A fly in the in Gungrab Oinment

[Tobias K]

Article 2, section 1 part c

(c) No act, law, or bill subject to referendum shall take effect until ninety days after the adjournment of the session at which it was enacted. No act, law, or bill approved by a majority of the electors voting thereon shall be amended or repealed by the legislature within a period of two years following such enactment: Provided, That any such act, law, or bill may be amended within two years after such enactment at any regular or special session of the legislature by a vote of two-thirds of all the members elected to each house with full compliance with section 12, Article III, of the Washington Constitution, and no amendatory law adopted in accordance with this provision shall be subject to referendum. But such enactment may be amended or repealed at any general regular or special election by direct vote of the people thereon.

So since all of these are messing with the RCW just after it was amended by 1639, there may be a requirement that all the new laws will have to pass a super majority.

At least two of these new bills amend RCW that was recently amended by initiative 1639, which triggers a supermajority requirement (66% vote) for two years under the WA constitution.

Initiative 1639 amended RCW 9.41.090, 9.41.092, 9.41.094, 9.41.097, 9.41.0975, 9.41.110, 9.41.113, 9.41.124, 9.41.240, 9.41.129, and 9.41.010

Proposed bill 5062 (mag ban) amends RCW 9.41.010 . The substitute bill specifically says "RCW 9.41.010 and 2019 c 3 s 16 (Initiative Measure No. 1639) are each amended to read as follows". Strangely the mention of the initiative is missing from the original bill.

5061 ("ghost" guns) has the same language in the substitute bill. "RCW 9.41.010 and 2019 c 3 s 16 (Initiative Measure No. 1639) are each amended to read as follows". Likewise, the original bill doesn't mention the initiative.

What does this mean going forwards?

[Arisaka]

It means the Democrats don’t give a shit. They will pass it and then stall any legal challenges as long as possible.

[A.O.]

They don't care.

"Kuderer, Patty (D) argued that despite constitutional issues we should pass this and just find out in the courts later."

[TacticalTuna]

They don't care.

"Kuderer, Patty (D) argued that despite constitutional issues we should pass this and just find out in the courts later."

You can watch it here https://www.tvw.org/watch/?clientID=937 ... tream=true

[Guns4Liberty]

They don't care.

"Kuderer, Patty (D) argued that despite constitutional issues we should pass this and just find out in the courts later."

You can watch it here https://www.tvw.org/watch/?clientID=937 ... tream=true

Think about that for a minute. A lawmaker is not concerned with making sure new laws are consistent with existing ones. It doesn't get any more short-sighted than that. She doesn't realize that approach undermines the rule of law itself and, by extension, neuters the efficacy of lawmakers like herself. What an idiot.

Last edited by Guns4Liberty on Fri Jan 25, 2019 6:21 pm, edited 1 time in total.

[EmbraceTheEdge]

They don't care.

"Kuderer, Patty (D) argued that despite constitutional issues we should pass this and just find out in the courts later."

You can watch it here https://www.tvw.org/watch/?clientID=937 ... tream=true

Think about that for a minute. A lawmaker is not concerned with making sure new laws are consistent with existing ones. It doesn't get any more short-sighted than that. She doesn't realize that approach undermines the rule of law itself and, by extension, neuters the efficacy of lawmakers like herself. What an idiot.

Yep.