We should be seeing movement in WA and Oregon, any news?
- Thread starter Racer X
- Start date
Register to hide this ad
For timely, accurate 2A updates, I go to Four Boxes Diner on YT.
I subscribe to four boxes diner.. sometimes a little overly law geeky, but always eye opening about the correct way to interpret the law.. and how deceptive the other side is..
Doug M.
Member
I know the motion for injunction has been filed, but nothing I have shows the date.
I just received emails from the 2nd A Foundation that they have filed lawsuits against WA State AG Ferguson and staff for civil rights violations, and also against the state for their "assault weapons" ban.
Ferguson
BELLEVUE, WA – The Second Amendment Foundation and Citizens Committee for the Right to Keep and Bear Arms, and their CEO Alan Gottlieb, have filed a federal civil rights lawsuit against Washington Attorney General Bob Ferguson and members of his staff, alleging that Ferguson has used the power of his office to chill the activities of SAF, which are aimed at protecting and expanding Second Amendment rights.
The complaint was filed in U.S. District Court for the Western District of Washington. The case is known as Second Amendment Foundation v. Ferguson.
Additional plaintiffs are the Center for the Defense of Free Enterprise, the Service Bureau Association, Merril Mail Marketing and Liberty Park Press. They are represented by attorneys Steven W. Fogg and Jack M. Lovejoy at Corr Cronin LLP in Seattle.
Ferguson and three assistant AG’s assigned to the Consumer Protection Division (CPD) of the Attorney General’s office are being sued individually and in their official capacities
According to the complaint, “Over the last two years, the Consumer Protection Division of the Attorney General’s Office (“CPD”) has carried out an expansive, highly intrusive probe into the private affairs of SAF, CCRKBA, CDFE, SBA, LPP, MMM, Mr. Gottlieb, and his family. It has served Civil Investigative Demands (“CIDs”) on each of the plaintiffs, including two on Mr. Gottlieb, citing the same consumer protection laws Mr. Ferguson was recently found to have abused.” The complaint refers to a recent Washington Supreme Court ruling which “held unanimously that Mr. Ferguson’s office improperly used Washington Consumer Protection and Charitable Solicitations Acts to suppress constitutionally protected speech with which he disagreed.”
“It is a sad day when you have to sue the state Attorney General for violating your civil rights,” Gottlieb stated. “This is not something we ever anticipated, nor do we take any pleasure in it. However, because the CPD has singled out SAF and myself for invasive and expensive harassment because of my political beliefs, especially my positions on gun control and our outspoken criticism of Attorney General Ferguson, our only recourse is to take legal action.
The lawsuit notes that Gottlieb is “a vulnerable target,” as a 76-year-old man “with a history of cardiac arrest.”
“CPD’s treatment of Mr. Gottlieb is designed to destroy his health, make his and his family’s lives miserable, and to chill the activities of SAF and the other entities or force them out of business as punishment for their politics and opposition to Mr. Ferguson and his agenda,” the complaint alleges.
“The Office of the Attorney General is one which inherently possesses significant power and comes with the expectation that its holder will not abuse that power for a political agenda or personal crusade,” said SAF Executive Director Adam Kraut. “Unfortunately, for the people of Washington, Attorney General Bob Ferguson has placed his political preferences above impartiality. For the past two years, his office has inquired into the activities of the Second Amendment Foundation in a highly intrusive manner.
“From the very beginning,” Kraut continued, “the Foundation has cooperated with the Attorney General’s Office and supplied all of the requested information, made employees available for depositions, spending hundreds of man hours and tens of thousands of dollars in attorney's fees to do so, all while pursuing its mission. Yet, the Attorney General’s Office has not once clearly articulated the basis for the investigation or any wrongdoing of the Foundation. What is clear is that this investigation stems from the Attorney General’s abuse of office in an effort to silence and cause harm to his political enemies. Regrettably, and despite the Foundation's efforts to resolve this amicably, the Attorney General has elected to continue to waste the taxpayer's money due to his failure to recognize that his two-year fishing expedition has rendered nothing useful to his political ambitions and forced the Foundation to bring this action to vindicate its rights in an effort to stop this unjust harassment.”
State lawsuit
BELLEVUE, WA – The Second Amendment Foundation today filed a motion for a preliminary injunction against the State of Washington, asking the court to prevent the state from enforcing provisions of House Bill 1240, which bans the manufacture, sale, purchase and transfer of so-called “assault weapons.”
Democrat Gov. Jay Inslee signed the bill, which took effect immediately, during a ceremony attended by gun prohibition advocates, sponsors of the legislation and Attorney General Bob Ferguson, the chief defendant in the case, which is known as Hartford v. Ferguson. Joining SAF are the Firearms Policy Coalition, Sporting Systems, a Hazel Dell retailer, and three private citizens, Brett Bass, Douglas Mitchell and Lawrence Hartford, for whom the case is named. They are represented by Seattle attorney Joel Ard.
In their motion, filed in U.S. District Court for the Western District of Washington, SAF and its partners contend “there is no possible justification for Washington’s unconstitutional ban…Not only are they likely to succeed on the merits, but the threatened constitutional violation of Plaintiffs’ right to acquire firearms and to supply their customers with the same, would be irreparable if it were to occur, and public interest always favors the injunction of unconstitutional laws.”
“Washington has a long tradition of lawful private ownership of semiautomatic firearms,” noted SAF founder and Executive Vice President Alan M. Gottlieb. “Millions of American citizens own these firearms, all over the country, and they have been in common use in the Evergreen State for many years. We believe this ban is wholly unconstitutional, and as such, we’re asking the court to enjoin the state from enforcing the law, to prevent Washington citizens from being penalized by an unjust, politically-motivated statute.”
Adam Kraut, SAF executive director and a practicing attorney observed, “The courts have established that deprivation of constitutional rights constitutes irreparable injury, and the plaintiffs in this case have demonstrated the ban infringes on their Second Amendment rights, and thus causes irreparable harm. An injunction will not harm the state, because it will keep in place the status quo, which has always prevailed in Washington, right up to the moment Gov. Inslee signed the legislation. We’re hoping the court acts quickly in this matter, because politics should never outweigh the exercise of constitutionally-protected rights.”
Ferguson
BELLEVUE, WA – The Second Amendment Foundation and Citizens Committee for the Right to Keep and Bear Arms, and their CEO Alan Gottlieb, have filed a federal civil rights lawsuit against Washington Attorney General Bob Ferguson and members of his staff, alleging that Ferguson has used the power of his office to chill the activities of SAF, which are aimed at protecting and expanding Second Amendment rights.
The complaint was filed in U.S. District Court for the Western District of Washington. The case is known as Second Amendment Foundation v. Ferguson.
Additional plaintiffs are the Center for the Defense of Free Enterprise, the Service Bureau Association, Merril Mail Marketing and Liberty Park Press. They are represented by attorneys Steven W. Fogg and Jack M. Lovejoy at Corr Cronin LLP in Seattle.
Ferguson and three assistant AG’s assigned to the Consumer Protection Division (CPD) of the Attorney General’s office are being sued individually and in their official capacities
According to the complaint, “Over the last two years, the Consumer Protection Division of the Attorney General’s Office (“CPD”) has carried out an expansive, highly intrusive probe into the private affairs of SAF, CCRKBA, CDFE, SBA, LPP, MMM, Mr. Gottlieb, and his family. It has served Civil Investigative Demands (“CIDs”) on each of the plaintiffs, including two on Mr. Gottlieb, citing the same consumer protection laws Mr. Ferguson was recently found to have abused.” The complaint refers to a recent Washington Supreme Court ruling which “held unanimously that Mr. Ferguson’s office improperly used Washington Consumer Protection and Charitable Solicitations Acts to suppress constitutionally protected speech with which he disagreed.”
“It is a sad day when you have to sue the state Attorney General for violating your civil rights,” Gottlieb stated. “This is not something we ever anticipated, nor do we take any pleasure in it. However, because the CPD has singled out SAF and myself for invasive and expensive harassment because of my political beliefs, especially my positions on gun control and our outspoken criticism of Attorney General Ferguson, our only recourse is to take legal action.
The lawsuit notes that Gottlieb is “a vulnerable target,” as a 76-year-old man “with a history of cardiac arrest.”
“CPD’s treatment of Mr. Gottlieb is designed to destroy his health, make his and his family’s lives miserable, and to chill the activities of SAF and the other entities or force them out of business as punishment for their politics and opposition to Mr. Ferguson and his agenda,” the complaint alleges.
“The Office of the Attorney General is one which inherently possesses significant power and comes with the expectation that its holder will not abuse that power for a political agenda or personal crusade,” said SAF Executive Director Adam Kraut. “Unfortunately, for the people of Washington, Attorney General Bob Ferguson has placed his political preferences above impartiality. For the past two years, his office has inquired into the activities of the Second Amendment Foundation in a highly intrusive manner.
“From the very beginning,” Kraut continued, “the Foundation has cooperated with the Attorney General’s Office and supplied all of the requested information, made employees available for depositions, spending hundreds of man hours and tens of thousands of dollars in attorney's fees to do so, all while pursuing its mission. Yet, the Attorney General’s Office has not once clearly articulated the basis for the investigation or any wrongdoing of the Foundation. What is clear is that this investigation stems from the Attorney General’s abuse of office in an effort to silence and cause harm to his political enemies. Regrettably, and despite the Foundation's efforts to resolve this amicably, the Attorney General has elected to continue to waste the taxpayer's money due to his failure to recognize that his two-year fishing expedition has rendered nothing useful to his political ambitions and forced the Foundation to bring this action to vindicate its rights in an effort to stop this unjust harassment.”
State lawsuit
BELLEVUE, WA – The Second Amendment Foundation today filed a motion for a preliminary injunction against the State of Washington, asking the court to prevent the state from enforcing provisions of House Bill 1240, which bans the manufacture, sale, purchase and transfer of so-called “assault weapons.”
Democrat Gov. Jay Inslee signed the bill, which took effect immediately, during a ceremony attended by gun prohibition advocates, sponsors of the legislation and Attorney General Bob Ferguson, the chief defendant in the case, which is known as Hartford v. Ferguson. Joining SAF are the Firearms Policy Coalition, Sporting Systems, a Hazel Dell retailer, and three private citizens, Brett Bass, Douglas Mitchell and Lawrence Hartford, for whom the case is named. They are represented by Seattle attorney Joel Ard.
In their motion, filed in U.S. District Court for the Western District of Washington, SAF and its partners contend “there is no possible justification for Washington’s unconstitutional ban…Not only are they likely to succeed on the merits, but the threatened constitutional violation of Plaintiffs’ right to acquire firearms and to supply their customers with the same, would be irreparable if it were to occur, and public interest always favors the injunction of unconstitutional laws.”
“Washington has a long tradition of lawful private ownership of semiautomatic firearms,” noted SAF founder and Executive Vice President Alan M. Gottlieb. “Millions of American citizens own these firearms, all over the country, and they have been in common use in the Evergreen State for many years. We believe this ban is wholly unconstitutional, and as such, we’re asking the court to enjoin the state from enforcing the law, to prevent Washington citizens from being penalized by an unjust, politically-motivated statute.”
Adam Kraut, SAF executive director and a practicing attorney observed, “The courts have established that deprivation of constitutional rights constitutes irreparable injury, and the plaintiffs in this case have demonstrated the ban infringes on their Second Amendment rights, and thus causes irreparable harm. An injunction will not harm the state, because it will keep in place the status quo, which has always prevailed in Washington, right up to the moment Gov. Inslee signed the legislation. We’re hoping the court acts quickly in this matter, because politics should never outweigh the exercise of constitutionally-protected rights.”
Doug M.
Member
I was wrong, I did have something that shows the dates. The plaintiff's motion was filed on or about 5/4; the defendants' responses were due yesterday, with the reply briefs for that due 5/26. I may not have read carefully enough to see an argument date (if there is one) or a date for a ruling.
Thanks so much.
Is there somewhere I can read those documents? I know, kind of geeky, but really curious. Ferguson is a real doofus. I'd love to read the babbling, and justification for violating the 2nd and established Supreme Court case law.
Nevermind. FPC has it all online.
my assessment is Ferguson babbles on about evil black rifles killing people, and it is in the public's interest they go away. Not legally relevant. There are plenty of other options. You'll be just fine.....
And he keeps quoting other ban legal actions that haven't had final rulings. Still in the interlocutory phase. No historical text or tradition to support "black rifle bad, must go away" position.
Last edited:
Doug M.
Member
I could have sworn I did a response this morning and it has disappeared.
My dislike for Ferguson is intense; we have had trouble with him at work, consistent with the poor quality and unethical work we will see here.
He claims that he has repeatedly prevailed in gun litigation, but fails to note that none of the cases were after the Bruen decision. The District Court and CoA decisions on I-1639 were vacated and remanded for reconsideration in light of Bruen in December. My County Board adopted a resolution opposing that Initiative on various grounds including Constitutional. The research and writing were brilliant.
My dislike for Ferguson is intense; we have had trouble with him at work, consistent with the poor quality and unethical work we will see here.
He claims that he has repeatedly prevailed in gun litigation, but fails to note that none of the cases were after the Bruen decision. The District Court and CoA decisions on I-1639 were vacated and remanded for reconsideration in light of Bruen in December. My County Board adopted a resolution opposing that Initiative on various grounds including Constitutional. The research and writing were brilliant.
most of the babble isn't legally relevant, as "balancing" anything is no longer allowed.
And "high capacity" magazines were in use in the Civil War on Gatling guns. So legal for 150+ years. There is your historical analysis.
So you're here as an undocumented alien, not a problem, we're a sanctuary state. 
Is that an illegal narcotic substance on your person there?
No problem, we've been instructed to look the other way.
Hey wait a minute, you smoking that garbage through an AR-15 gas tube!
...yea, pretty much that stupid.
Is that an illegal narcotic substance on your person there?
No problem, we've been instructed to look the other way.
Hey wait a minute, you smoking that garbage through an AR-15 gas tube!
...yea, pretty much that stupid.
Ferguson is stumping to become the next Governor of Washington State, ever since since Inslee announced that he won't run again.Thanks so much.
Is there somewhere I can read those documents? I know, kind of geeky, but really curious. Ferguson is a real doofus. I'd love to read the babbling, and justification for violating the 2nd and established Supreme Court case law.
Nevermind. FPC has it all online.
my assessment is Ferguson babbles on about evil black rifles killing people, and it is in the public's interest they go away. Not legally relevant. There are plenty of other options. You'll be just fine.....
Neither of them ever saw a proposed infringement on the 2nd Amendment that they didn't support.
He's just pandering to his brain-dead Anti-2nd-Amendment base on the WET side. And why not? It has worked so well for Inslee.
Ferguson doesn't give a fig whether new restrictions they enact will pass Constitutional muster, as long as championing them gets him the votes he needs.
Lawsuits against these un-Constitutional laws don't cost him or his allies in our State legislature anything.
They can fight all the legal challenges against these laws using a bottomless well of OUR tax dollars, so what has he got to lose - as long as his base supports what he is pushing.
It's a WIN for him either way - whether the laws are upheld OR overturned. As long as pushing them gets him a place in the Governor's mansion.
Last edited:
Similar threads
