What Washington Gun Laws are Unconstitutional, post McDonald?

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.

fight4your_rights said:

One I'd like to see repealed: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;

Click to expand...

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.

Washintonian_For_Liberty said:

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..

Click to expand...

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":banghead:

fight4your_rights said:

One I'd like to see repealed: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;

Click to expand...

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.

gsx1138 said:

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.

Click to expand...

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.

Post McDonald

This is only peripheral to WA, but I'd like to see greater uniformity among the states. In Colorado anybody can have a pistol in his car, loaded or not, concealed or not, permit or not. In WA, well you all know. In Oregon it must be visible if open carried. In Pennsylvania its similar to WA.

In Oregon you can enter a bar and drink while carrying. In WA you can't even step in to say "Hello. I'll be outside." without breaking the law. In Arizona you can go into a bar if you're CCing but you can't drink anything. And yet we get stopped sometimes by cops who don't even know the laws of their own state.

In WA, I'd like to see 43.06.220 die a quick death.

MD

I have to say that I find the laws regarding where you can and can not carry intensely frustrating.

Post offices when I am not a disgruntled employee? Really? Why? It is not going to stop a disgruntled employee you know, and nobody else every harms someone in a post office.

Bars when I don't drink? Really? Why? You won't even know I have it, nobody ever will, and I don't have to take up a table if I want to eat by myself.

Schools when I am not a crazed maniac? Really? Why? Just 20 years ago people took guns to school all the time and it wasn't a big deal. The frequency of this happening decreased a lot and suddenly we had school shootings. Therefore we made it illegal and had even more shootings... That should tell you something.

Obviously OCers don't break these laws, but I am pretty sure that hundreds of CC'ers break these laws every day in Washington. Especially the bar and post office ones. They are stupid laws and should be removed.

arentol said:

I have to say that I find the laws regarding where you can and can not carry intensely frustrating.

Post offices when I am not a disgruntled employee? Really? Why? It is not going to stop a disgruntled employee you know, and nobody else every harms someone in a post office.

Bars when I don't drink? Really? Why? You won't even know I have it, nobody ever will, and I don't have to take up a table if I want to eat by myself.

Schools when I am not a crazed maniac? Really? Why? Just 20 years ago people took guns to school all the time and it wasn't a big deal. The frequency of this happening decreased a lot and suddenly we had school shootings. Therefore we made it illegal and had even more shootings... That should tell you something.

Obviously OCers don't break these laws, but I am pretty sure that hundreds of CC'ers break these laws every day in Washington. Especially the bar and post office ones. They are stupid laws and should be removed.

Click to expand...

+1
No place off limits to OC or CC, except like in courts, jails, and mental facilities. Also no city shall incorporate a law that is not in line with state law and any councilman and all involved will be terminated, and fined.

I personally want to see the SBR/suppressor/MG restriction go by-by. I see peeps bringing 11" guns to class, and I desire one myself, as they are pretty handy.

I think it's pretty ripe, myself.

At the least, I want to hear someone explain to a Federal court how it is we can have a suppressor but not have it mounted to anything....

I don't know about any laws but I think you are correct that it will not change very many laws outside of a very few places. I have read most of the decision and from what I can tell it actually only does two things, says that 2A applies to all states and although does not exactly state it, that all of the first 8 Amendments apply, if they do not already. The second thing was to apply Heller to the states. Beyond that I actually can't find anything. So we can use the Heller decision as the baseline on what will pass muster and what will not. I don't see that it extended Heller other that to the states rather than just to the Federal Government (DC).

It left in reasonable resrictions and what a lot of the dissenting opinion was is that local reasonable restrictions are so hard to determine that it should be controlled at the Federal level. Individual laws in each state are going to have to be challenged for their reasonableness but I see very few actually getting thrown out due to this ruling without a court challenge. Unfortunately they left in the possibility that even if a law is overturned in one location it may still be valid in another.

amlevin said:

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:
‘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, “tate and local experimentation with reasonable firearms regulations will continue under the Second Amendment.’ ~ Justice Alito~

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.

Click to expand...

What about yours?

tyguy808 said:

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?).

Click to expand...

Are you ready to give up YOUR private property rights?!?

A business has the "right to refuse service to anyone" and can tell anyone, for any given reason, to leave the property. (Unless if that reason is strictly, and only due to discrimination)

Aaron1124 said:

A business has the "right to refuse service to anyone" and can tell anyone, for any given reason, to leave the property. (Unless if that reason is strictly, and only due to discrimination)

Click to expand...

It is not true that a business has any such right. Just because they have a sign posted that says something to that effect doesn't make it true.

"The Federal Civil Rights Act guarantees all people the right to 'full and equal enjoyment of the goods, services, facilities, privileges, advantages, and accommodations of any place of public accommodation, without discrimination or segregation on the ground of race, color, religion, or national origin.'

http://www.legalzoom.com/us-law/equal-rights/right-refuse-service

In cases in which the patron is not a member of a federally protected class, the question generally turns on whether the business's refusal of service was arbitrary, or whether the business had a specific interest in refusing service."

nathan said:

It is not true that a business has any such right. Just because they have a sign posted that says something to that effect doesn't make it true.

"The Federal Civil Rights Act guarantees all people the right to 'full and equal enjoyment of the goods, services, facilities, privileges, advantages, and accommodations of any place of public accommodation, without discrimination or segregation on the ground of race, color, religion, or national origin.'

http://www.legalzoom.com/us-law/equal-rights/right-refuse-service

In cases in which the patron is not a member of a federally protected class, the question generally turns on whether the business's refusal of service was arbitrary, or whether the business had a specific interest in refusing service."

Click to expand...

+1
As soon as a business decides to open its self to the PUBLIC, it gives up certain rights. A private club can discriminate against, and refuse service to, whomever they want. When a business opens its doors to any man (or woman) on the street, they loose that right to pick & choose. ESPECIALLY when it comes to the natural rights of the patron, such as freedom of speech, and self defense. This one has been talked to death of course, and will no doubt continue to be. I think it goes beyond the state of mere current laws too. I say, from an ethical, natural law standpoint, that a business can no more bar patrons with firearms than it could prevent them from fighting back with fists if attacked.

While not on the books, I would like to see changes made to allow an employee to have a weapon in their personal vehicle on company property with no recourse from the employer.

M1Gunr said:

While not on the books, I would like to see changes made to allow an employee to have a weapon in their personal vehicle on company property with no recourse from the employer.

Click to expand...

Once again I am one of those pansya$$ californians so forgive me if I dont understand the logic in this....

YOUR privately owned vehicle is not privately owned if it is on someone elses property?

So if I go to M1 or Paddys house my car becomes their car until they ALLOW me to leave with it?

I know everyone rags on CA, myself included, however this is one issue that they have SORTOF gotten right. (well maybe not but still)

Basically in CA your car is your car and you can do whatever you want in it (except DUI drug trafficking arms trafficking etc) except when you have a minor in the vehicle.

For example the college I went to in San Diego was no smoking, period end of story, no where nutuh now way no how. I could however go to my vehicle (keeping my windows rolled up so as not to pollute the air outside my vehicle) and smoke and not have a problem (legally speaking)

Now same situation if I had a minor in the car (even if it was my 16 yr old step daughter with a lit cigarette in her hand cause she friggin smokes) I could not smoke in the vehicle regardless....

Ok so maybe they didnt get it right and maybe I went off on a tangent again, but how is your vehicle not your vehicle?

devildoc5 said:

Once again I am one of those pansya$$ californians so forgive me if I dont understand the logic in this....
YOUR privately owned vehicle is not privately owned if it is on someone elses property?

Click to expand...

This has nothing to do with visiting a friend this has to do with employment rights. The company I worked at would not allow an employee to have a weapon on said company property. This was to include locking up the weapon in a private vehicle in the company parking garage or lot.

M1Gunr said:

This has nothing to do with visiting a friend this has to do with employment rights. The company I worked at would not allow an employee to have a weapon on said company property. This was to include locking up the weapon in a private vehicle in the company parking garage or lot.

Click to expand...

ok but isnt that vehicle AND it's contents still your private property?

Regardless of where it is located at?

That is kinda what I was getting at...

I guess it is one of the ever lasting battles of where do your rights end and mine begin?

I tend to look at it that it is your private property if you own it regardless of where it is residing. An analogy would be the same as I posted above about visiting a friend. If it is my property then how can someone tell me what I can and cant do in it? Not saying my analogy was completely accurate, however it does not require a stretch of the imagination to see the same logic, even if it is flawed, I guess that is what I was trying to point out.

Sorry guess I am just in one of those moods today.....

M1Gunr said:

This has nothing to do with visiting a friend this has to do with employment rights. The company I worked at would not allow an employee to have a weapon on said company property. This was to include locking up the weapon in a private vehicle in the company parking garage or lot.

Click to expand...

Does this happen?

Any company that I have worked for has just restricted weapons from the building.

Has anyone had their vehicle searched by an employer?

Has anyone witnessed another's vehicle searched by an employer?

Has anyone heard (hearsay) of a vehicle search by an employer?

devildoc5 said:

ok but isnt that vehicle AND it's contents still your private property?

Regardless of where it is located at?

That is kinda what I was getting at...

Click to expand...

As an employer they simply make their "no employee firearms on company property, including in cars" a "condition of employment."

If you wish to be employed by them you agree to the rules, and continue to follow them in order to remain employed. If you don't like the rules, you can leave...

It's a little bit different from the sort of control they have (or don't have) over non-employees.

Same for employees having to agree to warrantless, reasonless searches of themselves and their vehicles as a part of their employment. Don't like the rule, don't agree to it, but you won't be hired, either.

The agreement of the potential employees to whatever rules the employer wants (so long as they do not break the law...) are a totally different ball of fur than the general public's interface with the same company.

Heck, if the company wants you to wear big funny shoes and clown make-up as a condition of employment, and you agree to that, you'd better do that or lose your job...