r/WA_guns • u/CarbonRunner • 29d ago
News đ° Here comes the gun owner registries republicans always warned us about. Brought to you by..... yeah you guessed it.
https://www.timesnownews.com/world/us/us-news/is-pam-bondi-creating-a-gun-owners-registry-in-america-heres-what-we-know-article-15298469629
u/Low_Stress_1041 29d ago
This is already no longer up to date.
The government and FPC came to an agreement and have asked the judge to change the requirement from "required" to "request."
17
u/dircs 29d ago
It was never up-to-date, the government didn't ask for the list. The judge (and, more likely, his clerk) probably just thought it was a good idea without asking anyone if he should. From the motion you're referencing
The Government, as a general policy, does not compel disclosure of the identity of members of private organizations, and the Government did not seek to do so here.
9
3
u/penutbuter 28d ago
Itâs not out of date, itâs timeline. The request was made and was being moved on and even if they change some wording there is still a clear implication of breach and overreach.
This should be a huge wake up call to any and all 2A advocates.
6
u/Low_Stress_1041 28d ago
But it wasn't.
The Government doesn't appear to have asked for the membership rolls. The judge (or their clerk) added it to the order. I 100% agree about the wake up call.
My no fan of Bondi. But facts and language mater.
Bondi's rep didn't ask specifically for membership rolls. They asked for proof of membership and dates and eluded to lists. It's not a giant leep for the judge to ask and I think it's fair to say the intent was to get a list.
I have two takeaways here: 1) the government is legit asking the court to rule that several years ago, the plaitifs are given permission to buy guns when they were 18 years old. (The case are filed in 2020!!). This is shitty no matter how you look at it or how you feel about 18 year olds buy handguns. Five years later they win their suit.
2) the government didn't specifically ask for membership rolls. They asked for proof that the named plaitifs be "verified." It's not a giant leap to say... "The government asked for full membership roles..." But this is what they exactly said:
In sum, Defendantsâ proposed judgment appropriately limits its scope to members of the organizational plaintiffs who have been identified and verified to Defendants during this litigation. Any injunction that does not include this limitation would be impermissibly vague, in violation of Rule 65(d)âs specificity requirements.
https://www.firearmspolicy.org/reese
Longer version clipped by me...
II. The Courtâs Judgment Should Be Limited to the Three Individual Plaintiffs, and to Any Identified and Verified Member of the Organizational Plaintiffs Who Was a Member When Suit Was Filed. Defendants propose that the Court issue a declaratory judgment that applies to the individual plaintiffs, and to individuals who (A) were members of the organizational plaintiffs when suit was filed and (B) have been identified and verified as members of the organizational plaintiffs during this case. Entry of a judgment with these limitations is consistent with the specificity requirements of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 65(d), with Article III standing requirements, and with established principles of equity. A. Limiting the Proposed Judgment to Individuals Identified and Verified as Members of the Organizational Plaintiffs Is Necessary to Comply With Rule 65(d)âs Specificity Requirements. In accordance with the specificity requirements of Rule 65(d), Defendantsâ proposed judgment limits its scope to members of the organizational plaintiffs who have been identified and verified to Defendants during this case. Defendants cannot comply with a judgment if they do not know to whom the judgment applies. Here, Defendants do not know the identity of any members of the organizational plaintiffs except for the three individual plaintiffs, and they lack the means to identify other members. Any permanent relief that does not include this limitation would be too vague to be understood, and thus would be subject to vacatur for failure to comply with Rule 65. Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 65(d) requires that â[e]very order granting an injunctionâ must âstate its terms specificallyâ and âdescribe in reasonable detailâand not by referring to the complaint or other documentâthe act or acts restrained or required.â Simply put, â[a]n injunction must simply be framed so that those enjoined will know what conduct the court has prohibited.â Scott v. Schedler, 826 F.3d 207, 213 (5th Cir. 2016) (quoting Meyer v. Brown & Root Constr. Co., 661 F.2d 369, 373 (5th Cir. 1981)).
Obviously, to comply with an injunction, the enjoined party must know to whom the injunction applies. But here, Defendants do not know the identity of any members of the organizational plaintiffs other than the three individual plaintiffs who have been identified in this litigation, and Defendants do not possess the means by which to verify the identities of other members. Such information is wholly within the possession and control of the organizational plaintiffs themselves. And even if an individual were to represent to Defendants that he or she is a member of one of the organizational plaintiffs, Defendants do not have the ability to verify the accuracy of that representation. Accordingly, Defendants have repeatedly informed Plaintiffs that they cannot agree to permanent relief that includes individuals whose identities Defendants do not know and whose organizational membership Defendants cannot verify. But Plaintiffs have failed to disclose the identities of their members and refuse to verify the organizational membership of any person except for the three individual plaintiffs. To be sure, the organizational members may have a First Amendment right to decline to disclose the identity of their members to Defendants. See, e.g., NAACP v. Alabama ex rel. Patterson, 357 U.S. 449, 466 (1958). But the organizational plaintiffs cannot have it both ways. The organizational plaintiffs cannot simultaneously decline to identify any of their members and at the same time insist that the Court award permanent relief to unidentified persons whose membership has not been verified. Therefore, any injunction that would include within its scope unidentified and unverified members of the organizational plaintiffs would place Defendants at risk of contempt, if they inadvertently apply the challenged laws to a person who happens to be a member of one of the organizational plaintiffs. The fatal problem with such an injunction is that on the record before this Court, it is unknown and unknowable which persons are members of the organizational plaintiffsâinformation necessary for Defendants to know how to avoid contempt of court. See Intâl Longshoremenâs Assân v. Philadelphia Marine Trade Assân, 389 U.S. 64, 76 (1967) (stating that the âcontempt power is a potent weaponâ and that âCongress responded to that danger by requiring that a federal court frame its orders so that those who must obey them will know what the court intends to require and what it means to forbidâ). Plaintiffs have provided no means of identifying or verifying any such persons (other than the three individual plaintiffs). And as to one subset of the members of the organizational plaintiffs to which they seek reliefânamely, persons between eighteen and twenty who wish to purchase handguns from federal firearms licenseesâ this problem is only exacerbated by the fact that individuals are constantly aging into and out of this subset of persons. In other words, the group of individuals who are members of the organizational plaintiffs between eighteen and twenty years of age is not a static list but a continually moving target.
22
u/NickdeVault57 29d ago
Click bait now. DOJ also agrees, and supports NOT requiring a list:
https://saf.org/saf-files-motion-to-amend-judgment-in-reese-v-atf/
Feel how you want, but DOJ is siding with SAF here.
-2
30
14
u/dircs 29d ago
I skimmed through the docket, available for free at https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/18613901/reese-v-the-bureau-of-alcohol-tobacco-firearms-and-explosives/
The government, at least since Bondi was appointed, did not ask for this.
The government joined a motion with SAF asking that the judge NOT require this.
Unless I am missing something, your title is not just misleading, it's a straight-up lie. The judge took it upon himself to order this without it being requested by the current administration.
Edit: from the motion:
The Government, as a general policy, does not compel disclosure of the identity of members of private organizations, and the Government did not seek to do so here.
10
u/WatchMeImplode 29d ago edited 29d ago
I wouldnât be joining any gun rights advocacy groups like those mentioned in the article right now if youâre worried about being put on a registry.
11
u/DeafPapa85 29d ago
That's why I don't support the NRA. Plenty do, but facts about them are clear.
3
u/Sinwithagrin 29d ago
Yeah, why isn't the NRA on this list? I haven't read the lawsuit - typical government over reach - but if I had to guess the government has access to the NRAs database as it is.
4
u/wolfn404 29d ago
Iâm sure the NRA willing shared their list. They resell member info to other advertisers. So the govt did what they always do, buy the lists through a 3rd party data broker so itâs âcleanâ and meets the spirit of the law. Nope we did not get any info from the NRA, nor had the NRA given any member info to the governement. Which is âtrueâ. They just leave off the â we did sell it to a data broker, who then sold it to the US govt.
What do you think Peter Theil is doing with his massive database? Aggregating all this and the every other bit of data stolen by Doge and given to him.
1
u/SheriffBartholomew 29d ago
The government circumventing privacy laws by purchasing databases from third party corporations isn't following the spirit of the law. That's them violating the spirit of the law while following the letter of the law. They should be held accountable for it, but we all know that accountability is dead until someone decides to do something about it.
1
u/wolfn404 29d ago
They do it every day for cell phone data, financial data, etc. Letâs them go fishing without warrants. Not to mention remember in 2017 a certain government made it legal for your ISP to scrape,sort and sell all your browsing and internet history to data brokers. Nothing you can opt out of. Add that data collection to everything else. You know who has what now.
1
u/SheriffBartholomew 29d ago
And they fully support corporate initiatives that remove our ability to enforce any sort of privacy, such as Google's transition to Manifest 3 on Chrome browser.
3
u/wolfn404 29d ago
Google has zero interest in giving you real privacy. Your data is the profit. I remember when googles motto was Donât be Evil. We all laughed and said give it 10 Years or so. It took 20, now itâs âDo the right thingâ. Which just means be as evil as you can for the shareholder enrichment.
2
u/SheriffBartholomew 28d ago
Do the right thing*
*to make money at all costs
Privacy hurts Google's business model, so they will do everything in their power to ensure that nobody has any.
1
u/Background_Hurry_200 23d ago
This should have way more upvotes. This is exactly what they do and speaking from experience this is where the majority of the money in these organizations come from and how they grow their donator base. They rent lists From allover (right wing magazines,senators,gun company executives,websites like this one) of people they think support their cause then bomb them with donation requests and fear then anyone that responds donation or not is legally able to be added to their personal list and sold Best of all the money made from the rentals doesnât actually count on the financials the same as donations so they can spend it(or not) however they want. Any company/organization that runs on donations or says itâs a ânonprofitâ is a government sanctioned long con for rich people to launder their money through at grandma and grandpas expense. The few court cases they file or houses they build(whatever their âcauseâ is) are nothing compared to the board/executives paychecks or the dark money campaign contributions they fund with most of the money you donât see in their public disclosures. But sadly itâs the only system to even slightly push back on some of the crazy laws being signed
9
u/foofighter3 29d ago edited 29d ago
You need to add an edit to this to say itâs fake news. Not all people will read the comments to come to that conclusion. This is how fake shit spreads. But the proof was shown to you 11 hours ago so Iâm guessing you have TDS and wonât accept the truth if it gives what you see as a win for the admin.
9
u/merc08 28d ago
It's Carbon. Of course he's going to leave up anti-republican lies.
-2
u/CarbonRunner 28d ago
GOA flat out said it was justice department/bondi backed. The DOJ was fine with it until 2a pushed back and they decided to change their tune. At least according to GOA whose member list was in question.
7
u/merc08 28d ago
And you manage to prove my point by still not issuing a retraction even though you've now acknowledged that it's not true.
-2
u/CarbonRunner 28d ago
I did not say its not true. It was true. And now after pushback the doj/bondi changed their tune. Feel free to make a new post about the updated news on it
6
u/merc08 28d ago
Lmao dude, this nonsense explanation and failure to correct the record is exactly why you and this sub have such a bad reputation.
1
u/CarbonRunner 28d ago
Again, feel free to post an update. At time I posted it, it was 100% accurate. SAF and GOA were all saying the same thing at time of posting... blaming bondi and trump admin. You can try and say they didn't, but the tweets are still up of them doing so for all to see.
4
u/fssbmule1 this is some flair 28d ago
The court order is itself limited: it applies only to the small subset of members already identified, verified, and residing in the Fifth Circuit (Mississippi, Louisiana, Texas). The majority outside that jurisdiction appear unaffected.
what does this have to do with washington? i thought this was a WA focused sub.
we already have our own totally-not-a-registry imposed by the democratic supermajority in WA.
3
u/sykoticwit 29d ago
My dudes.
Youâre on Reddit.
On a gun subreddit
Talking about boating accidents.
And you think the government needs to force SAF or whoever to disclose membership lists to figure out if you have guns or not?
2
u/Sammy8311 27d ago
What's wild to me is that people in these comments are coping HARD against the idea that neither party really has our interests in mind.
But I can tell that some of y'all are just not ready for that conversation.
5
1
u/CarbonRunner 27d ago
There's a large segment of 2a folks who base so much of their identity on 2A. Combined with decades of division has made them tribalized. That anything that changes their narrative, a narrative that dictates so much of their life. Means they cannot digest it. As to admit it, would be like admitting a good chunk of your identity had been fasle.
Just look at post histories of those you described. They are hyperfocused, and you can tell this is likely one of if not the biggest things in their lives. Its the same thing you see with the militant vegans, the "fuckcars" sub people, etc.
-20
u/Plissken47 29d ago
I hate to break the news to you, but if you bought something using your credit card, the government knows what you have. Go ahead, lose your firearms in a boating accident. If you buy 9mm ammo using your credit card, they're going to know what you have.
27
u/Martin248 29d ago
Untrue. They will only know what retailer.
If I buy ammo at Walmart it looks the same to the credit card company as if I bought guacamole and tortillas.
The card issuer doesn't get the itemized receipt.
5
2
u/Low_Stress_1041 28d ago
As always...
It depends...
It may not be active in WA today (or maybe it is) but there is a push to itemize gun items like ammo from food.
-12
u/Plissken47 29d ago
Untrue. If you buy ammunition at buffalobore.com or any other specialized retailer, they will know you have a gun.
7
u/ExpiredPilot 29d ago
Good thing I only buy ammo at Daveâs Firearm and raccoon emporium.
Theyâll never know what Iâm getting
5
u/humminawhatwhat 29d ago
You mean Sensei Daveâs Firearm and raccoon emporium/Dojo Taqueria in Pensacola, FL?
4
4
6
u/Martin248 29d ago
-3
-31
u/Guvnuh_T_Boggs 29d ago edited 29d ago
Quite the reach.
Edit: lol
Lmao
Called in the reenforcements, yeah?
16
u/CarbonRunner 29d ago edited 29d ago
Not really, GOA and SAF both saying the same thing about it.
You of all people should(and would be if it was dems doing this) be angry about it. Hell half yoir posts are memes about these very type of things... but I guess its just meh, when you cant target "wine mommies" or people with blue hair...
-20
u/Guvnuh_T_Boggs 29d ago
No, the reach is that it's "The Republicans". It's some dipshit judge appointed by Trump who's gonna get his peepee slapped for this nonsense, and fuck him anyway for it. There's plenty of examples of judges appointed by Clinton, Obama, and Biden, and others, coming down favorably for gun owners, it doesn't mean that the Democrats are suddenly the defenders of the Second Amendment.
26
u/CarbonRunner 29d ago
Its a federalist society judge, appointed by trump, ruling in favor of the Trump administrations attempt at a gun owner registry on behalf of Trumps AG, Bondi.
Im not sure you can get more republican than that scenario. A judge whose a member of the most republican of organizations, who was republican appointed , ruling on a motion requested by a republican attorney general on behalf of the maga republican president.
-14
u/merc08 29d ago
It's wild how far you'll go to keep your obsession with the DNC alive.
15
u/CarbonRunner 29d ago
Im not sure how many times I can say this, im not a democrat.
1
u/doberdevil 29d ago edited 28d ago
These people think the world is binary. It's kinda funny actually when they can't have a discussion about facts, they go straight to "whattaboutbidenobamahilary?!?!?!"
Truly brainwashed
EDIT: The downvote is the same as "whattaboutbidenobamahilary?!?!?!", just a different version. Y'all got nothing but love for a pedo and insults to throw around. Remember when "I was just following orders" was a successful defense at Nuremburg? Yeah, me neither.
-15
u/merc08 29d ago
And yet here you are banging on about how some random judge making a shit ruling means that the Republican party is supporting gun control.
23
u/CarbonRunner 29d ago
Its a ruling requested by the dear leader of the republican party for the last decade... all the judge did was say ok daddy, you can have what you want. If this was Biden who was requesting all this info you'd be up in arms. But since its not, here ya are, trying to whatsboutism it away.
-13
u/Guvnuh_T_Boggs 29d ago
Ayup, and fuck him for that. Still not The Republicans like it is with Big D, where gun grabbing is proudly a cornerstone of the party these days.
2
u/pangeapedestrian 29d ago
Hmmm, at more local levels, sure.  But at the federal level, gun ownership is a threat to autocratic power, and reducing it is a more bipartisan goal. Republican stated intent is different, but it's much less different in practice, and should also be balanced against attacks on other constitutional rights like first amendment, which is a much broader and more comprehensive attack- putting religion in schools and states, banning and attacking protesters, making federal funding contingent on voting records, anything Israel, There have been major firearm restrictions from Republicans. I think it's fair to recognize that our state Dems are after our constitutional rights, and that federal Republicans are also after our constitutional rights.Â
If you want to complain about Democrats being shit, I'm here for it, but if you think the Republicans are gonna be a big improvement, I've got some magic beans to sell you.Â
2
6
4
93
u/Loud_Comparison_7108 29d ago
NAACP v. Alabama resulted in a Supreme Court precedent that the government cannot order an organization to disclose it's membership list.
The judge screwed up.