Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 25 of 30

Thread: BLOCKBUSTER RULING: WA Supreme Court says 2A applies to states!!!

  1. #1
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    1,863

    Post imported post

    WA Supreme Court rules 2nd Amendment applies to states through 14th Amendment

    Justices in the Evergreen State hand down blockbuster ruling that will give ulcers to Seattle Mayor Mike McGinn and gun prohibitionists at Washington CeaseFire.

    Ruling authored by Justice Richard Sanders notes, "...the Second Amendment protects individual rights against state interference."



    http://www.examiner.com/x-4525-Seattle-Gun-Rights-Examiner~y2010m2d18-WA-Supreme-Court-2nd-Amendment-applies-to-the-states-via-14th-Amendment-due-process-clause

    Or try this:

    http://tinyurl.com/yd63k9h





    NOTE: Before cracking the Champagne, click on all three links in the column to READ the majority opinion and the two concurring opinions, and do it CAREFULLY.

    This is HUGE, but it is not the end-all, be-all



  2. #2
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    , Washington, USA
    Posts
    570

    Post imported post

    I am sorry Dave, I am sure I am missing something but what is different, I read it as the Washington courts have said that the second amendment is relevant to this state but isn't that already covered by article 1 SECTION 24? Can you give me the "small stupid children's" explanation on what this actually changes for us?

  3. #3
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    1,863

    Post imported post

    Agent 47 wrote:
    I am sorry Dave, I am sure I am missing something but what is different, I read it as the Washington courts have said that the second amendment is relevant to this state but isn't that already covered by article 1 SECTION 24? Can you give me the "small stupid children's" explanation on what this actually changes for us?
    Yes, you are missing the brick that just slammed intoWashington CeaseFire'sforehead.

    This is a HUGE ruling because it puts the state Supremes one step ahead of SCOTUS on the subject of incorporation.

    It officially imposes Second Amendment limitations on state law (and local attempts to adopt laws).

    It just "might" even come into play when the SCOTUS starts considering the McDonald v. Chicago case because let's face it, some of the justices who signed the majority opinion are decidedly liberal, and even THEY figure the Second Amendment applies to the states.

    The McDonald case should officially decide that once and for all, but the WA high court already makes it so inside the confines of WA state, and you can bet other state supreme courts read these opinions and just might act accordingly.

    Article 1, Section 24 ONLY applies to WA, but if our high court says the 2A applies to the states, that is very significant.



    If I were Ralph Fascitelli at CeaseFire, this would amount to a great big stinking elephant **** in my morning coffee.



  4. #4
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Location
    Poulsbo, Washington, USA
    Posts
    546

    Post imported post

    I'm confused - so they're saying that the 2nd amendment applies to state law, but that the law keeping the 17-year-old defendant from possessing a gun was constitutional?

  5. #5
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    Spokane, Washington, USA
    Posts
    1,268

    Post imported post

    So how does this effect WA states restriction of class 3 items?

    May we soon be able to actually USE those suppressors?

  6. #6
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    1,863

    Post imported post

    David.Car wrote:
    So how does this effect WA states restriction of class 3 items?

    May we soon be able to actually USE those suppressors?
    States retain the authority under their police power to regulate firearms within state borders.

    The right to keep and bear arms -- like it or not -- is NOT an "absolute right." There is no such thing as an absolute right, not the right of free speech or religion or whatever. No right is absolute.

    We may not like it, we may disagree with it, but that's the way it is.

  7. #7
    Opt-Out Members BigDave's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Yakima, Washington, USA
    Posts
    3,463

    Post imported post

    This is great news, will this not also prevent future attacks on our gun rights by rogue legislatures in Olympia?
    • Being prepared is to prepare, this is our responsibility.
    • I am not your Mommy or Daddy and do not sugar coat it but I will tell you simply as how I see it, it is up to you on how you will or will not use it.
    • IANAL, all information I present is for your review, do your own homework.

  8. #8
    Regular Member amlevin's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    North of Seattle, Washington, USA
    Posts
    5,953

    Post imported post

    BigDave wrote:
    This is great news, will this not also prevent future attacks on our gun rights by rogue legislatures in Olympia?
    It may not stop the attempts but it offers a second argument against anything they might come up with. Not only the state constitution but now an affirmation that the 2nd amendment also applies here as well.

    As for those that feel this is the beginning of the end for all gun regulation i.e. supressors, full-auto, SBR's, Shorty shotguns, etc., probably not. These laws will no doubt fall into the category of "reasonable regulation" which has been upheld in SCOTUS decisions. Ditto for the prohibition for those underage.

    I see this as welcome message to the likes of Mayor McGinn, Adam Kline, and others of similar mindset, that their efforts to ban firearms will not be successful.
    "If I shoot all the ammo I am carrying I either won't need anymore or more won't help"

    "If you refuse to stand up for others now, who will stand up for you when your time comes?"

  9. #9
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    1,863

    Post imported post

    amlevin wrote:
    It may not stop the attempts but it offers a second argument against anything they might come up with. Not only the state constitution but now an affirmation that the 2nd amendment also applies here as well.

    As for those that feel this is the beginning of the end for all gun regulation i.e. supressors, full-auto, SBR's, Shorty shotguns, etc., probably not. These laws will no doubt fall into the category of "reasonable regulation" which has been upheld in SCOTUS decisions. Ditto for the prohibition for those underage.

    I see this as welcome message to the likes of Mayor McGinn, Adam Kline, and others of similar mindset, that their efforts to ban firearms will not be successful.


    EXACTLY!

    Move to the head of the class.



  10. #10
    Founder's Club Member - Moderator Gray Peterson's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    Lynnwood, Washington, USA
    Posts
    2,238

    Post imported post

    amlevin wrote:
    BigDave wrote:
    As for those that feel this is the beginning of the end for all gun regulation i.e. supressors, full-auto, SBR's, Shorty shotguns, etc., probably not. These laws will no doubt fall into the category of "reasonable regulation" which has been upheld in SCOTUS decisions. Ditto for the prohibition for those underage.

    Don't count out that completely JUST yet. Remember that challenges to gun laws aren't just about the wording of the constitution, it's very much about the quality of the lawyer and plaintiffs, and the quality of the legal filings and the arguments.

    In the future, when carry is as a right is reaffirmed by SCOTUS, and AWB's and such go by the wayside at SCOTUS level (make no mistake, we will not be able to take on anything Title 2/Class 3 related until the AWB's in CA, NJ, MA, NJ, and CT are defeated, because the anti-gunners attack them as "military style), challenging RCW 9.41.220 would be possible at that point (depending on the wording of the decisions on AWB).

    SAF happens to have a really effective civilrights attorney on their payroll (who is happening to be arguing the McDonald case next month). If HE challenges it, it will likely win because it's argued effectively and legally briefed correctly.

  11. #11
    Regular Member kwiebe's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Location
    Tacoma, Washington, United States
    Posts
    206

    Post imported post

    This is great! And my analogy is a tug-of-war: We just pulled the rope bigtime in our direction.

    Thanks WA Supremes!

    :celebrate

  12. #12
    Founder's Club Member - Moderator Gray Peterson's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    Lynnwood, Washington, USA
    Posts
    2,238

    Post imported post

    Sieyes claims anecdotes in Heller should persuade us "the Second Amendment forbids possessing firearms violates his right to bear arms under article I, section 24, but cites no authority and makes no argument for this proposition.22 Sieyes's objection may be that he was 17 years old at the time of his arrest, and his right to bear arms
    should be equal to that of an 18-year-old's, but his arguments fail to challenge the statutory age limit set by this statute. In sum appellant offers no convincing authority supporting his argument that Washington's limit on childhood firearm possession violates the United States or Washington Constitutions. Accordingly we keep our powder dry on this issue for another day.


    Our state Supreme Court using such language is a pretty large warning to Seattle and other agencies who are tempted to violate the 2A.

  13. #13
    Regular Member FMCDH's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    St. Louis, MO
    Posts
    2,043

    Post imported post

    kwiebe wrote:
    This is great! And my analogy is a tug-of-war: We just pulled the rope bigtime in our direction.

    Thanks WA Supremes!
    Agreed, an excellent step forward.

  14. #14
    State Researcher
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Olympia, WA, ,
    Posts
    3,201

    Post imported post

    Excellent. Maybe this will start driving the liberals back to Kaliforniastan where they came from in the first place.:celebrate

  15. #15
    Regular Member killchain's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Location
    Richland, Washington, USA
    Posts
    788

    Post imported post

    This will now be referenced case law for McDonald v. Chicago.
    "War is an ugly thing, but not the ugliest of things. The decayed and degraded state of moral and patriotic feeling which thinks that nothing is worth war is much worse. The person who has nothing for which he is willing to fight, nothing which is more important than his own personal safety, is a miserable creature and has no chance of being free unless made and kept so by the exertions of better men than himself." -John Stuart Mill

  16. #16
    Campaign Veteran Bookman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    Winston Salem, North Carolina, United States
    Posts
    1,424

    Post imported post

    This is HUGE! I hope Snohomish County and others are paying very close attention.This effectively puts paid to all illegal weapons bans in the parks throughout the state. Got them all in one fell swoop.


    "All that is required for evil to prevail is for good men to do nothing." - Edmund Burke


    "I like people who stand on the Constitution... unless they're using it to wipe their feet." - Jon E Hutcherson

  17. #17
    Regular Member FMCDH's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    St. Louis, MO
    Posts
    2,043

    Post imported post

    Bookman wrote:
    This is HUGE! I hope Snohomish County and others are paying very close attention.This effectively puts paid to all illegal weapons bans in the parks throughout the state. Got them all in one fell swoop.
    You mean all the illegal firearms bans that didn't exist in the first place due to state preemption?

    This ruling doesn't change anything in that regard. All it does is confirm and support what we already knew.

    The fight to get rid of the illegal wording is still on us until such time as we can convince the legislature to impose penalties on those who adopt such.

  18. #18
    Regular Member amlevin's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    North of Seattle, Washington, USA
    Posts
    5,953

    Post imported post

    FMCDH wrote:
    The fight to get rid of the illegal wording is still on us until such time as we can convince the legislature to impose penalties on those who adopt such.
    I'd expect flying swine first. The legislators are probably afraid that any penalties might someday be applied to them.
    "If I shoot all the ammo I am carrying I either won't need anymore or more won't help"

    "If you refuse to stand up for others now, who will stand up for you when your time comes?"

  19. #19
    Regular Member FMCDH's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    St. Louis, MO
    Posts
    2,043

    Post imported post

    amlevin wrote:
    FMCDH wrote:
    The fight to get rid of the illegal wording is still on us until such time as we can convince the legislature to impose penalties on those who adopt such.
    I'd expect flying swine first. The legislators are probably afraid that any penalties might someday be applied to them.
    No doubt.

  20. #20
    Campaign Veteran gogodawgs's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    Federal Way, Washington, USA
    Posts
    5,666

    Post imported post

    Very Cool. The court acknowleding that 'strict scrutiny' will need to be used in judging 2A cases. This will very much over time expand our rights.
    Live Free or Die!

  21. #21
    Campaign Veteran Bookman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    Winston Salem, North Carolina, United States
    Posts
    1,424

    Post imported post

    FMCDH wrote:
    Bookman wrote:
    This is HUGE! I hope Snohomish County and others are paying very close attention.This effectively puts paid to all illegal weapons bans in the parks throughout the state. Got them all in one fell swoop.
    You mean all the illegal firearms bans that didn't exist in the first place due to state preemption?

    This ruling doesn't change anything in that regard. All it does is confirm and support what we already knew.
    That was exactly my point. It would be useless for Seattle to appeal the recent decision overturning their illegal ban, and this will bolster the case against every other jurisdiction that is trying to pull anything of the same caliber.
    "All that is required for evil to prevail is for good men to do nothing." - Edmund Burke


    "I like people who stand on the Constitution... unless they're using it to wipe their feet." - Jon E Hutcherson

  22. #22
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Location
    Spokane, Washington, USA
    Posts
    16

    Post imported post

    I was wondering about Spokane. I was looking at the training bulletin and noticed its says the police can kick you out of the parks if you are carrying. how old is this bulletin? has anyone beeen confronted in the parks in spokane? I know its pre-empted by state law, but I'm wondering if the city of Spokane has figured that out yet

  23. #23
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    1,863

    Post imported post

    gogodawgs wrote:
    Very Cool.* The court acknowleding that 'strict scrutiny' will need to be used in judging 2A cases.* This will very much over time expand our rights.

    No, the court did not acknowledge that at all.

    ONE (1) justice — Jim Johnson — said that in his concurrence/dissent (in part) because the court majority stepped away from the scrutiny question altogether.

    You evidently did not read the majority opinion carefully, or Johnson's opinion carefully.

  24. #24
    Regular Member 1245A Defender's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Location
    north mason county, Washington, USA
    Posts
    4,381

    Post imported post

    im sorry, i tried, i could not read so much legallese. it was just too much!
    but i get the feeling the 17 yr old lost his case,,
    oh and by the way, the 2A applies to the states!
    EMNofSeattle wrote: Your idea of freedom terrifies me. So you are actually right. I am perfectly happy with what you call tyranny.....

    If ever a time should come, when vain and aspiring men shall possess the highest seats in Government, our country will stand in need of its experienced patriots to prevent its ruin.

    Stand up for your Rights,, They have no authority on their own...

    All power is inherent in the people,
    it is their right and duty to be at all times ARMED!

  25. #25
    Regular Member amlevin's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    North of Seattle, Washington, USA
    Posts
    5,953

    Post imported post

    1245A Defender wrote:
    im sorry, i tried, i could not read so much legallese. it was just too much!
    but i get the feeling the 17 yr old lost his case,,
    oh and by the way, the 2A applies to the states!
    Too bad legal opinions can't be written so an 8th grader could understand. For some reason those in the legal profession write crap that even they don't fully understand.
    "If I shoot all the ammo I am carrying I either won't need anymore or more won't help"

    "If you refuse to stand up for others now, who will stand up for you when your time comes?"

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
  •