One more reason not to spend any money in that socialist haven

Well, looks like both laws passed unanimously.

Now that these are the law, what's your plan Soly? Closing down? Moving? Suing? Some combo of these?

I'm also curious to see a plan of action from SAF and what they intend to do. Not sure if we can get an injunction to stop the law pending litigation.

They'd be better off actually taxing gun violence.

maybe the council needs to experience gun violence right up in person. they would see that law abiding citizens shouldnt be the scapegoats to their ignorance.

they sit raping the taxpayers and dont have any intelect or intelligence to run a city

What did he say?



Word.

Threads merged

I wish I could post how I feel.

Once it becomes public how much money has been made, I really wonder how long it will take for other cities to follow?

One step forward, three steps back

If if you don't think this will be state wide.

If every gun owner in Seattle voted against these city council members in the next election, maybe they could be thrown out. The problem is, many gun owners keep voting for liberal progressives.

http://www.seattle.gov/council/councilcontact.htm

The King5 news item says it was an 8-0 vote, but the above site says nine members, so what's up with that?

http://www.king5.com/story/news/local/s ... /31438881/

12th man thing?

Not ONE vote against the measures.

Not ONE vote for sanity.



Guess the $700.00 bucks went for naught.

Anyone remember the mechanics and processes of Seattle v Chan? Was the Seattle rule suspended pending the case? If so, how long did it take to get suspended? Did they have to wait to get the suspension or sue until the rule went into effect?

Curious to see if things will break down the same way and how the timelines will be different.

Suggest you go to the Seattle City Attorney's Facebook page, https://www.facebook.com/SeattleCityAttorney?fref=ts and ask him how he intends to defend this in light of state preemption since he posted that he fully supports it.

That should be the first step. I don't think it should be hard to convince a judge that an injunction is necessary, especially in light of the fact that it is highly plausible that this tax will be found to be in violation of state preemption. That, and the lack of an injunction will undoubtedly cause economic suffering. But someone with standing has to file the suit and request the injunction. Because this is a tax on the dealers, that means it's up to Soly and others like him in the Seattle city limits to take action. Teaming up with SAF would be a wise move.