Page 1 of 3 123 LastLast
Results 1 to 25 of 67

Thread: Is mandating a CPL infringing and impairing on our Constitutional Rights?

  1. #1
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Location
    Kent, Washington, USA
    Posts
    2,048

    Post imported post

    Section 24 of the Washington State Constitution states "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.", and I believe by mandating the possession of a Washington State Concealed Pistol License, it impairs our Washington Constitutional Right to bear arms in personal defense.

    Isn't it up to the Supreme Court to determine if a bill is constitutional? Why would a judge blatantly rule in favor of an unconstitutional bill?

    Who does one contact regarding a withdrawing of a law which has already been passed? One emails, or one letter may not be significant in itself, but I feel with numbers, consideration could be made.

  2. #2
    Regular Member killchain's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Location
    Richland, Washington, USA
    Posts
    788

    Post imported post

    You can open carry, right?

    So, I say no.
    "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

  3. #3
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Location
    Kent, Washington, USA
    Posts
    2,048

    Post imported post

    killchain wrote:
    You can open carry, right?

    So, I say no.
    Yes - but any method of carry shall be lawful, and not infringed. If that's their argument, I don't agree.

  4. #4
    Campaign Veteran ak56's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    Carnation, Washington, USA
    Posts
    748

    Post imported post

    im·pair

    (m-pâr)
    tr.v. im·paired, im·pair·ing, im·pairs
    To cause to diminish, as in strength, value, or quality: an injury that impaired my hearing; a severe storm impairing communications.


    I think that placing restrictions on methods of carry diminishes the right, so yes, it impairs our Constitutional Right.
    No right is held more sacred, or is more carefully guarded, by the common law than the right of every individual to the possession and control of his own person, free from all restraint or interference of others, unless by clear and unquestionable authority of law. Union Pacific Rail Co. vs Botsford as quoted in Terry v Ohio.


    Talk to your cats about catnip - before it's too late.

  5. #5
    Regular Member killchain's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Location
    Richland, Washington, USA
    Posts
    788

    Post imported post

    Aaron1124 wrote:
    killchain wrote:
    You can open carry, right?

    So, I say no.
    Yes - but any method of carry shall be lawful, and not infringed. If that's their argument, I don't agree.
    The line says nothing about a specified method of carry.

    But that's not to say I don't agree with you. I do. But, even though some of them can be "wrong," I respect and follow the laws as best I can. Unfortunately the State decided that you can't carry a pistol concealed without a permit, so I'll follow it. If they did what Arizona did tomorrow though... I'd celebrate. Haha.

    "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

  6. #6
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Location
    Kent, Washington, USA
    Posts
    2,048

    Post imported post

    To me, and in my honest opinion, it would seem that "impair" would mean to not impair at all. Actually, by prohibiting concealed carry without a license, that would seem like it's the exact definition of an impairment.

    That's just my opinion. I follow the law, even though I don't agree with it. I've written letters to the state legislature as well. At least I know I've done a part in trying to make a difference. Maybe if we all did the same thing, it could be reviewed. Who knows though!

  7. #7
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Location
    Location, Location
    Posts
    208

    Post imported post

    killchain wrote:
    You can open carry, right?

    So, I say no.
    Not in a vehicle - in that case, all loaded carry without a CPL is impaired to the point of outlawed.
    IBTL

  8. #8
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Port Orchard, Washington, USA
    Posts
    897

    Post imported post

    Aaron1124 wrote:
    Section 24 of the Washington State Constitution states "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."
    US BoR. Second Amendment to the Constitution

    "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

    Main Entry: in·fringe
    Pronunciation: \in-ˈfrinj\
    Function: verb
    Inflected Form(s): in·fringed; in·fring·ing
    Etymology: Medieval Latin infringere, from Latin, to break, crush, from in- + frangere to break — more at break
    Date: 1513

    transitive verb 1 : to encroach upon in a way that violates law or the rights of another <infringe a patent>
    2 obsolete : defeat, frustrate

    Main Entry: im·paired
    Pronunciation: \-ˈperd\
    Function: adjective
    Date: 1582

    : being in a less than perfect or whole condition: as a : disabled or functionally defective —often used in combination <hearing-impaired> b : intoxicated by alcohol or narcotics <driving while impaired>

    I have always been of the opinion that any law that in any way interferes with our rights as listed in the Bill of Rights is a violation and unconstitutional. If the only way we can carry a firearm is to get a CPL, a license issued by the state that we have to apply for and pay for, that is inhibiting us in the free exercise of our rights.

  9. #9
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Location
    Location, Location
    Posts
    208

    Post imported post

    sirpuma wrote:
    I have always been of the opinion that any law that in any way interferes with our rights as listed in the Bill of Rights is a violation and unconstitutional. If the only way we can carry a firearm is to get a CPL, a license issued by the state that we have to apply for and pay for, that is inhibiting us in the free exercise of our rights.
    Agreed.

    And to think that the Heller decision barely squeaked by with a 5 to 4 vote! I believe the wording of the 2ndA specifically states "the right of the people...". Am I wrong, or do some of our supreme court justices need to get a lesson in basic english?
    IBTL

  10. #10
    Regular Member Metalhead47's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Location
    South Whidbey, Washington, USA
    Posts
    2,812

    Post imported post

    Aaron1124 wrote:
    Isn't it up to the Supreme Court to determine if a bill is constitutional? Why would a judge blatantly rule in favor of an unconstitutional bill?
    Liberal activist judges who really don't give a rat's arse about any constitution.

    The US & state constitutions mean what they say. ANY law in any way shape or form restricting the possession of carry of arms is, in fact, unconstitutional. There was a very very long thread about this a few months ago, a few on here would even argue that gives the people the right to tanks & bombs & nuclear weapons.
    It is very wise to not take a watermelon lightly.

  11. #11
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Snohomish, Washington, USA
    Posts
    113

    Post imported post

    Metalhead47 wrote:
    Aaron1124 wrote:
    Isn't it up to the Supreme Court to determine if a bill is constitutional? Why would a judge blatantly rule in favor of an unconstitutional bill?
    Liberal activist judges who really don't give a rat's arse about any constitution.

    The US & state constitutions mean what they say. ANY law in any way shape or form restricting the possession of carry of arms is, in fact, unconstitutional. There was a very very long thread about this a few months ago, a few on here would even argue that gives the people the right to tanks & bombs & nuclear weapons.
    As it should, hard to overthrow a government with small arms that has Abrams, JDAMs, JSFs, and nuclear capable carriers subs and missiles

  12. #12
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    Washington Island, across Death's Door, Wisconsin, USA
    Posts
    9,193

    Post imported post

    Nebulis01 wrote:
    As it should, hard to overthrow a government with small arms that has Abrams, JDAMs, JSFs, and nuclear capable carriers subs and missiles
    BS If each of us American patriots determined not to die alone but with enemies as sideboys then some government will be easily taken down. I would like to die with an Admiral's sideboys - six. My SA1911A1 holds seven.

  13. #13
    Regular Member Metalhead47's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Location
    South Whidbey, Washington, USA
    Posts
    2,812

    Post imported post

    Heh, the discussion seemed to lean towards, there is a difference between an "arm" and a weapon delivery system. The interesting theme that kept coming up was that no one person should have the destructive power of a nuclear weapon at their disposal, and such were neither protected by the Constitution or natural law. So the arguing went, Ok, if nukes are not protected by the 2A, then just where IS the line?

    Oh, and Nebulis... in three different wars now, a bunch of hillbillies with AK-47s and IEDs have given the most highly trained and best equipped army that has ever existed a run for their money. 200-some years ago a bunch of farmers with rifles also defeated the greatest army on earth at that time. I think a bunch of slightly trained, adequately equipped, and REALLY REALLY PISSED OFF American patriots will best any professional army in the world. History would seem to agree.

    And personally, if it comes to a messy regime change, I think the good ol US Army won't be our problem...
    It is very wise to not take a watermelon lightly.

  14. #14
    Regular Member USMC1911's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2010
    Location
    Vancouver, Washington, USA
    Posts
    190

    Post imported post

    I have always been of the opinion that any law that in any way interferes with our rights as listed in the Bill of Rights is a violation and unconstitutional. If the only way we can carry a firearm is to get a CPL, a license issued by the state that we have to apply for and pay for, that is inhibiting us in the free exercise of our rights



    +1Our RIGHTSare Black and White, Yes and No, there should be No Grey areas !
    I am a Sheep Dog, ... Wolves Beware !

  15. #15
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Snohomish, Washington, USA
    Posts
    113

    Post imported post

    Metalhead47 wrote:
    Oh, and Nebulis... in three different wars now, a bunch of hillbillies with AK-47s and IEDs have given the most highly trained and best equipped army that has ever existed a run for their money. 200-some years ago a bunch of farmers with rifles also defeated the greatest army on earth at that time. I think a bunch of slightly trained, adequately equipped, and REALLY REALLY PISSED OFF American patriots will best any professional army in the world. History would seem to agree.

    And personally, if it comes to a messy regime change, I think the good ol US Army won't be our problem...
    I said hard, not impossible. What I meant is that if we were armed on the same footing, the perceived threat would be greater. Do I believe a rebellion would still succeed in overthrowing the government? Yes. Would it take longer? Yes. I would like to believe alot of our volunteer armed forces would probably be on the side of change there would be a few hold outs and that would be why the side of change would need to be armed in such fashion.

  16. #16
    Regular Member Jack House's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Location
    I80, USA
    Posts
    2,661

    Post imported post

    I think it is quite obvious that this particular constitution is saying that you have the right to use weapons in defense. Not carry.


    HOWEVER, that is irrelevant. It does not say you can only defend yourself in your home or private property with the owner's consent. And requiring expensive, hard to get permits is most definitely severely limiting your ability to use them in the defense of yourself or the state.

  17. #17
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    Washington
    Posts
    2,546

    Post imported post

    USMC1911 wrote:
    I have always been of the opinion that any law that in any way interferes with our rights as listed in the Bill of Rights is a violation and unconstitutional. If the only way we can carry a firearm is to get a CPL, a license issued by the state that we have to apply for and pay for, that is inhibiting us in the free exercise of our rights



    +1Our RIGHTSare Black and White, Yes and No, there should be No Grey areas !
    Please differentiate between the US and WA constitutions, as one says "infringe" and the other says "impair". The two words are similar but with different meanings, and I would say that, legally, Washington's constitution grants stronger protection, largely based on the definition sirpuma points out (compare to infringe, which may allow for limitations such that they don't "exceed the limits of" the right to keep and bear arms).

    However, looking at WA case law, we have an unfortunate precedent: Second Amendment Foundation v. City of Renton, http://www.potowmack.org/safvrent.html

    It has long been recognized that the constitutional right to keep and bear arms is subject to reasonable regulation by the State under its police power. State v. Krantz, 24 Wash.2d 350, 353, 164 P.2d 453 ',, (1945); see State v. Gohl, 46 Wash. 408, 410, , 90 P. 259 (1907).
    • A constitutional guaranty of certain rights to the individual citizen doea not place such rights entirely beyond the police power of the state.
    State v. Gohl, supra at 410, 90 P. 259. [4] Regulations enacted by a municipality in the exercise of its police powers must meet the judicial test of reasonableness. This test requires that the regulation be ; reasonably necessary to protect the public safety, health, morals and general welfare; and be substantially related to the legitimate ends sought. Homes Unlimited, Inc. v. Seattle, 90 Wash.2d 54, 158, 579 P.2d 1331 (1978); Seattle v. Pullman, 82 Wash.2d , 794, 799, 514 P.2d 1059 (1973).
    [5] The scope of permissible regulation must depend upon a balancing of the public benefit to be derived from the regulation against the degree to which it frustrates the purpose of the constitutional provision. The right to own and bear arms is only minimally reduced by limiting their possession in bars. The benefit to public safety by reducing the possibility of armed conflict while under the influence of alcohol outweighs the general right to bear arms in defense of self and state. The R.enton ordinance is narrowly drawn and demonstrates legislative concern for reasonable exercise of the police power where liquor by the drink is dispensed.

    "If we were to ever consider citizenship as the least bit matter of merit instead of birthright, imagine who should be selected as deserved representation of our democracy: someone who would risk their daily livelihood to cast an individually statistically insignificant vote, or those who wrap themselves in the flag against slightest slights." - agenthex

  18. #18
    Regular Member Beretta92FSLady's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    In My Coffee
    Posts
    5,278

    Post imported post

    "Infringed." What exactly does "infringed" mean. Then, what is "reasonable."

    The Government can tell you to do whatever they want. As Martin Luther King once said--there are "moral laws...and immoral laws." Firearm restrictions are immoral.

    I believe mandating a CPL is unreasonable, but does not infringe on our "legal rights." That is one of the loopholes of "restrictions" and red tape, isn't it, that they "shall issue" after you pay up and jump through a bunch of hoops.
    I don't mind watching the OC-Community (tea party 2.0's, who have hijacked the OC-Community) cannibalize itself. I do mind watching OC dragged through the gutter. OC is an exercise of A Right. I choose to not OC; I choose to not own firearms. I choose to leave the OC-Community to it's own self-inflicted injuries, and eventual implosion. Carry on...

  19. #19
    Regular Member Metalhead47's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Location
    South Whidbey, Washington, USA
    Posts
    2,812

    Post imported post

    Sylvia Plath wrote:
    The Government can tell you to do whatever they want.* As Martin Luther King once said--there are "moral laws...and immoral laws."* Firearm restrictions are immoral.
    [/quote]

    No, it can't.

    The federal constitution is pretty clear on this. Any powers not specifically granted to the federal government by the constitution do not belong to it. The government cannot tell you to do ANYTHING unless it is specifically mentioned in the constitution.

    The fact that we've had 100+ years of courts & lawmakers ignoring that inconvenient limitation is a different issue, but the power of government in a Republic is NOT absolute. I won't even bother with the morality of firearms restrictions, they are UNCONSTITUTIONAL, pure & simple.
    It is very wise to not take a watermelon lightly.

  20. #20
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    Richland, Washington, USA
    Posts
    387

    Post imported post

    Mandating a CPL restricts your right to bear arms until you do what the government says, thus it is impairing our right. I know the argument about reasonable restrictions can go on for ever. I'll agree to reasonable restrictions as soon as someone can show me one single gun law that ever restricted a criminal. These laws only serve to create criminals from the otherwise law abiding and raise revenues for the state and federal governments.

  21. #21
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    Olympia, WA
    Posts
    766

    Post imported post

    I believe that a right is abused through licensing systems. Suppose that there were a law that said that you must be licensed to publish news articles on the internet, but that it is OK to publish articles in a newspaper without a license?

    Would reporters for a traditional media outlet such as the Seattle Times accept that as a reasonable restriction on the 1st Amendment?

  22. #22
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    Washington
    Posts
    2,546

    Post imported post

    Sylvia Plath wrote:
    "Infringed." What exactly does "infringed" mean. Then, what is "reasonable."

    The Government can tell you to do whatever they want. As Martin Luther King once said--there are "moral laws...and immoral laws." Firearm restrictions are immoral.

    I believe mandating a CPL is unreasonable, but does not infringe on our "legal rights." That is one of the loopholes of "restrictions" and red tape, isn't it, that they "shall issue" after you pay up and jump through a bunch of hoops.
    http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/infringe

    intransitive verb[/i] : encroach —used with on or upon <infringe on our rights>synonyms see trespass
    http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/encroach
    1 : to enter by gradual steps or by stealth into the possessions or rights of another
    2 : to advance beyond the usual or proper limits <the gradually encroaching sea>
    synonyms see trespass

    http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/trespass
    1 a : a violation of moral or social ethics : transgression; especially : sin b : an unwarranted infringement
    2 a : an unlawful act committed on the person, property, or rights of another; especially : a wrongful entry on real property b : the legal action for injuries resulting from trespass



    Compare:



    http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/impair
    : to damage or make worse by or as if by diminishing in some material respect <his health was impaired by overwork> <the strike seriously impaired community services>
    http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/material

    2 : having real importance or great consequences <facts material to the investigation>
    http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/damage

    1 : loss or harm resulting from injury to person, property, or reputation


    I reversed my earlier statements regarding impair and infringe, but take the above to mind when discussing various documents. A CPL does not inherently make the right to keep and bear arms "worse", nor does it damage the right to keep and bear arms. It may infringe, but it does not impair, so until/unless McDonald leads to incorporation, the argument that a CPL infringes means jack-all.
    "If we were to ever consider citizenship as the least bit matter of merit instead of birthright, imagine who should be selected as deserved representation of our democracy: someone who would risk their daily livelihood to cast an individually statistically insignificant vote, or those who wrap themselves in the flag against slightest slights." - agenthex

  23. #23
    Regular Member Jack House's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Location
    I80, USA
    Posts
    2,661

    Post imported post

    Tawnos wrote:
    the argument that a CPL infringes means jack-all.
    I disagree. If you are too young to apply for one, your right is infringed/impaired. If you can't afford one, your right is infringed/impaired. If you have to wait longer than a few moments(think getting a state ID vs having to wait a month or more to be approved for a CCW), then your right is infringed/impaired. If you are denied, then your right is infringed/impaired.


    Of course, you could always make the argument that as long as you are able to open carry without restriction, that the state is free to regulate concealed carry all it wants.

  24. #24
    Regular Member Beretta92FSLady's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    In My Coffee
    Posts
    5,278

    Post imported post

    Metalhead47 wrote:

    "No, it can't.

    The federal constitution is pretty clear on this. Any powers not specifically granted to the federal government by the constitution do not belong to it. The government cannot tell you to do ANYTHING unless it is specifically mentioned in the constitution."

    Yes, it can. The Constitution is interpreted, which means nearly anything can be deemed legal under the Constitution.


    "firearms restrictions, they are UNCONSTITUTIONAL, pure & simple."

    I completely agree.
    I don't mind watching the OC-Community (tea party 2.0's, who have hijacked the OC-Community) cannibalize itself. I do mind watching OC dragged through the gutter. OC is an exercise of A Right. I choose to not OC; I choose to not own firearms. I choose to leave the OC-Community to it's own self-inflicted injuries, and eventual implosion. Carry on...

  25. #25
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Location
    Kent, Washington, USA
    Posts
    2,048

    Post imported post

    Jack House wrote:
    Tawnos wrote:
    the argument that a CPL infringes means jack-all.

    Of course, you could always make the argument that as long as you are able to open carry without restriction, that the state is free to regulate concealed carry all it wants.
    Unless you're in a vehicle, then you cannot legally carry loaded, which could mean the difference between life and death in a worst case scenario.

Page 1 of 3 123 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
  •