Ammo For Sale

« « Obviously, compensating for the size of their penises | Home | Gun Porn » »

A civil rights victory

A Judge in Washington tossed a bought and paid for ballot initiative. Some 300K signatures were illegible.

6 Responses to “A civil rights victory”

  1. Benjamin "Quirel" Warren Says:

    That gets us a two year reprieve. If it isn’t overturned by a higher court. Every year they take more and more, and the only hope the counties outside of the Puget Sound have is that our sheriffs won’t enforce those laws.

  2. Lyle Says:

    Of course they appealed within minutes of the decision.

    We’re looking at this all wrong. We’re playing their game, which, although it operates within the legal/political system, ignores the law.

    Here we have a clear, open Conspiracy to Deprive Rights under 18 USC 241 and an attempt at Deprivation of Rights Under Color of Law under 18 USC 242, and there need to be criminal charges filed. That’s the only way this will ever be solved. Sedition charges might also apply.

    I don’t believe the supposed gun “rights” organizations are at all serious about any of this. This is one of those all too common situations wherein solving the problem for which they, ostensibly, exist would put them out of business.

    If the leftist agitators were in the exact same type of problem we’re in right now, they’d have gotten filed a thousand indictments by now, even if the first 999 of them failed instantly. They never play our game of truth and principles, but we always play their game of going along with false authority.

    How many of us are actually proud of having paid and gone through the screening process to get a license to carry a gun (an actual “license” or “permit” to exercise a constitutionally guaranteed right), and for complying with all the other unconstitutional and anti-constitutional nonsense? I find us bragging about it often. See? And the very best we have come up with is to beg those who hate us, and have vowed on multiple occasions to destroy us, for some temporary and partial “leniency” and to play the political game when we’re the ones limited by law-abiding principles and rule-following as they play it far out of bounds.

    Yep; that’s the Great ControversyTM, which has raged throughout all of human history. Evil has the upper hand because it’s not bound by any rules, laws or standards other than the ones it makes up for itself and which are subject to change at a whim.

    But the truth is stronger still, and in this particular case we have the law on our side. As soon as we quit ignoring it maybe we can begin to beat back this attack.

  3. Lyle Says:

    And since when can an organization go into the field with an obviously deceptive petition and not be punished for it? So long as their only cost is in the remote possibility that they’ll have to start over again, they can do this until hell freezes over. Bring out a million petitions, and one or two of them getting through is all they need. Time and statistics are on their side, guaranteeing ultimate victory under this scenario.

    We must change the scenario!

    This is like someone being caught red-handed, methodically breaking into your home, but since they failed to get away with any goods they’re set free, without so much as a slap on the wrist, to regroup, in public, in the full light of day, with interstate and even international help, and try again as soon they’re ready with a better tactic. And the very, VERY best we can do is to challenge them on their tactics?



    RICO statues could probably be applied here as well.

  4. Bob r Says:

    It wasn’t the signatures — it was the text of the initiative that was unreadable.
    It should have been thrown out for violation of the Washington state constitution.
    And, as lyle stated, the backers charged for attempting to deprive rights under color of law.

  5. Sigivald Says:

    Here we have a clear, open Conspiracy to Deprive Rights under 18 USC 241 and an attempt at Deprivation of Rights Under Color of Law under 18 USC 242



    18 USC 242 is not magic, and it doesn’t do what you [and others] always think it does.

    Acting like it should is super conterproductive and wastes time and energy that might be used to effectively oppose or challenge such laws.

    e.g. 18 USC 242 requires “on account of such person being an alien, or by reason of his color, or race”, just for starters. Obviously inapplicable here, no?

    Secondly, it has to be “under color of law” – which means pretending that they’re enforcing the law, but not actually doing so. A real law that you think is unconstitutional, or really does turn out to be so, is not “color of law”. It’s just an invalid law that gets thrown out.

    Those statutes are intended to punish cops and such who make up fake laws to punish people, specifically – historically – black people who were trying to vote and such; it dates back to 1870 and reconstruction.

    In any case, “funding and pushing a ballot measure” simply is not “acting under color of law”. It’s not even pretending to be law enforcement. You can’t get there from here; even the most favorable and 2A-procactive court in the world will never interpret that statute to do what you want, because it just doesn’t even try to do that.

    I don’t even have words for how completely 18 USC 241/2 has nothing at all to do with this question.

    The only [and good!] “legal” argument against the ballot measure’s contents is that it might be unconstitutional to enact, in that a decent Court might throw out at least the Safe Storage requirement as contrary to Heller and interfering with the Second Amendment.

    Here in the real world, “but 18 USC 242” just tells me nobody read the damned statute [with any understanding of terms of art] or has any idea what it means, because it does not remotely apply to funding or pushing or supporting a ballot measure like this, or any ballot measure at all.

    (241 has many of the same problems with this analysis – “banning stuff you think the Constitution protects” is not what the statute covers, since it’s not “injure, oppress, threaten, or intimidate”.

    Passing laws that turn out to be [or patently are] unconstitutional simply is not what those statutes ban, and if you think they do, you are wrong.

    “But it says injure and threaten, and jail time is an injury or a threat” won’t work, because legal terms have specific meanings, and “threat of arrest for breaking a law” is not a “threat” under the law.

    Demanding that it must be so because common usage makes it sound similar will not and can not work, and stomping our feet won’t change that.)

  6. Benjamin "Quirel" Warren Says:

    Hey, Sigivald, thanks for the takedown. I’ve been skeptical of that reading of 18 USC 241/2 for a while, but I’m one of those idiots who had a fuzzy understanding of what “Under color of law” meant.

    Also, obligatory “It’s not RICO” link here.