BREAKING: NRA Files Lawsuit Challenging I-1639 in Washington State

courtesy CNN


Here we go, Washingtonians. The NRA and the Second Amendment Foundation have filed a lawsuit in Seattle in U.S. District Court. Plaintiffs involved in the challenge to I-1639 include gun store owners and younger residents of the Evergreen State who will be negatively affected by I-1639. One such resident is competitive shooter Luke Rettmer, who is 19 years old.

A press release regarding the lawsuit states I-1639 “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 to otherwise qualified adults under age 21 of certain rifles.”

Alan Gottlieb of the Second Amendment Foundation made a statement as well:

“We are disappointed that too many Evergreen State voters were fooled into supporting this 30-page gun control scheme, despite overwhelming law enforcement opposition. This initiative is an affront to the constitutional rights enshrined in the Second Amendment and the Washington state constitution, especially for young adults.”

Of course, Tallman Trask, a spokesman for the Alliance for Gun Responsibility, had something to say, too:

“It’s the single most comprehensive gun violence prevention measure in Washington state history. It will make our state safer and help save lives.”

We will follow this story as it develops. Good luck, Washington State.


Visit the Second Amendment Foundation’s website here.


  1. avatar pwrserge says:

    Hold on while the 9th circus laughs in commie.

    1. avatar MLee says:

      Our Washington State Constitution is quite clear and it’s my belief that I-1639 does indeed violate it.
      Specifically here: Article I, Section 24 of the Washington State Constitution states: “[t]he right of the individual citizen to bear arms in defense of himself, or the state, shall not be impaired.

      In my opinion, a mandatory 10 day waiting period “impairs”
      There’s no sugar coating it. The law as written impairs my ability to posses a firearm, if even for ten days. The constitution says it SHALL NOT BE IMPAIRED. It doesn’t say a little is OK, it says SHALL NOT.

      1. avatar Kyle says:

        10 day waiting periods are so common, overturning them will be almost miracle. i’m hopeful, but not confident.

        1. avatar MLee says:

          Let’s be hopeful the Washington State Constitution means something to somebody.

        2. avatar CarlosT says:

          Well, it certainly doesn’t mean anything to the Washington state Supreme Court.

        3. avatar arc says:

          Parking lot sales and theft have no waiting periods.

      2. avatar Aaron Walker says:

        You want “impairment”! Come to Massachusetts! Debate “YOUR” RIGHT to keep and bear ARMS with the Local police Department and The Licensing Officer…And THAT’S without a Miranda Warning, or an attorney….Or a witness…At the clubhouse of the thin blue line….

        1. avatar John Deere says:

          The ONLY REASON this is breaking news is we are shocked the thumb suckers at the NRA actually acted on this. The NRAs sole job should be protecting the 2A not protecting their income stream.

          The NRA defending the 2A should be as newsworthy as a cop pulling over a speeder. This press release stinks like a last minute attempt by the class clown to turn in his overdue homework.

    2. avatar emfourty gasmask says:

      To be fair, it sounds like Mitch is gearing up to fill up all those empty seats there.

      Last laugh will likely be his.

  2. avatar dph says:

    Good thing the SCOTUS is balanced in our favor for now, because that is where this is headed. It’s gonna be the test to see what Kavanaugh really believes.

    1. avatar Adam says:

      Don’t hold your breath. SCOTUS has been 5-4 conservative for a long time and so far they have refused to hear essentially all 2A cases. I really doubt Kavanaugh will make a difference. Now, if we can get a replacement for RBG and get a 6-3 court, we might stand a chance. But that all relies on Trump winning in 2020 and Republicans keeping the Senate after that which is highly unlikely.

      1. avatar pwrserge says:

        Or the wicked witch of communism dropping dead in the next 24 months.

        1. avatar Geoff "Mess with the bull, get the horns" PR says:

          It’s a good thing broken ribs really *hurt* and will discourage her from coughing for a few months, right as the cold & flu season kicks in.

          Hopefully she gets pneumonia in the next 3 months and drops *dead*…

      2. avatar DDay says:

        No it has not be conservative 5-4 for a “long time” Kennedy was not a conservative, if anything he was somewhat libertarian but he really really was all over the place.

        You could never count on kennedy’s vote on any issue, he was always the wildcard on any case. We’ll see with Kavanaugh but on the DC circuit he was FAR FAR more conservative than kennedy. And Kavanaugh has been friends with people like Laura Ingraham and other conservatives for decades, they know him personally and vouch for his conservative views.

  3. avatar Starfreak74 says:

    Holy crap the NRA did something?

    1. avatar CZJay says:

      When it affects gun sales they get mighty agitated. You know how much gun companies will lose if they can’t sell to 18-20 year olds and non residents? Oh, hell nah! They already can’t buy pistols until 21.

      1. avatar Nanashi says:

        Pretty sure that law was endorsed by the NRA.

        1. avatar MLee says:

          Pretty sure it wasn’t. I’m an NRA member and a Washington State resident.

        2. avatar Nanashi says:

          The 1968 GCA was absolutely endorsed by the NRA.

        3. avatar CarlosT says:

          The NRA was a different kind of organization in 1968.

        4. avatar NJ Devil says:

          All the NRA did in the case of I-1639 was raise 200k, then turn around and spend $80. To file a lawsuit that was a copy of the one 2AF filed and fought. So ya NRA did so much. Yankee Marshal did a video on Youtube.

        5. avatar HP says:

          Ah, Nanashi. The NRA is capable of being stupid on their own, they don’t need you lying and making stuff up again.

    2. avatar Mark N. says:

      All the California lawsuits keep it pretty busy.

      1. avatar rt66paul says:

        NRA doesn’t seem to be doing anything in Ca, Calguns seems to be taking up some of the slack, though.

        1. avatar DDay says:

          The NRA likely works with Calguns, Michel law firm, SAF, etc. and maximize their funds. The NRA doesn’t have the bankroll bloomberg does, they need to target their lawsuits.

  4. avatar Reggie Browning says:

    Wait, the i1639 initiative was 30 pages long?! Why would you vote for a law that convoluted?! If I can’t read and 100% understand a law in a few minutes, I’m going to vote no on it. They could be putting anything in that novel and most people probably didn’t even read it all!

    “No gun sales for anyone under 21, improved background checks for everyone, free puppies and rainbows for all people, mandatory sacrifice of all first born children to Satan, improved mental health services, improved crime reporting.”

    1. avatar Jim B says:

      It’s not no gun sales to anyone under 21. It is no semi-automatic RIFLE sales to those under 21. Handguns are already prohibited to those under 21. Don’t be a propagandist like the looney left. As bad as this law is it still allows an 18 year old to buy a semi-auto shotgun or a bolt action rifle, pump action, etc.

      There is no longer any hope for Washington state. It has been taken over by the extreme looney left in Seattle that moved there from all over the world. The left is not only crazy, they are violent. I got out. Exempli gratia:

      1. avatar Reggie Browning says:

        Ah, sorry man, my bad. I was spot on with the part about puppies and rainbows and sacrifices of first borns to Satan though, right?

        1. avatar Tom in Oregon says:

          OK. That made me laugh!

      2. avatar Swarf says:

        That’s not all it does, and yes, it is 30 pages long.

    2. avatar Mark says:

      99% of people that live in King and Pierce counties are fucking retards. I’m in the 1% that is not. I voted fuck no.

      1. avatar DDay says:

        WA is screwed in statewide races because of those two counties just like Illinois is screwed every election by cook county. It’s like that state after state for the most part. PA is almost all conservative except the philly area and pittsburgh but there are a crap load of liberals that that help d’s in statewides races. Look at how screwed people in NY are by those commies in the NYC area

        You can look at statewide election results by town/city and just by the blue color, you can pick out exactly where a city is or where the state university is (those towns are almost always blue because professors and students are generally liberal.

        1. avatar Geoff "Mess with the bull, get the horns" PR says:

          State-wide ballot referendums should be done by county. Each county gets one vote. In case an even number of counties has a tie, the referendum passes.

          Call it “The Fairness of Ballot Referendums” act. Gather the required number of signatures and put it on the next ballot. It will be *hilarious* to see them argue against basic democracy and fairness.

          Washington state and Oregon and California really need to do that….

        2. avatar Emmett says:

          In CA the illegal voters are in Los Angeles & San Francisco outnumber all the legal voters in the rest of the state. You can’t make me believe that 23 of 28 possible seats are all Democrats. Something’s not right. Especially when every close race ALWAYS has that miracle bag of votes found in some office. How can they all be democratic votes that always win these late and tight races? The Democrats are the most criminally minded un-American group of nuts and getting worse. We’ve got so many unconstitutional anti gun laws that will never be reversed. The law makers make up laws put them in place and say if you don’t like it sue us.

      2. avatar YuGo HuGo says:

        Your vote of, ” I voted fuck no”, implies a sexual relationship which is the last thing needed as that could lead to reproduction and there is already too many!! Best to vote “Hell No” since that trumps(no pun intended) all other “NOs”!

    3. avatar MLee says:

      The numb-nuts in King county voted for it. That’s where all the population is at. It failed in the large majority of Washington State counties. It failed bad in some counties. Spokane county was not quite but close to 50/50, but King county sunk us and guess where the rich f–k heads spent money, the WEST SIDE.
      30 pages of tiny print and nobody even knows what they voted for. God some people need to be slapped.

      1. avatar CarlosT says:

        That’s the whole problem with the initiative process. The central Puget Sound counties run the whole state. Put whatever they like on the ballot and it doesn’t matter what anyone else wants.

        1. avatar Geoff "Mess with the bull, get the horns" PR says:

          That’s why, Carlos, each county should have an equal say in ballot referendums, like the idea I pitched above…

        2. avatar CarlosT says:

          Or just scrap the idea altogether and return to republican government where laws are made in the law-making bodies.

    4. avatar Southern Cross says:

      People didn’t vote for the 30-page law.

      They voted for the simplistic 30-second soundbyte on the Progressive owned media channel.

      1. avatar SoCalJack says:

        Agreed. The liberal media has a lot of money and most folks believe and follow what they are fed. Control the media, control the votes of the mindless.

  5. avatar CZJay says:

    Doesn’t it also violate the 4th and 5th amendment of the U.S. Constitution?

  6. avatar Geoff "Mess with the bull, get the horns" PR says:

    That’s like 3 points out of 30 pages.

    Are they challenging the ENTIRE law or just those parts?

    1. avatar Swarf says:

      It’s a start.

      I don’t understand how reclassifying all semis (like the 10/22) as “semiautomatic assault rifles” could possibly be legal, but here we are.

    2. avatar sian says:

      In a better America that exists only in my imagination, massive overbundled laws are nullified and stricken if any single component part of them is struck down by the courts, destined to be sent back for rewrite and re-submission through the entire legislature if even a single word of it is deemed unlawful, to encourage simple, single-purpose laws and alleviate the mess of legislative bloat.

      1. avatar SouthAl says:

        Yup. Too many people confuse being buried with bullshit and being dazzled by brilliance.

  7. avatar Jim Bullock says:

    Well, good.

  8. This will have to go to SCOTUS. As we all know the 9th circus will find in favor of this horrible law.

  9. avatar Ralph says:

    SCOTUS is out of the 2A business for the foreseeable future and is not likely to take on a contentious 2A case until the Old Lady is replaced by an actual Justice.

    1. avatar Eric in Oregon says:

      Wake up, brah. Kavanaugh was confirmed and now it’s a reasonable court.

      1. avatar Geoff "Mess with the bull, get the horns" PR says:

        Thanks to Roberts turning traitor on us with that ACA ‘ruling’ the mandate is a ‘tax’, I don’t trust him any further than I can throw him.

        He is suddenly going to become the new ‘swing’ vote on the court…

      2. avatar jwtaylor says:

        I’m assuming that was sarcasm.

  10. avatar Lance F says:

    Yeah this law is bad, everyway you look at it. I live close to the boarder, so I can just get my rifles in a different state…for now. This law is going to hurt WA gun stores.

    1. avatar DonS says:

      I live close to the boarder, so I can just get my rifles in a different state…for now.

      If you’re referring to the “long gun from an FFL in another state” exception in 18 USC 922 (a)(3) and (b)(3)…

      No, you can’t. That is, you won’t be able to do it legally once the new law takes effect. The “sale, delivery, and receipt [must] fully comply with the legal conditions of sale in both such States”. 922 (b)(3).

      For example, if you’re 20 years old and want to buy a “semiautomatic assault rifle” as defined in the new law, you won’t be able to just go to an Idaho gun store and buy one. The Idaho FFL has to obey Washington’s laws – and, by statute, he’s presumed to know them. Thus, no sales to persons under 21, a 10-day waiting period, and whatever else I-1639 mandates.

      A 20-year-old WA resident could possibly buy from a private party in Idaho, as long as the seller doesn’t know (or have reasonable cause to believe) that the buyer is not an Idaho resident (922(a)(5)). Even then, the buyer can’t bring the gun home to WA (922(a)(3)).

      1. avatar Lance F says:

        Thanks for making that clear, and dashing that hope.

        1. avatar DonS says:

          Sorry about that.

          The provisions of 922 (a) and (b) form one of the standard rebuttals to the “we need stronger federal gun laws, because people can just go to an adjacent state with weak gun laws” claim. If you can’t legally buy a certain gun in your home state, you can’t legally go to another state, buy that same gun, and bring it home.

          There are only a few legal ways for a non-FFL to acquire a firearm outside his state of residence and get it home. In general:

          1. transfer goes through an FFL in the transferee’s state of residence; or

          2. bequest or intestate succession, as long as the gun is legal to purchase or possess in the transferee’s state of residence; or

          3. long gun purchase from an out-of-state FFL, as long as it takes place in-person and the whole transfer (“sale, delivery, and receipt”) complies with the laws of both states.

          And that’s just federal law. State laws might forbid something that would otherwise be legal under federal law (which, of course, makes it impossible to comply with #3).

        2. avatar CarlosT says:

          If you live close enough to the border, you could move down the road. Might be your best bet. I guarantee you my neighbors here in Seattle are not done screwing with us, not by a long shot.

      2. avatar Defens says:

        The law may state that, but Washington law are not binding on non-WA dealers. I presume that the illegality of the transaction would land on the non-resident, as soon as he or she returns to Washington.

        1. avatar DonS says:

          The law may state that, but Washington law are not binding on non-WA dealers. I presume that the illegality of the transaction would land on the non-resident, as soon as he or she returns to Washington.

          Federal law is certainly binding on non-WA dealers.

          If the sale, delivery, and receipt of the firearm do not fully comply with Washington law, the “illegality of the transaction” falls on the non-WA FFL as soon as he sells the gun to a WA resident.
          18 USC 922 (b)(3)

          The buyer would also violate federal law if/when he brings the gun back to WA. He didn’t acquire it “in conformity with subsection (b)(3)”.
          18 USC 922 (a)(3)

  11. avatar Sora says:

    Donate to
    If they are suing, we are bound to win. Support them.

    1. avatar Mike H in WA says:

      The NRA can go pound sand… but SAF is getting a donation from me this payday.

  12. avatar Stateisevil says:

    The lawsuit is doomed to failure. It’s a “reasonable” restriction to enhance publik safety. For the children.

  13. avatar Thomas Duensing says:

    So how does making it more difficult for someone to defend themselves make them “safer”?

    1. avatar Baldwin says:

      No one knows. It just does.

  14. avatar TheOtherDavid says:

    The NRA knew the initiative would pass given the millions of dollars poured into the campaign by some of the richest people in the world that live right here. Pouring money into an anti-initiative campaign would have been a waste. We’ll see how this plays out in the court system over the coming few years.

    I’m still trying to wrap my brain around the fact that my 22LR Henry Survival Rifle is now classified as an “assault rifle.”

  15. avatar Sgt Bill says:

    The Chief of Police in Republic, Washington has announced his plan to make the Ferry County city what he calls “a 2nd Amendment Sanctuary City.”
    Chief Loren Culp says that he wants to prevent federal and state infringement on the right to keep and bear arms, and nullify all federal and state acts in violation of the 2nd Amendment to the Constitution of the United States.

    1. avatar dph says:

      That’s just great for the 1000 people that live there, the other 7.5 million of us are screwed.

  16. avatar Shawn says:

    Another lawsuit we will lose that SCOTUS will refuse to hear. Next ballot in Washington state: banning the sale of ALL semi-auto rifles, handguns and shotguns. Which will pass. After that banning the ownership of guns mandatory turn in without compensation with a door-to-door confiscation clause. In it something that makes a special task force Setup along side the police that allows them to enter your home without a warrant and take your guns by force. If you refuse they will kill you and a special sentence written that bill waving the police and that task force of all responsibility. Literally making gun ownership punishable by execution without trial in that state.

    1. avatar Defens says:

      That’s actually my line in the sand.

  17. avatar Jackass Jim says:

    Subsequent to I-1639 becoming law, all firearms sold in WA state will be registered.

    All persons buying firearms subject to the I-1639 law will be subject to mandatory annual investigations (or more frequent as determined by state bureaucrats) to determine if they are still viable gun owners. Failure to pass the test results in mandatory confiscation.

  18. avatar Rakhit says:

    What the shit fuck happened to my State? I leave for a couple of decades, now looking to return, and I read about some completely illegal initiative that will do absolutely nothing to curb gun violence. How the hell did this even pass? I read that voters weren’t even given the correct version of the 30 page initiative to be able to make an informed decision! Communists have cleary infiltrated my beloved home. This has to head to SCOTUS. SCOTUS has ruled in favor of the 2nd Amendment several times in the past decade alone. For those stating that SCOTUS won’t hear this case think again. They will. And it will get shot down, for lack of better words. I’ve also been reading that King County where I grew up has become a Liberal paradise. Is this true?

  19. avatar aaron babcock says:

    Draft The 2nd Amendment Sanctuary County Ordinances in as many county’s as possible !

Write a Comment

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

button to share on facebook
button to tweet
button to share via email