594 lawsuit dismissed?

[ANZAC]

Okay, looks like this is turning into another episode of "explain to ANZAC basic principles".

Simply put, mob rule based on fear and ignorance pushed a law forward, and there were no checks against it. The legislative process you describe, even with a blank bill, would have done nothing. It is simply not a check. The alternative blank bill would have been ignored when next to the other option that would still go on the ballot, and placing an alternative would have seen as further gun control.

If you're against banning gay marriage, altering a bill that still bans gay marriage is essentially showing support for banning gay marriage.

The alternative bill does not need to have an identical effect to the propose bill.
There are no restrictions or requirements of the alternative bill other than it needs have the letter B appended to it. Go read the WA constitution and RCWs.

For example, a $30 license tab initiative, an alternate bill could be proposed prohibit any caps on license fees. Or to ban electric vehicles.

Any initiated law, so amended, is not subject to veto referendum.

Yes, that's why I specifically mentioned bills from the legislature, which are subject to veto referendums.

That's like saying the House doesn't need a check because only a small group introduced an AWB, and the representatives voting on it still voted for it.

That's not how checks and balances work.

Checks and balances are additional steps or decision points. For example, a group of terrorists could propose an amendment to burn flags every Friday. And the people could vote it down. There is a check and balance on the original signatures gathered.

It's likely it was just too soon, or they were awaiting the judicial challenge, or they knew even symbolically it was a waste of time when the billionaires are most vigilant.

Saying that "it is too hard" or "they're waiting" is weak sauce. There is nothing stopping them from beginning the discussion in the legislature.
They are the people elected to represent their views. There were many districts in WA that voted against 594. Those elected officials should take note of that. Yet they have done NOTHING.

There was a court case that was dismissed. I keep pointing out it's a mistake to assume this is a victory for the gun control crowd. It's a mere technicality, and it further illustrates how useless 594 has been with no one even charged in the time it has been a law.

We don't know if anyone has been charged under it. SAF clearly couldn't find someone. I don't assume this is a victory for the gun control crowd, because nothing is ever final, but the amount of legislative or legal activity right now on 594 is zero. On Prop 8 .... a little more than zero.

I've already suggested that is a good idea, but I'm not a lawyer. It's likely the judge has made it clear the law can only be challenged when a person is charged with it, but for some reason the behavior caused by the law isn't affected. That is a technicality.

And the judge also said that someone who had done a transfer or paid a fee would have standing. There are plenty of those people, yet no challenge?

The due process should have stopped the initiative entirely. It's easy to convince the mob by making them fear shadows, even ones as innocuous as gay marriage or homosexuals, when you give them to choice to do so. It doesn't make it right.

I agree with you but not on the principal of violating rights. The legal system is the proper place to test if that has happened or not.
An example of the process (sort of) at work, was when Inslee vetoed the public agency drone bill, even though I think only 3 reps voted against it.

He said, we need to come up with something better.

I'm not sure why this is so difficult, but that is not a check. A check is when the activity is stopped, not aided.

There is nothing that says an alternate bill proposed by the leg must have the same effect, or aid the goal of the original initiative.
It is up to the legislature to decide the content of the alternate initiative.

The fear campaign was going on before 594 polls, and the more people learned about the law the less likely they were to support it.

But the big money came in AFTER WAGR was formed and well after the polls started. You keep mentioning Bloomberg. He came in relatively late to the game.

Also the oft-quoted 90% poll can easily be debunked by actually reading the poll question referenced. Look up "push poll".

I've never seen a 90% poll, I was referring to the ~60% poll.

Due consideration: Does it violate or take away rights? Then it probably shouldn't be an initiative, or a court should evaluate it first.

Heller/SCOTUS held that regulation was not infringement. A WA court would likely find the same, unless specifically prodded on the issues of 18-20 year olds and handguns. And as I said, a court process could take years....

That would be like saying the lawyers who helped overturn Prop 8 are blockading the will of the people.

They ARE! Do I agree with Prop 8? No. But if you don't like the mob rule, maybe you need to stop living with the mob.
There are plenty of things that I disagree with.

Think of it this way, by not allowing veto referendums on initiatives, the WA constitution places the will of the people HIGHER than that of the legislature.
Would you rather the legislature and judiciary have MORE control?

Those darn lawyers and $$$ fighting for gay rights. Years of court cases deciding as to whether something gets to a vote is far better than passing a law that violates civil rights and waiting for it to be overturned!

But it could be misapplied and used against initiatives that don't violate civil rights. There is no magic box that says in a day whether something involves civil rights. And the same argument would be made on 594, that it doesn't violate civil rights. You say it does, I say it (mostly) doesn't.

This is one good example of why it needs to be overhauled and given an actual check. Again, having no real challenge after 6 months is only due a technicality which ironically highlights how useless this law actually is, and yes, I don't like the outcome. Just like I didn't like the outcome of Prop 8 in CA even though it has no affect on me or my rights.

As I mentioned, someone who paid the fee and did a transfer on day 1 would have had standing according to the court, which was why I posted their note here. Yet you choose to ignore that as a potential vehicle to challenge the law. I'm not going to mention it again. Go read what the court wrote. Then note there has been no lawsuit filed by anyone who did a private sale transfer. A 20 year old could have tried to do a handgun transfer on day 1 and been denied. So there are two categories of people with standing! Since DAY ONE.

The SAF needs to get their act together. I suspect they'll just continue to collect money off the outraged sheeple, and then flap around and do NOTHING.

I think the bigger question you are asking is: what if the will of the people is wrong? I agree that's a good question to ask.

PS thank you for the civil and spirited discussion.

[ANZAC]

Laws are considered constitutional until they're challenged in court and found unconstitutional, at least that's what the courts say.

You can pass the most unconstitutional 'law', and it would still be enforced as if it were the law....Until challenged in court.

If the legislature banned guns, or gay marriage, the people can rise up with a "veto referendum" to overturn it.
Once a veto referendum has been filed, but not voted on, the law in question is suspended until the vote. (under WA law)

I think the subject under discussion here are initiatives (aka mob rule).

So, the mob is able to check the legislature (as well as the governor) and the legislature is able to check the mob (by proposing alternative initiatives).

[jim_dandy]

There's lots of repeating myself here it seems.

The alternative bill does not need to have an identical effect to the propose bill.
There are no restrictions or requirements of the alternative bill other than it needs have the letter B appended to it. Go read the WA constitution and RCWs.

For example, a $30 license tab initiative, an alternate bill could be proposed prohibit any caps on license fees. Or to ban electric vehicles.

Then both still goes on the ballot, and the other bill is just a distraction. That is not a check.

Saying that "it is too hard" or "they're waiting" is weak sauce. There is nothing stopping them from beginning the discussion in the legislature.
They are the people elected to represent their views. There were many districts in WA that voted against 594. Those elected officials should take note of that. Yet they have done NOTHING.

They have, it's just unlikely to happen immediately after it has passed. Don't worry, it will happen.

We don't know if anyone has been charged under it. SAF clearly couldn't find someone.

If someone were charged, WAGR or the news would let us know immediately. No one has. Useless!

I don't assume this is a victory for the gun control crowd, because nothing is ever final, but the amount of legislative or legal activity right now on 594 is zero. On Prop 8 .... a little more than zero.

Prop 8 only managed to have a court decision around May 26th the following year. Give SAF some time, they're actually a little ahead of the curve.

And the judge also said that someone who had done a transfer or paid a fee would have standing. There are plenty of those people, yet no challenge?

I think standing is different than those injured. I'm curious about this as well.

“The Court is sympathetic to Plaintiffs in that one must actually be prosecuted or under actual or immediate threat of prosecution before the Court may address the constitutionality of a statute.”

Still not sure what the SAF has to do to satisfy the courts. I know lots of folks have had their rights violated already.

I agree with you but not on the principal of violating rights. The legal system is the proper place to test if that has happened or not.
An example of the process (sort of) at work, was when Inslee vetoed the public agency drone bill, even though I think only 3 reps voted against it.

He said, we need to come up with something better.

You found an actual check and balance! Not at all what we had in this instance, or related in any way, but there you go.

There is nothing that says an alternate bill proposed by the leg must have the same effect, or aid the goal of the original initiative.
It is up to the legislature to decide the content of the alternate initiative.

Both still go on the ballot, and one is a distraction. Moot point.

But the big money came in AFTER WAGR was formed and well after the polls started. You keep mentioning Bloomberg. He came in relatively late to the game.

I've never seen a 90% poll, I was referring to the ~60% poll.

Not talking about WAGR, talking about nationwide lying, including from the President and Bloomberg long before 594 was ever announced.

Heller/SCOTUS held that regulation was not infringement. A WA court would likely find the same, unless specifically prodded on the issues of 18-20 year olds and handguns.

I think they would find infringement of one's rights requires serious thought and evidence it would be useful - something no 594 supporters really had. Like I said, they had to turn to fear and ignorance of the masses. Just like there's no evidence of the harm of gay marriage, there was still a push to make people afraid of something that clearly wouldn't have passed any reasonable court's sniff test.

And as I said, a court process could take years....

That would still be better than having an infringing law and letting it run rampant before being struck down.

They ARE! Do I agree with Prop 8? No. But if you don't like the mob rule, maybe you need to stop living with the mob.
There are plenty of things that I disagree with.

Then realize that we are a Republic for a reason.

Think of it this way, by not allowing veto referendums on initiatives, the WA constitution places the will of the people HIGHER than that of the legislature.
Would you rather the legislature and judiciary have MORE control?

Did you mean the veto referendum that is created by the same initiative process?

But it could be misapplied and used against initiatives that don't violate civil rights. There is no magic box that says in a day whether something involves civil rights. And the same argument would be made on 594, that it doesn't violate civil rights. You say it does, I say it (mostly) doesn't.

It clearly does, not even counting 18-20s. Ask any of your American liberal friends if charging a fee to vote violates their rights. They'll set you straight.

As I mentioned, someone who paid the fee and did a transfer on day 1 would have had standing according to the court, which was why I posted their note here. Yet you choose to ignore that as a potential vehicle to challenge the law. I'm not going to mention it again. Go read what the court wrote. Then note there has been no lawsuit filed by anyone who did a private sale transfer. A 20 year old could have tried to do a handgun transfer on day 1 and been denied. So there are two categories of people with standing! Since DAY ONE.

lolwhat? I didn't ignore it. I'm not suing Washington. Either SAF didn't think it was worth bringing up, or the judge made it clear they need someone charged. I am wondering the same, but I don't have the juicy details or an in with the lawyers.

The SAF needs to get their act together. I suspect they'll just continue to collect money off the outraged sheeple, and then flap around and do NOTHING.

They've been incredibly effective in the past. I'm giving them more money to do their thang.

I think the bigger question you are asking is: what if the will of the people is wrong? I agree that's a good question to ask.

Clearly they can be. It hasn't been a huge issue until recently. Let's start with this one: "Imagine in the 50's there is an initiative in Alabama..."

PS thank you for the civil and spirited discussion.

This seems less like a discussion and more like an explanation that is taking too long.

I'm thinking of writing a bot that just repeats several main concepts of a discussion that replies to you until you check a box that says, "Yes, I understand". I'll have to see if it violates ToS though.

[joao01]

Laws are considered constitutional until they're challenged in court and found unconstitutional, at least that's what the courts say.

You can pass the most unconstitutional 'law', and it would still be enforced as if it were the law....Until challenged in court.

If the legislature banned guns, or gay marriage, the people can rise up with a "veto referendum" to overturn it.
Once a veto referendum has been filed, but not voted on, the law in question is suspended until the vote. (under WA law)

I think the subject under discussion here are initiatives (aka mob rule).

So, the mob is able to check the legislature (as well as the governor) and the legislature is able to check the mob (by proposing alternative initiatives).

The challenge is we have no statesmen, but Politicians. Resolve to change opinion, not sway the masses. William Wilberforce comes to mind.

I don't seem to recall the Constitution delegating legislative authority to the mobs.

[RENCORP]

The Supreme Weenie has made some rational, well reasoned, well thought out, concrete points.

Fucking A, dude.

Give the man some bacon - and, make him an honorary Canadian.

[jim_dandy]

Laws are considered constitutional until they're challenged in court and found unconstitutional, at least that's what the courts say.

You can pass the most unconstitutional 'law', and it would still be enforced as if it were the law....Until challenged in court.

If the legislature banned guns, or gay marriage, the people can rise up with a "veto referendum" to overturn it.
Once a veto referendum has been filed, but not voted on, the law in question is suspended until the vote. (under WA law)

I think the subject under discussion here are initiatives (aka mob rule).

So, the mob is able to check the legislature (as well as the governor) and the legislature is able to check the mob (by proposing alternative initiatives).

Alternative proposals are not a check.

[RENCORP]

Laws are considered constitutional until they're challenged in court and found unconstitutional, at least that's what the courts say.

You can pass the most unconstitutional 'law', and it would still be enforced as if it were the law....Until challenged in court.

I guess having laws reviewed before hand is a pipe dream due to US history.

There's a reason for that.

The crown used to arrest people it disagreed with, or suggested changes it didn't like.

As such, they made it so that there were/are no repercussions for introducing legislation, no matter how retarded/vile/unconstitutional they are.

Back in the 'old days' this was handled by the population, who would literally tar and feather (sometimes bayonet) people who would advance such shit as being able to kick in doors without warrant, detain without cause etc..

Now we can't defend the constitution on a personal level, that's 'terrorism'....

So, you can't kill the guy who says 'fuck the republic, I'm a socialist, I'm gonna lie to get a law passed to limit your constitutional rights'...

Well, you can, but then YOU are the bad guy.

'Let the courts sort it out', they say...

How long did it take Heller to get decided on? 30 fucking years for DCs unconstitutional ban to get reversed..

To put that in perspective, for people living in DC, HALF of their life was spent with an unconstitutional ban in place. How many people would have had guns, but didn't, because they were 'law abiding citizens'?

Law abiding people want to abide by the law, its in our nature, we WANT the system to work.

We also have to realize that the system may not work, and we should make provisions for that scenario as well.


We are a nation of LAW.

The Constitution is the supreme LAW of the land.

Unconstitutional LAW is no LAW at all.

My vote for post of the week in this thread.

[AR15L]

Bottom line for I-594... We are still fucked!

[bulldog18]

I-594......Ain't Nobody Got Time for Dat