594 lawsuit dismissed?

[ANZAC]

Someone has to get arrested for it, or threatened with arrest for it, to have standing..

IOTW, we need to have someone do a transfer in front of a cop, and get arrested, or act like they're ABOUT to do a transfer, and have a cop threaten to arrest them..

Or.... "First, the alleged injury is hypothetical because Plaintiffs have failed to allege that any named plaintiff has actually paid the fee and/or has been subjected to the wait period."

That's not in any way exclusive of what TW said. I think it's funny a lot of gun control groups are using the above quote in the erroneous belief the court is ruling on their side, when it really just means we have to wait for someone to be charged before the law can actually be challenged.

Yes, that's why I said "or" - either would give you standing.

[jim_dandy]

Someone has to get arrested for it, or threatened with arrest for it, to have standing..

IOTW, we need to have someone do a transfer in front of a cop, and get arrested, or act like they're ABOUT to do a transfer, and have a cop threaten to arrest them..

Or.... "First, the alleged injury is hypothetical because Plaintiffs have failed to allege that any named plaintiff has actually paid the fee and/or has been subjected to the wait period."

That's not in any way exclusive of what TW said. I think it's funny a lot of gun control groups are using the above quote in the erroneous belief the court is ruling on their side, when it really just means we have to wait for someone to be charged before the law can actually be challenged.

Yes, that's why I said "or" - either would give you standing.

Thanks for clarifying. "Or...." without any other qualifiers had me think you were mimicking the usual crowd, which has been playing up the quote you copy pasted as proof that the law is somehow not infringing or injurious.

It looks like from that quote they can also find someone who paid the fee and had to wait for a gun they had every right to own to have standing based on that quote. Their rights were denied unjustly.

Just ask anyone doing a 594 transfer who has been delayed, which I'm sure is plenty of people.

[ANZAC]

Just ask anyone doing a 594 transfer who has been delayed, which I'm sure is plenty of people.

This is no different than what happens at a gun shop. (and I'm not aware of any challenges to the legality of the current dealer process based on delays)

[jim_dandy]

Just ask anyone doing a 594 transfer who has been delayed, which I'm sure is plenty of people.

This is no different than what happens at a gun shop. (and I'm not aware of any challenges to the legality of the current dealer process based on delays)

The difference was one had the alternative option of buying privately. It was left out of the Brady Act intentionally because of problems that one can encounter even as a non-prohibited person.

Looks like there are no other options except to have one's rights denied for no reason for several days.

[jim_dandy]

There's also anyone who happens to live more than 20 miles from an FFL that has a reasonable fee, the whole 18-20 group, the people who work at night, any time the FFL lost their phone coverage, or NICS stopped functioning.

It seems like SAF could find one person from each group and show they were aggrieved by this law unnecessarily without having them charged.

[Stokes]

Send in your donations now so SAF can try again.

[jim_dandy]

Send in your donations now so SAF can try again.

https://www.saf.org/?page_id=66

They make it pretty easy to to do. Just $15 gives you one year.

[gscott]

Funny. The people that bank-rolled and passed the initiative had never been damaged by the previous law, seems to me they had no standing to push the bill. But that didn't stop them.

[ANZAC]

Funny. The people that bank-rolled and passed the initiative had never been damaged by the previous law, seems to me they had no standing to push the bill. But that didn't stop them.

One requires a legal test, the other just requires signatures and $.

[Benja455]

Funny. The people that bank-rolled and passed the initiative had never been damaged by the previous law, seems to me they had no standing to push the bill. But that didn't stop them.

One requires a legal test, the other just requires signatures and $.

Do you consider signatures (collected by paid collectors) and $ (for ads) a legitimate way to propose and pass laws - especially one restricting a constitutional right?

[ANZAC]

Funny. The people that bank-rolled and passed the initiative had never been damaged by the previous law, seems to me they had no standing to push the bill. But that didn't stop them.

One requires a legal test, the other just requires signatures and $.

Do you consider signatures (collected by paid collectors) and $ (for ads) a legitimate way to propose and pass laws - especially one restricting a constitutional right?

No court has found it restricts a constitutional right.

$ were spent on 591 (paid collectors) and $ (for ads)..... so it is a level playing field apparently (if you both have enough money).

The truth is the ads didn't appreciably change the outcome (look at the early polls).

But to your point - there is a check and balance on voter initiatives, which is the legislature.
Who decided to do exactly nothing.

So I'm ok with the initiative process because there is at least one check and balance to it.

[joao01]

So I'm ok with the initiative process because there is at least one check and balance to it.

Which of the three branches does this Initiative process fall under? As I recall, Legislative, Executive and Judicial all have checks and balances against one another. I don't recall seeing "mob rule" in the Constitution or even the Federalist Papers.

[Guns4Liberty]

Funny. The people that bank-rolled and passed the initiative had never been damaged by the previous law, seems to me they had no standing to push the bill. But that didn't stop them.

One requires a legal test, the other just requires signatures and $.

Do you consider signatures (collected by paid collectors) and $ (for ads) a legitimate way to propose and pass laws - especially one restricting a constitutional right?

No court has found it restricts a constitutional right.

One need not be a judge or a constitutional scholar to know that the provisions of 594 are blatant infringements upon our constitutionally-protected human rights. The language of the 2A is VERY clear that the right to keep and bear arms SHALL NOT be infringed. How can the regulation/restriction of private sales for lawful purposes between otherwise law-abiding citizens be considered anything BUT an infringement upon our rights?!

[RENCORP]

Funny. The people that bank-rolled and passed the initiative had never been damaged by the previous law, seems to me they had no standing to push the bill. But that didn't stop them.

One requires a legal test, the other just requires signatures and $.

Do you consider signatures (collected by paid collectors) and $ (for ads) a legitimate way to propose and pass laws - especially one restricting a constitutional right?

No court has found it restricts a constitutional right.

$ were spent on 591 (paid collectors) and $ (for ads)..... so it is a level playing field apparently (if you both have enough money).

The truth is the ads didn't appreciably change the outcome (look at the early polls).

But to your point - there is a check and balance on voter initiatives, which is the legislature.
Who decided to do exactly nothing.

So I'm ok with the initiative process because there is at least one check and balance to it.

Yep, you are correct.

The check came from Bloomburg - not even a Washington state resident.

And, the balance came from Hanauer And Friends.

There's the check and balance.

The rest was sex, lies, and video tape.

What a 594 agitprop campaign farce it turned out to be.

It points to the new direction politics is taking in America today.

With enough money and a message having no basis in reality, anyone can keep their election if they want the election.

[jim_dandy]

Funny. The people that bank-rolled and passed the initiative had never been damaged by the previous law, seems to me they had no standing to push the bill. But that didn't stop them.

One requires a legal test, the other just requires signatures and $.

Do you consider signatures (collected by paid collectors) and $ (for ads) a legitimate way to propose and pass laws - especially one restricting a constitutional right?

No court has found it restricts a constitutional right.

$ were spent on 591 (paid collectors) and $ (for ads)..... so it is a level playing field apparently (if you both have enough money).

The truth is the ads didn't appreciably change the outcome (look at the early polls).

So I'm ok with the initiative process because there is at least one check and balance to it.

The ads did continue a misleading narrative that has been repeated by others, including the president (e.g. 40% of gun sales). Continuing to lie and mislead can still contribute to the way one votes.

In fact, polls showed that those who actually paid attention instead of reading the election blurb were less likely to vote for the bill.

However,  those  paying  “close  attention”  to 
the  election  were  less  likely  to  support  I‐594 
(46%)  than  those  paying  only  “some  atten‐
tion”  (63%)  or  those  paying  “little  or  no” atten‐
tion (66%).  

Ads which supported the narrative are still a foundation for a vote, even if it's one based off of being completely misleading. This includes the belief that some folks still hold, that you could buy a gun off of the internet like one buys electronics off of Amazon without a background check.

But to your point - there is a check and balance on voter initiatives, which is the legislature.
Who decided to do exactly nothing.

The check for mob rule can only really be enacted two years after the passing of the bill. That's two years of many people having their rights violated before they can be restored, or time waiting for court cases to be settled.

It seems like these initiatives should really be checked by courts and/or legislature for constitutionality before they are allowed to be on a ballot.

See Prop 8 in California which should have never been on a ballot, and as another example of people voting away someone else's right they'd never care to use.