The press release is here. The filing itself is here [pdf].
Their argument is that I-594 is unconstitutional because it is too vague, both facially and as applied.
I-594, with its amendments to RCW 9.41 relating to non-commercial transfers of firearms, as well as Defendants’ enforcement of the same, prohibit, substantially interfere with, inhibit access to, and infringe upon the right to possess firearms and thus infringe Plaintiffs’ rights under the Second and Fourteenth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution as well as the rights in Article I, Section 24 of the Washington State Constitution.
Specific examples of infringement include the criminalization of shared firearms in the same home, the impractical burden on firearms training, and the inability to retake possession of a gun previously loaned to another.
They point out that the Washington State Patrol will not be enforcing the law because they can’t prove what is or isn’t a transfer. Continued...