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?

Freedom1Man said:

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?

Click to expand...

Rather than the second amendment, how about the WA State Constitution's Article 1 Section 24?

NavyLCDR said:

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.

Click to expand...

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.

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.

We are pretty unorganized......

NavyLCDR said:

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.

Click to expand...

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.

Wow

NavyLCDR said:

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.

Click to expand...

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.

NavyLCDR said:

...or armed forces of foreign countries.

Click to expand...

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?

[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?

MSG Laigaie said:

[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?

Click to expand...

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.]

Click to expand...

Yes and not sure what you are getting at about preemption on this issue.

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.

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.

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?

NavyLCDR said:

Although....there is THIS in the Washington State Constitution:

Click to expand...

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.

NavyLCDR said:

The National Guard and Reserve forces now deploy to places like Afghanistan as much, if not more than, active duty forces do.

Click to expand...

You made my point, thanks.