Possible Washington “Assault Weapons Ban” Challenged! – The Legal Brief

Welcome back to The Legal Brief, the show
where we CRUSH the various legal myths and misinformation surrounding various areas of
the gun world. I’m your host Adam Kraut and today we’re continuing
our trip around the Pacific Northwest and heading to Washington to take a look at the
ballot initiative being challenged by two pro gun groups. Stick around, you don’t wanna miss this one! Last week, we talked about the Oregon Supreme
Court decision which essentially killed a ballot initiative for an assault weapons ban. If you didn’t catch that episode, be sure
to check it out by clicking here. As you may have guessed, Oregon is not the
only state subject to ballot initiatives. It’s friendly neighbor to the north, Washington
is as well. I1639 was introduced by the Seattle-based
Alliance for Gun Responsibility, which unsurprisingly, has had hefty donations from everyone’s favorite
anti-gun former mayor Michael Bloomberg. The initiative is chocked-full of anti-gun
provisions that are being pushed around the country and some other twists that will make
your head spin. First up, enhanced background checks. The new section would require that anyone
being transferred an “assault weapon” would need to provide proof they completed a recognized
firearms safety training program, which would need to include instruction on firearms safety,
firearms and suicide prevention, firearms and children, safe firearms handling and an
overview of federal and state firearms laws including prohibited firearm transfers. It would also require the dealer to wait to
transfer the gun until the local chief of police or sheriff where the person resides
notify the dealer, in writing, that they are able to possess a firearm. Yes, it is as ridiculous as it sounds. Even more invasive, is the law’s proposal
that the Department of Licensing conduct yearly checks to ensure individuals who purchased
pistols and “assault rifles” are able to lawfully possess firearms. In other words, Big Brother is checking in
on you on a yearly basis. The initiative would also seek to impose a
waiting period on the transfer of “assault weapons”. That’s right, Washingtonians would have to
wait 10 days to take home their rifle, regardless if it were a purchase or transfer, if this
were to be implemented. There would also be a safe storage requirement
imposed on those who own firearms. Much like the proposed provision that was
in Delaware, this one would impose penalties if prohibited persons gained access to firearms
that were not securely stored. Of course, those penalties don’t apply if
the firearm was securely stored. While the language at the end of the section
reads “Nothing in this section mandates how or where a firearm must be stored,” it sure
seems like a heavy handed suggestion as to how one should be stored when felonies are
a potential punishment. Simply put, the initiative isn’t telling you
that you have to store a firearm in a particular manner, but if you don’t…well you get the
idea. While under federal law it is lawful to purchase
a long gun in another state, this initiative contains language which would to limit a non
resident’s ability to purchase a “semiautomatic assault rifle” in Washington. And, unsurprisingly, restrictions on the transfer
of a “semiautomatic assault rifle” to those under 21 is also provided for. While you likely think that you know what
a “semiautomatic assault rifle” may be, the definition is rather surprising. The initiative defines the term to mean “any
rifle which utilizes a portion of the energy of a firing cartridge to extract the fired
cartridge case and chamber the next round, and which requires a separate pull of the
trigger to fire each cartridge.” Exceptions include antique firearms, any firearm
that has been made permanently inoperable, or any firearm that is manually operated by
bolt, pump, lever, or slide action. So yes, this would include your good old fashioned
Ruger 10/22, a popular gun amongst kids and teenagers. Thankfully, this nonsense isn’t going unchallenged. Previously, the initiative had been challenged
by the NRA for a deceptive title and summary. Most recently, the Second Amendment Foundation
and Citizens Committee for the Right to Keep and Bear Arms petitioned the Washington Supreme
Court to stop the Washington Attorney General from acting on the ballot initiative. Washington law requires that a readable version
of the proposal be on the reverse side of the petition. The SAF previously wrote a letter to the Alliance
for Gun Responsibility, demanding that they comply with this provision if they were to
continue collecting signatures. SAF had learned that the text of the proposal
was oftentimes microscopic or unreadable. The text also contained no strike throughs
or underlines to denote what is currently the law and what the proposal seeks to add
or remove. If you didn’t know, underlines typically indicate
added text and strike throughs are for removals. Perhaps most egregious is that the paid petition
gatherers told people they could read the proposal online. Essentially, sign it so you can find out what’s
in it later. Nancy Pelosi: “But we have to pass the bill
so we can find out what’s in it…” Time will tell what the Washington Supreme
Court does with this. It is clear that the petition gathers were
not in compliance with Washington law and as such, should result in some form of action
being taken against the validity of the petitions. I think Alan Gottleib, the Executive Vice
President of the Second Amendment Foundation said it best, “Gun control groups constantly
insist that gun owners follow the law. Well, anti-gunners have to obey the law, as
well.” That’s it for this episode, if you have learned
anything from this show, help us out and hit that like button on this video and share it
with your friends. Don’t forget to get subscribed and if you
enjoyed the video, consider supporting us via the links down in the video description. If you want to get more out of your TGC subscription,
be sure to check out the The Gun Collective Podcast which happens live on Thursday evenings! And as always thanks
for watching!

100 thoughts on “Possible Washington “Assault Weapons Ban” Challenged! – The Legal Brief


  2. Reminds me of the early 1930s Germany pass a law overnight if you're a Jew you are to be killed in anybody with a firearm is to surrender it well played TGC

  3. Should be challenged on basis of National Security. Imagine how easy Chinese would have if they invaded and landed in Hawaii or California. Right now China has 50% more soldiers without enforcing the required participation law. Even if they has the same per capita size military of the US they would 4.3 times the force. They would have nearly no resistance and get foothold. The militia was supposed to be at least 16 times the military, read federalist paper 46 by Madison. If that was the case, and if the militia (US Citizens), were armed with US Crew-Severed weapons as intended, the Chinese would have think otherwise to invade. That is the purpose of the Second Amendment, stop foreign invasions and military coups before they begin.

  4. As a Washingtonian I'm ashamed of this state. Seattle city council passed a resolution that would levy fines for "unlocked" guns. I didn't get a say I didn't get a vote.

  5. Oh man… so much win. 🤓 I know you saw that SAF brief yesterday concerning the DOJ and Cody & Defense Distributed settlement, right? If you haven't– it's pretty awesome. Even though Cody lost climbing the ladder, the govt settled. And they flat out admitted that any non-auto firearm under .50. Cal is not a "military weapon." The 3-D instructions for ghost guns are protected speech, too. Any thoughts on how that government admission can be cited or used in the future? Or, do settlements not have the same precedent stature as a decided case? Cheers!

  6. Okay Adam, I dig your videos, and I voted for you for the NRA (and will again), but that pink flamingo shirt has got to be traded it for something else a little more on the "cool" side of life. Bless your heart.

  7. I live in WA. I've encountered petitioners personally that have booths advertising petitions for I1634, which is the No Grocery Tax initiative, but hand out the petition for I1639. They tell you all about how horrible a grocery tax would be, their booths have zero signage for 1639, and then they trick you into signing 1639 and tell you your signing a petition 1634. Most people dont even check the top of the petition, they just sign it. I've seen it first hand and confronted the petitioners about their dishonest practices. I also contacted the local authorities, who told me that they have no regulatory authority over the petitioner. I have friend in Yakina who have experienced the same thing as well as other friends here in Richland and Pasco who have also seen it. They hang out outside of grocery stores with No Grocery Tax signs. I did some reading and come to find out, this activity is happening all over the state…. the dishonesty of the anti-gun left is sickening.

  8. When the hell did the definition of “assault rifle” change to not include the fully automatic selection as on my m4 which is an assault rifle however my ar15 is not an assault rifle or an assault weapon it is however semiautomatic and no law will change that and no I will never give up my rifles or my pistols or my shotguns no freedom loving American will. Don’t let them get away with taking away your rights. Remember your rights don’t end where their feelings begin. Fight this in every state. And never back down

  9. Fucking dumbass hippies. I'm from Washington. I love Washington. But these fuckers trying to take away our rights should go to hell. So fucking unconstitutional.

  10. Too many people hate America and America's constition [they're with Her!] and globalist filth like Soros and Bloomberg have the money to sway the pawns who can not think for themselves.
    Gun grabbers are satan.

  11. I feel like we should apply the same training classes and certifications for the second amendment to the first amendment. I mean they are both guarantied rights, and should be held in the same light should they not? a 5 day waiting period after passing a background check before you can exercise your first amendment sounds reasonable does it not?

  12. Last word I heard here in Washington was the Supreme Court of Washington refused to hear the case and kicked it to the Secretary of State. They are using this initiative just like 594 a few years ago which also had deceptive language to gather the signatures and then later the votes.

  13. Sad, anti-gun movements have always, and will continue to have open ears and consent to the ignorant and fearful community which has sadly grown to large portion through the decades. Presently we live amongst a community of anti-gun populous supported by wealthy individuals who knowingly play on ignorance, fear, along with a government that awaits the day it can disarm its ignorant, cowardly public that willingly submits to a police state.

  14. Democrats want to take away all the guns. First the still go after semi auto low cal rifles Then they will go after pistols and everything else. Gun registration comes before. Confiscation

  15. regardless of opposition, this is Washington State, and it's a statewide item, which means that it's decided by the king county democratic party, which is hard-core anti-rights.

    The election will be a joke. see, we've got mail-in-ballots, with no way to verify that a vote has been cast by an actual person. ergo, the initiative will pass, regardless of whether people (as in real, living people) vote or not.

  16. I live in wa. and the signature gatherers were misrepresenting this bill. They were gathering signatures implying the bill was for “no tax on grocery’s” . There is video and pictures of this online. Not to mention the owner of the Seahawks donated 1mill to fund the signature gathering.

  17. UPDATE: Well the 2nd Amendment Foundation suit lost in the courts. The initiative is on the ballot.

    And because it's Seattle liberals who want it and that they already have $2 million from Paul Allen (Seattle Seahawks) and Nick Hanauer + whatever Michael Bloomberg is kicking in, look forward to a deceptive and emotional advertising campaign this fall for the ballot initiative. $3 million will be difficult to overcome.

    But gun owners in WA State need to get off their lazy asses and vote. 2016 saw Washington get a badly written Red Flag law passed by ballot initiative. 2014 saw I-594 "Enhanced" background checks for handgun purchases get passed by ballot initiative. So the outlook for defeating this steaming pile doesn't look good especially if a "blue wave" is forecast for the state.

  18. To me if you want gun control move back to Africa grab your clothes you don't need furniture and God damn it move the fuck out of the country why is so hard about that

  19. So… CLASS 3 restrictions but handled by the local police? Yeah, that's not gonna be unenforceable or prohibitively expensive or anything…

  20. I'm living in Washington, and my friend's car was smashed two weeks ago in Seattle because he had a flyer against this initiative on his backseat. The state is generally very pro-2A except for Seattle, yet Seattle ( part of King County ) makes decisions for everyone 😂 including the 20 years of light rail construction


  22. So it would become easier to just make everything a private sale or transfer thus enhancing the "black market" and making all previously law abiding gun owners criminals. Hmmm, the phrase "outlaw guns and only outlaws will have guns" comes to mind.

  23. First they say "You can have guns, you just have to take a safety course first. Muh common sense."
    Then it's "Due to budget concerns, the state accepted safety course can only take X number of applicants this year."
    "We're sorry to report that the safety course can now only take half the applicants that it did last year."
    "Unfortunately, we're unable to provide further safety courses this year. Maybe next year."

    My father was the only safety instructor I ever needed, the government can pull its nose out of my ass any time now.

  24. It is that bad. Also the paid signature gatherers are misrepresenting it as “keep tax off of groceries” (another Initiative with a similar number) or “$30 license tabs” (another Initiative). They display “keep tax off of groceries” next to “I-1639” on their stands at stores, have both Initiatives present and do not tell people which they are signing.

    I do hope 3D printing renders all “gun control” pointless very soon. Time to finish some 80% receivers.

  25. You left out the worst part! People looking for signatures for this trash were calling people over saying they should sign to stop a grocery tax and having them sign for this tyrannical bullshit instead!

  26. So what you're telling me is my grandfather's M1 garland rifle is an "assault rifle" and that was made before the term assault rifle was even a thing.

  27. Washitonian here. If theres anything I can say for sure about us its the vast majority of the citizens here are pro gun and also we have the biggest go ****yourself attitude when it comes to laws we feel arent right. When Initiative 594 passed preventing the transfer of firearms to another person other than family illegal with going through an FFL, first thing we did was host an impromptu gun show on the capital buildings door step.

  28. The bullshit part about "assault weapon" bans is they aren't banning assault weapons at all. They instead seek to redefine normal semi auto rifles as assault weapons and ban these legally owned rifles.

  29. If you thought that was bad look up I-594, a ballot initiative passed by Washington State a couple years ago.

  30. judge ruled multiple times the california 10 waiting period was unlawful for prior gun owners. so why is it still being done.

  31. Sounds more like laws that exist in the UK. I thought we left them already. But hey, Bloomberg's second home is in the UK.

  32. states rights only go so far, before you run into the 2nd amendmend wall. And with a more pro gun court. I don't see them winning this one in court.

  33. Thank you for doing the video.
    We have a thread on 1639 from when it started. https://www.northwestfirearms.com/threads/the-public-safety-and-semiautomatic-assault-rifle-act.269819/
    Unfortunately, the SOS, (Kim Wyman) may allow this to proceed even though the petitions are illegal. A supreme court commissioner kicked it back to Wyman instead of declaring the petitions illegal.
    I donated to https://www.saf.org & https://saveoursecurity.net to help fight this in court & print. I hope everyone that sees this donates as well. Not one elected legislator, nor news outlet (my area) I've written to has responded in any manner about Wymans decision to proceed ahead.

  34. They tried that crap here in Maine with universal background checks, we defeated those commie bastards! No on 3!

  35. they don't even have to win all those stupid rules they have one thing in there and one thing only that completely screws anybody in that state if they win and that is needing the paperwork for the transfer of the gun from a sheriff of the area that is what they pushed through in California and Studies have been shown that several people put things in to be able to get a license to carry or be able to buy an a firearm and the sheriff's would purposely and police purposely put their paperwork on the back burner for months for months until it went back years so this is what you do you don't turn in firearms and you fight if these cocksuckers continue to try their shit if they want to take our rights then they die fuck them


  37. By Washington Law, Initiatives can't contain more than one subject. This has over 25 separate rules. It was struck down in county court but overruled in WSC. If passed, it could wind up in the US Supreme Court. A previous initiative by Tim Eyeman limiting vehicle taxes was ruled illegal having contained only 3 subjects, so there is legal precedent for multi-subject initiatives being quashed.

  38. Just so everyone's clear – the WA supreme court reinstated I-1639 on the ballot and we will vote on it. The ballots come out in mid October, and must be returned by Nov 6.

    Vote NO on I-1639!

    IT IS ON THE BALLOT! A lot of gun owners are not aware it even exists, and a lot of people think it's been pulled from the ballot.

  39. If Gabby Giffords and the supporters (Billionaires) believe that I-1639 will inspire other states to enact similar legislation, then that is more the reason to VOTE NO on I-1639. It is approximately 30 pages of illogical infringing legislation, that will Not make schools or communities safer. VOTE NO on I-1639. All it will really do: Infringe on the rights of honest law abiding citizens, and take more money out of our pockets. VOTE NO on I-1639. The Criminal element will not be affected. VOTE NO on I-1639. Read all 30 pages before you vote, if you are thinking about voting yes. VOTE NO on I-1639. Don't just read the overview in the voting pamphlet. VOTE NO on I-1639. Time to take a stand against suppression of Our Rights, VOTE NO on I-1639

  40. Brief history lesson in France they had a revolution in that Revolution they hung and executed decapitated the royal families basically the people in charge of their law isn't history neat

  41. Well, my dumb ass libtard state voted this I-1639 in. My county was an resounding NO. So I'd like to know just who TF enforces this law? State patrol?? Bc they have time to veer off I-5 to patrol rural America? They can't force my Sheriff to do it- MY COUNTY VOTED NO. How about city cops…in Rural WA? Uh, no. So what the actual fuck is happening here?
    Let me guess…the UN has troops gonna do it?

  42. At the tone, the day will be 02-23-2019, and 1639 passed.
    By voter fraud I am guessing since everyone that I have asked about it. Has voted no.

  43. These people who are trying to pass this initiative are infringing our rights as American citizens the right to life liberty and the pursuit of happiness these people should be sent to jail

Leave a Reply

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