• We are now running on a new, and hopefully much-improved, server. In addition we are also on new forum software. Any move entails a lot of technical details and I suspect we will encounter a few issues as the new server goes live. Please be patient with us. It will be worth it! :) Please help by posting all issues here.
  • The forum will be down for about an hour this weekend for maintenance. I apologize for the inconvenience.
  • If you are having trouble seeing the forum then you may need to clear your browser's DNS cache. Click here for instructions on how to do that
  • Please review the Forum Rules frequently as we are constantly trying to improve the forum for our members and visitors.

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

Dave Workman

Regular Member
Joined
May 23, 2007
Messages
1,874
Location
, ,
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
 

Agent 47

Regular Member
Joined
Aug 28, 2007
Messages
570
Location
, Washington, USA
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?
 

Dave Workman

Regular Member
Joined
May 23, 2007
Messages
1,874
Location
, ,
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 turd in my morning coffee.
 

antispam540

Regular Member
Joined
Apr 17, 2008
Messages
546
Location
Poulsbo, Washington, USA
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?
 

Dave Workman

Regular Member
Joined
May 23, 2007
Messages
1,874
Location
, ,
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? :D

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.
 

amlevin

Regular Member
Joined
Feb 16, 2007
Messages
5,937
Location
North of Seattle, Washington, USA
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.
 

Dave Workman

Regular Member
Joined
May 23, 2007
Messages
1,874
Location
, ,
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.

;)
 

Gray Peterson

Founder's Club Member - Moderator
Joined
May 12, 2006
Messages
2,236
Location
Lynnwood, Washington, USA
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.
 

Gray Peterson

Founder's Club Member - Moderator
Joined
May 12, 2006
Messages
2,236
Location
Lynnwood, Washington, USA
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.
 

FMCDH

Regular Member
Joined
Nov 9, 2008
Messages
2,037
Location
St. Louis, MO
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. :)
 

Bookman

Campaign Veteran
Joined
Aug 3, 2008
Messages
1,424
Location
Winston Salem, North Carolina, United States
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.

:monkey:monkey:monkey:monkey:monkey
 

FMCDH

Regular Member
Joined
Nov 9, 2008
Messages
2,037
Location
St. Louis, MO
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.
 

amlevin

Regular Member
Joined
Feb 16, 2007
Messages
5,937
Location
North of Seattle, Washington, USA
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.
 

FMCDH

Regular Member
Joined
Nov 9, 2008
Messages
2,037
Location
St. Louis, MO
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.
 
Top