer your question about "this is why?"

No, that doesn't answer my question why. I never mentioned the FFL, Anzac did. PRE 594, I could sell my 18-20 year old buddy a pistol via private sale. Totally legal, totally legitimate. NOTHING even close to illegal (even Federally)... POST 594, now I cannot do that, and there is no way for this LEGAL ADULT to purchase a handgun. I cannot find a better example of infringing on a right, it downright eliminated it.

The reason all of us were hooked on this 18-20 thing is that there is NO WAY that 594 could have been easily modified to make that concession. There is no way that 594 could have FORCED FFL's to allow 18-20 to participate because of Federal restrictions on FFL's (not on 18-20). So therefor either 18-20 would have been exempt from 594 (which would have had 594 overturned), or it would have nullified 594 completely because it completely abandoned a class of people who WERE able to act legally one day, then the next their act would be illegal by default NOT by intention.

I sat down with WAGR and brought this up.. Their response (similar to Anzacs) "The court will have to revise it after it passes". Well, it's passed, it's been many years, and it still hasn't changed. So we turn to our 2A advocates, SAF.

I'm sure we can find you a 18-20 year old person who feels infringed upon.

Demographic:
Female - Single mom - No family in the State. Doesn't want a rifle because they are too big and powerful and will over penetrate walls. Doesn't want a shotgun because she can't handle them. Wants a pistol for LEGAL SELF DEFENSE at home.

What else do you need?

[RENCORP]

594 was well funded. So what - far more lopsided battles have been won by truly focused dedicated true opposition.

Opposition to 594 was a Three Stooges farce once 591 was thrown into the mix to confuse the crap out of the voting public, and split the potential resistance vote against 594.

If all the supposed money, time, and resources had been funneled into merely opposing 594, I truly do believe the outcome would have been different. Many gun owners said as much at the time, myself included.

It all kinda reminds me of the WAC building fund fiasco, and the WAC anti member drive pushing private sellers to get business licenses and collect taxes for the state on private sales.

That was followed by the dirty politics employed to eliminate the Tacoma gun show as competition the year 594 went into effect.

With that kind of track record, it makes you wonder who Gottlieb and Company were actually working for - themselves, their incomes, and the Powers That Be, or gun owners ?

Well, shucks, I guess we will let their track record speak for itself.

As for the current state of the WAC, look no farther than the wonder kids who administratively ran the organization right into the ground.

Those are the facts, ma'am, just the facts. Call them what you will, but the facts remain.

Crickets on these points so far...................must be easier going after the low hanging Aussie fruit for an argument.

Lets face it - the gun hierarchy in this state has an abysmal track record.

[MadPick]

This is all great discussion, with valid points.

With that said, I just want to say that in general SAF kicks anti-gunner ass all over the country, and I really appreciate all that they do. Without groups like SAF, we'd all be disarmed right now.

I'm already a Life Member, but I'm pitching in some more. I invite others to join me.

Thank you so much for your tax-deductible $100.00 donation to the Second Amendment Foundation.

[Stokes]

Shit... I would have loved to give them $100 today as well.

Instead, Workman just wants to tell me We’re wrong, but then not back it up.

It’s like he knows he’s wrong and wants it to go away, or he really doesn’t have a grasp of the issue.

[ANZAC]

Shit... I would have loved to give them $100 today as well.

Instead, Workman just wants to tell me We’re wrong, but then not back it up.

It’s like he knows he’s wrong and wants it to go away, or he really doesn’t have a grasp of the issue.

#alternativefacts

[ANZAC]

No, that doesn't answer my question why. I never mentioned the FFL, Anzac did.

My only point in suggesting it was to clearly demonstrate a case of someone who was legally allowed to buy a gun privately before, but following the RCWs post 594 would be unable to have the gun transferred TO them by the FFL, even though they were trying to follow state law.

I would record everything with a cooperative FFL who would explain it.

Have the single 18-20yo female go to the FFL with the prospective seller, and say she wants to buy the gun from him but follow all of the WA laws by going to the FFL to get a background check done on her. The FFL would be duty bound to explain they can't transfer a handgun to someone under 21. And there's your infringement, she walks out without a gun, and with no options, no recourse, no due process.

(I don't understand why Dave thought they were delivering the gun to the FFL... the issue here is buying)