View Full Version : WA Supreme Court: 2nd Amendment applies to the states via 14th Amendment due process.
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.
holy poop I wish I knew what it all meant to the avarage gun owner...
I should have gone to law school instead of architecture school lol
Maybe I should sue NJ for not allowing CCW unless you can show need for it and so on...
Cascades236
02-19-10, 16:04
I can't believe someone would suggest those teenagers were fighting for our second amend rights and not just trying to find a back door out of their conviction.
I can't believe someone would suggest those teenagers were fighting for our second amend rights and not just trying to find a back door out of their conviction.
:rolleyes:
Oh lawd not the evil hoodlum teenagers oh my lawd!
A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.
1.The right of the people....to keep and bear Arms, SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED.
2. This teenager you speak of is a member of the people of this country.
C: This teenager's right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.
If you agree with those two premises you therefore agree with the conclusion.
2nd amendment advocates like myself have been waiting for a long time for someone to use an event like this to start off a chain of events that would utterly decimate the arguments of gun control advocates nationwide.
2nd amendment advocates like myself have been waiting for a long time for someone to use an event like this to start off a chain of events that would utterly decimate the arguments of gun control advocates nationwide.
It really seems that we are well on our way. Courts across the country seem to be upholding the 2nd Amendment. I really hope this case get's appealed to the SCOTUS.
:rolleyes:
Oh lawd not the evil hoodlum teenagers oh my lawd!
1.The right of the people....to keep and bear Arms, SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED.
2. This teenager you speak of is a member of the people of this country.
C: This teenager's right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.
If you agree with those two premises you therefore agree with the conclusion.
2nd amendment advocates like myself have been waiting for a long time for someone to use an event like this to start off a chain of events that would utterly decimate the arguments of gun control advocates nationwide.
I guess I will go and give my 4 year old my G19 and tell her the has a right to carry a gun. I don’t foresee any problems.
It really seems that we are well on our way. Courts across the country seem to be upholding the 2nd Amendment. I really hope this case get's appealed to the SCOTUS.
McDonald VS Chicago is going to SCOTUS and is quite similar. Read up on it here https://www.m4carbine.net/showthread.php?t=39619
I guess I will go and give my 4 year old my G19 and tell her the has a right to carry a gun. I don’t foresee any problems.
I guess I would see a big distinction between what makes sense FOR YOUR FAMILY, versus what should be legislated and enforced by the government.
There are LOTS of "potentially dangerous" things in and around your house: cars, lawnmowers, chemicals (the most common cause of household accidental child deaths), electrical outlets, tools, steak knives, ice on the sidewalk, water in the swimming pool, the Pit bull in the backyard, etc. And yes, firearms.
We already have an insane, almost dysfunctional amount of "safety regulations" and other types of nanny state control by the government, under the guise of keeping us safe. But clearly, they cannot, and SHOULD NOT, regulate all this stuff. It's not even possible anyway, and it's WAY too intrusive into our lives, and worst of all, it's not even authorized by the Constitution.
Obviously as a parent you should keep ANYTHING dangerous away from kids who are too young to handle it. But I don't see that the Constitution authorizes the government to "regulate" so much of our lives as it has been trying to do, under the guise of 'safety'. It wasn't necessary when this country was founded, and it isn't necessary now. We have a right to own and bear arms. Period. What you do with the arms in your home, and how you protect your kids, should be up to you.
FromMyColdDeadHand
02-20-10, 13:46
If they had left in there that there was no age restriction to the 2nd, I think that would have left a huge hole for the antis to counter-attack thru.
Draft age is 18 and voting age is 18 ties in well with "well regulated militia" rationale for handgun possession.
I'd be happy if there were less restrictions, or almost none (US citizen, felons and crazies come to mind), but this makes it so that the antis will have a hard time getting traction with this ruling.
So what if he was trying to "beat the rap"........... it ended being worthy of the Washinton Supreme Court.
I wish my 16 yr old daughter could carry her gun with her, I would feel safer.
I can't believe someone would suggest those teenagers were fighting for our second amend rights and not just trying to find a back door out of their conviction.
I thought the teenagers in question were people in the US Military, not the person involved in this issue.
BTW Sieyes argued that RCW 9.41.040(2)(a)(iii) was an "absolute prohibition" on possession of a firearm by minors and thus violated his RKBA.
This is not the case. It reads:
(iii) If the person is under eighteen years of age, except as provided in RCW 9.41.042; and/or...
RCW 9.41.042 reads:
RCW 9.41.040(2)(a)(iii) shall not apply to any person under the age of eighteen years who is:
(1) In attendance at a hunter's safety course or a firearms safety course;
(2) Engaging in practice in the use of a firearm or target shooting at an established range authorized by the governing body of the jurisdiction in which such range is located or any other area where the discharge of a firearm is not prohibited;
(3) Engaging in an organized competition involving the use of a firearm, or participating in or practicing for a performance by an organized group that uses firearms as a part of the performance;
(4) Hunting or trapping under a valid license issued to the person under Title 77 RCW;
(5) In an area where the discharge of a firearm is permitted, is not trespassing, and the person either: (a) Is at least fourteen years of age, has been issued a hunter safety certificate, and is using a lawful firearm other than a pistol; or (b) is under the supervision of a parent, guardian, or other adult approved for the purpose by the parent or guardian;
(6) Traveling with any unloaded firearm in the person's possession to or from any activity described in subsection (1), (2), (3), (4), or (5) of this section;
(7) On real property under the control of his or her parent, other relative, or legal guardian and who has the permission of the parent or legal guardian to possess a firearm;
(8) At his or her residence and who, with the permission of his or her parent or legal guardian, possesses a firearm for the purpose of exercising the rights specified in RCW 9A.16.020(3); or
(9) Is a member of the armed forces of the United States, national guard, or organized reserves, when on duty.
As everyone can see there are numerous and broad exceptions to the prohibition on the possession of firearms by a minor in WA.
http://www.ammoland.com/2010/02/25/wa-supreme-court-authors-significant-gun-rights-ruling/
Washington --(AmmoLand.com)- The Washington State Supreme Court has issued a precedent-setting opinion in the case of State v. Christopher William Sieyes which holds that the Second Amendment of the U.S. Constitution’s Bill of Rights “applies to the states via the Fourteenth Amendment”
This outstanding opinion was authored by Justice Richard B. Sanders, a Supreme Court veteran who clearly understands the history of both the state and federal constitutional right to keep and bear arms.
Perhaps what makes the Sanders opinion so remarkable is that it places the Washington Supreme Court ahead of the United States Supreme Court in recognition that the U.S. Constitution’s recognition of the right to keep and bear arms applies to all citizens, and should also place limits on state and local governments, as it does on Congress.
Quoting Justice Sanders, “Lower courts need not wait for the Supreme Court the Constitution is the rule of all courts both state and federal judiciaries wield power to strike down unconstitutional government acts.”
The Sanders opinion was issued February 18, 2010 and its significance quickly registered with gun rights organizations and activists across the map. For example, the National Shooting Sports Foundation hailed the ruling. NSSF Senior Vice President and General Counsel Lawrence G. Keane called it “a welcome development and victory for the rights of law-abiding firearms owners.”
This state high court opinion, among other things, effectively “puts on notice” anti-gun groups in the Evergreen State that their continued efforts to impair the rights of legally-armed citizens will face not only growing legislative resistance, but intense legal scrutiny. Though not binding on other states, it clears a path for other state supreme courts to follow.
Despite its brevity at only 24 pages, Justice Sanders’ opinion – which was co-signed by five of his colleagues, including Chief Justice Barbara A. Madsen – thoroughly and proactively debunks any suggestion that the authors of Article 1, Section 24 of the Washington State Constitution did not mean specifically what they wrote:
“The right of the individual citizen to bear arms in defense of himself, or the state, shall not be impaired, but nothing in this section shall be construed as authorizing individuals or corporations to organize, maintain or employ an armed body of men.”
Perhaps Justice Sanders put it best when he noted, “This right is necessary to an Anglo-American regime of ordered liberty and fundamental to the American scheme of justice.”
About:
The Second Amendment Foundation (www.saf.org) is the nations oldest and largest tax-exempt education, research, publishing and legal action group focusing on the Constitutional right and heritage to privately own and possess firearms. Founded in 1974, The Foundation has grown to more than 650,000 members and supporters and conducts many programs designed to better inform the public about the consequences of gun control. SAF has previously funded successful firearms-related suits against the cities of Los Angeles; New Haven, CT; and San Francisco on behalf of American gun owners, a lawsuit against the cities suing gun makers and an amicus brief and fund for the Emerson case holding the Second Amendment as an individual right.
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.5 Copyright © 2024 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.