Results 1 to 15 of 15

Thread: For those in Snohomish and anyone else in the area.

  1. #1
    Regular Member Freedom1Man's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    Greater Eastside Washington
    Posts
    4,690

    For those in Snohomish and anyone else in the area.

    What would it take for us to have a group of us Open Carriers participate in the State Fair opening Parade in Monroe?


    Maybe have a banner with the 2nd Amendment displayed for all to read.


    For the rest of the year maybe have semi-random neighborhood watch walks to discourage criminal activities.

    It's just any idea.

    Who would be game?

  2. #2
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    Washington
    Posts
    2,546
    Quote Originally Posted by Freedom1Man View Post
    What would it take for us to have a group of us Open Carriers participate in the State Fair opening Parade in Monroe?


    Maybe have a banner with the 2nd Amendment displayed for all to read.


    For the rest of the year maybe have semi-random neighborhood watch walks to discourage criminal activities.

    It's just any idea.

    Who would be game?
    Rather than the second amendment, how about the WA State Constitution's Article 1 Section 24?
    "If we were to ever consider citizenship as the least bit matter of merit instead of birthright, imagine who should be selected as deserved representation of our democracy: someone who would risk their daily livelihood to cast an individually statistically insignificant vote, or those who wrap themselves in the flag against slightest slights." - agenthex

  3. #3
    Regular Member Freedom1Man's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    Greater Eastside Washington
    Posts
    4,690
    Quote Originally Posted by NavyLCDR View Post
    Would we be considered an "organized body"?

    RCW 38.40.120
    Authorized military organizations.

    No organized body other than the recognized militia organizations of this state, armed forces of the United States, students of educational institutions where military science is a prescribed part of the course of instruction or bona fide veterans organizations shall associate themselves together as a military company or organize or parade in public with firearms: PROVIDED, That nothing herein shall be construed to prevent authorized parades by the organized militia of another state or armed forces of foreign countries. Any person participating in any such unauthorized organization shall be guilty of a misdemeanor.
    Thanks for the heads up on that one.

    Looks like a violation of freedom of speech. The law should be challenged as unconstitutional.

    All the police who go into parades should be charged with a misdemeanor then. I don't see an exemption for the police in the law here....

    As for the militia part, there is no recognized state militia anymore.

    This law screams unconstitutional all the way through.

    SECTION 3 PERSONAL RIGHTS. No person shall be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law.

    SECTION 4 RIGHT OF PETITION AND ASSEMBLAGE. The right of petition and of the people peaceably to assemble for the common good shall never be abridged.

    SECTION 5 FREEDOM OF SPEECH. Every person may freely speak, write and publish on all subjects, being responsible for the abuse of that right.

    SECTION 12 SPECIAL PRIVILEGES AND IMMUNITIES PROHIBITED. No law shall be passed granting to any citizen, class of citizens, or corporation other than municipal, privileges or immunities which upon the same terms shall not equally belong to all citizens, or corporations.

    SECTION 24 RIGHT TO BEAR ARMS. The right of the individual citizen to bear arms in defense of himself, or the state, shall not be impaired, but nothing in this section shall be construed as authorizing individuals or corporations to organize, maintain or employ an armed body of men.

    SECTION 29 CONSTITUTION MANDATORY. The provisions of this Constitution are mandatory, unless by express words they are declared to be otherwise.

    ARTICLE X
    MILITIA



    SECTION 1 WHO LIABLE TO MILITARY DUTY. All able-bodied male citizens of this state between the ages of eighteen (18) and forty-five (45) years except such as are exempt by laws of the United States or by the laws of this state, shall be liable to military duty.



    We could still have a pro-gun parade. However we would have to not request firearms.

    Instead of asking people to be armed. Just ask people who are pro-gun to show up. If they are armed then that is their individual choice.

    I know that that last part will be argued and debated but I am open minded. Please be adults and no throwing insults to and fro alright.
    Last edited by Freedom1Man; 04-18-2012 at 10:57 PM. Reason: Needed to find other parts of the constitution.

  4. #4
    Regular Member FMJ 911's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Location
    People's Republic of Snohomishia
    Posts
    351
    I'd be up for a "Pro-Freedom" demonstration. We all have to make sure we're "In the right" so no one can target us. The last thing anyone would want is for us to get in trouble.
    "May God have mercy upon my enemies, because I won't." — George Patton

  5. #5
    Regular Member sudden valley gunner's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Whatcom County
    Posts
    17,338
    We are pretty unorganized......
    I am not anti Cop I am just pro Citizen.

    U.S. v. Minker, 350 US 179, at page 187
    "Because of what appears to be a lawful command on the surface, many citizens, because
    of their respect for what only appears to be a law, are cunningly coerced into waiving their
    rights, due to ignorance." (Paraphrased)

  6. #6
    Regular Member jbone's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    WA
    Posts
    2,241
    Quote Originally Posted by NavyLCDR View Post
    Would we be considered an "organized body"?

    RCW 38.40.120
    Authorized military organizations.

    No organized body other than the recognized militia organizations of this state, armed forces of the United States, students of educational institutions where military science is a prescribed part of the course of instruction or bona fide veterans organizations shall associate themselves together as a military company or organize or parade in public with firearms: PROVIDED, That nothing herein shall be construed to prevent authorized parades by the organized militia of another state or armed forces of foreign countries. Any person participating in any such unauthorized organization shall be guilty of a misdemeanor.
    Got the feeling there may be a law against this too, but I suppose since exercising the Constitutional rights to bear arms is somehow a violation of the law (scratching head) then I guess they’ll will have to stand on the sidelines as parade spectators with banner held in hand.

    Just upside down I say. One has a right to bear their tallywacker or beaver down the streets of Seattle in a parade, or prance down the street in another, and its’ without question protected, sanctioned, and celebrated. But another area protected by our Constitutional is legislated as unlawful. What has this country become; never mind I know the answer.

  7. #7
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    SW Idaho
    Posts
    1,552

    Wow

    Quote Originally Posted by NavyLCDR View Post
    Would we be considered an "organized body"?

    RCW 38.40.120
    Authorized military organizations.

    No organized body other than the recognized militia organizations of this state, armed forces of the United States, students of educational institutions where military science is a prescribed part of the course of instruction or bona fide veterans organizations shall associate themselves together as a military company or organize or parade in public with firearms: PROVIDED, That nothing herein shall be construed to prevent authorized parades by the organized militia of another state or armed forces of foreign countries. Any person participating in any such unauthorized organization shall be guilty of a misdemeanor.
    What a terrible law. Seems unconstitutional on its face, to me. It arbitrarily defines any private group, with certain exceptions, that carries firearms in any public way an "unauthorized military organization," and restricts both their 1A and 2A rights on that basis.
    Last edited by ManInBlack; 04-19-2012 at 04:18 PM.
    Total ignorance: an Obama supporter's stock in trade
    Quote Originally Posted by Beretta92FSLady View Post
    All the talk about Overthrowing Big Government, Revolution, etc., it's just another one of those nostalgic ideas that individuals have idealized.
    O RLY?
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of...and_rebellions
    Quote Originally Posted by Beretta92FSLady View Post
    Books are overrated; and so is history.

  8. #8
    Regular Member jbone's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    WA
    Posts
    2,241
    Quote Originally Posted by NavyLCDR View Post
    ...or armed forces of foreign countries.
    I just noticed, in reading what leads up to my paraphrased quote, is this statue suggesting it's against the law for a citizen of the United States, but lawful for member of a foreign Military Power to parade as an armed body of men, in Washington State?

  9. #9
    Campaign Veteran MSG Laigaie's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Location
    Philipsburg, Montana
    Posts
    3,137
    [1989 c 19 § 53; 1943 c 130 § 54; Rem. Supp. 1943 § 8603-54. Prior: 1909 c 249 § 294; 1903 c 135 § 1.]

    I see this at the end of the RCW. Does this indicate its last revision?? If so, I see a date of 1989?? This is before Preemption, is it not?
    "Firearms stand next in importance to the Constitution itself. They are the people's liberty teeth (and) keystone... the rifle and the pistol are equally indispensable... more than 99% of them by their silence indicate that they are in safe and sane hands. The very atmosphere of firearms everywhere restrains evil interference .When firearms go, all goes, we need them every hour." -- George Washington

  10. #10
    Opt-Out Members BigDave's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Yakima, Washington, USA
    Posts
    3,463
    Quote Originally Posted by MSG Laigaie View Post
    [1989 c 19 § 53; 1943 c 130 § 54; Rem. Supp. 1943 § 8603-54. Prior: 1909 c 249 § 294; 1903 c 135 § 1.]

    I see this at the end of the RCW. Does this indicate its last revision?? If so, I see a date of 1989?? This is before Preemption, is it not?
    RCW 9.41.290
    State preemption.

    The state of Washington hereby fully occupies and preempts the entire field of firearms regulation within the boundaries of the state, including the registration, licensing, possession, purchase, sale, acquisition, transfer, discharge, and transportation of firearms, or any other element relating to firearms or parts thereof, including ammunition and reloader components. Cities, towns, and counties or other municipalities may enact only those laws and ordinances relating to firearms that are specifically authorized by state law, as in RCW 9.41.300, and are consistent with this chapter. Such local ordinances shall have the same penalty as provided for by state law. Local laws and ordinances that are inconsistent with, more restrictive than, or exceed the requirements of state law shall not be enacted and are preempted and repealed, regardless of the nature of the code, charter, or home rule status of such city, town, county, or municipality.

    [1994 sp.s. c 7 § 428; 1985 c 428 § 1; 1983 c 232 § 12.]
    Yes and not sure what you are getting at about preemption on this issue.
    • Being prepared is to prepare, this is our responsibility.
    • I am not your Mommy or Daddy and do not sugar coat it but I will tell you simply as how I see it, it is up to you on how you will or will not use it.
    • IANAL, all information I present is for your review, do your own homework.

  11. #11
    Regular Member jbone's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    WA
    Posts
    2,241
    Yes, the state is not going to preempt it’s self, but clearly the constitution preempted law makers. I think the area to question is: SECTION 29 CONSTITUTION MANDATORY. The provisions of this Constitution are mandatory, unless by express words they are declared to be otherwise.
    Need to be asking how the statement of “express words” was interpreted by the lawmakers. What if expressed words meant those words only expressed in the Constitution and not by state legislators in later years. Section 29 is one sentence with one meaning of what is contained in the constitution, is mandatory by the Constitution, useless declared otherwise by the constitution. Anyway, that’s my reading, and it appears law makers have again circumvented the true meaning.

  12. #12
    Regular Member Vitaeus's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2010
    Location
    Bremerton, Washington
    Posts
    593
    Other than getting the legislature to amend or remove this RCW, the only way to get standing for the court is to get cited for violating it.

  13. #13
    Regular Member Difdi's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    Seattle, Washington, USA
    Posts
    996
    The law forbids groups to march in public with firearms if they are not a recognized militia organization.

    Well, what constitutes a recognized militia organization? Is that term ever defined anywhere in the law? The militia act recognizes the inactive militia, and defines who is a member. Would members of the inactive militia count as a recognized militia organization for purposes of the parade law? Would it make a difference, legally, if they publicly identified themselves as members of the inactive militia while marching?

  14. #14
    Regular Member Freedom1Man's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    Greater Eastside Washington
    Posts
    4,690
    Quote Originally Posted by NavyLCDR View Post
    :-)



    Although....there is THIS in the Washington State Constitution:
    Yes that leaves many unanswered questions.

    It would seem that if you're a male within that age range then you're a part of the recognized militia. I believe that it would cause interesting traction in the court system.

    The court might argue that the National Guard is the state's militia. The counter to that would be if that was true then they should not be leaving the boundary of the 50 states. Also should not be leaving Washington's boarders except for training purposes and to help the militias of the other states repel an invasion. Since while I was stationed in Korea I saw members of the National Guard over there I am lead to believe that the "National Guard" could not be qualified as a state militia at all. I would have to say that based on the use of the National Guard and the fact that the control of the National Guard units has been handed over to the federal government that they are in fact no more than a military reserve unit.

    That destroys the argument that the National Guard is the state militia and so thus it falls back on to history, the state constitution, and the state law to define who/what the militia is. Since it's my understanding that every able bodied male with in that given age range is a de facto member of the militia the state law could not stop any males within that age range from claiming to be the recognized militia and engaging in such a march.


    I am happy to read some reasonable discussion on this topic. Please anyone give your mature 2cents and weigh in on this topic.
    Last edited by Freedom1Man; 04-20-2012 at 11:25 AM.

  15. #15
    Regular Member Freedom1Man's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    Greater Eastside Washington
    Posts
    4,690
    Quote Originally Posted by NavyLCDR View Post
    The National Guard and Reserve forces now deploy to places like Afghanistan as much, if not more than, active duty forces do.
    You made my point, thanks.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •