Got ourselves another fight up here. They know they can't get it done through the legislature, so they're hoping to pass their horsesqueeze on through the initiative process.

https://saveoursecurity.net/

If you see signature gatherers, mark it here:
https://saveoursecurity.net/re...signature-gathering/

I feel for ya! These BASTARDS just don't stop and keep coming and coming.......Stay the course and fight these slime balls to the end. Here in Virginia, we are overwhelmed with Bloomberg and Sores money and the corrupt politicians that continuously push this crap. I believe that people in general now days are just so gullible and want to "Feel Good" that they did something to protect _________________ (Fill in the blank).. Idiots, that will destroy this country sooner or later while destroying themselves.

Done. Pierce County Courthouse. F@ckers.

What's that? Signature gatherers being sneaky and using possible illegal tactics to get people to sign? Ssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssshocking.

https://www.saf.org/demand-letter/

SHAWN TIMOTHY NEWMAN
ATTORNEY AT LAW, INC.
2507 CRESTLINE DR., N.W.
OLYMPIA, WA 98502
PH: 360-866-2322
FAX: 866-200-9941
WWW.NEWMANLAWOLYMPIA.COM
SHAWN@NEWMANLAWOLMPIA.COM

Date: June 18, 2018

To:

Alliance for Gun Responsibility,
P.O. Box 21712
Seattle, WA 98111

RE: I-1639

I represent the Second Amendment Foundation, and it has come to our attention that the I-1639 campaign is utilizing unreadable petitions in violation of RCW 29A.72.100. This violation has the potential to invalidate the signatures illegally gathered to date, and we demand that the sponsors correct this violation and conform to the legal requirements.

RCW 29A.72.100 which states as follows:

The person proposing the measure shall print blank petitions upon single sheets of paper of good writing quality (including but not limited to newsprint) not less than eleven inches in width and not less than fourteen inches in length. Each petition at the time of circulating, signing, and filing with the secretary of state must consist of not more than one sheet with numbered lines for not more than twenty signatures, with the prescribed warning and title, be in the form required by RCW 29A.72.110, 29A.72.120, or 29A.72.130, and have a readable, full, true, and correct copy of the proposed measure printed on the reverse side of the petition. [Emphasis added]

This mandate is derived from our state constitution which requires that an act that is revised or amended “shall be set forth at full length.” Wash. Const. Art. II, § 37. That applies equally to the legislative and initiative processes. State v. Thorne, 129 Wn.2d 736, 752-53 (1996). In Wash. Citizens Action of Wash. v. State, 162 Wn.2d 142, 151-152 (2007), the State Supreme Court stated that:

Article II, section 37 was intended both to ensure disclosure of the general effect of the new legislation and to show its specific impact on existing laws in order to avoid fraud or deception. …. Thus, a significant purpose of article II, section 37 is to ensure that those enacting an amendatory law are fully aware of the proposed law’s impact on existing law.

Although RCW 29.72.100 and WAC 434-379-008 do not specify a font size for the “readable” initiative printed on the back of the petition, the presumption is that reprinting the statutory language is to fully inform voters. The petitions for I-1639 have the proposed measure printed on the back of the sheets in such fine print as to be unreadable. This is contrary to the print size used by the legislature and the courts. Use of fine print is unconscionable. Printing the initiative language in a manner which amounts to a “maze of fine print” is unconscionable and would not be tolerated if it was a contract. See, e.g. Schroeder v. Fageol Motors, Inc., 86 Wn.2d 256, 260 (1975).

According to the Secretary of State on their website in the “Frequently Asked Questions” area under the question:

If I am asked to sign a petition, am I entitled to read the petition or the proposed measure before I make up my mind?” – (Answer) “Yes. State law requires that petitions contain certain information, including the full text of the measure. This includes a ballot title and summary, written by either the Attorney General or a Superior Court judge, and other required information. The full text is usually printed on the back of the petition. Sometimes petition circulators attach the petitions to clip boards in order to make them easier to sign or easier for the circulator to handle. Sometimes the full petition or the full text of the proposal might be folded over or on the back. You should feel free to read any part of the petition that you think is necessary in order for you to make up your mind, even if that means unfolding it or removing it from a clip board. [Emphasis added].

Clearly, if it is impossible for voters and those considering whether they should sign the petition for I-1639 to be able to physically read any part of the petition itself because it is printed in an illegible or microscopic maze of fine print, then how would they know what they are signing? Obviously, due to the microscopic maze of fine print used by the initiative sponsors to disguise the actual language of the initiative on the back of their petitions, voters cannot be fully informed.

In this regard, it has been brought to our attention that not only are voters not able to read the petition when presented with the signature sheets by the paid signature gatherers, but when confronted by voters who can’t read the complete text of the initiative, the paid signature gathers tell the voters to “go to the website and read it there.” As you are aware, posting the text of the initiative on a website which may or may not be accessible to the voters is no substitute for following the law as required in RCW 29A.72.100. Multiple reports from multiple locations around the state have been received with similar observations, so it is possible this is a pattern of behavior possibly supported by your organization to obscure or deceive the public about the true nature and content of this initiative proposal.

Fortunately, this problem can be corrected, and a ready solution is available for you to become compliant with the law. Other initiatives have resolved this challenge of providing a “readable” copy of the initiative on the back of the petition by having fold-outs which would include the entire petition in readable form when they are as many pages and as lengthy as I-1639. While it is not up to my client to inform you how you can become compliant with the law, this appears to be the most likely immediate solution to ensure future signatures gathered are not invalidated by the illegal petition sheets you are currently using.

There is also a ready solution for the completed illegal petition sheets you may have already collected. Your campaign can contact the voters individually who have already signed these petitions and provide them a legal copy of the petition sheet for them to sign and return to you. In this way, you will remain compliant with the law, and be able to confirm that the voters who signed the illegal petition sheets have the opportunity, if they are better informed, to sign legal petition documents.

We could do that as well and engage petitioner signatories in discussions. This is consistent with the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision in Doe v. Reed, 561 U.S. 186, 207 (2010) [J. Alito, concurring]:

In the name of pursuing such an interest, the State would be free to require petition signers to disclose any information that would more easily enable members of the voting public to contact them and engage them in discussion, including telephone numbers, e-mail addresses, and Internet aliases.

We strongly suggest that your organization comply with the law and cease using the petitions in their present form. We also strongly urge you to become compliant with the law so that voters can be properly informed about the petition which they are signing. We would prefer that you become compliant with the law, but if you choose to continue in this illegal manner, we will be forced to litigate this matter.

Please note that we have copied this demand letter to the Secretary of State’s office, the Washington State Attorney General, and many other interested parties to ensure that everyone has been notified of the fundamental problem with your petitions.

Sincerely,

Shawn Timothy Newman

Shawn Newman, on behalf of:
Second Amendment Foundation and Citizens Committee for the Right to Keep and Bear Arms

Cc: Washington State Attorney General
Washington State Secretary of State
Other interested parties

Cock suckers

Sent my two cents to the secretary
of state of Washington...have little faith in her to do the right thing. Maybe if California can do it..State of Eastern WA.

Aye, fixin' to send an email myself.

kim.wyman@sos.wa.gov

secretaryofstate@sos.wa.gov

Don't be a douche canoe about it obviously.

Secretary of state: ‘Significant’ constitutional concerns raised over petition format for gun measure I-1639

POSTED 5:35 PM, JULY 6, 2018, BY Q13 FOX NEWS STAFF, UPDATED AT 06:39PM, JULY 6, 2018

OLYMPIA, Wash. — Secretary of State Kim Wyman said Friday that “significant” constitutional concerns have been raised about the petition format for proposed Initiative 1639, a gun control measure, but that she has “limited” authority in the matter.

In a news release, Wyman said her office had received signed petition sheets this week from three initiative sponsors who reported enough signatures to quality for the November general election ballot. She said her office “in the coming weeks” will verify signatures submitted by sponsors of I-1631 titled “Clean Air, Clean Energy, I-1634 titled “Taxation of Groceries” and I-1639 titled “Gun Violence Prevention.”

However, she said, “Significant concerns have been raised about whether the format of the I-1639 petition sheets complies fully with Washington’s constitutional and statutory requirements.”

She said, “RCW 29A.72.100 requires that a ‘readable, full, true, and correct’ copy of the proposed measure be printed on the reverse side of the petition.”

But, she added, “The I-1639 petition sheets presented a text of the measure that lacked underlining and strikethroughs to explain its changes to existing law.”

Wyman said the “Legislature has limited the authority of the Secretary of State regarding this topic.”

“State law does not provide the Secretary of State authority to reject petition sheets based on the requirements in RCW 29A.72.100, which addresses what must be printed on the back of the petition,” she said, hinting that she may have to OK the initiative for the ballot and that voters will be able to read about the proposed changes to the law in the voter pamphlet.

“State law does require that explanatory formatting appear in the voters’ pamphlet for any ballot measure.”

Get you some flyers to pass out, or post up.

https://saveoursecurity.net/wp...n-I-1639-Handout.pdf

According to the Facebooks, Thurston County Superior Court ruled that I-1639 cannot appear on the ballot. Something about written Mandarins, magnuses, writ mandamus, or something. I dunno, I'm sure shortly there will be something to post from someone who actually knows what they're talking about.

This is good though.

This is correct. Judge Jim Dixon, Thurston County Superior Court, invalidated the measure and prevented its being on the ballot. An immediate appeal to the Washington State Supreme Court is expected and or filed as of this post.

NRA Wins Lawsuit in Washington State, Prevents I-1639 From Appearing on Ballot

Fairfax, Va.—The Thurston County Superior Court today ruled in favor of the National Rifle Association and ordered a writ of mandamus to prevent I-1639 from appearing on the ballot. The judge agreed the signature sheets did not comply with state law – the font size was too small to be readable and didn't include strikethroughs.

“The National Rifle Association is glad to see the court today recognized how negligent, if not worse, gun control advocates were in their signature-gathering for this ill-advised ballot initiative,” said Chris W. Cox, executive director, NRA-ILA. “We got involved because I-1639 tramples on the rights of Washington state voters, and because the way these anti-gun activists went about pushing their agenda was egregious. We applaud this decision, and will remain vigilant in protecting the constitutional freedoms of all Americans.”

Among other things, I-1639;

• Creates a gun registry for any transfers of commonly owned semi-automatic rifles;

• Introduces a 10-business day waiting period on the purchase of semi-automatic rifles;

• Imposes criminal liability on otherwise law-abiding gun owners who fail to store their firearms to state standards;

• Increases the age limit to possess or purchase semi-automatic rifles from 18 to 21;

• Mandates training prior to purchase;

• And authorizes a $25 fee to be assessed to semiautomatic rifle purchasers.

The initiative proponents will likely appeal the decision to the state Supreme Court, and we will continue to advocate on behalf of our law-abiding members in the Evergreen state.

About time the NRA did something.

About time someone within the system got it right. Now we'll have to see if the chumps who sit on the State Supreme Court will also do the right thing.

Bad news.

https://www.seattletimes.com/s...-on-november-ballot/

quote:

Originally posted by Voshterkoff:
Bad news.

https://www.seattletimes.com/s...-on-november-ballot/

With the WA Supreme Court, did you really expect anything different?

It'll be great though, all we gotta do is put out some vaguely named initiative that repeals all state gun laws. Call it "Keep Children Safe in Schools and Homes", then not let anybody actually read what it does, and if someone opposes it we can claim that they hate children and want to see them hurt and killed. If the hoplophobes take it to court, well shit, we're just playing the game by your rules. To the ballot it goes.

This is serious folks.

The argument seems to along the lines that there's basically is no grounds for Judicial Review until AFTER the vote, which seems to make absolutely no sense in a case such as this. Let's see, initiative had non-compliant signature gathering (non-compliant forms) and doesn't comply with the law (cover a single issue, which this initiative clearly does not). But hey, let's let it go forward so people can vote on it. Then it will be 'Well, yeah, it was, um, er...technically flawed, but the will of the people has spoken!! So it stands!

And tada! Unlawful initiative is now law.

And this will then open the door/give momentum to King County's 'Gun Safety Action Plan' which seeks to overturn state preemption on firearms and make possession or sale of 'semi-automatic, high velocity weapons' illegal in the county. Nice an ambiguous...that could basically be brought to mean anything semi-automatic. Don't believe me, it's all spelled out right here:

https://kingcountycantwait.org/actionplan/

Others counties would no doubt try to follow suit.

Folks, this may well be a tipping point and pro-active involvement in the voting process is needed. Setting on the fence, not getting 'involved with this mess' is the pathway to handing the opponents a victory. They're counting on just that. If you know anyone in WA., please pass this along to them...it will in all likelihood be on the ballot in November. And then no matter how unlawful it is, it will likely be enacted.

Great summary/info here: https://www.i1639.org/

For those on FB and can help: https://www.facebook.com/Vote-...639-182007759014310/

At the expense of repeating myself. Registered voters are needed to vote against this in a BIG, BIG way. Otherwise Seattle/Bellevue/Tacoma/Olympia will ramrod this across the entire state.

Spread.The.Word. Folks need to be stopping by your gun shops, ranges, and anyone that cares about their 2A rights and make sure they're aware of it, and that they pass it along as well. November will be here very, very soon.

BOSS

Guess I better get that M1A ordered...

Can’t fucking wait to see this state in my rear view mirror once I retire...

quote:

Originally posted by 911Boss:
Guess I better get that M1A ordered...

Can’t fucking wait to see this state in my rear view mirror once I retire...

In the mean time, your assistance would be most appreciated.

Opposition efforts are starting to gear up! There's going to be multiple 'No on 1639' rallys and info meetings around the state. More info here:

https://www.initiative1639.org/

Right now this is a voting contest...he with the most wins, so registered voters are needed!

You can easily registered online in a couple minutes, but it must be done by Oct. 8. Link:
https://weiapplets.sos.wa.gov/MyVoteOLVR/MyVoteOLVR

This will be on the 6 Nov. Ballot folks. That's 68 days and counting.

Spread.The.Word.

Boss