WA - Great news for gun owners and the 2nd Amendment!

[BrianS]

It was reintroduced on January 11th 2010. Are you saying it has died again since then? The WA legislative site lists it as "By resolution, reintroduced and retained in present status."

The daily status report also continues to list bill 1604 as being at the house judiciary committee.

Yeah it has died since then. You can get GOALPOSTS from Joe Waldron with WAC (Washington Arms Collectors) that tells you bill status and stuff.

The way the process works is when a bill is introduced it is referred to a committee, when it is reintroduced in the previous form it goes back to the same committee by default. Any bill that doesn't get out of committee by Feb 5 is basically dead, although it could still theoretically be raised as an emergency measure or amended to another bill somehow this basically very rarely happens.

[Iraqgunz]

I don't consider living in Europe for 8 years and actually having been to the countries that I mentioned anecdotal. I also owned firearms in one of those countries as a military member and though it was fairly easy for us, not so of the average citizen.

I went to 2 gunshops in Italy in March/April '09 and got my information from the store personnel directly.

The Danish troops that we spoke with (there was a table full) were all in agreement about the Danish gun laws and they seemed to know what they were talking about. They also mentioned that they admired our laws and abilities to own firearms.

So I guess if you want to call that anecdotal and heard it from a friend, feel free.

BTW- I have also spent time in Switzerland as well and they have cnaged their laws considerably in the last years and it is nowehere as liberal as it used to be.

Most assuredly. Only thing I was pointing out was anecdotal evidence. There are much better sources than "I heard it from a friend, who heard it from a friend......"

[Cerberus]

I don't consider living in Europe for 8 years and actually having been to the countries that I mentioned anecdotal. I also owned firearms in one of those countries as a military member and though it was fairly easy for us, not so of the average citizen.

I went to 2 gunshops in Italy in March/April '09 and got my information from the store personnel directly.

The Danish troops that we spoke with (there was a table full) were all in agreement about the Danish gun laws and they seemed to know what they were talking about. They also mentioned that they admired our laws and abilities to own firearms.

So I guess if you want to call that anecdotal and heard it from a friend, feel free.

BTW- I have also spent time in Switzerland as well and they have cnaged their laws considerably in the last years and it is nowehere as liberal as it used to be

Muchas better with this explanation.

[Irish]

IMPORANT UPDATE TO WA 2ND AMENDMENT RIGHTS! THIS IS GREAT NEWS!
http://www.courthousenews.com/2010/02/18/24830.htm

(CN) - The Second Amendment applies to the states via the 14th Amendment due-process clause, the Washington Supreme Court ruled Thursday in an opinion that beat the U.S. Supreme Court to the punch on the same issue. The High Court is to hear arguments later this year on the question of whether the Second Amendment applies to the states.
"The Second Amendment protects an individual right to bear arms from state interference through the due process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment," the court wrote. "This right is necessary to an Anglo-American regime of ordered liberty and fundamental to the American scheme of justice."
The case comes after 17-year-old Christopher Sieyes was convicted of unlawfully possessing a loaded semiautomatic handgun. He sued, claiming a Washington state law banning minors from carrying guns infringes on his right to bear arms as protected by both the U.S. and Washington Constitutions.
The court, however, sidestepped the question over whether minors enjoy the same right to bear arms as adults, adding that Sieyes "offers no convincing authority supporting his argument that Washington's limit on childhood firearms possession violates the United States or Washington Constitutions," the court wrote. "Accordingly, we keep our powder dry on this issue for another day."
The U.S. Supreme Court struck down a handgun ban in Washington, D.C., in 2007, finding that the Second Amendment guarantees the right to bear arms. But what remained left open and to be discussed later this year was the question of whether the Second Amendment applies to the states.
Concurring Washington State Supreme Court Judge Debra Stephens agreed with the result of the ruling, but called it premature.
"I would refrain from engaging in an extended exploration of the unsettled question of federal incorporation of the Second Amendment," Stephens wrote. "Restraint is particularly appropriate here because the very question is currently pending before the United States Supreme Court.
"I do not believe this is an instance where there is anything to be accomplished," she added, "particularly as our opinion is likely to be eclipsed before the ink it takes to print it is dry."

[Irish]

Follow link for video: http://www.examiner.com/x-4525-Seatt...process-clause

The Washington State Supreme Court delivered a haymaker to anti-gunners – and strong reinforcement to gun rights advocates – Thursday morning when it handed down an opinion in the case of State v. Sieyes that states bluntly, “We hold the Second Amendment applies to the states via the Fourteenth Amendment due process clause.”

The majority opinion, written by Justice Richard B. Sanders, was signed by five other justices including Chief Justice Barbara A. Madsen, with a (sort-of) concurring opinion from Justice Debra L. Stephens that takes issue with the incorporation premise, and a partly-concurring and partly-dissenting opinion from Justice James M. Johnson that argues the majority ruling isn’t strong enough.

Although the issue of incorporation is at the heart of McDonald v. Chicago, the Second Amendment Foundation's case now before the United States Supreme Court for which oral arguments are scheduled March 2, Sanders notes in his majority state-level opinion that even though the high court “did not expressly consider incorporation of the right to bear arms” in the June 2008 Heller ruling, “that need not stop the rest of us.” He maintains that lower courts “need not wait for the Supreme Court” on the question of incorporation. (Read more about the McDonald case here.)

UPDATE: Naturally, the Associated Press story that now appears in the Seattle Post-Intelligencer does not mention any of this. The story merely alludes to the court's rejection of the notion that Sieyes' arrest and conviction violated his constitutional rights.

“The Constitution is the rule of all courts—both state and federal judiciaries wield power to strike down unconstitutional government acts,” Sanders writes.

The Second Amendment right to bear arms applies to the states through the due process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.-Washington State Supreme Court, State v. Sieyes

The case involves a then-17-year-old defendant, Christopher Sieyes, who was a passenger in a car pulled over by a Kitsap County sheriff’s deputy. The deputy found a loaded Bersa .380 ACP pistol under Sieyes’ seat and arrested him. In October 2007, the trial court found Sieyes guilty of second degree illegal firearms possession, and the teen appealed on several grounds, one of which is that state law prohibiting firearms possession by certain individuals is “an absolute prohibition on firearm possession by minors” and is therefore unconstitutional.

Thursday’s ruling went against Sieyes’ argument that the law violates his constitutional rights, under either the federal or state constitutions. Part of the case was remanded back to the Court of Appeals for further action.

In her concurring opinion supporting the court’s position that Sieyes’ rights were not violated, which was also signed by Justice Mary E. Fairhurst, Justice Stephens argued against the court’s eagerness to take a position on incorporation, since it has yet to be decided by the U.S. Supreme Court.

Having determined the Second Amendment protects individual rights against state interference...'-Justice Richard B. Sanders

“For me,” Stephens writes, “the discussion ends there, and I would refrain from engaging in an extended exploration of the unsettled question of federal incorporation of the Second Amendment. Restraint is particularly appropriate here because the very question is currently pending before the United States Supreme Court.

“I do not believe this is an instance where there is anything to be accomplished,” she adds, “particularly as our opinion is likely to be eclipsed before the ink it takes to print it is dry.”

Johnson, taking issue with the court majority for not applying strict scrutiny to its examination of Sieyes’ constitutional claim, writes, “the majority disregards our long-standing national tradition allowing younger citizens to bear arms and the level of protection that we customarily accord to fundamental rights. I therefore write separately to emphasize that strict scrutiny is the appropriate standard of review for Second Amendment challenges to statutes restricting these important constitutional rights.

Strict scrutiny is the appropriate standard of review for Second Amendment challenges to statutes restricting these important constitutional rights. - Justice James M. Johnson, Concur/Dissent in part

“This conclusion is inescapable,” he continues, “when one considers the fundamental nature of the right to keep and bear arms throughout our nation’s history and our legacy of extending that right to young people. Youth have been permitted and even on occasion requested to bear arms since our country’s nascent days and throughout the history of our state.

“What were these teenagers fighting for,” Johnson asks. “I remind the court that, among other things, they fought for the right to bear arms…”

Under existing statute, Sieyes should not have had that pistol under his car seat, but this case has opened a can of worms for gun prohibitionists, and the lid may be off permanently, depending how the U.S. Supreme Court rules in the McDonald case in late May or early June.


However, if the recent performances of both former Seattle Mayor Greg Nickels and his successor, Mike McGinn are any indication, anti-gunners will likely pursue their childish demand that the law be changed. Nickels was advised by Attorney General Rob McKenna that his desire to ban guns in the city was illegal. He did it, anyway and left McGinn and the city holding that bag. The other day, King County Superior Court Judge Catherine Shaffer ripped a hole in the bag, causing McGinn to infamously rant that he wants the legislature to change the law, something Nickels had lobbied for when he was in office.

The Sanders opinion sends a strong signal that Seattle will fare poorly if it appeals Shaffer’s ruling, because it squarely defines the state Supreme Court’s position on gun rights.

If commentator Ken Schram’s blistering criticism of McGinn on KOMO Wednesday evening upset the mayor’s stomach and gave group indigestion to the minions over at Washington CeaseFire, Thursday’s state Supreme Court ruling should guarantee them ulcers.