• 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!!!

Bookman

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

wickedspray

Regular Member
Joined
Feb 13, 2010
Messages
16
Location
Spokane, Washington, USA
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
 

Dave Workman

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

amlevin

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

irish

Regular Member
Joined
Aug 21, 2008
Messages
166
Location
Las Vegas, Nevada, USA
imported post

http://www.courthousenews.com/2010/02/18/24830.htm

(CN) - The Second Amendment applies to the states via the 14th Amendment due-process clause, the Washington Supreme Court ruled Thursday in an opinion that beat the U.S. Supreme Court to the punch on the same issue. The High Court is to hear arguments later this year on the question of whether the Second Amendment applies to the states.
"The Second Amendment protects an individual right to bear arms from state interference through the due process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment," the court wrote. "This right is necessary to an Anglo-American regime of ordered liberty and fundamental to the American scheme of justice."
The case comes after 17-year-old Christopher Sieyes was convicted of unlawfully possessing a loaded semiautomatic handgun. He sued, claiming a Washington state law banning minors from carrying guns infringes on his right to bear arms as protected by both the U.S. and Washington Constitutions.
The court, however, sidestepped the question over whether minors enjoy the same right to bear arms as adults, adding that Sieyes "offers no convincing authority supporting his argument that Washington's limit on childhood firearms possession violates the United States or Washington Constitutions," the court wrote. "Accordingly, we keep our powder dry on this issue for another day."
The U.S. Supreme Court struck down a handgun ban in Washington, D.C., in 2007, finding that the Second Amendment guarantees the right to bear arms. But what remained left open and to be discussed later this year was the question of whether the Second Amendment applies to the states.
Concurring Washington State Supreme Court Judge Debra Stephens agreed with the result of the ruling, but called it premature.
"I would refrain from engaging in an extended exploration of the unsettled question of federal incorporation of the Second Amendment," Stephens wrote. "Restraint is particularly appropriate here because the very question is currently pending before the United States Supreme Court.
"I do not believe this is an instance where there is anything to be accomplished," she added, "particularly as our opinion is likely to be eclipsed before the ink it takes to print it is dry."
 

sudden valley gunner

Regular Member
Joined
Dec 13, 2008
Messages
16,674
Location
Whatcom County
imported post

amlevin wrote:
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.
Like the constitution. We learned that in first grade. Couldn't do that nowadays with laws.
 

amlevin

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

gsx1138 wrote:
Soooo when do I get to use a supressor? I think this is great and opens the door for more steps to regain the rights taken from us.

Just think, if Washington State allowed their use, there would have been fewer complaints at the Sultan Pit closure hearing last week.

Don't hold your breath though, too many legislators have watched gangster movies and see a gun with a silencer as an execution weapon.
 
Top