Results 1 to 8 of 8

Thread: Measure 1059

  1. #1
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    LaConner, Washington, USA
    Posts
    649

    Post imported post

    Here is the .pdf text of a proposition filed in January:

    http://www.sos.wa.gov/elections/init...text/i1059.pdf

    IF this measure passes it will save Washington from becoming a California-style anti-gun state. The bill has a lot of very good protections, including some provisions that may have to be defended on Tenth Amendment grounds. I have no idea what kind of support this has or whether it is gaining any traction --- I have just discovered it and haven't had an opportunity to do the research.

    I'm a bit surprised that this hasn't popped up on this board before now.

  2. #2
    Regular Member Batousaii's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Location
    Kitsap Co., Washington, USA
    Posts
    1,234

    Post imported post

    Very interesting.
    * I like it.... but curious,
    - How does this position us against the 1968-Gun Control Actand/or National Firearms Act of 34 ? - or does it?

    - I have always felt our rights in these regardsbear the heaviest of infringement.

    Bat

    ~ ENCLAVE vmc ~
    The Enclave is looking for patriotic motorcycle riders in Washington State who support liberty and freedom for all. ~ Check us out!
    ~
    * " To be swayed neither by the opponent nor by his sword is the essence of swordsmanship." - Miyamoto Musashi.

  3. #3
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    LaConner, Washington, USA
    Posts
    649

    Post imported post

    The greatest concern I have is Section 4 which attempts to invalidate any federal legislation that violates any of the other provisions of the Act. Under the US constitution, federal law preempts conflicting state laws, BUT there is the Tenth Amendment which provides for states' rights. With the Obama-Holder-Feinstein conspiracy to confiscate guns at the federal level, there is sure to be a challenge. Washington's best hope to uphold this law is the Tenth Amendment:

    "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."

    This has a legal parallel in the Montana law that uses Tenth Amendment grounds to localize gun laws and bar federal intervention. That law is going thru challenges and probably won't be resolved until it's reviewed by SCOTUS.

    Who knows how this might play out, but right now it's all speculation. First we have to get the bill passed.


  4. #4
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    Blaine, WA, ,
    Posts
    1,315

    Post imported post

    Richard6218 wrote:
    This has a legal parallel in the Montana law that uses Tenth Amendment grounds to localize gun laws and bar federal intervention. That law is going thru challenges and probably won't be resolved until it's reviewed by SCOTUS.
    I think Tennessee just did this as well. It's not really a concern because they can just invalidate portions of the initiative and leave the rest standing.

  5. #5
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    LaConner, Washington, USA
    Posts
    649

    Post imported post

    heresolong wrote:
    Richard6218 wrote:
    This has a legal parallel in the Montana law that uses Tenth Amendment grounds to localize gun laws and bar federal intervention. That law is going thru challenges and probably won't be resolved until it's reviewed by SCOTUS.
    I think Tennessee just did this as well. It's not really a concern because they can just invalidate portions of the initiative and leave the rest standing.
    Not sure exactly what you mean by "portions of the initiative". Are you referring to SCOTUS striking down section(s) of the proposed bill, such as Section 4? If so, yes, I would agree but that's the risk the authors are taking in putting it in the bill. But it's certainly worth a try. I think the Tenth Amendment is a very powerful challenge to the federal authority and all the States that are joining that challenge including Montana and Tennessee and I believe a couple others, and now Washington, will be sending a strong message to D.C. that we're tired of the dictatorship.

  6. #6
    Regular Member Just Us's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    West Fargo, ND
    Posts
    248

    Post imported post

    Does LEOs have to witness a crime or do they just have to say they suspect one might happen? Goes back to 'cause for alarm'. Specifically?? Clarification more than just a broad note. Weed out a possible loop hole!

    Just a thought and opinion.

  7. #7
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    LaConner, Washington, USA
    Posts
    649

    Post imported post

    Just Us wrote:
    Does LEOs have to witness a crime or do they just have to say they suspect one might happen? Goes back to 'cause for alarm'. Specifically?? Clarification more than just a broad note. Weed out a possible loop hole!

    Just a thought and opinion.
    I detect a great deal of confusion in your thoughts. First, I see no reference in the proposed legislation to apprehension of a perpetrator of any crime. This bill is about the citizens' right to self-protection, essentially strengthening RCW 9.41.050, -.070, -.270, -.290 and -.300. The phrase "warrants alarm" that I believe you refer to is in 9.41.270(1) and refers to circumstances having to do with carrying a weapon. I won't paste it here, but if you look it up and read the whole section and subsections (1) and (2) it should clear things up for you.

  8. #8
    Regular Member Just Us's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    West Fargo, ND
    Posts
    248

    Post imported post

    Richard6218 wrote:
    Just Us wrote:
    Does LEOs have to witness a crime or do they just have to say they suspect one might happen? Goes back to 'cause for alarm'. Specifically?? Clarification more than just a broad note. Weed out a possible loop hole!

    Just a thought and opinion.
    I detect a great deal of confusion in your thoughts. First, I see no reference in the proposed legislation to apprehension of a perpetrator of any crime. This bill is about the citizens' right to self-protection, essentially strengthening RCW 9.41.050, -.070, -.270, -.290 and -.300. The phrase "warrants alarm" that I believe you refer to is in 9.41.270(1) and refers to circumstances having to do with carrying a weapon. I won't paste it here, but if you look it up and read the whole section and subsections (1) and (2) it should clear things up for you.
    It does specify "in the act of commiting a crime" in New Section 3 of I-1059. Disregard, I read it again (a little slower this time).

Posting Permissions

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