• We are now running on a new, and hopefully much-improved, server. In addition we are also on new forum software. Any move entails a lot of technical details and I suspect we will encounter a few issues as the new server goes live. Please be patient with us. It will be worth it! :) Please help by posting all issues here.
  • The forum will be down for about an hour this weekend for maintenance. I apologize for the inconvenience.
  • If you are having trouble seeing the forum then you may need to clear your browser's DNS cache. Click here for instructions on how to do that
  • Please review the Forum Rules frequently as we are constantly trying to improve the forum for our members and visitors.

"Be it enacted by the people of the State of Washington.”

Flopsweat

Regular Member
Joined
May 1, 2011
Messages
165
Location
Slightly right of center
What did you have in mind? Actively penalize federal agents for over stepping into state authority? Define concrete penalties for city and county officials violating state preemption? Clearly define no duty to retreat? (Castle and/or stand your ground - I understand that these are pretty well worked out in case law but not well defined in state law.)
 

bmg50cal

Regular Member
Joined
Jan 20, 2011
Messages
306
Location
WA - North Whidbey/ Deception Pass
Here are a few ideas.


  • constitutional carry
  • legalize NFA firearms - short barrel rifles, short barrel shotguns, & full-automatics
  • amended a strong castle doctrine to the constitution
  • parking lot carry - HB 2137 - 2011-12 (what happened to that bill?)
  • campus carry
  • state preemption for knives or turn the CPL into CWL with exemption for those with CWL
  • eliminate the use tax on firearms transfers
  • create and enforce penalties for baseless calls to authorities concerning MWAGs (just like those that would cover someone yelling "FIRE" in a crowded theater)
 

Whitney

Regular Member
Joined
Jan 12, 2010
Messages
435
Location
Poulsbo, Kitsap County, Washington, USA
Re Wording RCW 9.41.270

The difficulty with something like this is the same difficulty the legislature is having. First agree to disagree then compromise and move on.

Start with clarifying RCW 9.41.270 as previously discussed in THIS thread and HERE.

Here is a link with enough information to determine how the State views 9.41.270


I'm thinking the title should be worded in an Alinsky sort of fashion yet in keeping with the law.

9.41.270
Preventing the un-lawfull carrying or handling of weapons apparently capable of producing bodily harm
| Penalty | Exceptions.

~Whitney
 

BigDave

Opt-Out Members
Joined
Nov 22, 2006
Messages
3,456
Location
Yakima, Washington, USA
While it would be great to improve the wording in many of RCW's concerning firearms and there is likelihood it could get on the ballet. The major hurdle is to invest a great deal of money into advertisements in promoting it passage.
Remember the amount of money it took to privatize alcohol or marijuana, if you feel you can achieve the amount of funding to put forward an imitative as this great, but mind you will need thousands times more votes then will be gain in these forums and then you will have to contend with those votes that just did not like one small part of the wording and with hold their vote in the name of I did it my way.....

Note that I am all for it, if it can be done.
 

Trigger Dr

Regular Member
Joined
Oct 3, 2007
Messages
2,760
Location
Wa, ,
9.41.270
Preventing the un-lawfull carrying or handling of weapons apparently capable of producing bodily harm
| Penalty | Exceptions.

~Whitney[/QUOTE]

Looks good until they would strike the word UN-LAWFUL
 

BigDave

Opt-Out Members
Joined
Nov 22, 2006
Messages
3,456
Location
Yakima, Washington, USA
If you are wanting to change something other then the title how about adding RCW 9.41.270(3)(e) Being lawfully carried in a holster.
 
Last edited:

Difdi

Regular Member
Joined
Mar 2, 2010
Messages
987
Location
Seattle, Washington, USA
How about an initiative to make proposing, sponsoring or voting in favor of a statute that a clear reading of the bill conflicts with the state constitution be an immediate resignation from the legislature, effective immediately?
 
Last edited:

LkWd_Don

Regular Member
Joined
Mar 26, 2012
Messages
572
Location
Dolan Springs, AZ
Here are a few ideas.


  • constitutional carry
  • legalize NFA firearms - short barrel rifles, short barrel shotguns, & full-automatics
  • amended a strong castle doctrine to the constitution
  • parking lot carry - HB 2137 - 2011-12 (what happened to that bill?)
  • campus carry
  • state preemption for knives or turn the CPL into CWL with exemption for those with CWL
  • eliminate the use tax on firearms transfers
  • create and enforce penalties for baseless calls to authorities concerning MWAGs (just like those that would cover someone yelling "FIRE" in a crowded theater)

Emphasis added as talking points.
First is about the NFA.
Article VI of the Constitution only says that federal laws are “supreme” when made “in pursuance of” the Constitution.
This does not imply that any old law Our lovers of power (read that as Congress) wish to pass, actually bind the Several Sovereign States and the People to it, without question.
It is a shame that in United States v. Miller - 307 U.S. 174 (1939), that Miller did not challenge his being arrested for failure to purchase a Tax-Stamp for a sawn-off (short barreled) shotgun as being that the NFA itself was unconstitutional as it violated the 2A. As it was he simply argued that the Tax-Stamp for a short barreled shotgun violated the 2A, and then did not present evidence that short barreled shotguns were in common Military use during WWI for close quarter combat, as well as were kept in Military inventory for guard realted functions. Had that been done, the NFA may have been struck down by the SCOTUS back in the late 1930's. http://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/307/174/case.html
So our State following many others, such as the Missouri Legislature is trying to do, by passing Local Legislation Nulifying the Federal Laws with words to the effect of "All federal acts, laws, orders, rules, and regulations, whether past, present, or future, which infringe on the people’s right to keep and bear arms as guaranteed by the Second Amendment to the United States Constitution and Article I, Section 24 of the Washington Constitution shall be invalid in this state, shall not be recognized by this state, are specifically rejected by this state, and shall be considered null and void and of no effect in this state."

Speaking of the Supreme Court.
Let me say this as clearly as I can, those nine justices aren’t infallible gods.
They ae not the final arbiter of what the Constitution means, as they have even questioned and subsequently overturned their own rulings in the past.
The Constitution means what the Founders and Ratifiers told us it means, no matter what Our Congress, the President, or the Supreme Court wish to say.

Now about the emphasis pertaining to our Washington State CPL.

For those who are not aware, it used to be a CWP (Concealed Weapon Permit) years ago before Washington converted from a "May Issue" to "Shall Issue" State. My first Washington State Carry Permit was a CWP.
 
Last edited:
Top