- Joined
- Dec 5, 2015
- Messages
- 28,610
- Reaction score
- 6,367
- Location
- Washington
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Independent
Judge Ronald Leighton, a President George W. Bush-appointed federal judge, granted Ferguson’s motion for summary judgment ruling that I-1639 does not violate the Constitution. The law implemented the same enhanced background checks, waiting periods, and purchasing requirements for semiautomatic assault rifle purchases that have long been in place for handgun purchases.
Judge Leighton decided a trial was unnecessary to resolve the case. In order to rule on summary judgment, there must be no genuine dispute over any material fact, and the judge views the evidence in the light most favorable to the party opposing summary judgment. In other words, the judge viewed the facts in a light most favorable to the NRA and the other plaintiffs in the case, and still upheld the initiative.
“An overwhelming majority of Washington voters approved Initiative 1639,” Ferguson said. “The NRA continues to challenge voter-approved, common sense gun reforms – and they continue to lose. I will not allow the NRA to undermine the will of the voters. If they choose to appeal, we will beat them again.”
AG Ferguson: Court rules against NRA; voter-approved Initiative 1639 is constitutional | Washington State
Bars the sales of semi-autos to people under 21? Check
10-day waiting period for the sales of semi-autos? Check
Requires those who want to buy them to go through a mandatory firearms training course? Check
Charging gun owners if someone not allowed to have a gun get a hold of their firearms because it wasn't safely stored? Check
This is exactly what I am talking about. These are common-sense laws that are not in violation of the Consitution. The NRA and 2nd Amendment Foundation are wrong. They have been exposed as not supporting the Consitution but using it towards their own twisted and perverted ideology.
Hopefully these kind of laws can expand towards more states!
I'm not surprised that the average voters in WA don't understand what "...shall not be infringed" means. After all, in some places the average voter is a blithering idiot. But I am surprised that the judge, who would normally be considered a learned man, would fail to understand that phrase.
I hope this ruling gets appealed to a higher court.
Defending the initiative, Ferguson filed several declarations in support for the state’s motion for summary judgment.
The declarations include one from Paul Kramer, whose 19-year-old son Will was critically injured in a shooting in Mukilteo. The shooter, 19-year-old Allen Ivanov, legally purchased AR-15 style rifle just a few days before the shooting took place. Using an entire 30-round magazine, the shooter killed three people and injured Will.
In his declaration, Kramer wrote: “Words cannot express what it means for a family to go through these devastating events. Three families lost their loved ones. We were lucky and Will lived. While his physical wounds eventually healed, the grief and trauma never will be gone. I served as the citizen sponsor of Initiative 1639, which would have prohibited Ivanov from legally purchasing the semiautomatic assault rifle he used in his shooting spree, in order to help prevent other families from having to live the same nightmare as ours. ...No family should have to go through the same type of tragedy that mine has.”
In another declaration, Dr. Frederick Rivara, a professor of pediatrics and epidemiology at the University of Washington, highlighted the link between semiautomatic assault rifles and mass shootings.
Dr. Rivara wrote: “The available data on semiautomatic assault rifles indicates they have played an important and disproportionate role in mass shootings in the United States and appear to be the weapon of choice when an individual wants to shoot and kill as many people as possible in a short period of time. The available data also indicate that restrictions on purchase or possession of these rifles can result in a reduction of mass shooting deaths, as shown both in the US and in Australia, and thus have important positive impact of health and public health.”
AG Ferguson: Court rules against NRA; voter-approved Initiative 1639 is constitutional | Washington State
Bars the sales of semi-autos to people under 21? Check
10-day waiting period for the sales of semi-autos? Check
Requires those who want to buy them to go through a mandatory firearms training course? Check
Charging gun owners if someone not allowed to have a gun get a hold of their firearms because it wasn't safely stored? Check
This is exactly what I am talking about. These are common-sense laws that are not in violation of the Consitution. The NRA and 2nd Amendment Foundation are wrong. They have been exposed as not supporting the Consitution but using it towards their own twisted and perverted ideology.
Hopefully these kind of laws can expand towards more states!
Bars the sales of semi-autos to people under 21? Check
10-day waiting period for the sales of semi-autos? Check
Requires those who want to buy them to go through a mandatory firearms training course? Check
AG Ferguson: Court rules against NRA; voter-approved Initiative 1639 is constitutional | Washington State
Bars the sales of semi-autos to people under 21? Check
10-day waiting period for the sales of semi-autos? Check
Requires those who want to buy them to go through a mandatory firearms training course? Check
Charging gun owners if someone not allowed to have a gun get a hold of their firearms because it wasn't safely stored? Check
This is exactly what I am talking about. These are common-sense laws that are not in violation of the Consitution. The NRA and 2nd Amendment Foundation are wrong. They have been exposed as not supporting the Consitution but using it towards their own twisted and perverted ideology.
Hopefully these kind of laws can expand towards more states!
Washington has been Californicated.
I doubt this is the end of it and anticipate some sort of appeal or challenge in the near future
You probably shouldn't wonder. While support for gun ownership is very high, so is support for these types of gun control laws.I wonder if they argued that the ballot did not sufficiently put voters on notice of what they were voting for.
Not all states are the same, and not all ballot initiatives are the same. Plus, these types of ballot initiatives usually have groups advocating yes or no.After moving recently and voting in a state that used ballot initiatives, I was shocked at how uninformative the ballot statements are. It's kind of ridiculous to ask people vote for or against a piece of legislation 99% of them haven't even read.
Yeah, that's just the tip of the iceberg.The sad thing is WA state had 12 sheriffs state they would refuse to enforce the law.
Talk about a blatant misuse of power. You have sheriffs publically saying they will not follow the legislative or judicial branch.
Sheriffs refusing to enforce the law? Now that is outrageous.
They can appeal, but the SCOTUS typically *cough* shoots down objections to these types of gun laws.I doubt this is the end of it and anticipate some sort of appeal or challenge in the near future
They can appeal, but the SCOTUS typically *cough* shoots down objections to these types of gun laws.
If a gun control law genuinely makes it impossible to bear a weapon -- as was largely the case in Heller -- the SCOTUS will declare it unconstitutional. However, even Scalia openly declared in Heller that the vast majority of existing gun control legislation was valid.
The SCOTUS even refused to hear any challenges to gun control laws in its next term.
So yeah, I most certainly would not bet on any further appeals meeting any success.
AG Ferguson: Court rules against NRA; voter-approved Initiative 1639 is constitutional | Washington State
Bars the sales of semi-autos to people under 21? Check
10-day waiting period for the sales of semi-autos? Check
Requires those who want to buy them to go through a mandatory firearms training course? Check
Charging gun owners if someone not allowed to have a gun get a hold of their firearms because it wasn't safely stored? Check
This is exactly what I am talking about. These are common-sense laws that are not in violation of the Consitution. The NRA and 2nd Amendment Foundation are wrong. They have been exposed as not supporting the Consitution but using it towards their own twisted and perverted ideology.
Hopefully these kind of laws can expand towards more states!
Bars the sales of semi-autos to people under 21? Check
10-day waiting period for the sales of semi-autos? Check
Requires those who want to buy them to go through a mandatory firearms training course? Check
Charging gun owners if someone not allowed to have a gun get a hold of their firearms because it wasn't safely stored? Check
This is exactly what I am talking about. These are common-sense laws that are not in violation of the Consitution.
You probably shouldn't wonder. While support for gun ownership is very high, so is support for these types of gun control laws.
Text of the initiative is here:
https://www.sos.wa.gov/_assets/elections/initiatives/finaltext_1531.pdf
Therefore, to increase public safety for all Washingtonians, in
particular our children, this measure would, among other things:
Create an enhanced background check system applicable to
semiautomatic assault rifles similar to what is required for
handguns, require that individuals complete a firearm safety
training course and be at least twenty-one years of age to purchase
or possess such weapons, enact a waiting period for the purchase of
such weapons, and establish standards for the responsible storage of
all firearms.
Not all states are the same, and not all ballot initiatives are the same. Plus, these types of ballot initiatives usually have groups advocating yes or no.
I don't see how this would be so jumbled as to be wildly misinterpreted by the public. There isn't a lot of ambiguity in "require a firearm safety class" or "establish storage standards."
AG Ferguson: Court rules against NRA; voter-approved Initiative 1639 is constitutional | Washington State
Bars the sales of semi-autos to people under 21? Check
10-day waiting period for the sales of semi-autos? Check
Requires those who want to buy them to go through a mandatory firearms training course? Check
Charging gun owners if someone not allowed to have a gun get a hold of their firearms because it wasn't safely stored? Check
This is exactly what I am talking about. These are common-sense laws that are not in violation of the Consitution. The NRA and 2nd Amendment Foundation are wrong. They have been exposed as not supporting the Consitution but using it towards their own twisted and perverted ideology.
Hopefully these kind of laws can expand towards more states!
The sad thing is WA state had 12 sheriffs state they would refuse to enforce the law.
Talk about a blatant misuse of power. You have sheriffs publically saying they will not follow the legislative or judicial branch.
Sheriffs refusing to enforce the law? Now that is outrageous.
I actually like the idea of requiring a safety course for anyone buying a firearm. In this nation that course should be taught in high school along with first aid training. Imagine the lives that could be saved.
A professional can easily defeat many high priced gun safes made today although proper storage might keep kids safe.
So an adult can vote and serve in the military, but he can't buy a gun?
Why should anyone have to wait 10 days? How is t "common sense" to prevent a woman, who was just threatened by her ex-husband, from buying a firearm immediately in order to protect herself?
What about low income people who can't afford it?
Yes, an adult also cannot drink until the age of 21.
LOL!. Owning a gun isn't a right, it is a privilege. I'll stand by that statement the rest of my life.
Also a stupid law, but not even remotely related to a constitutional right.
Then you'll be wrong for the rest of your life.
From what is actually happening in US courts. Dozens of laws were challenged after Heller, almost none were overturned. You have no excuse not to know this.Not sure where you got "vast majority of existing gun control legislation" from.
No, they weren't. Scalia did not make an exhaustive list of which gun control regulations are constitutional. That's why he used phrases like "for example" and "such as" and "long-standing provisions."Scalia in Heller, and later Alito in McDonald, were specific in what infringements might be considered as Constitutional....
Yes. There have been dozens of cases that the SCOTUS has declined to review. They refused to hear 10 cases just in 2020. The SCOTUS refused to hear challenges to gun laws for 9 years until the NYRPA case. As a result, almost no gun regulations were overturned after Heller.Other than Chicago v McDonald and Caetano v Massachusetts, you mean?
lol, no, try again. People spent a decade challenging gun regulations in the courts, even when the court only had 4 firm conservative votes.Neither side on SCOTUS really trusts Roberts; if they did, we would see more SCOTUS review.
Be careful. That kind of talk can have you branded a traitor by the gun community.
From what is actually happening in US courts. Dozens of laws were challenged after Heller, almost none were overturned. You have no excuse not to know this.
There was no exhaustive list, which is why any gun control law other than those mentioned needs to be reviewed on its own merits. For an example of how the current SCOTUS would review gun control laws, you should read Kavanaugh's dissent in Heller II.No, they weren't. Scalia did not make an exhaustive list of which gun control regulations are constitutional. That's why he used phrases like "for example" and "such as" and "long-standing provisions."
Sorry not sorry, but I am not a gullible gun-rights extremist who grasps at straws to push an agenda
Are you forgetting Caetano? We've seen Heller used to overturn gun laws in lower courts in cases like Young v Hawaii and Maloney v Singas.Yes. There have been dozens of cases that the SCOTUS has declined to review. They refused to hear 10 cases just in 2020. The SCOTUS refused to hear challenges to gun laws for 9 years until the NYRPA case. As a result, almost no gun regulations were overturned after Heller.
As to NYRPA, the NY law was too strict -- to the point where a NYC gun owner couldn't transport a gun to a domicile or shooting range outside the city's borders. (As in, I'm fully in favor of firearm laws, and even I can see how that's too restrictive.) NYC repealed that specific out-of-city portion, which rendered the case moot. Thus, NYC's premises licenses still heavily restrict transport, but the law now allows the owner to transport their permitted firearm(s) to a home or shooting range outside NYC. If the fundamental regulation of a premise license was at issue, then the case would have been heard.
lol, no, try again. People spent a decade challenging gun regulations in the courts, even when the court only had 4 firm conservative votes.
I'd also say it is pretty desperate, and a teeny bit biased, to say that the only way you can get the rulings you want is to stack the court with rabid conservatives.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?