Page 1 of 4 123 ... LastLast
Results 1 to 25 of 77

Thread: What Washington Gun Laws are Unconstitutional, post McDonald?

  1. #1
    Campaign Veteran gogodawgs's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    Federal Way, Washington, USA
    Posts
    5,667

    Lightbulb What Washington Gun Laws are Unconstitutional, post McDonald?

    We have a unique opportunity to consider which Washington gun laws could be considered unconstitutional following the McDonald decision.

    Time for everyone to chime in with what is unconstitutional and why.
    Live Free or Die!

  2. #2
    Regular Member 1245A Defender's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Location
    north mason county, Washington, USA
    Posts
    4,381

    Cool carry age

    poosharker is already on the fight to lower the legal age to 18,,
    i think the change will be a shoe-in now with 2A incorporation!
    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!

  3. #3
    Regular Member acmariner99's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Location
    Renton, Wa
    Posts
    662
    If I had to pick a WA law that was worth repealing, it would have to be the law that requires the gun be unloaded as defined by the RCW's (no mag in the well, no round in the chamber) if the carrier does not have a CPL.

  4. #4
    Regular Member Dave_pro2a's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    2,227
    Silencers.
    Short barreled shotguns.
    Machine gun transfer.
    Etc.

  5. #5
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    Not Here Anymore
    Posts
    346
    Quote Originally Posted by acmariner99 View Post
    If I had to pick a WA law that was worth repealing, it would have to be the law that requires the gun be unloaded as defined by the RCW's (no mag in the well, no round in the chamber) if the carrier does not have a CPL.
    Huh?!?!? There is no requirement to be unloaded when carrying. The only time it must be unloaded is in the car, absent a CPL. That one I do agree needs to go away. Also, you can have a mag in the well as long as there is no cartridges in the mag, I know, but whats the point?

    As for laws that need to go away, the private property rights of businesses need to make like a banana. It really makes no sense anyhow, if there's a sign, I just pull a sweatshirt over my gun (as do MANY other here, you not breaking any laws..... right?).
    Last edited by tyguy808; 06-29-2010 at 01:55 AM.

  6. #6
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    renton, ,
    Posts
    53
    any and all gun restrictions including what dave_pro2a said. .02

  7. #7
    Regular Member Tomas's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    University Place, Washington, USA
    Posts
    705
    Meh. Washington's pretty reasonable compared to many areas. Most of the ones I'd like to see disappear or at least modified are some of the federal rules.

    The one Washington rule I'd like to see modified isn't as a result of McDonald: Since I'm not a drinker, I feel I should be able to carry (concealed if necessary) into the "Over 21" portion of a restaurant or bar so long as I don't consume alcohol...
    No tyranny is so irksome as petty tyranny: The officious demands of policemen, government clerks, and electromechanical gadgets. -- Edward Abbey

    • • • Quis custodiet ipsos custodes? Faciémus!• • •

  8. #8
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    Kirkland, Washington, USA
    Posts
    159
    +1 to Tomas. I too feel we have pretty good laws for the most part. And also agree that the bar restriction sucks when I have no intention of drinking.

    Also the restriction at 21 should be changed, hopefully the ruling will help that.
    Last edited by holeinhead; 06-29-2010 at 10:55 AM.

  9. #9
    Regular Member Dave_pro2a's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    2,227
    Quote Originally Posted by Tomas View Post
    Meh. Washington's pretty reasonable compared to many areas. Most of the ones I'd like to see disappear or at least modified are some of the federal rules.

    The one Washington rule I'd like to see modified isn't as a result of McDonald: Since I'm not a drinker, I feel I should be able to carry (concealed if necessary) into the "Over 21" portion of a restaurant or bar so long as I don't consume alcohol...
    According to BS spewed by Bob Warden on TV tonight, (and I paraphrase) "banning firearms in bars will obviously pass Constitutional muster post McDonald, because of the effect alcohol has on the brain and a person judgement." What stupidtastic reasoning was he applying:

    Because everyone in a bar is drunk?
    Because you can't be in a bar, and be stone cold sober?
    Because no one needs to exercise their inalienable rights once they past the threshold of a establishment that serves alcohol?
    Because bars are inherently safer than parks?

    What about all the states that DO allow CCW and open carry in bars, without any rivers of blood flowing as a result?

    Bob, here's a hint... your 15 minutes are over. Go 'help' some other cause, please.

    Edited to add: found the quote

    http://www.q13fox.com/news/kcpq-0628...,4378255.story

    The unanswered question is what does reasonable mean?

    Bob Warden filed the initial lawsuit against Seattle's gun ban in parks.

    Warden says, "The law that says you can't possess a firearm in a tavern, for example is one that's going to pass constitutional muster just because the effect on the brain of alcohol and guns just is an inherently dangerous situation. That's going to be found to be a reasonable restriction no question about it... but from a constitutional point of view is it a reasonable restriction to say that you cannot carry a pistol in a public park or in a community center?"
    Fundamentally, Bob agrees with McGinn: ban guns.
    Last edited by Dave_pro2a; 06-29-2010 at 04:28 AM.

  10. #10
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    May 2010
    Location
    Behind Enemy Lines
    Posts
    30
    One I'd like to see repealed:

    RCW 43.06.220
    State of emergency — Powers of governor pursuant to proclamation.

    (1) The governor after proclaiming a state of emergency and prior to terminating such, may, in the area described by the proclamation issue an order prohibiting:

    (e) The possession of firearms or any other deadly weapon by a person (other than a law enforcement officer) in a place other than that person's place of residence or business;

  11. #11
    Regular Member Tomas's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    University Place, Washington, USA
    Posts
    705

    Thumbs down Sorry, a little off-topic here...

    Bob Warden says, "The law that says you can't possess a firearm in a tavern, for example is one that's going to pass constitutional muster just because the effect on the brain of alcohol and guns just is an inherently dangerous situation. That's going to be found to be a reasonable restriction no question about it... but from a constitutional point of view is it a reasonable restriction to say that you cannot carry a pistol in a public park or in a community center?"
    http://www.q13fox.com/news/kcpq-0628...,4378255.story

    That is annoying because it uses the very same sort of illogic that the anti-gun folks use against us: Because some folks do bad things with "X" we must ban ALL "X" ...

    I'll give just ONE sort of example where this absolutely fails to make any sense.

    Occasionally I enjoy taking my 84 year old mother to Applebee's for dinner. She really likes Applebees. Neither of us drink, but neither of us really give a whit if others do.

    Sometimes the wait for seating in the restaurant portion is up to an hour long, while the "bar" has tables and booths readily available, and they have no problem seating us and serving us dinner there.

    Thing is, even though neither of us drinks and neither of us objects to being seated in the bar area to eat, that area is past the "No Minors" signs so we must of necessity refuse instant seating because I'm really not willing to hobble out to the car and dump my two firearms in my tiny station wagon...

    It would be nice if the folks allegedly on our side didn't paint us with such a broad brush and automatically assume that anyone entering an area that serves alcohol will instantly turn into an aggressive, illogical drunk, and therefore does not deserve the right to self defense.

    Bah!

    Sorry for running a bit OT, but that just pushes one of my buttons.
    Last edited by Tomas; 06-29-2010 at 05:29 AM.
    No tyranny is so irksome as petty tyranny: The officious demands of policemen, government clerks, and electromechanical gadgets. -- Edward Abbey

    • • • Quis custodiet ipsos custodes? Faciémus!• • •

  12. #12
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Location
    Somewhere over run with mud(s)
    Posts
    791
    kinda OT but kinda OnT too (lol)

    M1 and I decided to hit up applebees after the centralia show one day. M1 SPECIFICALLY stated "no where near the bar pls"

    They said ok and asked us to follow a waitress to our seats (they were not in the bar area.

    HOWEVER

    the stupid 21+ sign was placed in a location that made it APPEAR as though the seating section to which they were taking us was a 21+ area.

    This created some confusion for a few seconds but everything got worked out. The point is this would have been easier should there be a no alchiehol whilst carrying law.

    I mean you can sit in the "kiddie" section of applebees and order however many drinks you want, but cant sit in the "bar" area (where they have conveniently placed booths and seats as well as a bar) and order food????

  13. #13
    Regular Member amlevin's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    North of Seattle, Washington, USA
    Posts
    5,953

    Arrow

    I know that everyone has their pet "Law" that they would like to see ruled unconstitutional but the fact is the ruling won't change any WA law(s).

    From the ruling:
    [I]‘Under our precedents, if a Bill of Rights guarantee is fundamental from an American perspective, then, unless stare decisis counsels otherwise, that guarantee is fully binding on the States and thus limits (but by no means eliminates) their ability to devise solutions to social problems that suit local needs and values. As noted by the 38 States that have appeared in this case as amici supporting petitioners, “[s]tate and local experimentation with reasonable firearms regulations will continue under the Second Amendment.’ ~ Justice Alito~[I]

    Not only are reasonable regulations allowed, note the phrase "their ability to devise solutions to social problems that suit local needs and values. If the Legislators deem it necessary to limit the right to carry a pistol to those over 21 to solve a local social problem then it's allowed. Likewise should they decide it necessary to separate firearms from areas where alcohol is served and minors are excluded. McDonald won't change these, only another case and subsequent ruling. Based on my reading of the decision I won't see it happen in my lifetime.

    McDonald won't have much, if any, effect here in WA. Look for changes in Chicago, New York, and any other area where just the basic right to have a firearm, period, is severely restricted. If one has the time, read all 214 pages of the ruling with opinions. For one thing, it points out how moronic a couple of the "Lib's" on the Court are and how truly left they lean.

  14. #14
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    Blaine, WA, ,
    Posts
    1,315
    Quote Originally Posted by devildoc5 View Post
    The point is this would have been easier should there be a no alchiehol whilst carrying law.
    So now you want to change the law to prevent me from having a beer with my dinner if I am exercising my right to self defense? I would rather avoid bars than not be able to have a beer or glass of wine. I think the whole issue is ridiculous. There are quite a few states that don't prohibit your firearm anywhere near alcohol. They don't have a problem. I always carry a firearm, I often drink. I do not have a drinking problem and I have never had a firearm problem, even on the few occasions that I have had too much to drink.

    How about this? Let's make it illegal to shoot someone except in self defense, whether you are drinking or not, whether you are in a bar or not. Oh wait, it already is. Why do we need laws that assume people will act irresponsibly. I don't and I don't need you or the government to assume that I am going to.

  15. #15
    Regular Member Washintonian_For_Liberty's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    Mercer Island, Washington, USA
    Posts
    922
    They need to move towards constitutional carry. I would like to see the carrying of all firearms be legal. Like that gentleman in Arizona carried his AR-15 on his shoulder, I'd like to see that legal here in Washington as well.

    Also, we need to fight the FBI background checks... I think there is enough scientifically proven evidence that they don't prevent bad guys from obtaining guns, and are forcing law abiding citizens to register firearms.... I think we need to demand that ALL records of purchases in this whole country be destroyed and at no time should ANY government agency have access to any gun purchase records and any records they have already taken possession of should be immediately destroyed.

  16. #16
    Campaign Veteran gogodawgs's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    Federal Way, Washington, USA
    Posts
    5,667

    Beer, Schools, CPLs...

    The whole not being able to enter a bar thing is unconstitutional...

    The whole not being able to enter the school to pick up my kids with my firearm is unconstitutional... (even though Alito specifically mentions this as a significant state issue, as other states allow school carry)

    Mandating a CPL for loaded car carry is unconstitutional...

    Residency requirements and not honoring travelers CPLs is unconstitutional.... (this will fall within the next 2 years...there will be reciprocity in ALL 50 states)
    Live Free or Die!

  17. #17
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Location
    Port Angeles, Washington, USA
    Posts
    295

    Prohibition on the RKBA by those 18-20

    IMO, this statute was extremely vulnerable before McDonald, and it is even more vulnerable now.

  18. #18
    Regular Member knight_308's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    Renton, ,
    Posts
    173
    I agree with ditching the bar law. I used to go armed to bars when I lived in PA all the time, have three or four beers over the course of a few hours, then go on with my life. It's really not that big of a deal. It's the same as any of these other restrictions (ala the WAC unloaded controversy) - don't blame everyone for the actions of a few. If someone is being irresponsible (threatening, sweeping, etc) then throw the book at them. Otherwise just let them be.

  19. #19
    Regular Member Jamfish's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    Greater Seattle Area
    Posts
    168
    Quote Originally Posted by Dave_pro2a View Post
    Silencers.
    Short barreled shotguns.
    Machine gun transfer.
    Etc.
    I would agree, Dave! We may not be able to shake the transfer fees/taxes, but outright bans on possession or use of these items are ridiculous. Our neighbors, Oregon and Idaho, do not have such restrictions -- what the hell makes us so special?

  20. #20
    Regular Member gsx1138's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    Bremerton, Washington, United States
    Posts
    884
    Quote Originally Posted by Dave_pro2a View Post
    Silencers.
    Short barreled shotguns.
    Machine gun transfer.
    Etc.
    We can only hope.

  21. #21
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Location
    Winlock, , USA
    Posts
    501
    I personally don't have an issue with full auto or select fire weapons, but that is just me. I don't like them. Yes, when younger, I had the opportunity to shoot a bunch of ammo you tax payers paid for, and kinda enjoyed it...but I didn't like having to hump all them bullets all the time. Being a tanker, though, we didn't have to shoot the little gun that much (M3A1 sub machine gun)...

    I can see the select fire law falling fairly quickly, though, on militia grounds. Since, according to the Miller decision, militia members are required to appear with a "weapon of the type and caliber in general usage" that would mean that all males 17-45 should have a select fire AR....but that's just my opinion.

  22. #22
    Opt-Out Members BigDave's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Yakima, Washington, USA
    Posts
    3,463
    Quote Originally Posted by fight4your_rights View Post
    One I'd like to see repealed:

    RCW 43.06.220
    State of emergency — Powers of governor pursuant to proclamation.

    (1) The governor after proclaiming a state of emergency and prior to terminating such, may, in the area described by the proclamation issue an order prohibiting:

    (e) The possession of firearms or any other deadly weapon by a person (other than a law enforcement officer) in a place other than that person's place of residence or business;
    Ditto on this issue as it is in violate of our own State Constitution and now with the 2nd Amendment as well.

    I do not feel this is a reasonable restriction as there is an inherent need to defend oneself and family where ever they maybe.

    I was able to have this removed from the City of Yakima last fall.

  23. #23
    Regular Member Metalhead47's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Location
    South Whidbey, Washington, USA
    Posts
    2,812
    Quote Originally Posted by Washintonian_For_Liberty View Post
    They need to move towards constitutional carry. I would like to see the carrying of all firearms be legal. Like that gentleman in Arizona carried his AR-15 on his shoulder, I'd like to see that legal here in Washington as well..
    Well, technically this IS legal. Whether the local LEO will let you "get away with it" is another matter. I'd love to strap my AK to my back, hop on my bike, & head up to the range for some practice. Just don't know if I'd actually get that far.

    On another note, I thought it was really telling, the headline today in the Seattle times. Instead of something neutral like "SCOTUS rules for McDonald," it reads "State, local gun-control laws at risk"

  24. #24
    Regular Member gsx1138's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    Bremerton, Washington, United States
    Posts
    884
    Quote Originally Posted by fight4your_rights View Post
    One I'd like to see repealed:

    RCW 43.06.220
    State of emergency — Powers of governor pursuant to proclamation.

    (1) The governor after proclaiming a state of emergency and prior to terminating such, may, in the area described by the proclamation issue an order prohibiting:

    (e) The possession of firearms or any other deadly weapon by a person (other than a law enforcement officer) in a place other than that person's place of residence or business;

    I think after Katrina they put in a Federal law that makes the above RCW illegal anyway.

    I'd mainly just like to be able to buy and "use" a suppressor for my AR. Having a Class 3 option is always nice. I'd probably never buy a class 3 weapon but I don't think others should be impacted by my choice.

    I continue to be confused by Washington law on the establishment of militia's. It was my understanding that militia's are illegal unless State sanctioned.
    Last edited by gsx1138; 06-29-2010 at 05:05 PM.

  25. #25
    Opt-Out Members BigDave's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Yakima, Washington, USA
    Posts
    3,463
    Quote Originally Posted by gsx1138 View Post
    I think after Katrina they put in a Federal law that makes the above RCW illegal anyway.

    I'd mainly just like to be able to buy and "use" a suppressor for my AR. Having a Class 3 option is always nice. I'd probably never buy a class 3 weapon but I don't think others should be impacted by my choice.

    I continue to be confused by Washington law on the establishment of militia's. It was my understanding that militia's are illegal unless State sanctioned.
    I think you are talking about this.

    THE ROBERT T. STAFFORD DISASTER RELIEF AND
    EMERGENCY ASSISTANCE ACT


    (42 U.S.C. 5205)
    SEC. 706. FIREARMS POLICIES.
    (a) PROHIBITION ON CONFISCATION OF FIREARMS.—No officer or
    employee of the United States (including any member of the uniformed
    services), or person operating pursuant to or under color of
    Federal law, or receiving Federal funds, or under control of any
    Federal official, or providing services to such an officer, employee,
    or other person, while acting in support of relief from a major disaster
    or emergency, may—
    (1) temporarily or permanently seize, or authorize seizure
    of, any firearm the possession of which is not prohibited under
    Federal, State, or local law, other than for forfeiture in compliance
    with Federal law or as evidence in a criminal investigation;
    (2) require registration of any firearm for which registration
    is not required by Federal, State, or local law;
    (3) prohibit possession of any firearm, or promulgate any
    rule, regulation, or order prohibiting possession of any firearm,
    in any place or by any person where such possession is not otherwise
    prohibited by Federal, State, or local law; or
    (4) prohibit the carrying of firearms by any person otherwise
    authorized to carry firearms under Federal, State, or local law, solely because such person is operating under the direction,
    control, or supervision of a Federal agency in support of
    relief from the major disaster or emergency.
    (b) LIMITATION.—Nothing in this section shall be construed to
    prohibit any person in subsection (a) from requiring the temporary
    surrender of a firearm as a condition for entry into any mode of
    transportation used for rescue or evacuation during a major disaster
    or emergency, provided that such temporarily surrendered
    firearm is returned at the completion of such rescue or evacuation.
    (c) PRIVATE RIGHTS OF ACTION.
    (1) IN GENERAL.—Any individual aggrieved by a violation
    of this section may seek relief in an action at law, suit in equity,
    or other proper proceeding for redress against any person
    who subjects such individual, or causes such individual to be
    subjected, to the deprivation of any of the rights, privileges, or
    immunities secured by this section.
    (2) REMEDIES.—In addition to any existing remedy in law
    or equity, under any law, an individual aggrieved by the seizure
    or confiscation of a firearm in violation of this section may
    bring an action for return of such firearm in the United States
    district court in the district in which that individual resides or
    in which such firearm may be found.
    (3) ATTORNEY FEES.—In any action or proceeding to enforce
    this section, the court shall award the prevailing party,
    other than the United States, a reasonable attorney’s fee as
    part of the costs.

Page 1 of 4 123 ... 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
  •