Px4er
Regular Member
Weather permitting. Who wants to go hiking after 9/19/11.
I hike and OC in the Issaquah Alps and the North Bend area almost every weekend, both Saturday and Sunday on some weekends. I have done lots of miles on them trails and have yet to see anyone OC besides myself. Many have noticed my gun, some have commented and only one objected. (she was wacky, a true nut job) I did meet and EX cop that did not OC but had a gun in his backpack for his protection.
As far as going for an OC group hike.......I would be interested in entertaining the idea depending on location and start time…...
Guessing thats the day you turn 18?
Green, it is my understanding that your idea is correct, if there is an "adult" with you. I read that from 9.41.5(b) and you are at least 14. Key word "or"...
Guessing thats the day you turn 18? I got a great little place for hiking here.
lalalalalala
RCW 9.41.042
There's a gem in here ^
And you could always try an interesting way;
RCW 9.41.050-RCW 9.41.060
Any person.....hmmm...
But that's just what I read.
Maybe message 1245A Defender.
Green, it is my understanding that your idea is correct, if there is an "adult" with you. I read that from 9.41.5(b) and you are at least 14. Key word "or"...
Tellingly Sieyes fails to provide convincing authority supporting an original meaning of the Second Amendment, which would grant all children an unfettered right to bear arms. In fact during oral argument Sieyes's counsel conceded the opposite. Furthermore Sieyes makes no adequate argument specific to the facts of this case that a 17-year-old's Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms has been violated by this statute.[SUP]21[/SUP] Similarly Sieyes mentions the statute restricting children from possessing firearms violates his right to bear arms under article I, section 24, but cites no authority and makes no argument for this proposition.[SUP]22[/SUP] Sieyes's objection may be that he was 17 years old at the time of his arrest, and his right to bear arms should be equal to that of an 18-year-old's, but his arguments fail to challenge the statutory age limit set by this statute. In sum appellant offers no convincing authority supporting his argument that Washington's limit on childhood firearm possession violates the United States or Washington Constitutions. Accordingly we keep our powder dry on this issue for another day.
Young people continued to bear arms for this country through the Civil War, a conflict in which close to half a million boys aged 16 years old and younger-many of whom lied about their age in order to enlist-served with distinction.[SUP]3[/SUP] One boy soldier, Willie Johnston, earned the Congressional Medal of Honor for heroism demonstrated when he was only 11 years old.[SUP]4[/SUP] Johnston was not alone in his precocious valor: roughly 65 other juvenile soldiers earned the Medal of Honor during the Civil War.[SUP]5[/SUP]These and the other brave boys and young men who served in the Civil War, like their compatriots almost a century earlier, undeniably enjoyed full entitlement to all of the fundamental rights for which they fought and died, including the right to keep and bear arms. State laws that infringe or impair such a right thus merit strict scrutiny [SUP]6[/SUP] or, at a minimum, intermediate scrutiny.
lalalalalala
RCW 9.41.042
There's a gem in here ^
And you could always try an interesting way;
RCW 9.41.050-RCW 9.41.060
Any person.....hmmm...
But that's just what I read.
Maybe message 1245A Defender.
Green, it is my understanding that your idea is correct, if there is an "adult" with you. I read that from 9.41.5(b) and you are at least 14. Key word "or"...
I would also recommend you read the STATE V SIEYES as it deals with a 17yo in possession....
And it goes on to talk about more underage fundamental rights.
I like the judges statements it was almost, lecturing the lawyer(s) on how he/they didn't bring them the proper arguments.
Exactly! If the attorney would of challenged the limitation then perhaps we would have 18yo or younger carry and possession of a handgun.
Actually.. "is traveling to or from"
Does that mean I can "stop" by the store on my way from the range..?
I've always thought about this, but making my own judgments, I didn't feel like pushing it too far strolling into a bunch of stores on the way. Something necessary like pumping gas maybe.
Unless of course I have the store owners permission to hike inside the store up and down the aisles hunting for deals.
But most importantly, it means you can carry loaded on your person inside a vehicle, which to me is the best benefit.
Read 1) (a) and (b) of 050 and then read the intro of 060.