Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 25 of 33

Thread: Terrible Decision

  1. #1
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    250

    Terrible Decision

    Bad decision/opinion by the majority of our SC. The minority Dissent got it right...... Wow

    http://www.courts.wa.gov/opinions/pdf/874484.pdf

    Remember these people and vote accordingly!

    JUSTICES
    --------
    Barbara A. Madsen Signed Majority
    Charles W. Johnson Signed Dissent of Wiggins, J.
    Susan Owens Signed Majority
    Mary E. Fairhurst Signed Majority
    James M. Johnson Dissent Author
    Debra L. Stephens Signed Majority
    Charles K. Wiggins Dissent Author
    Steven C. González Majority Author
    Tom Chambers, Justice Pro Tem. Signed Dissent of Wiggins, J.

  2. #2
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    250
    So if you have to shoot in Self defense, but are arrested and bail out you have to get rid of your firearms or you become a Felon even if you ultimately get acquitted by the jury of the Original charge. How is this NOT a Due Process Violation? We sure do have a lot of IDIOTS in the Legislature and supreme court!

  3. #3
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    earth's crust
    Posts
    17,838
    Seems similar to where a protective order is issued and you lose you gun rights ... and this is never even being suspected of having committed a crime. So that goes one step further.

    People in robes cannot vote on a right ...

    Now, they say its a personal liberty and limited right.

    Hence my position: any freeman can own & carry. They a know danger, then they should be locked up. A dangerous person can kill with a hammer as easily as gun.

  4. #4
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2012
    Location
    Florida
    Posts
    1,095
    The first paragraph appears to have been written by an elementary school aged law clerk. Not being familiar with the specifics of WA law, it looks at first glance to be reasonable. The defendant was still under indictment for the original charge? And the subsequent arrest happened about a month after a pre-trial hearing where the law prohibiting his possession of firearms was presented? I still need to go back and read it thoroughly though.

    I do have one question: Did the defendant's attorney "take care of it" as indicated in court documents? Did he explain to his client that he could not possess firearms based on the law cited? If not his appeal should have also focused on ineffective counsel.
    Last edited by notalawyer; 11-22-2013 at 05:57 PM.

  5. #5
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    N47º 12’ x W122º 10’
    Posts
    1,762
    Doesn't change anything is this state. I wouldn't get worked into a froth over it.

  6. #6
    Regular Member sudden valley gunner's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Whatcom County
    Posts
    17,338
    Quote Originally Posted by deanf View Post
    Doesn't change anything is this state. I wouldn't get worked into a froth over it.
    Beg to differ. It sets a precedent that state's interest is more important than your individual rights.
    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)

  7. #7
    Regular Member sudden valley gunner's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Whatcom County
    Posts
    17,338
    What bunch of long winded statist bullshite. They have to twist and imply meaning not there to erode more rights.
    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)

  8. #8
    Regular Member EMNofSeattle's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Location
    S. Kitsap, Washington state
    Posts
    3,763
    I'm surprised Wiggins signed on to the dissent.

    his entire campaign in 2010 was that he was friendlier to police and prosecutors then Sanders, who he defeated for the seat....

    Sheryl McCloud isn't on this decision? shame, she claims she owns guns and shoots, I would've loved to see what she really thinks on a judicial decision.
    they love our milk and honey, but they preach about some other way of living, when they're running down my country man they're walkin' on the fightin side of me

    NRA Member

  9. #9
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    N47º 12’ x W122º 10’
    Posts
    1,762
    It sets a precedent that state's interest is more important than your individual rights.


    They didn't create any new tests to answer the question before them. Therefore, nothing has changed.

  10. #10
    Regular Member 509rifas's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2013
    Location
    Yakima County
    Posts
    253
    Unless there's something I'm not getting, if you are merely charged with a DV or felony, and you have guns at home in a safe, then they are in your possession since you excercise exclusive dominion over them, you are then a felon, even if the charge is dropped due to exculpatory evidence, such as you were actually the victim of an assault and won the fight.
    LIVE FREE OR DIE TRYING

  11. #11
    Regular Member sudden valley gunner's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Whatcom County
    Posts
    17,338
    Quote Originally Posted by 509rifas View Post
    Unless there's something I'm not getting, if you are merely charged with a DV or felony, and you have guns at home in a safe, then they are in your possession since you excercise exclusive dominion over them, you are then a felon, even if the charge is dropped due to exculpatory evidence, such as you were actually the victim of an assault and won the fight.
    Yep, erasing due process. The judges had an opportunity here to protect our rights instead they protected statism.

    I noticed their belief the federal 2A is a granted right.....

    I noticed their concentration on state rules and policing power contrary to article 1 section 1.
    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)

  12. #12
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    N47º 12’ x W122º 10’
    Posts
    1,762
    I noticed their belief the federal 2A is a granted right.....
    Where did you read that?

  13. #13
    Regular Member sudden valley gunner's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Whatcom County
    Posts
    17,338
    Quote Originally Posted by deanf View Post
    Where did you read that?
    In the decision.
    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)

  14. #14
    Regular Member sudden valley gunner's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Whatcom County
    Posts
    17,338
    Quote Originally Posted by sudden valley gunner View Post
    In the decision.
    I am feeling generous....so I'll make it easy on you just in case you didn't read the whole case.

    Page 9 first paragraph.....

    We observed that where the United States
    Constitution is a grant of enumerated powers
    It is not a grant of limited powers it is a recognition of a preexisting right. I am not surprised though.
    Last edited by sudden valley gunner; 11-24-2013 at 05:13 PM.
    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)

  15. #15
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    N47º 12’ x W122º 10’
    Posts
    1,762
    I read the whole thing. I agree with The Court. The people, via the U.S. Constitution, grant or delegate, certain limited powers to the federal government. "We observed that where the United States
    Constitution is a grant of enumerated powers"

    Your quote from the decision refers not to the Second Amendment specifically (which would really make no sense - people don't have enumerated powers; the federal government does), but to the overall structure of the Federal Constitution. The Court was comparing federal to state constitutions, wherein the later is assumed to be all powerful (plenary) unless specifically restricted.

  16. #16
    Regular Member sudden valley gunner's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Whatcom County
    Posts
    17,338
    Quote Originally Posted by deanf View Post
    I read the whole thing. I agree with The Court. The people, via the U.S. Constitution, grant or delegate, certain limited powers to the federal government. "We observed that where the United States
    Constitution is a grant of enumerated powers"

    Your quote from the decision refers not to the Second Amendment specifically (which would really make no sense - people don't have enumerated powers; the federal government does), but to the overall structure of the Federal Constitution. The Court was comparing federal to state constitutions, wherein the later is assumed to be all powerful (plenary) unless specifically restricted.

    The BOR isn't a grant of powers to the U.S. it is a limitation on preexisting rights. And they were talking about the 2A. Tell me where in the 2A does it grant the feds any power.....seems to be a shall not or a limitation.
    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)

  17. #17
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    N47º 12’ x W122º 10’
    Posts
    1,762
    And they were talking about the 2A.


    There is our sticking point.

    If you read the whole paragraph that opens page 9, you will note they refer to Gunwall, A case about cocaine possession - nothing to do with the Second Amendment. They partially quote The Court's reasoning in Gunwall. The quote in question could also be written like so: "We observed (in Gunwall) that where the United States Constitution is a grant of enumerated powers, the Washington Constitution is a limitation on the otherwise plenary power of the state."

    You see? That whole paragraph must be read in the context of Gunwall. The Court is establishing a basis for their reasoning in Jorgenson by referring to Gunwall.



  18. #18
    Regular Member Dave_pro2a's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    2,227
    Quote Originally Posted by deanf View Post
    [/COLOR] "We observed (in Gunwall) that where the United States Constitution is a grant of enumerated powers, the Washington Constitution is a limitation on the otherwise plenary power of the state."[/COLOR]
    Citizens grant the Federal government some limited powers and assigned rights. It used to be by consent, now... not so much.

    The State has no plenary powers. It does not even posses the plenary power to exist, unlike real people. If it cannot posses the power to exist (justly anyways), then all powers it has are temporarily assigned.

    Courts are wrong more often than they are right.
    Last edited by Dave_pro2a; 11-25-2013 at 11:55 AM.

  19. #19
    Regular Member EMNofSeattle's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Location
    S. Kitsap, Washington state
    Posts
    3,763
    Quote Originally Posted by Dave_pro2a View Post
    Citizens grant the Federal government some limited powers and assigned rights. It used to be by consent, now... not so much.

    The State has no plenary powers. It does not even posses the plenary power to exist, unlike real people. If it cannot posses the power to exist (justly anyways), then all powers it has are temporarily assigned.

    Courts are wrong more often than they are right.
    I suppose it depends upon your definition of wrong....

    in some abstract moral sense maybe you're right...

    in practical sense... well that's a different story.
    they love our milk and honey, but they preach about some other way of living, when they're running down my country man they're walkin' on the fightin side of me

    NRA Member

  20. #20
    Regular Member Dave_pro2a's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    2,227
    Quote Originally Posted by EMNofSeattle View Post
    I suppose it depends upon your definition of wrong....

    in some abstract moral sense maybe you're right...

    in practical sense... well that's a different story.
    So, you are ok with justice being both blind and amoral. Great.
    Last edited by Dave_pro2a; 11-25-2013 at 01:04 PM.
    "I'm just a no-account screed-peddler" Dave Workman http://goo.gl/CNf6pB

    "We ought to extend the [1994] assault weapons ban" George W Bush

    "The Bush Administration declared a permanent ban today on almost all foreign-made semiautomatic assault rifles." George Bush Sr, New York Times on July 8, 1989

    "I support the Brady bill and I urge the Congress to enact it without delay." Ronald Regan.

    "Guns are an abomination." Richard Nixon

  21. #21
    Regular Member EMNofSeattle's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Location
    S. Kitsap, Washington state
    Posts
    3,763
    Quote Originally Posted by Dave_pro2a View Post
    So, you are ok with justice being both blind and amoral. Great.
    morals vary from person to person. no two people will ever agree on everything when it comes to amoral, that's a debate that won't be solved on this forum.

    making a claim that "courts are more often wrong then right" needs to be appropriately qualified.... in that a courts word is by definition right until the law is amended or a higher court reverses....
    they love our milk and honey, but they preach about some other way of living, when they're running down my country man they're walkin' on the fightin side of me

    NRA Member

  22. #22
    Regular Member Dave_pro2a's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    2,227
    Quote Originally Posted by EMNofSeattle View Post
    morals vary from person to person. no two people will ever agree on everything
    Spoken like a true believer in the modern invention of legal positivism.
    Last edited by Dave_pro2a; 11-25-2013 at 01:08 PM.
    "I'm just a no-account screed-peddler" Dave Workman http://goo.gl/CNf6pB

    "We ought to extend the [1994] assault weapons ban" George W Bush

    "The Bush Administration declared a permanent ban today on almost all foreign-made semiautomatic assault rifles." George Bush Sr, New York Times on July 8, 1989

    "I support the Brady bill and I urge the Congress to enact it without delay." Ronald Regan.

    "Guns are an abomination." Richard Nixon

  23. #23
    Regular Member sudden valley gunner's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Whatcom County
    Posts
    17,338
    Quote Originally Posted by deanf View Post
    [/COLOR]

    There is our sticking point.

    If you read the whole paragraph that opens page 9, you will note they refer to Gunwall, A case about cocaine possession - nothing to do with the Second Amendment. They partially quote The Court's reasoning in Gunwall. The quote in question could also be written like so: "We observed (in Gunwall) that where the United States Constitution is a grant of enumerated powers, the Washington Constitution is a limitation on the otherwise plenary power of the state."

    You see? That whole paragraph must be read in the context of Gunwall. The Court is establishing a basis for their reasoning in Jorgenson by referring to Gunwall.


    I read the whole paragraph, I read the whole decision. Apparently you didn't read my whole post about the BOR.....
    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)

  24. #24
    Regular Member sudden valley gunner's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Whatcom County
    Posts
    17,338
    Quote Originally Posted by Dave_pro2a View Post
    Citizens grant the Federal government some limited powers and assigned rights. It used to be by consent, now... not so much.

    The State has no plenary powers. It does not even posses the plenary power to exist, unlike real people. If it cannot posses the power to exist (justly anyways), then all powers it has are temporarily assigned.

    Courts are wrong more often than they are right.
    Quote Originally Posted by Dave_pro2a View Post
    Spoken like a true believer in the modern invention of legal positivism.
    +1 on both accounts.

    Some just worship at the alter of the state. They will insist on believing it is top down and that is the way it supposed to be.
    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)

  25. #25
    Regular Member Dave_pro2a's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    2,227
    Quote Originally Posted by deanf View Post
    [/COLOR]

    There is our sticking point.

    [COLOR=#333333]If you read the whole paragraph that opens page 9, you will note they refer to Gunwall, A case about cocaine possession - nothing to do with the Second Amendment.
    Drug prohibition, gun prohibition. Not a logic huge leap to make, for the nanny state.

Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast

Posting Permissions

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