View Full Version : WA - Great news for gun owners and the 2nd Amendment!
We need more judges like the Honorable Catherine Shaffer. http://www.examiner.com/x-4525-Seattle-Gun-Rights-Examiner~y2010m2d12-Judge-in-Seattle-case-Plaintiffs-have-right-to-carry-under-federal-state-constitutions
A King County, WA superior court judge threw some haymakers into a ruling that strikes down the City of Seattle’s illegal ban on guns in city parks, granting not only a summary judgment request from the plaintiffs, but also issuing a permanent injunction against the city, which has 30 days to remove signs from some 500 different facilities. The injunction takes effect Wednesday, Feb. 17.
The lawsuit was filed last fall by the Bellevue-based Second Amendment Foundation and its sister organization, the Citizens Committee for the Right to Keep and Bear Arms, plus the National Rifle Association, Washington Arms Collectors and five individual plaintiffs.
Judge Catherine Shaffer did not mince words in her order, part of which was handwritten and issued from the bench following an afternoon hearing in her Seattle courtroom.
“The court finds that the plaintiffs have a clear legal or equitable right to carry firearms under the federal and state constitutions,” she ruled.
The judge also noted that the “court finds that there is no genuine issue of material fact on which reasonable minds could differ.”
To everyone’s surprise, she also mentioned the landmark Heller ruling against the District of Columbia’s handgun ban that found the Second Amendment to be protective of an individual civil right, an issue that was never brought up in the SAF/NRA legal argument. She also dissected and individually demolished the city’s legal arguments. According to a West Seattle blog, the city is weighing its options and has 30 days to appeal.
Judge Shaffer’s ruling ends 18 months of legal wrangling, most of it in the court of public opinion before the lawsuit was actually filed last autumn. A second lawsuit, this one filed in federal district court by a man named Robert Warden, is still pending. Incredibly, one of the city’s major news agencies initially reported incorrectly that Warden’s lawsuit had been won. Warden’s lawsuit has nothing to do with the Friday ruling. Later Friday, that information was corrected.
There was one surprise in the judge’s ruling, however. She found that SAF, CCRKBA, NRA and WAC all lacked standing as organizations, but that the individual plaintiffs had standing. She dismissed the organizational claims “with prejudice.”
SAF Executive Vice President Alan Gottlieb accepted that part of the ruling, noting in a telephone conversation that the important thing is “we won.” He issued a statement to the press following Judge Shaffer's ruling.
This is a critical victory for gun rights advocates for a several reasons.
First, it solidifies the state’s model preemption act, adopted more than 25 years ago, and strengthened two years later. Had Washington’s preemption law essentially been gutted by this case, it could have had implications for preemption statutes in other states.
The state of Washington hereby fully occupies and preempts the entire field of firearms regulation within the boundaries of the state, including the registration, licensing, possession, purchase, sale, acquisition, transfer, discharge, and transportation of firearms, or any other element relating to firearms or parts thereof, including ammunition and reloader components. Cities, towns, and counties or other municipalities may enact only those laws and ordinances relating to firearms that are specifically authorized by state law, as in RCW 9.41.300, and are consistent with this chapter. Such local ordinances shall have the same penalty as provided for by state law. Local laws and ordinances that are inconsistent with, more restrictive than, or exceed the requirements of state law shall not be enacted and are preempted and repealed, regardless of the nature of the code, charter, or home rule status of such city, town, county, or municipality.-RCW 9.41.290
Second, the ruling puts other local government entities on notice — specifically Snohomish County, where the Democrat-dominated county council last month brushed aside an opportunity to repeal a 30-year-old ordinance banning guns in county parks — that they must comply with state law. Democrats on the council cavalierly ignored the state preemption statute, instead choosing to “wait and see” what happened with the Seattle case. Now they know.
Third, the ruling is one more slap to the face of former Mayor Greg Nickels, who arrogantly pushed the gun ban, insisting that the city had the right to regulate guns on park property as though it were private property. A vehement anti-gunner, Nickels is now spreading his view of government to the fertile minds of students at Harvard.
Nickels’ arrogance and inability to deal with last winter’s snow crisis cost him the mayor’s race during the August primary. That was a political rout, as Nickels came in third behind two political newcomers, signaling that even in far left liberal Seattle, people can eventually get their fill of his kind of demagoguery.
The ruling puts others of Nickels’ ilk on notice that they will fare poorly when they defy state statute.
Perhaps what is disturbing about this case is that SAF and NRA, and specifically Gottlieb, gave the city numerous chances to back out of the effort gracefully even before a lawsuit was filed. Multiple warnings came from both organizations, and CCRKBA, that if Nickels pushed for and adopted a ban that he would get slapped with a lawsuit. If anyone thought SAF, CCRKBA and NRA were bluffing, Friday’s court ruling provided ample proof that those organizations don’t bluff.
We will comply with the court order and we are weighing with our clients the options for an appeal.”-Kathy Mulady, Seattle City Attorney’s office
Nickels and the city were advised early on by State Attorney General Rob McKenna that their logic was all wet, and that any kind of ban would violate the preemption law. A SAF attorney sent a very detailed explanation to the city more than 18 months ago why it would lose in court. Seattle ignored his advice and lost big time.
Lastly, this case was also a big loser for Washington CeaseFire, the extremist gun prohibitionist group that had thrown its waning influence behind the ban. CeaseFire also supported the recently-debated, and defeated, ban on so-called “assault weapons.” CeaseFire’s relevancy has been slipping for a couple of years. CeaseFire President Ralph Fascitelli had a hard time in Olympia recently with open carry activists. This court ruling probably gives him heartburn, while the open carry crowd has been cheering.
For what it’s worth, the crack SAF legal team in Seattle consisting of attorneys Steve Fogg and Molly Malouf with Corr Cronin did a smashing job. Their legal briefs were rock solid.
The pity is that if Nickels and the city had not been so arrogant and stubborn, this case would not have been necessary.
Awesome news... The mayor freaked out after the Bumbershoot shooting, and he skirted around lawmakers by creating a "policy" against carrying firearms in Seattle, even trying to block those who have been issued carry permits by the King County Sheriff (which is in downtown Seattle). Way to go for the court showing him that his personal agenda/vendetta is not above the law and constitution. :cool:
Now we just need to get the ridiculous suppressor/silencer law overthrown.. We can buy and own suppressors, but we have to leave the state in order to use them. :confused:
Now we just need to get the ridiculous suppressor/silencer law overthrown.. We can buy and own suppressors, but we have to leave the state in order to use them. :confused:
WTF?!?!
Looks like another win involving both SAF and the NRA .
WTF?!?!
yep.. WA guys with suppressors are in a weird spot. the law is really vague, and makes for some retarded situations.
here's an example, currently on-going http://www.northwestfirearms.com/forum/showthread.php?t=23533
A vehement anti-gunner, Nickels is now spreading his view of government to the fertile minds of students at Harvard.
No doubt he's sowing a new crop of Sotomayors and Bader Ginsbergs.
It's not surprising to see that he's found a home at Obama's alma mater.
yep.. WA guys with suppressors are in a weird spot. the law is really vague, and makes for some retarded situations.
here's an example, currently on-going http://www.northwestfirearms.com/forum/showthread.php?t=23533
Again, WTF?!?!? And not meant towards you but the state of WA. I'm only a few pages into it but that makes for an interesting read. Confiscating suppressors when they have the proper paperwork and tax stamps?!?! :confused:
Thanks for the link and the info. I learned something new today.
yep.. WA guys with suppressors are in a weird spot. the law is really vague, and makes for some retarded situations.
here's an example, currently on-going http://www.northwestfirearms.com/forum/showthread.php?t=23533
I don't know about you guys but I wouldn't be able to continue shooting after that. While it wouldn't do a lick of good to argue. I'd follow those idiots back to where so ever they deem to go with my NFA regisitered items. Seems those things are like gold and considering I don't trust anyone in this world....I'd hate to have to explain why and how my suppressors ended up being used in a violent crime.
Everyday I'm reminded of how wonderful Florida is
I'd hate to have to explain why and how my suppressors ended up being used in a violent crime.
They were confiscated by the police.
They were confiscated by the police.
And? Police are not above the law. Who's to say they aren't the most crooked guys ever to wear a badge? They illegally siezed personal property. Instead of being smart about it, calling someone who knew, they jumped on the wrong grenade, and I hope they get what they deserve.
Say, for instance, they seize the suppressors. Say, for instance, they do a little research on the way back to the station to book them as evidence, or whatever. They find out they were wrong (they were). They get scared "I'll lose my job, my pension, maybe face a civil suit, possibly a criminal one for theft. I guess I can just lose these things, and nobody but the people I took them from will know."
Unlikely, but a possibility.
WA has some backwards-ass laws. I am grateful that I can carry legally, own most things, and shoot lots of places. But, the legal grey areas are so abundant, it's slighly unnerving.
And? Police are not above the law. Who's to say they aren't the most crooked guys ever to wear a badge? They illegally siezed personal property. Instead of being smart about it, calling someone who knew, they jumped on the wrong grenade, and I hope they get what they deserve.
Say, for instance, they seize the suppressors. Say, for instance, they do a little research on the way back to the station to book them as evidence, or whatever. They find out they were wrong (they were). They get scared "I'll lose my job, my pension, maybe face a civil suit, possibly a criminal one for theft. I guess I can just lose these things, and nobody but the people I took them from will know."
Unlikely, but a possibility.
WA has some backwards-ass laws. I am grateful that I can carry legally, own most things, and shoot lots of places. But, the legal grey areas are so abundant, it's slighly unnerving.
If you would've taken the time to read the thread instead of jumping to conclusions you would've realized that the officers who confiscated the suppressors also gave the person a receipt for the items taken.
Therefore you can pretty well assume with a question like "I'd hate to have to explain why and how my suppressors ended up being used in a violent crime." wouldn't be too difficult to answer when you're holding a receipt from an LEO.
Nice sig line BTW ;)
i was in a state where automatic knives are legal and was minding my own business. i was riding a motorcycle down the road and ended up getting a ticket and yes i was speeding just a bit. but the officer saw the knife on my belt... and then he looks at me and says. "my boy would really like that knife" so he grabs it real fast and pitches it over onto the hood of his car and just stands there staring at me with that "what are you gonna do about it kid, look on his face" i just said "im pretty sure he will sir just make sure he knows its from me"... haha
i say this because theres a good chance those officers knew the law but they just wanted his suppressors... wouldn't be the first time something like that happened... they could take them and just wait and see if he came after them. if not they score if so then they give em back and claim ignorance of the law... who knows..
there is of course the chance that they just didnt know the law which is most likely what happened. the "rules" regarding suppressors are so frekin convoluted up here it wouldn't be surprising if they were just ignorant of them all together. then again its kind of hard to believe that an officer who carries a weapon for a living has never walked into a gun store up here and seen the cases full of suppressors...
i dunno. i havent read that whole thread yet but you can be damn sure that if im out with my suppressors im not just going to be flashing them around for everyone to see...
i was in a state where automatic knives are legal and was minding my own business. i was riding a motorcycle down the road and ended up getting a ticket and yes i was speeding just a bit. but the officer saw the knife on my belt... and then he looks at me and says. "my boy would really like that knife" so he grabs it real fast and pitches it over onto the hood of his car and just stands there staring at me with that "what are you gonna do about it kid, look on his face" i just said "im pretty sure he will sir just make sure he knows its from me"... haha
i say this because theres a good chance those officers knew the law but they just wanted his suppressors... wouldn't be the first time something like that happened... they could take them and just wait and see if he came after them. if not they score if so then they give em back and claim ignorance of the law... who knows..
there is of course the chance that they just didnt know the law which is most likely what happened. the "rules" regarding suppressors are so frekin convoluted up here it wouldn't be surprising if they were just ignorant of them all together. then again its kind of hard to believe that an officer who carries a weapon for a living has never walked into a gun store up here and seen the cases full of suppressors...
i dunno. i havent read that whole thread yet but you can be damn sure that if im out with my suppressors im not just going to be flashing them around for everyone to see...
This is the 2nd thread in a matter of minutes that I've read about you and your negative interactions with LEOs, not a great first impression but it does stick.
You do realize that suppressors are regulated by the ATF right? You have to be approved, pay a $200 tax, wait a million years, etc. Why would anybody in their right mind not try to follow up on this and get their property back? Especially when dealing with federally regulated items and local officers who are apparently ignorant of the laws pertaining to them?
The 2nd bolded statement sounds a lot closer to what possibly might've happened. Police officers are not infallible and do make mistakes, we're all human, although they may not want to admit to that ;)
Back on topic, good news for WA!
This is the 2nd thread in a matter of minutes that I've read about you and your negative interactions with LEOs, not a great first impression but it does stick.
yeah when i was younger i did have allot of negative run ins with LEO's. i also mentioned that the places i lived were notorious for this kind of activity. not everyone was blessed with growing up in the edward scissor hands neighborhood. my comments in the other thread were just that. that knock and talks are taken differently depending on what type of neighborhood you live in. and as far as i know its still my right to use my personal first hand experience as evidence for this fact.
i have plenty of good friends that are officers and they know guys in their departments that do things along the lines of what i have described... now do i think negatively about all LEO's because of my experiences with a few officers? no of course i dont. that would make me a bigot... but i do know that there are good and bad seeds in every industry.
yep.. WA guys with suppressors are in a weird spot. the law is really vague, and makes for some retarded situations.
here's an example, currently on-going http://www.northwestfirearms.com/forum/showthread.php?t=23533
Of interest to the WA guys http://apps.leg.wa.gov/billinfo/summary.aspx?bill=1604&year=2009
Sec. 1. RCW 9.41.250 and 2007 c 379 s 1 are each amended to read
as follows:
(1) Every person who:
Manufactures, sells, or disposes of or possesses .............
...........
or USES any contrivance or device for suppressing the noise of any
firearm (UNLESS the suppressor is legally registered and possessed in
accordance with federal law),
is guilty of a gross misdemeanor punishable under chapter 9A.20 RCW. """
that would be nice. i keep hearing about this but you know how these things go.
Belmont31R
02-14-10, 01:21
What I find so ironic about cans here in the US is that in Europe of all places you can buy them off the shelf as they are used to keep noise down at ranges.
Why they are a restricted item to the tune of a felony I don't know. If someone is so intent on using one in a crime they either buy one or make one.
What I find so ironic about cans here in the US is that in Europe of all places you can buy them off the shelf as they are used to keep noise down at ranges.
Why they are a restricted item to the tune of a felony I don't know. If someone is so intent on using one in a crime they either buy one or make one.
movies. who uses silencers in movies? and what are they used for?
thats all it comes down to.
That off the shelf things is actually more of a myth. In many European countries you can't even own firearms and you using them for self defense will open you up to prosecution.
What I find so ironic about cans here in the US is that in Europe of all places you can buy them off the shelf as they are used to keep noise down at ranges.
Why they are a restricted item to the tune of a felony I don't know. If someone is so intent on using one in a crime they either buy one or make one.
Belmont31R
02-14-10, 03:23
That off the shelf things is actually more of a myth. In many European countries you can't even own firearms and you using them for self defense will open you up to prosecution.
In what countries can you not own a firearm?
In some places cans are off the shelf others require a permit. A few are banned. I think Finland, Norway, and France no permit or license is required. England has restrictions based on the gun its going on. Some others require permits but are still obtainable.
I am located at a NATO base in Afghanistan and we were just talking with some Danish troops the other day. They indicated that very few people are allowed to own firearms. Military weapons were prohibited and if you used a firearm for self defense you would more than likely be charged.
As for suppressors there are provisions in the law just like California has CCW, but permission is almost always denied.
When I lived in Germany getting firearms was very expensive and suppressors were prohibited except for military and police.
When I was in Italy I was told that suppressors were forbidden except for military and police as well.
In what countries can you not own a firearm?
In some places cans are off the shelf others require a permit. A few are banned. I think Finland, Norway, and France no permit or license is required. England has restrictions based on the gun its going on. Some others require permits but are still obtainable.
I just fired off an e-mail to Senator Kline expressing support for HB 1604 (http://apps.leg.wa.gov/billinfo/summary.aspx?bill=1604&year=2010), which removes the restrictions on suppressors in WA. Apparently he is one of the major blocking points to this sort of bill. He also supports banning "assault weapons". Let him know how you feel about it (factually & politely).
Here is his web page and contact info: http://www.leg.wa.gov/senate/senators/pages/kline.aspx
I am located at a NATO base in Afghanistan and we were just talking with some Danish troops the other day. They indicated that very few people are allowed to own firearms. Military weapons were prohibited and if you used a firearm for self defense you would more than likely be charged.
As for suppressors there are provisions in the law just like California has CCW, but permission is almost always denied.
When I lived in Germany getting firearms was very expensive and suppressors were prohibited except for military and police.
When I was in Italy I was told that suppressors were forbidden except for military and police as well.
I'm not gonna get into whether gun ownership is legal or not in European contries, but quite a bit of the evidence you supplied here is heresay at best.
I grew up and still work in Kentucky, and the gun laws there are very lax for the most part, you can open carry, get a CCW licence, own silencers, FA and all the other stuff, and if I had a dollar for every Kentuckian I've had ask me if they need to register their gun to take it outta their home I'd be able to buy some rather nice rifles. Most people are clueless about the laws and tend to err on the side of caution.
I'm not gonna get into whether gun ownership is legal or not in European contries, but quite a bit of the evidence you supplied here is heresay at best.
I grew up and still work in Kentucky, and the gun laws there are very lax for the most part, you can open carry, get a CCW licence, own silencers, FA and all the other stuff, and if I had a dollar for every Kentuckian I've had ask me if they need to register their gun to take it outta their home I'd be able to buy some rather nice rifles. Most people are clueless about the laws and tend to err on the side of caution.
isn't it kentucky that's considering repealing an at least partial-NFA ban as we speak?
as far as europe.. that place is the most anti-gun region on earth. even switzerland, finland and sweden, the three most lenient gun countris in europe, have all banned, restricted, or permitted possession of all firearms since just before 2000. do a google search, my friend.
isn't it kentucky that's considering repealing an at least partial-NFA ban as we speak?
I have no idea, I moved out 3 years ago. I don't know what NFA items were ever banned in Kentucky, unless maybe some AOW types or somesuch. Class 3 and suppresors are legal, know a few people over there who legally own them. Last gun legislation I actually heard of was they were trying to expand the castle doctrine to make it harder to prosecute those that used force to protect their homes, and give more reasons to legally kill intruders.
I have no idea, I moved out 3 years ago. I don't know what NFA items were ever banned in Kentucky, unless maybe some AOW types or somesuch. Class 3 and suppresors are legal, know a few people over there who legally own them. Last gun legislation I actually heard of was they were trying to expand the castle doctrine to make it harder to prosecute those that used force to protect their homes, and give more reasons to legally kill intruders.
my bad- i'm thinking of alabama. i have no idea/clue/information about kentucky NFA laws.
Of interest to the WA guys http://apps.leg.wa.gov/billinfo/summary.aspx?bill=1604&year=2009
Unfortunately that bill died in committee, but so did all the gun control bills introduced by liberals in a kneejerk response to a number of murders of law enforcement officers that took place last year around the holidays.
All in all the legal news for our RKBA in Washington has been positive this legislative session, AWB died in committee, gun show bill died in committee, Seattle city property gun ban in defiance of State preemption law struck down in Superior Court.
isn't it kentucky that's considering repealing an at least partial-NFA ban as we speak?
as far as europe.. that place is the most anti-gun region on earth. even switzerland, finland and sweden, the three most lenient gun countris in europe, have all banned, restricted, or permitted possession of all firearms since just before 2000. do a google search, my friend.
No joke, wasnt it england that had the handgun ban where they confiscated handguns and melted them down?:mad: Im pretty sure it was, correct me if im wrong. But europe is most definitely a socialist anti gun zone. Would suck to live there
But europe is most definitely a socialist anti gun zone. Would suck to live there
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......"
Unfortunately that bill died in committee
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 (http://apps.leg.wa.gov/billinfo/dailystatus.aspx?year=2009#HOUSEBILLS) also continues to list bill 1604 as being at the house judiciary committee.
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 (http://apps.leg.wa.gov/billinfo/dailystatus.aspx?year=2009#HOUSEBILLS) 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.
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......"
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.
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."
Follow link for video: http://www.examiner.com/x-4525-Seattle-Gun-Rights-Examiner~y2010m2d18-WA-Supreme-Court-2nd-Amendment-applies-to-the-states-via-14th-Amendment-due-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.
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.5 Copyright © 2024 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.