Washington State Supreme Court on 2nd Amendment

[Deaf Smith]

http://volokh.com/2010/02/18/washington-supreme-court-holds-second-amendment-is-incorporated/

Washington Supreme Court Holds Second Amendment Is Incorporated!
"The case is State v. Sieyes; six Justices (including the Justice who dissented in part) took this view, two didn’t reach the question, and one signed the majority opinion but with the notation “result only,” which I take it also means that she didn’t express a view on the question."

One more notch on our side. Now it's up to SCOTUS!

Deaf

 

[David43515]

I`m sorry, what does that mean, it`s "incorporated"?

 

[Carol]

In coarse language, the court ruling that the 2nd Ammendment is incorporated means Washington State must uphold the 2nd Ammendment...and not selectively pick and choose which aspects of the right to bear arms it wants to legalize, and which it wants to ban.

Here's an article written during the NRA v. Chicago case that explains it a bit more.

http://www.forbes.com/2009/10/05/nr...go-opinions-columnists-richard-a-epstein.html

 

[Deaf Smith]

David,

In the Bill of Rights the first 10 are the individual rights (there were two more but they failed ratification.)

Over the years there were arguments as to if these rights meant that only the federal government had to follow them but the states did not.

So SCOTUS over time decided, once they were challenged in court cases, applied to the states as well as the federal government (thus, incorporated.)

That means the states must respect these rights!

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Incorporation_(Bill_of_Rights)

Now if they were not incorporated then the states could just ignore them. That is the states could say no freedom of speech, or assembly, or.. no right to keep and bear arms.

And that is why it's a big deal!

Deaf

 

[Tames D]

Do you think this ruling has Obama just a little pissed off?

 

[Deaf Smith]

Do you think this ruling has Obama just a little pissed off?

Well he can just go piss off, right?

Deaf

 

[Tames D]

Well he can just go piss off, right?

Deaf

I'm happy to see his BS shoved back down his throat. Don't **** with our rights Mr President!

 

[seasoned]

Well he can just go piss off, right?

Deaf

Right on!

 

[shesulsa]

I'm *very* happy the amendment has been incorporated - still kinda curious why we have to do that, but ... c'est la vie.

 

[Rich Parsons]

David,

In the Bill of Rights the first 10 are the individual rights (there were two more but they failed ratification.)

Over the years there were arguments as to if these rights meant that only the federal government had to follow them but the states did not.

So SCOTUS over time decided, once they were challenged in court cases, applied to the states as well as the federal government (thus, incorporated.)

That means the states must respect these rights!

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Incorporation_(Bill_of_Rights)

Now if they were not incorporated then the states could just ignore them. That is the states could say no freedom of speech, or assembly, or.. no right to keep and bear arms.

And that is why it's a big deal!

Deaf

Deaf,

I am for the right to bear arms.

But the 10th Admendment is also a State and not just an individual or people right.

Amendment 10 - Powers of the States and People. Ratified 12/15/1791. Note
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.


This is where some people try to argue that the state has rights to place limitations. :~(

Thanks

 

[Deaf Smith]

Deaf,

I am for the right to bear arms.

But the 10th Admendment is also a State and not just an individual or people right.

Amendment 10 - Powers of the States and People. Ratified 12/15/1791. Note
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.


This is where some people try to argue that the state has rights to place limitations. :~(

Thanks

Rich,

Really it's the other way around. The 10th limits the federal government. It shows the powers not spelled out to be federal have to be either a state or individual power.

Sadly the feds tend to just make the laws and then sit back and say, 'sue me', to make them back off (as we are going to do with the EPA and the CO2 emissions.)

Deaf

 

[Andy Moynihan]

Do you think this ruling has Obama just a little pissed off?

I most certainly hope so.

 

[Bob Hubbard]

The 10th limits the Federal government but allows for the States to do things.
However.
The States are also bound by the Federal Constitution.

Means if there is a Federal Amendment banning guns that overturns the 2nd, we're hosed. See Prohibition.

 

[Andy Moynihan]

The 10th limits the Federal government but allows for the States to do things.
However.
The States are also bound by the Federal Constitution.

Means if there is a Federal Amendment banning guns that overturns the 2nd, we're hosed. See Prohibition.

You'd need to have a constitutional convention to do that and nobody wants it on either side because then that opens up the *entire* constitution.

 

[seasoned]

You'd need to have a constitutional convention to do that and nobody wants it on either side because then that opens up the *entire* constitution.

Lets hope your right. I sure do.

 

[Bob Hubbard]

You'd need to have a constitutional convention to do that and nobody wants it on either side because then that opens up the *entire* constitution.

No, just an amendment overturning the previous amendment. Been done without the convention.

 

[Deaf Smith]

No, just an amendment overturning the previous amendment. Been done without the convention.

Yes but that would have to be ratified by the states. 3/4s of them I think have to vote yes.

Now if you think Obamacare raises the hackles of so many voters and so many 'tea parties', try tinkering with one of the first 10 Amendments.

You'd get riots in the street (and I'd be one of them!)

Deaf

 

[Rich Parsons]

Rich,

Really it's the other way around. The 10th limits the federal government. It shows the powers not spelled out to be federal have to be either a state or individual power.

Sadly the feds tend to just make the laws and then sit back and say, 'sue me', to make them back off (as we are going to do with the EPA and the CO2 emissions.)

Deaf

Ok I see your point on limitation for the Federal Powers.

But, California and CARB does most of the work for the EPA and CO2 emissions as well as others. For vehicles you "Cert" against the CARB requirements and then the EPA rubber stamps it.

In this case though one source is better than 50+ as if each state or county or what have you required a different level then the cost of the vehicle and or the smoke stack equipment would go up drastically to address the variations.

In the State of Michigan, the state can and does regulate items that are not on teh EPA list anymore or never were. They have the right to regulate the air quality, and issue permits and or limit an item. But as usual for large scale systems there are break even points and small companies would be out of business if they had to install the Billion dollar plus equipment that the large companies use. So they come up with ways to measure and show that the area of air quality and good and even can negotiate methods of production for the permits to allow the smaller and medium companies to stay in business and still have some form of air quality.

You mentioned suit, is there one in particular you are referrencing? I would not mind doing some more reading and asking around.

Thanks

 

[Blade96]

i always wondered why americans seem to place a bigger deal on a right to bear arms more so then say we do. after all, we can own guns too. but for americans protecting this right seems to be a bigger deal for you. Is it because you guys fought a revolution and we didnt have to fight against britain?

I heard after the virginia tech shootings, this one asian american, under suspicion for a while because he owned a collection of guns. I heard him on tv he basically said "im a proud american - i own guns and really love the 2nd amendment"

 

[Cryozombie]

i always wondered why americans seem to place a bigger deal on a right to bear arms more so then say we do. after all, we can own guns too. but for americans protecting this right seems to be a bigger deal for you. Is it because you guys fought a revolution and we didnt have to fight against britain?

Thats probably part of it. We had what we were led to believe was a tyrannical government trying to maintain control of us, and then attempt to disarm us... our founders made damn sure that it was known to be our right and no one could take that from us.

Then, here also, the gun is romanticized the way the sword is in Japan... It won the revolution, it conquered the wild frontier, it dispatched justice in the old west, our heroes fell with theirs at the Alamo, it turned back the tide of slavery when brother fought brother, the infantryman has cried "Pick up your weapon and Follow me!" in defense of Europe twice... Firearms have been handed down from generation to generation and are family heirlooms....