• 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.

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

Aaron1124

Regular Member
Joined
Jul 5, 2009
Messages
2,044
Location
Kent, Washington, USA
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.
 

ak56

Campaign Veteran
Joined
Aug 10, 2009
Messages
746
Location
Carnation, Washington, USA
imported post

im·pair

(
ibreve.gif
m-pâr
prime.gif
)
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.
 

killchain

Regular Member
Joined
Sep 7, 2009
Messages
788
Location
Richland, Washington, USA
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.
 

Aaron1124

Regular Member
Joined
Jul 5, 2009
Messages
2,044
Location
Kent, Washington, USA
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!
 

sirpuma

Regular Member
Joined
Nov 1, 2007
Messages
905
Location
Deer Park, Washington, USA
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.
 

ShooterMcGavin

Regular Member
Joined
Feb 12, 2008
Messages
208
Location
Location, Location
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?
 

Metalhead47

Regular Member
Joined
Apr 20, 2009
Messages
2,800
Location
South Whidbey, Washington, USA
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.
 

Nebulis01

Regular Member
Joined
Aug 4, 2007
Messages
113
Location
Snohomish, Washington, USA
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 :(
 

Doug Huffman

Banned
Joined
Jun 9, 2006
Messages
9,180
Location
Washington Island, across Death's Door, Wisconsin,
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.
 

Metalhead47

Regular Member
Joined
Apr 20, 2009
Messages
2,800
Location
South Whidbey, Washington, USA
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...
 

USMC1911

Regular Member
Joined
May 9, 2010
Messages
190
Location
Vancouver, Washington, USA
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 !
 

Nebulis01

Regular Member
Joined
Aug 4, 2007
Messages
113
Location
Snohomish, Washington, USA
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.
 

Jack House

Regular Member
Joined
Jun 12, 2010
Messages
2,611
Location
I80, USA
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.
 

Tawnos

Regular Member
Joined
Jun 4, 2008
Messages
2,542
Location
Washington
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

[size="-1"] 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). [/size]
  • [size="-1"]A constitutional guaranty of certain rights to the individual citizen doea not place such rights entirely beyond the police power of the state. [/size]
[size="-1"]State v. Gohl, supra at 410, 90 P. 259. [/size] [size="-1"] [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). [/size]
[size="-1"] [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.
[/size]
 

Beretta92FSLady

Regular Member
Joined
Dec 14, 2009
Messages
5,264
Location
In My Coffee
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.
 

Metalhead47

Regular Member
Joined
Apr 20, 2009
Messages
2,800
Location
South Whidbey, Washington, USA
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.
 

Jayd1981

Regular Member
Joined
Mar 14, 2010
Messages
387
Location
Richland, Washington, USA
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.
 
Top