Judge Rules In Favor of Gun Rights Groups, Tosses Out Controversial Ballot Initiative (WA)

townhall.com ^ | 8/19/2018 | Beth Baumann

[rktman]

SAF Founder and Executive Vice President Alan Gottlieb previously told Townhall that I-1639's signature petitions "failed to underline new law and strike through removed law so that the reader could not know the current law, added law and subtracted law."

Judge James Dixon, who ruled in the case, was very clear about his position. “Frankly, this court does not struggle with this issue,” Dixon said. The law, he said, requires that petitions “must have a readable, full, true, correct copy of the proposed measure.”

“We got our day in court,” Gottlieb said. “We expected it. We won.”

[rktman]

Wait, what? In Washington state? Sounds like the judge needs a visit from margabby kellygiffords or former mare nanny bloomers to get his attitude adjusted.

[rktman]

NON print:

https://townhall.com/notebook/bethbaumann/2018/08/18/judge-rules-in-favor-of-gun-rights-groups-tosses-out-controversial-ballot-initiative-n2510847

[GOP Poet]

bookmark

[Teacher317]

The judge didn't even need to get to the substantive issue. If the text is confusing, then it should not become law, or eligible to become law. Period. Void for vagueness is a pretty simple standard to follow.

The Left is apparently arguing that they should not even be bound by that anymore. Law is what they say it means, when they say it, no matter what they said last week.

[Wonder Warthog]

Very glad to hear this, as I was worried that the bait and switch used last time to pass the “universal background check on gun transfers” would work again. At least this is a reprieve. And by the time they are able to bring this around again, I hope to be safely in Texas and away from Californicated Washington.

[BenLurkin]

“We have to pass it so you can find out what’s in it.”

[GOP Poet]

Taken from the end of the article:

“We’re confident that the Supreme Court will reverse” the ruling, Greg Wong, an attorney for the campaign, told the Seattle Times.

Ha! Based on what?

[MarMema]

It’s really only King County that is the liberal land.

[rktman]

Well, bait and switch worked in NV. Only problem was the new intergalactic background rules “require” using the fbi. But, NV uses its own system so......... DOH! Nobody is willing to compromise including the fbi. Piss poor planning on the antis part.

[rktman]

I know. There is Seattle and there is Washington state. Like we have Vegas and we have Nevada. I live in Nevada. 👹👍🏼🇺🇸

[fireman15]

It’s really only King County that is the liberal land.

They have a lot of help from Western Pierce County and Southern Snohomish County as well.

[MarMema]

We just sold our second home out there in Pacific County, which we thought was solidly conservative.

However, then a new tree cutting rule emerged - nothing over 4 inches without a $285 permit. Permit to take 4-6 weeks.

So much for property rights.

[MarMema]

OOps forgot to say and of course downtown Olympia itself. Which is why I was surprised to see a Thurston county judge ruling on this...

[palmer]

However, then a new tree cutting rule emerged - nothing over 4 inches without a $285 permit. Permit to take 4-6 weeks.

I like the fact that the prior owners of my land, and the ones before them, left a number of nice mature oaks. That said, it was their choices and my choice. Having full property rights means I can decide what is most valuable, and keep my trees if I don't need the money from the lumber.

[rockrr]

Kind of a TKO but I’ll take it!

[rockrr]

Ha! Based on what?

Feelings.

[daler]

A judicial blind squirrel.

[avenir]

“The Left is apparently arguing that they should not even be bound by that anymore. Law is what they say it means, when they say it, no matter what they said last week.”

Nailed it.

[fireman15]

I had no idea about tree cutting permits in Pacific County... what a load of BS.