I'll post an update when I get home from work this morning, but the summary of the latest is that many of the signature gatherers are using petitions with the old title, which invalidates the petition. Also, state law requires that the petition have the full text of the initiative, in an easily readable format,, and many of the petitions are also said to have the text of the initiative in such small type that it is NOT legible.
This is posted at my blog, if you can't wait.
Recovering Gun Store Commando. My Blog: The Clue Meter
“It doesn’t matter what the problem is, the solution is always for us to give the government more money and power, while we eat less meat.”
Glenn Reynolds
Well, that took longer than it should have. Anyway.
SAF, CCRKBA WARN I-1639 SPONSORS THAT ‘UNREADABLE’ PETITIONS VIOLATE LAWAlso:BELLEVUE, WA – The Second Amendment Foundation and Citizens Committee for the Right to Keep and Bear Arms today warned sponsors of anti-gun Initiative 1639 via a demand letter that their campaign “is utilizing unreadable petitions in violation” of state law, and demanded that this be corrected to “conform to the legal requirements.”
Olympia attorney Shawn Newman, writing on behalf of the two Bellevue-based organizations, noted, “The petitions for I-1639 have the proposed measure printed on the back of the sheets in such fine print as to be unreadable… Use of fine print is unconscionable.”
State law mandates that initiative petitions “have a readable, full, true, and correct copy of the proposed measure printed on the reverse side of the petition,” Newman’s letter warns.
“In the short time that I-1639 petitions have been in circulation,” said SAF founder and Executive Vice President Alan Gottlieb, “SAF and CCRKBA have been contacted by several people who could not read the initiative language. I’ve always been warned to read the small print before signing anything. I-1639, as it appears on the back of each petition, is all small print. That should tell voters something about its content.”
I-1639 Petitions in Violation of State Law
This is from a newer outfit, "Save Our Security", which bills itself as the "Official 'No on 1639' Committee."This one goes on to discuss two recent defensive firearms uses in Washington State, including one in which a woman in Tacoma "repelled boarders", which would have been problematic with the "safe storage" requirement in 18639.A demand letter was sent today to I-1639 sponsors and the state advising the print of I-1639 petitions are likely in violation of the law.
As the official NO on I-1639 committee, we concur with these assessments and commend our allies at SAF and CCRKBA for pointing them out.
Attention around I-1639 has again shed light into the dark corners of the political class that propagate and place these billionaire-backed measures on the ballot.
In addition, we’ve also received reports of the paid (out of state, and even out of country) petitioners circulating petitions with the invalidated pre-hearing ballot title language. This would also invalidate any of the signatures applied to these petitions.
Debatable, I know. Still a valid argument in a political debate with the minions of the likes of Soros, Bloomberg, Steyr, etc.
Recovering Gun Store Commando. My Blog: The Clue Meter
“It doesn’t matter what the problem is, the solution is always for us to give the government more money and power, while we eat less meat.”
Glenn Reynolds
And, again: SAF, CCRKBA CONTEND I-1639 INVALID; ‘DOESN’T MEET LEGAL GUIDELINES’There have ben reports of the signature collectors, upon being asked what is in the Initiative, replying that if you want to know, just Google it.BELLEVUE, WA – The Second Amendment Foundation and Citizens Committee for the Right to Keep and Bear Arms today raised serious new concerns about the validity of Initiative 1639, the gun control measure now gathering signatures, because petitions do not appear to meet state-mandated guidelines for having a “full, true, and correct copy of the proposed measure” printed on the back.
Having already raised the issue of readability as required by state law, the two organizations now believe that in its printed form on the back of each petition, I-1639 does not meet the “full, true and correct” requirement. SAF and CCRKBA examined the printed text on an official petition and discovered that language designated to be changed or removed is not “lined out,” nor are proposed new statutory additions underlined as they appear in the version submitted to the state and published on the Secretary of State’s website.
“We warned earlier this week that the tiny print on I-1639 petitions makes the document unreadable according to several people who have contacted us,” said SAF founder and Executive Vice President Alan M. Gottlieb. “If you look closely, which requires a magnifying glass, this new problem becomes obvious.
“We immediately advised our attorney about this,” he added. “He already reached out to the initiative sponsors about the readability issue, but they didn’t respond. If they are so careless about knowing what is, or is not, shown on their own petitions, how is anyone else supposed to know?
“They’re asking people to sign an initiative that is difficult, if not impossible to read,” Gottlieb observed. “And now we’ve discovered that even if people can read the fine print, it does not appear to be a ‘true and correct copy’ of the proposed measure as submitted to the state.
“What are voters supposed to think about this,” he wondered. “How are they supposed to know what they’re being asked to change? How can they tell the difference between what would become law, and what would be replaced? Are they simply expected to sign a document they can’t read and vote on a measure they don’t understand? That’s not democracy, that’s Trojan Horse politics.
“If these petitions, which are not compliant with state law, are turned in,” Gottlieb vowed, “our organizations will seek to have them invalidated by the court.”
Recovering Gun Store Commando. My Blog: The Clue Meter
“It doesn’t matter what the problem is, the solution is always for us to give the government more money and power, while we eat less meat.”
Glenn Reynolds
Filed in WA state by Bloomberg. 75% funded by just 3 billionaire families. Any semi-auto is an "assault rifle."
Requirement to show "training" (without specifying by who) on explaining gun safety to kids and suicide prevention, among other topics
Very fucked up.
https://ballotpedia.org/Washington_I...Measure_(2018)
Just get a load of the "top 5" (3) donors, and the amounts they dumped in, relative to the grassroots opposition.
”But in the end all of these ideas just manufacture new criminals when the problem isn't a lack of criminals.” -JRB
Sure do. That's why my kid is a pretty decent shot with his Henry. He also has a hankering for Beretta pistols.Originally Posted by Bart Carter
This happened to us in Nevada - badly worded, misrepresented by out-of-state signature gathers. "You want to keep children safe from gun violence, don't you?" Makes me sick to my stomach.
It passed in Nevada by only about 1%, mostly from liberals that are overtaking Southern Nevada. The only problem is that they didn't understand Nevada law and wrote it so that the Feds had to do a background check. The Feds wouldn't do it and so they wasted millions for nothing.
https://www.foxnews.com/politics/sea...groups-lawsuit
A Seattle judge on Friday dismissed a lawsuit filed by the National Rifle Association and a local gun rights group against a law that will require gun owners to lock up their firearms when not carrying or using them.
King County Superior Court Judge Barbara Linde tossed the suit after the city argued that the plaintiffs lacked standing because the group could encourage its members to practice safe storage and that the law hadn't even taken effect yet, the Seattle Times reported.
“It seems the NRA jumped the gun in filing their lawsuit against this eminently reasonable legislation meant to protect children and the vulnerable,” Seattle City Attorney Pete Holmes said in a statement.
Alan Gottlieb, president of the Bellvue, Wash.-based Second Amendment Foundation, who filed the suit with the NRA, suggested they would appeal the decision.
There's nothing civil about this war.
Sort of the plessy v ferguson of legal climates in this state right now:
Totally separate law, but equally fucked up.
If the WA inititive passes—and coastal voters passed the last one—then my wife’s 10/22, my 50+ year-old tube-fed Marlin 99M1, and my closer to 100-year-old Remington 24 will be "assault rifles," and we will theoretically be required to take kid’s safety and suicide prevention classes from ‘sumbody’ every 5 years to keep them. In theory.
”But in the end all of these ideas just manufacture new criminals when the problem isn't a lack of criminals.” -JRB
Don't know what the chances are of getting the appeal before a more sympathetic court...of if it would be something the SC would visit.
There's nothing civil about this war.
9th circuit? The part of me that sees the glass as half-broken thinks SCOTUS, or bust. I suppose we will watch and learn.
”But in the end all of these ideas just manufacture new criminals when the problem isn't a lack of criminals.” -JRB
Yeah, that's what I was getting at. It's the only shot. But if they took the case and it didn't work out...guess what would be in store nationwide? Yay! More gov't management.
There's nothing civil about this war.
Reply With Quote
