Worth repeating . . . Washington State's RTKBA provision seems to protect military-purpose civilian arms, i.e. arms to defend the state!
* * * * *
Those folks in Washington state who are opposed to private ownership of semi-automatic firearms with detachable magazines, which they themselves often helpfully define as proper military weapons, have a state constitutional problem. Don’t let them continue to dodge the fact that the Washington state RTKBA provision is explicitly protective of the right of individual citizens to possess so-called assault weapons. In Article I, Section 24, of the Washington Constitution, the right of the citizen to possess military-type arms is literally hiding in plain-view:
"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."
The part most relevant, to the ill-conceived assault weapons ban, is this: "The right of the individual citizen to bear arms in defense of . . . the state, shall not be impaired . . ."
Sure, the anti’s will defend their ban, but how successful do you think the AG will be arguing that revolvers, shotguns and bolt-action rifles are the only type of arms which Washington citizens have the right to bear in the (thankfully) unlikely event they must defend the state during a dire and catastrophic emergency? Does the AG really want to argue that citizens would be expected to lose their lives, while defending the state, fielding outdated arms?
Washington's RTKBA provision, unlike the 2nd Amendment, has no controversial 'well-regulated militia' clause by which the AG could argue the right only belongs to those citizen ‘actively serving’ in the state militia. Therefore, it is unclear how those who propose to adopt a complete ban on civilian ownership of the very type of arms most suited to defend the state, if and when needed, would pass constitutional muster. The very purpose of Article I, Section 24 is to prohibit the state legislature from doing exactly what it is that the AG is now currently proposing. If Washington’s RTKBA clause meant anything, it meant to prohibit exactly such a scenario. Someone ought to point the obvious out to Bob Ferguson. His proposed ban directly conflicts with the state constitution and he ought to explain to the citizenry why he thinks the state constitution doesn’t say what it says.
If the AG doesn’t like that, too bad, the solution is to amend the state constitution.
Washington is not alone. Alabama, Arizona, Colorado, Delaware, Indiana, Kentucky, Michigan New Hampshire, North Dakota, Oregon, Pennsylvania, Texas, Utah, Vermont, West Virginia, and Wyoming also have similar constitutional provisions protecting the right of their respective citizens to keep arms for defense of the state.
I would bet my last dollar that whatever court cases, if any, that the AG cites to justify his assault-weapons ban deal only with the type of arms suitable for ‘self-defense’ rather than the separate yet equally valid ‘state-defense’ purpose clearly enumerated in the text. I have no doubt that future litigation over the scope of arms suitable for ‘defense of state’ would be a long-overdue case of first impression.
Article I, Section 24’s bearing arms for ‘defense of state’ is one of your individual citizen’s enumerated rights for goodness sakes! You may lose the PR battle and at the district court, but make no mistake, the appellate and state supreme courts really have no other alternative but to strictly adhere to the plain text of the state constitution. Good luck!
