A U.S. District Court judge in Tacoma has denied a motion by defendants to dismiss a federal lawsuit challenging Washington State’s gun control Initiative 1639, ruling that law-abiding gun owners and firearms retailers do not have to violate the law and risk punishment in order to challenge infringements of the Second Amendment.

SAF and NRA are joined by two gun dealers, one in Spokane and the other in Clark County, plus four young adults who are directly affected by provisions of the initiative.

U.S. District Court Judge Ronald B. Leighton handed down the decision.

“The long delay is over,” said SAF founder and Executive Vice President Alan M. Gottlieb. “The important aspects of the motion to dismiss have been denied. Just as important, the judge’s ruling treats the Second Amendment as any other fundamental individual right that is constitutionally protected.”

The federal lawsuit challenges provisions of the controversial, multi-faceted initiative on the grounds that it violates the commerce clause by banning sales of rifles to non-residents, and that it unconstitutionally impairs the rights guaranteed by the First, Second and Fourteenth Amendments, and Article I Section 24 of the Washington State Constitution by preventing the sale of certain rifles to otherwise qualified adults under age 21.

The 30-page gun control measure was passed in November. Under its provisions, young adults under age 21 can no longer purchase semiautomatic rifles of any type or caliber, because they all fall within the overly broad definition of a “semiautomatic assault rifle” as contained in initiative language. The measure also requires a 10-day waiting period, so-called “enhanced background checks” and a fee to pay for additional paperwork, plus other provisions.

“Our supporters have been asking for months about the lawsuit’s progress,” Gottlieb said. “Now we can report that the long wait for a ruling on the motion to dismiss is over, and we won the first round. And now the state and the initiative proponents are on the defensive.”

https://www.saf.org/

I wonder how this will affect a possible lawsuit against I-594, because I think a judge ruled there that a lawsuit couldn't go forward unless someone had actually been denied, or arrested for violating the law. Smashing this bullshit, and getting private sales back? Hmm, that would be choice.

quote:

Originally posted by airsoft guy:
I wonder how this will affect a possible lawsuit against I-594, because I think a judge ruled there that a lawsuit couldn't go forward unless someone had actually been denied, or arrested for violating the law. Smashing this bullshit, and getting private sales back? Hmm, that would be choice.

I have to admit, I smiled imagining all the salty tears when the city’s sudden last minute willingness to amend was not gonna save the day for them. Even before Heller, I don’t understand how some jurisdictions can pretty much ban handguns (the most common defensive weapon) and even regulate shotguns and rifles to the point they are a burden to acquire. I have a liberal photographer friend in NYC who wanted to buy a handgun and she was shocked when I told her not only are you never going to be able carry it, she could buy a mortar in another state easier than a handgun to store in her apt.

July 1 and 1639 are rapidly approaching.

With less than two weeks to go, it seems there's still a good amount of confusion re. the 'approved' training requirements.


It may well get interesting here as the deadline comes to pass and people try to buy that semi-automatic assault 10/22...

If you're so inclined:

https://www.gofundme.com/1639-legal-defense-fund

Boss

The training aspect of this is stupid...I can buy an ar15 pistol with no training...but an ar15 rifle needs some bs training...oh and everyone wait 10 plus days for your firearm... delay delay because the LE agencies are not prepared for the work load that is coming.

FYI...petition to repeal I1639...31K signatures and growing...

https://www.change.org/p/voter...e8-9446-630b842cce6e

Boss