Terrible Decision

XD45PlusP · Nov 22, 2013

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.

XD45PlusP · Nov 22, 2013

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!

davidmcbeth · Nov 22, 2013

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.

notalawyer · Nov 22, 2013

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.

deanf · Nov 23, 2013

Doesn't change anything is this state. I wouldn't get worked into a froth over it.

sudden valley gunner · Nov 23, 2013

deanf said:
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.

sudden valley gunner · Nov 23, 2013

What bunch of long winded statist bullshite. They have to twist and imply meaning not there to erode more rights.

EMNofSeattle · Nov 23, 2013

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.

deanf · Nov 23, 2013

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.

509rifas · Nov 23, 2013

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.

sudden valley gunner · Nov 24, 2013

509rifas said:
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.

deanf · Nov 24, 2013

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

Where did you read that?

sudden valley gunner · Nov 24, 2013

deanf said:
Where did you read that?

In the decision.

sudden valley gunner · Nov 24, 2013

sudden valley gunner said:
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.

deanf · Nov 24, 2013

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.

sudden valley gunner · Nov 25, 2013

deanf said:
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.

deanf · Nov 25, 2013

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.

Dave_pro2a · Nov 25, 2013

deanf said:
[/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.

EMNofSeattle · Nov 25, 2013

Dave_pro2a said:
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.

Dave_pro2a · Nov 25, 2013

EMNofSeattle said:
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.

Terrible Decision

Regular Member

Regular Member

Banned

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member