SAF Lawsuit Challenges Parts of I-594 in WA State

Initiative i-594 is a Gun Ban
Initiative i-594 is a Gun Ban

By Dean Weingarten

Dean Weingarten
Dean Weingarten

Arizona – -(Ammoland.com)- After the sweeping gun control, labeled as “gun safety” and a “background check” initiative passed in Washington state, many speculated that it would quickly be challenged in the courts.  They were right.  The Second Amendment Foundation has picked up the ball and is running with it.  Lawsuits against infringements of the second amendment have become something of a specialty of theirs, and they have had many notable successes.  They supported the Heller case, and were instrumental in McDonald, and Palmer, among others.  Here the SAF press release:

 BELLEVUE, WA – The Second Amendment Foundation today filed a lawsuit in federal district court in Tacoma, seeking a permanent injunction against enforcement of portions of Initiative 594, the 18-page gun control measure that took effect Dec. 4, alleging that “portions of I-594…are so vague that a person of ordinary intelligence cannot understand their scope,” and that other parts violate the Second Amendment outright.

Joining SAF in this action are the Northwest School of Safety, Puget Sound Security, Inc., the Pacific Northwest Association of Investors, the Firearms Academy of Seattle, six individual citizens including SAF founder and Executive Vice President Alan Gottlieb and the Gottlieb Family Trust. They are represented by Seattle attorneys Steven Fogg and David Edwards, and Bellevue attorney Miko Tempski.

Named as defendants are Attorney General Bob Ferguson and Washington State Patrol Chief John Batiste, in their official capacities.

“We took this action due to the confusing and arbitrary language and nature of I-594,” Gottlieb explained.

 

“Three of our plaintiffs, including my son, are residents of other states and cannot legally borrow handguns for personal protection while traveling in Washington. Under I-594, all transfers must be done through federally-licensed firearms dealers, but under federal law, dealers cannot legally transfer handguns to residents of other states. I-594 also essentially prohibits our non-resident plaintiffs from storing their own firearms here.

“This measure effectively infringes upon, if not outright prohibits, the exercise of their constitutionally-protected right to bear arms under the Second Amendment,” he added.

Gottlieb pointed to a recent directive from the state Department of Fish and Wildlife to its volunteer hunter education instructors regarding firearms transfers in class that amount to “straw-man transfers.” The lawsuit also notes that the State Patrol said it could not prove that a change of possession not covered by an I-594 exemption was a “transfer,” making enforcement of the new law “difficult if not impossible.”

“We’re not trying to stop background checks,” Gottlieb said. “We’re taking action against a poorly-written and unconstitutionally vague measure that criminalizes activities that are perfectly legal anywhere else in the country, thus striking at the very heart of a constitutionally-protected, fundamental civil right.”

SAF has a reputation for winning lawsuits.  Many have complained about the unworkable language in I-594.  The plaintiffs in this suit may well prevail.
c2014 by Dean Weingarten: Permission to share is granted when this notice is included. Link to Gun Watch

About Dean Weingarten;

Dean Weingarten has been a peace officer, a military officer, was on the University of Wisconsin Pistol Team for four years, and was first certified to teach firearms safety in 1973. He taught the Arizona concealed carry course for fifteen years until the goal of constitutional carry was attained. He has degrees in meteorology and mining engineering, and recently retired from the Department of Defense after a 30 year career in Army Research, Development, Testing, and Evaluation.

3 thoughts on “SAF Lawsuit Challenges Parts of I-594 in WA State

  1. I’m disappointed that they aren’t fighting BG checks

    We don’t have to pass any other tests to exercise our other constitutionally protected rights.

    Just sayin’.

    Yes, I disagree that the government has any legitimate authority to even deny the right of self defense to convicted felons!

    It’s an UNALIENABLE right.

  2. ALL gun control in the US IS illegal as per the second amendment, ie “shall NOT be infringed”. The dishonesty of ALL of these liars passing illegal gun control laws SHOULD cost them their seats in office.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *