Lawsuits target constitutionality of voter-approved gun control measure in Washington state

Plaintiffs claim initiative deprives their Second and Fourteenth Amendment rights; defendants summoned to court for following the Washington state law

By Madeline Coats Washington Newspaper Publishers Association • March 9, 2019 1:30 am

By Madeline Coats

Washington Newspaper Publishers Association

Two lawsuits in Washington state have challenged the constitutionality of certain bans enacted through the gun control measure, Initiative 1639.

Each lawsuit is built on the premise that the initiative deprives plaintiffs of rights under the Second and Fourteenth amendments to the United States Constitution. The plaintiffs have remained the same for each case, whereas the defendants have been changed.

Two firearm dealers, four young adults and two gun rights organizations joined forces to originally file a complaint against the state and Attorney General Bob Ferguson. That case was dismissed Feb. 20 because of the state and attorney general’s sovereign immunity; however, a new suit had already been filed Feb. 8.

The new lawsuit featured the same plaintiffs — which include the National Rifle Association and the Second Amendment Foundation — suing Clark County Sheriff Chuck Atkins, Spokane Chief of Police Craig Meidl and state Department of Licensing Director Teresa Berntsen. Each defendant was summoned on behalf of their authority to revoke a license for violations of Washington laws governing sales of firearms.

An attorney for the plaintiffs explained how state authority can revoke a firearm license even though the action is legal under federal law.

“Craig Meidl has statutory responsibility under Washington state law to issue a state license to the firearm dealer, Robin Ball,” Joel Ard of the Ard Law Group said.

Ball, who is a plaintiff in the case, has a federal firearms license and another is a state license, which is issued and signed by Meidl, he explained.

Washington residents approved I-1639 by a vote of 59 percent last November. The law creates an enhanced background check system, requires individuals to complete a firearm safety training course, raises the age of possession to 21 years old, and establishes standards for safe storage of guns. It also redefines a semi-automatic rifle as an “assault rifle” under state law.

The plaintiffs accuse the defendants of acting under the cover of state law, otherwise defined as any authority using his or her power to willfully deprive a person of their rights and privileges protected by the U.S. Constitution. In this case, the violation challenges the civil rights of the plaintiffs guaranteed by the Second and Fourteenth amendments, as well as the Commerce Clause.

Luke Rettmer, 19, Nathaniel Casey, 19, Armen Tooloee, 20, Matthew Wald, 19, referred to in the suit as the “Young Adult Plaintiffs,” may not purchase a pistol or rifle under the initiative until they reach 21 years of age. With support from the dealer plaintiffs, the young adults claim that the measure burdens their Second Amendment rights.

The dealer plaintiffs, Ball and Daniel Mitchell, are suing under the Commerce Clause for their inability to sell rifles to non-residents of the state due to I-1639. According to the text of the lawsuit, 30 percent of the sales at Mitchell’s store were residents of other states, resulting in a loss of profit.

The National Rifle Association and the Second Amendment Foundation represent the Organizational Plaintiffs on behalf of their members.

Dave Workman, a senior editor of the Second Amendment Foundation, said the lawsuit is in federal court and the defendants have yet to respond.

“Most of the law doesn’t take effect until July 1,” he said. “The challenge right now is that these four young adults stripped of their Second Amendment rights cannot purchase any sort of semi-automatic gun.”

The defendants have stated their intention to enforce the measure, including the bans on sales of self-loading rifles to young adults and nonresidents, according to the text of the lawsuit.

Meidl and Atkins were unavailable for comment. Meidl’s attorney would not comment. The Auditor’s Office is being represented by six attorneys from the Office of the Attorney General, which has promised to fight hard.

“I will defend Initiative 1639 against any legal challenge,” Ferguson said in an open letter to law enforcement officials. “My office defeated the legal challenge to the previous gun safety initiative passed by the people, and I am confident we will defeat any constitutional challenge to Initiative 1639 as well.”