WA State Supreme Court Renders Significant Ruling
Results 1 to 7 of 7

Thread: WA State Supreme Court Renders Significant Ruling

  1. #1

    WA State Supreme Court Renders Significant Ruling

    SAF Press Release :: WA SUPREME COURT JUSTICE RICHARD SANDERS AUTHORS SIGNIFICANT GUN RIGHTS RULING

    For Immediate Release: 2/25/2010

    By Alan M. Gottlieb

    Executive Vice President

    Second Amendment Foundation

    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.”
    The two enemies of the people are criminals and government, so let us tie the second down with the chains of the Constitution so the second will not become the legalized version of the first. - Thomas Jefferson

  2.   
  3. #2
    So, now that that is established, is Washing State going to repeal their laws requiring a permit to carry concealed? I doubt it. So what does this decision mean? Likewise, once McDonald is decided, will all state laws regulating the carry/ possession/ manufacturing/ selling of firearms be negated? The NFA, GCA, Hughs amendment, etc. all nulified? Again, I doubt it. What exactly would a win in McDonald mean?
    The two enemies of the people are criminals and government, so let us tie the second down with the chains of the Constitution so the second will not become the legalized version of the first. - Thomas Jefferson

  4. #3
    What it does mean is that the US Supreme Court will take that piece of very important Case Law into account in their own deliberations in the case before them. They do attempt not to trample on Supreme Court decisions from individual states (not that they haven't). Personally, I believe it is a very positive step.

    As in all USSC cases, The meaning of a win in the McDonald case will totally depend on how the USSC writes their opinion.

  5. #4
    All the US Supreme Court is deciding is whether or not the 2A as already interpreted is incorporated against the States. In Heller they already said in the majority opinion that Heller should not be construed to negate all gun laws, such as prohibitions against guns in sensitive places, etc. So if Heller is incorporated against the states it only means that they won't be able to keep you from having a loaded gun in your own home. If incorporation happens then it will take many more court challenges to decide whether or not each other gun law is unconstitutional. With this decision the people of Washington State have a big leg up on the rest of us.
    Avidshooter (Texas)
    "The real destroyer of the liberties of the people is he who spreads among them bounties, donations and benefits." -- Plutarch

  6. #5
    I guess I just find it amazing that it has taken this long to come to the point where we are finally deciding weather or not the Bill of Rights enumerates the rights of each and every citizen, regardless of the government entity seeking to violate those rights. Equally amazing do I find it that the infringement of this particular right has been allowed to go unchallenged to the point where we now have to go back and systematically review thousands of laws, state and federal, to decide that they are infringements.
    The two enemies of the people are criminals and government, so let us tie the second down with the chains of the Constitution so the second will not become the legalized version of the first. - Thomas Jefferson

  7. #6
    As has been mentioned on other posts, it's probably not an outright ban on firearms we need to worry about. It's more likely to be an attack by taxation of some sort. Tax ammo and components high enough and you have taken firearms away from most people. In either case we must remain vigilant.

  8. #7
    Quote Originally Posted by ronwill View Post
    In either case we must remain vigilant.
    Sure enough, infringement is infringement. It ALL must be prevented.
    The two enemies of the people are criminals and government, so let us tie the second down with the chains of the Constitution so the second will not become the legalized version of the first. - Thomas Jefferson

Similar Threads

  1. New Supreme Court cases could affect State 2a laws
    By Bohemian in forum Politics and News
    Replies: 23
    Last Post: 03-04-2010, 11:19 PM
  2. Replies: 3
    Last Post: 02-05-2010, 09:59 PM
  3. E-mail I received concerning Orly Taitz
    By festus in forum Politics and News
    Replies: 5
    Last Post: 01-18-2010, 05:02 PM
  4. Supreme Court Takes up Landmark Gun Case
    By Tea For One in forum Politics and News
    Replies: 5
    Last Post: 10-01-2009, 09:59 PM
  5. Supreme Court Ruling
    By calmp9 in forum Nevada Discussion and Firearm News
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: 06-26-2008, 05:17 PM

Tags for this Thread

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  
Quantcast