• We are now running on a new, and hopefully much-improved, server. In addition we are also on new forum software. Any move entails a lot of technical details and I suspect we will encounter a few issues as the new server goes live. Please be patient with us. It will be worth it! :) Please help by posting all issues here.
  • The forum will be down for about an hour this weekend for maintenance. I apologize for the inconvenience.
  • If you are having trouble seeing the forum then you may need to clear your browser's DNS cache. Click here for instructions on how to do that
  • Please review the Forum Rules frequently as we are constantly trying to improve the forum for our members and visitors.

I donated to SAF today to fight I-594 in court -- you should too!

44Brent

Regular Member
Joined
May 21, 2006
Messages
772
Location
Olympia, WA
How does the prospect of living under the threat of vague and arbitrarily enforced laws against "transfers" sound? It doesn't sound very good so I donated to SAF today. I also called and asked them to file a lawsuit against I-594, and it turns out they already have this thing under a microscope.

You should also donate to SAF, and here's how to do it.

Go to: http://www.saf.org/
Click the link for "Protect your Rights".
Click the link for "Join SAF or make a donation"
 

davidmcbeth

Banned
Joined
Jan 14, 2012
Messages
16,167
Location
earth's crust
The courts will not strike it down for vagueness IMO. But one certainly can try...it does not need a harvard education to bring this point up to a court.

Would one have to be charged to bring this point up?
 
Last edited:

jsanchez

Regular Member
Joined
May 9, 2010
Messages
499
Location
seattle
all those SAF guys screwed it up

all they had to do was put forward a bill that had background checks in it

without all the vagueness and we wouldn't have this problem
 

davidmcbeth

Banned
Joined
Jan 14, 2012
Messages
16,167
Location
earth's crust
Mostly because it's not vague when read by a lawyer. It's only vague if a non-lawyer reads it, using common usage understanding instead of lawyerese.



Probably.

Well, when a lawyer or judge reads a sentence like: Mary had a little lamb.

They read it to include dogs.

They must have some course in college "forgetting all reasonableness in the english language, Course 101"
 

44Brent

Regular Member
Joined
May 21, 2006
Messages
772
Location
Olympia, WA
all those SAF guys screwed it up

all they had to do was put forward a bill that had background checks in it

without all the vagueness and we wouldn't have this problem

SAF screwed nothing up.

SAF files lawsuit in court, they don't file legislation or write initiatives (especially anti-gun ones which jsanchez apparently desires).
 

Dave_pro2a

Regular Member
Joined
Nov 28, 2007
Messages
2,132
Location
, ,
all those SAF guys screwed it up

all they had to do was put forward a bill that had background checks in it

without all the vagueness and we wouldn't have this problem

Giving up always leads to winning in the end, right?
 

aa1911

Regular Member
Joined
Jul 18, 2012
Messages
106
Location
Yelm, WA
SAF screwed up by not pushing a bill for more restrictive gun legislation?!?!

You've got me stumped, this does..... not.... compute....

I'm sure you're referring to 'lesser of two evils' but it's quite dangerous to play that game with gun rights; we'll lose every time.
 

()pen(arry

Regular Member
Joined
Nov 15, 2010
Messages
735
Location
Seattle, WA; escaped from 18 years in TX
Would one have to be charged to bring this point up?

One would need standing, which traditionally required real† damages. More modernly, one can establish standing in less obvious ways, but it's harder and more subject to the subjective discretion of judges. A range owner might be able to establish damages with reasonable facility.

† Same root as "real estate". Look it up.
 

bani

New member
Joined
Oct 19, 2014
Messages
29
Location
Redmond
if there's any lawyer who could pull off a successful challenge to 594, it would be SAF's alan gura.
 

()pen(arry

Regular Member
Joined
Nov 15, 2010
Messages
735
Location
Seattle, WA; escaped from 18 years in TX
We are losing ground at a prodigious pace because too many of us insist on focusing the bulk of our energies on voting, rather than engaging in dialogue with those we encounter. No one ever changed a mind by voting, or by talking only to people who already agree with them.
 

Geerolla

Regular Member
Joined
Mar 22, 2010
Messages
114
Location
WA, USA
What fight?

Your question should have been........... "How are you supporting the charade?"

Washington is a lost State. Get over it.

I will not "get over it". How exactly is giving up the answer? Pathetic.


Sent from my UAV using Disposition Matrix 2.0
 

bani

New member
Joined
Oct 19, 2014
Messages
29
Location
Redmond
We are losing ground at a prodigious pace because too many of us insist on focusing the bulk of our energies on voting, rather than engaging in dialogue with those we encounter. No one ever changed a mind by voting, or by talking only to people who already agree with them.

many gun owners voted for 594 because they didn't know what was in it. there was a lot of potentially low resistance conversions out there that were not pursued.

should have been working the phone banks to call every single NRA member in the state, and every republican in the state.
 

Jeff. State

Banned
Joined
Aug 29, 2012
Messages
650
Location
usa
I will not "get over it". How exactly is giving up the answer? Pathetic.


Sent from my UAV using Disposition Matrix 2.0


I didn't say "give up". Defiance, non-compliance and complete disregard for this and other unconstitutional laws is "the answer". Your State is full of Statist Sheep, the wolves in government will do as they please with an electorate like that. You will not find an "answer" in SAF/NRA/the system, the game is rigged.



many gun owners voted for 594 because they didn't know what was in it. there was a lot of potentially low resistance conversions out there that were not pursued.

should have been working the phone banks to call every single NRA member in the state, and every republican in the state.

I'm not a republican, and I'm not an NRA member and I have the common sense to read something before voting for it. Those "many gun owners" who voted for 594 out of complete ignorance deserve what they get.


Silly me, there I go again talking about "voting", like it matters.
 
Top