Northwest School of Safety v. Bob Ferguson, 699 F. App'x 707

Appellants challenged Washington Initiative 594 (I-594), which extended state background-check requirements to non‑commercial transfers of firearms.
The district court granted defendants’ motion to dismiss for lack of constitutional standing, concluding plaintiffs failed to show a genuine threat of prosecution.
While the appeal was pending, the Washington Legislature amended I-594 to clarify the background-check requirement does not apply when the transferee and firearm remain in the presence of the transferor; three plaintiffs conceded this rendered their appeals moot and were dismissed.
The remaining appellants argued I-594 threatened them with enforcement for their firearm-transfer practices and sought declaratory/injunctive relief.
The government had not communicated threats or warnings of enforcement against the appellants, and enforcement history involved two different factual scenarios (a murder with an unchecked transferred gun and a stolen gun exchanged for drugs), neither analogous to appellants’ conduct.
The Ninth Circuit affirmed, holding appellants lacked standing because they failed to demonstrate a concrete plan to violate the law or a genuine threat of imminent prosecution.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether appellants have Article III standing to challenge I-594	Appellants contend I-594 subjects their routine non‑commercial transfers to criminal liability, creating a genuine threat of prosecution	State argues no specific threat or enforcement history targets appellants; amended statute narrowed scope	No standing; dismissal affirmed
Whether plaintiffs showed a concrete plan to violate I-594	Plaintiffs assert their ordinary practices fall within the law’s reach, implying a plan to continue those practices	State notes plaintiffs offered no admission of intent to violate nor any communicated enforcement warning	Plaintiffs failed to allege a concrete plan sufficient for pre-enforcement review
Whether government enforcement history supports a credible threat	Plaintiffs point to two prosecutions under the statute as evidence of enforcement risk	State argues the prosecutions involved different facts and do not demonstrate enforcement against plaintiffs’ conduct	Enforcement history was insufficiently analogous to create a genuine threat
Effect of legislative amendment on mootness	Some appellants argued amendment did not remedy their injury	Three appellants conceded the amendment mooted their claims and were dismissed	Those appellants’ appeals dismissed as moot

Thomas v. Anchorage Equal Rights Comm’n, 220 F.3d 1134 (9th Cir. 2000) (factors for assessing genuineness of threatened prosecution)
San Diego Cty. Gun Rights Comm. v. Reno, 98 F.3d 1121 (9th Cir. 1996) (pre‑enforcement standing requires more than mere possibility of prosecution)
MedImmune, Inc. v. Genentech, Inc., 549 U.S. 118 (2007) (plaintiff need not expose itself to liability before suing)
Steffel v. Thompson, 415 U.S. 452 (1974) (requirement to show genuine threat of enforcement for declaratory relief)
Clapper v. Amnesty Int’l USA, 568 U.S. 398 (2013) (cannot manufacture standing with speculative future harm)
Boating Indus. Ass’ns v. Marshall, 601 F.2d 1376 (9th Cir. 1979) (mere possibility of criminal sanctions does not create a case or controversy)