Federal Judge Denies Motion to Dismiss SAF/NRA Lawsuit v. WA Initiative

Vote NO on Initiative 1639
Federal Judge Denies Motion to Dismiss SAF/NRA Lawsuit v. WA Initiative

U.S.A. – A federal judge in Tacoma has denied a motion to dismiss a federal lawsuit filed earlier this year that challenges provisions of a restrictive gun control initiative adopted last fall by Washington State voters, providing an important win for gun rights activists in the Pacific Northwest.

The lawsuit challenges Initiative 1639, a billionaire-backed measure that strips young adults of their Second Amendment rights to purchase semiautomatic rifles of any kind unless they are over age 21. The initiative also places training requirements on buyers of any semi-auto rifle, requires so-called “safe storage,” registration, so-called “enhanced background checks” and other mandates.

The ruling, which may be read here, was handed down by U.S. District Judge Ronald B. Leighton.

Perhaps the most onerous of the measure’s provisions is that it includes a definition of a “semiautomatic assault rifle” that literally covers every self-loading rifle ever manufactured. According to Spokane County Sheriff Ozzie Knezovich, who said earlier this year there really is no such thing as a “semi-auto assault rifle,” but the initiative simply invented a definition that, if upheld, can then be used in the future to further regulate or even ban such firearms.

The lawsuit was filed in U.S. District Court for the Western District of Washington by the Second Amendment Foundation, National Rifle Association, two Evergreen State firearms retailers and four young adults. They contend that the “multi-faceted initiative violates the commerce clause by banning sales of rifles to non-residents, and that it unconstitutionally impairs the rights guaranteed by the First, Second and Fourteenth Amendments, and Article I Section 24 of the Washington State constitution by preventing the sale of certain rifles to otherwise qualified adults under age 21,” according to a SAF news release.

The initiative campaign was backed by the Seattle-based Alliance for Gun Responsibility, a gun prohibition organization primarily funded by wealthy elitists in the Seattle area, plus Michael Bloomberg’s Everytown for Gun Safety Action Fund. It was officially sponsored by “Safe Schools Safe Communities.”

SAF’s Alan Gottlieb

Lined up against the measure were the NRA, Citizens Committee for the Right to Keep and Bear Arms and several law enforcement organizations.

It’s been several months since the lawsuit was filed, and SAF founder and Executive Vice President Alan Gottlieb was relieved that he could finally update supporters.

“The long delay is over,” Gottlieb said. “The important aspects of the motion to dismiss have been denied. Just as important, the judge’s ruling treats the Second Amendment as any other fundamental individual right that is constitutionally protected.”

Over the past several months, individual members of the Washington Arms Collectors, an organization directly affected by the initiative because of the 10-day waiting period mandate, have been donating to support the legal action.

I-1639 spanned 30 pages and was initially thrown off the ballot by a Thurston County Superior Court judge for not complying with state requirements regarding how the initiative was printed on the back of initiative petitions. Judge James Dixon said he could not read the tiny typeface used to print the entire initiative language on the petition, nor did it show underlines designating new language and cross-outs showing what language would be repealed by passage of the measure. But the State Supreme Court reversed him a week later and placed the measure back on the November ballot.

With this ruling, Gottlieb said the state, and the initiative proponents “are on the defensive.” If history is any indicator, anti-gunners will be sending fundraising emails accusing the NRA and its allies of trying to thwart the will of the people.


About Dave WorkmanDave Workman

Dave Workman is a senior editor at TheGunMag.com and Liberty Park Press, author of multiple books on the Right to Keep & Bear Arms and formerly an NRA-certified firearms instructor.

18 Comments
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
Don

Hopefully I can say this without offending anyone. And I’ll predicate it by saying my father’s acestors helped found southern California (the Pomeroy’s). This state (Washington) had been going down the you know what pipe since the first California refugees began fleeing that state in the 80’s and brought their communist rhetoric along with them to Washington state. Those of us who’ve never taken the oath to defend the constitution or whom lack the context of what it means to be an American are the ruination of what used to be the country (and state) I grew up in. The… Read more »

MikeRoss

I just read 1639 and am stunned. How could 60% have voted for this monstrosity? Permission from the state is needed to buy a semi-auto rifle or handgun. Signing an application for a license to buy will be considered the same as signing a release for medical records. Only it won’t be signing the release for anyone specific, any state official or any law enforcement official will be given full access to the applicant’s medical records. A “semi-automatic assault rifle” is defined as any semi-auto rifle. Period. A Ruger 10/22 or Marlin 60 is a ‘semi-auto assault rifle.’ The application… Read more »

Robert Stanley

All gun rules, regulations, policies and laws are unconstitutional and MUST be removed! Regarding the governments ability to impose “Reasonable Restraint” which has now become the mantra of our liberal influenced government. Supporters of the bill of rights claim they have a constitutional or Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms. Opponents counter even if it were the case, the government was granted the general power to place restraints on the right. Both of these assertions are based on a misconception concerning the intent of the document known as the Bill of Rights. When the Bill of Rights was… Read more »

Huapakechi

The backers of the initiative will be meeting to consider either shopping for a friendly judge or offering a bribe to reverse that ruling.

freewill

The will of the people?, I wonder which over populated city controlled that vote?

Clark Kent

The will of the people at one time in one country was to place Jews in concentration camps in order to exterminate them.