Jump to content
Torque Monkey

Can someone please show me the part where I1639 is Unconstitional

Recommended Posts

Please don't flame me for asking this. i am trying to understand. I was having a conversation with a "Liberal" friend of mine at work concerning this. His argument, it is totally Constitutional. It wouldn't have made it past the State Supreme Court if it wasn't. I have to agree. If it did then the system is broken bad. Saying that an 18 YO can't own a semi-auto till he is 21 is not against the Constitution. If it were then how can he/she not be able to buy one till they are 18 now? This is an honest question. i am not trying to be argumentative.

 

The real question comes down to, are the Sheriffs of the different counties of Washington State, picking and choosing what laws they will enforce based on an argument that is wrong? The idea that Counties in the same State can't agree, for what ever reason, is very scary to me.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

We were talking further and thinking that maybe the verbage that says a person under the age of 18 isn't allowed to possess a semi-auto??? I understand if they said they couldn't purchase but  the word possess may be an issue.

 

Meaning, if you go out shooting with your kid and had them a rifle to shoot, they are now breaking the law???? I could totally see that being unconstitutional..

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It gives me a headache thinking about it?!?!?!?

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 I can't speak to I1639 but law enforcement has always been selective on what laws they enforce. Especially on illegal immigration but also on traffic, failure to arrest those with outstanding warrants, failing to accept criminals with warrants that were arrested by other agencies, crimes by street people, illegal camping and park use by the same, etc. This list is very long. like was said earlier the left has ignored all sorts of laws they don't like and now the other side is just returning the favor. On guns, there are many ways to interpret the right to bear arms and who can be prevented from doing so. How old do you need to be for the constitution to apply to you?  16? 18? 21? 25? ?? and who gets to decide?

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, rubystargoats said:

 I can't speak to I1639 but law enforcement has always been selective on what laws they enforce. Especially on illegal immigration but also on traffic, failure to arrest those with outstanding warrants, failing to accept criminals with warrants that were arrested by other agencies, crimes by street people, illegal camping and park use by the same, etc. This list is very long. like was said earlier the left has ignored all sorts of laws they don't like and now the other side is just returning the favor. On guns, there are many ways to interpret the right to bear arms and who can be prevented from doing so. How old do you need to be for the constitution to apply to you?  16? 18? 21? 25? ?? and who gets to decide?

 

I agree completely. More I was just trying to figure what part of 1639 they were referring to when the Sherriff in Spokane said it was unconstitutional. My friend was insisting that it was all Constitutional. Just trying to clarify so I can tell him to suck it. LOL!

 

I’m not very smart at this stuff so I figured you Guys could explain it to me using crayons.🤣

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Its the part that pushes the boundaries of the 4th and 14th amendments.

 

Specifically requiring storage and then finding you liable of your weapon gets stolen and then used in a crime.

 

Then there is the HIPAA violations.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think it can be argued the same as alcohol,  driving privilege,  voting, and things like this. We put age limits to jelp insure they are ready for those responsibilities 

 I know it might not go with a majority here, but i DO support a age limit on BUYING assult weapons.

 The reason being there are a LOT of kids that where NOT brought up around guns and the proper way to handle them. 

 I have also seen 18 year olds that are not mature enough to even drive, but they can buy a gun that has no real hunting use, and is by design to send a lot of ammunition in a short prleriod of time?

 I am not talking about the majority.

 It is a small %, but we slways have to resticted  becase of a few.

 Again, if a 18yo has parents that think he/she is responcible enough, they can buy one for the minor.

 I think if all of is looked around we can think of a few minors that are not ready for the responcibilty of gun ownership, especially one that has the capibility of an AR. Often becase they had no one to show them

 Sure. The can be in the military and have an AR, but the are very regulated, and they also can have meny other weapons, most of them are not allowed for the general population.

Most of us where brought up around guns, respect and responsibility is hammered into us at a young age, but there are a lot of kids that their only experance with gus  is what they see on violent TV, Movies, and video games, where killing is an act of vengance.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Its 30 pages long...and on the last page there is this little goodie.

 

NEW SECTION. Sec. 19. If any provision of this act or its 
application to any person or circumstance is held invalid or 
preempted by federal law, the remainder of the act or the 
application of the provision to other persons or circumstances is 
not affected.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The 18, vs. 21 issue could be argued invalid inder HELLER vs. DC.

 

I.e. it is unlawful to limit self defense protections of an 18 year old.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
18 minutes ago, Bob V said:

I think it can be argued the same as alcohol,  driving privilege,  voting, and things like this. We put age limits to jelp insure they are ready for those responsibilities 

 I know it might not go with a majority here, but i DO support a age limit on BUYING assult weapons.

 The reason being there are a LOT of kids that where NOT brought up around guns and the proper way to handle them. 

 I have also seen 18 year olds that are not mature enough to even drive, but they can buy a gun that has no real hunting use, and is by design to send a lot of ammunition in a short prleriod of time?

 I am not talking about the majority.

 It is a small %, but we slways have to resticted  becase of a few.

 Again, if a 18yo has parents that think he/she is responcible enough, they can buy one for the minor.

 I think if all of is looked around we can think of a few minors that are not ready for the responcibilty of gun ownership, especially one that has the capibility of an AR. Often becase they had no one to show them

 Sure. The can be in the military and have an AR, but the are very regulated, and they also can have meny other weapons, most of them are not allowed for the general population.

Most of us where brought up around guns, respect and responsibility is hammered into us at a young age, but there are a lot of kids that their only experance with gus  is what they see on violent TV, Movies, and video games, where killing is an act of vengance.

 

Bob, your argument about hunting is not what 2A was about. 2A is about having the ability to go to guns if needed.

 

 "A man's rights rest in three boxes. The ballot box, jury box and the cartridge box. 

 

Unfortunately, the Hunting standpoint is squarely at odds with every 2A supporter i know. 

 

Your current legislature is trying to limit you to 5 round magazines and a 20 round per month purchase limit. Your own legislature is limiting your ammo box access. Its time to get on the horn dude.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
46 minutes ago, Diesel Freak said:

 

Bob, your argument about hunting is not what 2A was about. 2A is about having the ability to go to guns if needed.

 

 "A man's rights rest in three boxes. The ballot box, jury box and the cartridge box. 

 

Unfortunately, the Hunting standpoint is squarely at odds with every 2A supporter i know. 

 

Your current legislature is trying to limit you to 5 round magazines and a 20 round per month purchase limit. Your own legislature is limiting your ammo box access. Its time to get on the horn dude.

 

I don’t see anywhere that Bob even mentioned hunting??? Cliff, is your tinfoil wrapped a little to tight around your head so the government can’t read your thoughts?? LOL!

 

I understand that gun rights can’t be infringed. But, how can you say that you can not put an age limit on when weapons can be purchased, when the age limits are already in place. I have never read the Constitution or the Bill of Rights but I’m pretty sure no ages are specified for the right to purchase weapons. If that is the case, then why wouldn’t that age be able to be changed?

 

Again, I just want to understand. I know they reference Heller. I just don’t understand exactly what that case involves. Guess I have some Googling to do in the morning.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, Bob V said:

 

 I have also seen 18 year olds that are not mature enough to even drive, but they can buy a gun that has no real hunting use, and is by design to send a lot of ammunition in a short prleriod of time?

Ben he did mention hunting and I understand what Cliff is saying that hunting or not is not relevant 

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes, there is a lot of reading to do.

 

First, losten to the Spokane county Sheriff's interview.

 

Secondly read all of 1639

 

Thirdly look over the 27 (or more now) gun control bills innthe WA legislature.

 

Lastly, look at the other ammendments in the constitution. Most of this stuff fails on some other section (4th, 14th and the 2nd).

 

HB 1010

Primary Sponsor: Rep. Tana Senn (D)

General Description: Forfeited firearms in the possession of the Washington State Patrol that are not retained for agency use may be auctioned or traded to licensed dealers or destroyed.

HB 1024:

Primary Sponsor: Rep. Jim Walsh (R)

General Description: The Department of Licensing (DOL) is prohibited from keeping records of pistol purchase applications and pistol transfers. The DOL must eliminate records of pistol purchase applications or pistol transfers from its databases.

HB 1038:

Primary Sponsor: Rep. Jim Walsh (R)

General Description: Allow public school districts and private schools to adopt a policy authorizing permanent employees to possess firearms on school grounds under certain conditions.

HB 1068: 
Primary Sponsor: Rep. Javier Valdez (D)

General Description: Makes it unlawful to manufacture /possess /distribute /import /transfer /sell /offer for sale /purchase / or transfer large capacity magazines except specifically authorized. Allows a person who legally possessed a large capacity magazine to continue to possess/inherit large capacity magazines subject to certain restrictions. Also establishes a number of exemptions from the prohibitions relating to large capacity magazines for certain persons and entities.

HB 1073:

Primary Sponsor: Rep. Javier Valdez (D)

General Description: Establishes criminal penalties applicable to undetectable firearms and untraceable firearms.

HB 1097:

Primary Sponsor: Rep. Jim Walsh (R)

General Description: Revising requirements governing release of confidential health care information for purposes of firearm background checks.

HB 1098:

Primary Sponsor: Rep. Jim Walsh (R)

General Description: Revising requirements and penalties relating to the unsafe storage of firearms.

HB 1203:

Primary Sponsor: Rep. Beth Doglio (D)

General Description: Requires that the owner or other person lawfully in possession of a firearm report any loss or theft of the firearm to the local law enforcement agency where the loss or theft occurred within five days after the person first discovered the loss or theft.

HB 1286/SB 5340:

Primary Sponsor: Rep. Strom Peterson (D)/Sen. Kuderer

General Description: Banning the sale of assault weapons and large capacity magazines.

HB 1315/SB 5174:

Rep. John Lovick (D)/Sen. Guy Palumbo

General Description: Requires applicant to provide evidence of completion of a handgun proficiency course in order to obtain a concealed pistol license. Requires WA State Patrol to establish minimum standards for handgun proficiency, develop a course and examinations to measure handgun proficiency, and certify qualified handgun instructors and approved online course providers.

HB 1319:

Primary Sponsor: Rep. Sharon Wylie (D)

General Description: Allows local jurisdictions to have the authority to regulate the open carrying of firearms in public meetings of local governmental entities.

There is a public hearing regarding HB 1319 in House Committee Civil Rights & Judiciary 02/01/19 in the John L. O’Brien Building Hearing Room A at 10:00 AM.

HB 1374:

Primary Sponsor: Rep. Nicole Macri (D)

General Description: providing local jurisdictions the ability to build upon statewide standards and adopt responsible approaches to firearms regulations to help address the epidemic of firearm violence intheir communities by restoring inherent local authority to adopt firearms regulations under the police power to protect public health, safety, and welfare.

HB 1439:

Primary Sponsor: Rep. Beth Doglio (D)

General Description: Requiring permission to bring a concealed firearm into another person’s residence or dwelling place.

HB 1465:

Primary Sponsor: Rep. Roger Goodman (D)

General Description: Creates requirements for pistol sale or transfers, such as training, proof of training, and in writing approval from chief of police that purchaser is eligible for ownership.

HB 1511:

Primary Sponsor: Rep. Brad Klippert (R)

General Description: Concerning firearm safety training requirements applicable to the sale or transfer of semiautomatic assault rifles.

HB 1589:

Primary Sponsor: Rep. Mike Chapman (D)

General Description: Exempting correctional employees from paying for certain background checks related to firearms.

HB 1649:

Primary Sponsor: Rep. Rob Sutherland (R)

General Description: Exemption from background check requirement for firearm sales/transfer between concealed pistol license holders.

HB 1671:

Primary Sponsor: Rep. Laurie Dolan (D)

General Description: Disposing of confiscated firearms.

SB 5016:

Primary Sponsor: Sen. Kevin Van De Wege (D)

General Description: Allowing animal control officers to carry forearms for personal protection.

SB 5027:

Primary Sponsor: Sen. David Frockt (D)

General Description: Increases the penalty for violation of an Extreme Risk Protection Order (ERPO) from a gross misdemeanor to a Class C felony on a person's second conviction rather than the third. Authorizes the court to enter an ERPO against a person under the age of eighteen years and requires notice to the person's parent or guardian of the legal obligation to safely secure any firearms.

SB 5061:

Primary Sponsor: Sen. Manka Dhingra (D)

General Description: Prohibits a person from knowingly or recklessly allowing, facilitating, aiding, or abetting the manufacture or assembly of an undetectable firearm or untraceable firearm. Prohibits a person from discharging, or menacing or threatening another person, in the commission or furtherance of a felony, with an undetectable firearm or untraceable firearm. Declares undetectable firearms and untraceable firearms as contraband and subjects them to seizure. (Definition of untraceable/undetectable in bill)

SB 5062:

Primary Sponsor: Sen. Patty Kuderer (D)

General Description: Prohibits the manufacture, possession, sale, or transfer of a large capacity magazine (LCM) with the capability of holding more than ten rounds of ammunition, unless the possession fallswithin one of the stated exceptions. Makes the possession of a LCM a gross misdemeanor.

SB 5143:

Sen. Manka Dhingra (D):

General Description: When a law enforcement officer responds to a domestic violence call and has probable cause to believe that a crime has been committed, the officer must seize all firearms and ammunition the officer has reasonable grounds to believe were used, or threatened to be used, in the commission of the offense and may seize all firearms and ammunition in plain sight or discovered pursuant to a lawful search.

SB 5172:

Primary Sponsor: Phil Fortunato

General Description: Requires firearms training for certain legislators.

SB 5205:

Primary Sponsor: Sen. Manka Dhingra

General Description: Concerning provisions governing firearms possession by persons who have been found incompetent to stand trial and who have a history of one more violent acts.

 

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Four words: SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED!

 

All of the aforementioned laws/bills are infringements to our God given right to self defense. Yes, I said God given. It is wired in from birth. Fight or flight.

  • Like 2
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Four words: SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED!
 
All of the aforementioned laws/bills are infringements to our God given right to self defense. Yes, I said God given. It is wired in from birth. Fight or flight.
Amen!!!!!!!
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, HOSS said:

Ben he did mention hunting and I understand what Cliff is saying that hunting or not is not relevant 

 

I read through it twice and of course i missed it. I see it now.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Diesel Freak said:

Yes, there is a lot of reading to do.

 

First, losten to the Spokane county Sheriff's interview.

 

Secondly read all of 1639

 

Thirdly look over the 27 (or more now) gun control bills innthe WA legislature.

 

Lastly, look at the other ammendments in the constitution. Most of this stuff fails on some other section (4th, 14th and the 2nd).

 

HB 1010

Primary Sponsor: Rep. Tana Senn (D)

General Description: Forfeited firearms in the possession of the Washington State Patrol that are not retained for agency use may be auctioned or traded to licensed dealers or destroyed.

HB 1024:

Primary Sponsor: Rep. Jim Walsh (R)

General Description: The Department of Licensing (DOL) is prohibited from keeping records of pistol purchase applications and pistol transfers. The DOL must eliminate records of pistol purchase applications or pistol transfers from its databases.

HB 1038:

Primary Sponsor: Rep. Jim Walsh (R)

General Description: Allow public school districts and private schools to adopt a policy authorizing permanent employees to possess firearms on school grounds under certain conditions.

HB 1068: 
Primary Sponsor: Rep. Javier Valdez (D)

General Description: Makes it unlawful to manufacture /possess /distribute /import /transfer /sell /offer for sale /purchase / or transfer large capacity magazines except specifically authorized. Allows a person who legally possessed a large capacity magazine to continue to possess/inherit large capacity magazines subject to certain restrictions. Also establishes a number of exemptions from the prohibitions relating to large capacity magazines for certain persons and entities.

HB 1073:

Primary Sponsor: Rep. Javier Valdez (D)

General Description: Establishes criminal penalties applicable to undetectable firearms and untraceable firearms.

HB 1097:

Primary Sponsor: Rep. Jim Walsh (R)

General Description: Revising requirements governing release of confidential health care information for purposes of firearm background checks.

HB 1098:

Primary Sponsor: Rep. Jim Walsh (R)

General Description: Revising requirements and penalties relating to the unsafe storage of firearms.

HB 1203:

Primary Sponsor: Rep. Beth Doglio (D)

General Description: Requires that the owner or other person lawfully in possession of a firearm report any loss or theft of the firearm to the local law enforcement agency where the loss or theft occurred within five days after the person first discovered the loss or theft.

HB 1286/SB 5340:

Primary Sponsor: Rep. Strom Peterson (D)/Sen. Kuderer

General Description: Banning the sale of assault weapons and large capacity magazines.

HB 1315/SB 5174:

Rep. John Lovick (D)/Sen. Guy Palumbo

General Description: Requires applicant to provide evidence of completion of a handgun proficiency course in order to obtain a concealed pistol license. Requires WA State Patrol to establish minimum standards for handgun proficiency, develop a course and examinations to measure handgun proficiency, and certify qualified handgun instructors and approved online course providers.

HB 1319:

Primary Sponsor: Rep. Sharon Wylie (D)

General Description: Allows local jurisdictions to have the authority to regulate the open carrying of firearms in public meetings of local governmental entities.

There is a public hearing regarding HB 1319 in House Committee Civil Rights & Judiciary 02/01/19 in the John L. O’Brien Building Hearing Room A at 10:00 AM.

HB 1374:

Primary Sponsor: Rep. Nicole Macri (D)

General Description: providing local jurisdictions the ability to build upon statewide standards and adopt responsible approaches to firearms regulations to help address the epidemic of firearm violence intheir communities by restoring inherent local authority to adopt firearms regulations under the police power to protect public health, safety, and welfare.

HB 1439:

Primary Sponsor: Rep. Beth Doglio (D)

General Description: Requiring permission to bring a concealed firearm into another person’s residence or dwelling place.

HB 1465:

Primary Sponsor: Rep. Roger Goodman (D)

General Description: Creates requirements for pistol sale or transfers, such as training, proof of training, and in writing approval from chief of police that purchaser is eligible for ownership.

HB 1511:

Primary Sponsor: Rep. Brad Klippert (R)

General Description: Concerning firearm safety training requirements applicable to the sale or transfer of semiautomatic assault rifles.

HB 1589:

Primary Sponsor: Rep. Mike Chapman (D)

General Description: Exempting correctional employees from paying for certain background checks related to firearms.

HB 1649:

Primary Sponsor: Rep. Rob Sutherland (R)

General Description: Exemption from background check requirement for firearm sales/transfer between concealed pistol license holders.

HB 1671:

Primary Sponsor: Rep. Laurie Dolan (D)

General Description: Disposing of confiscated firearms.

SB 5016:

Primary Sponsor: Sen. Kevin Van De Wege (D)

General Description: Allowing animal control officers to carry forearms for personal protection.

SB 5027:

Primary Sponsor: Sen. David Frockt (D)

General Description: Increases the penalty for violation of an Extreme Risk Protection Order (ERPO) from a gross misdemeanor to a Class C felony on a person's second conviction rather than the third. Authorizes the court to enter an ERPO against a person under the age of eighteen years and requires notice to the person's parent or guardian of the legal obligation to safely secure any firearms.

SB 5061:

Primary Sponsor: Sen. Manka Dhingra (D)

General Description: Prohibits a person from knowingly or recklessly allowing, facilitating, aiding, or abetting the manufacture or assembly of an undetectable firearm or untraceable firearm. Prohibits a person from discharging, or menacing or threatening another person, in the commission or furtherance of a felony, with an undetectable firearm or untraceable firearm. Declares undetectable firearms and untraceable firearms as contraband and subjects them to seizure. (Definition of untraceable/undetectable in bill)

SB 5062:

Primary Sponsor: Sen. Patty Kuderer (D)

General Description: Prohibits the manufacture, possession, sale, or transfer of a large capacity magazine (LCM) with the capability of holding more than ten rounds of ammunition, unless the possession fallswithin one of the stated exceptions. Makes the possession of a LCM a gross misdemeanor.

SB 5143:

Sen. Manka Dhingra (D):

General Description: When a law enforcement officer responds to a domestic violence call and has probable cause to believe that a crime has been committed, the officer must seize all firearms and ammunition the officer has reasonable grounds to believe were used, or threatened to be used, in the commission of the offense and may seize all firearms and ammunition in plain sight or discovered pursuant to a lawful search.

SB 5172:

Primary Sponsor: Phil Fortunato

General Description: Requires firearms training for certain legislators.

SB 5205:

Primary Sponsor: Sen. Manka Dhingra

General Description: Concerning provisions governing firearms possession by persons who have been found incompetent to stand trial and who have a history of one more violent acts.

 

 

 

 

Thanks Cliff, looks like i have a lot of reading to do now.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ben, i wish i could blame a leaky tin foil hat....but as you start reading all that, ya may realise that 3 layers of tin may be needed.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, Diesel Freak said:

Ben, i wish i could blame a leaky tin foil hat....but as you start reading all that, ya may realise that 3 layers of tin may be needed.

 

 

 

Well, this is more to my point. In my mind i feel there is no stopping these waves of attacks. Especially if it is truly unconstitutional and it happens anyway. I feel anyone who does not comply will be a criminal very shortly. If this is the case, what is the point of law and order? I say, let's get it over with. I feel Government has failed us on so many levels.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Actually, we have failed eachother.

 

The .gov is put there by US. We own this, and its up to us to fix it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, Diesel Freak said:

Actually, we have failed eachother.

 

The .gov is put there by US. We own this, and its up to us to fix it.

 

I use to believe that... these days I think it is all bought and paid for by the rich. Maybe I need the 3rd layer...😂

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If we blame others (the rich) then we are buying into being a victim....

 

 

Do you really want to give someone that much power??

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Diesel Freak said:

Actually, we have failed eachother.

 

The .gov is put there by US. We own this, and its up to us to fix it.

AMEN Brother , I do fully buy into the last line 100%

 

EVERY vote counts , the apathy is killing us  !

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Diesel Freak said:

If we blame others (the rich) then we are buying into being a victim....

 

 

Do you really want to give someone that much power??

 

Don't get me wrong. Every single day, less and less of what they say means anything to me... No matter what happens, I'm not worried. My beliefs, in this regard, will not change.

 

I looked up Heller vs. District of Columbia.

 

District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U.S. 570 (2008),[1] is a landmark case in which the Supreme Court of the United States held that the Second Amendment protects an individual's right to possess a firearm, unconnected with service in a militia, for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home, and that the District of Columbia's handgun ban and requirement that lawfully-owned rifles and shotguns be kept "unloaded and disassembled or bound by a trigger lock" violated this guarantee. It also stated that the right to bear arms is not unlimited and that guns and gun ownership would continue to be regulated. It was the first Supreme Court case to decide whether the Second Amendment protects an individual right to keep and bear arms for self-defense.[2]

Because laws of the District of Columbia are federal laws (it is not in any state), the decision did not address the question of whether the Second Amendment's protections are incorporated by the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment against the states,[3] which was addressed two years later by McDonald v. City of Chicago (2010) in which it was found that they are.

On June 26, 2008, the Supreme Court affirmed by a vote of 5 to 4 the Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit in Heller v. District of Columbia.[4][5] The Supreme Court struck down provisions of the Firearms Control Regulations Act of 1975 as unconstitutional, determined that handguns are "arms" for the purposes of the Second Amendment, found that the Regulations Act was an unconstitutional ban, and struck down the portion of the Regulations Act that requires all firearms including rifles and shotguns be kept "unloaded and disassembled or bound by a trigger lock". Prior to this decision the Firearms Control Regulation Act of 1975 also restricted residents from owning handguns except for those registered prior to 1975.

The majority opinion, written by Justice Antonin Scalia, and the primary dissenting opinion, written by Justice John Paul Stevens, are considered examples of the application of originalism in practice

 

 

 

I can see now, how it passed the Supreme Court of Washington. They didn't specify what the definition of a secured weapon was in I-1639. Had they said locked, or disassembled, it would have been deemed unconstitutional. Since they didn't define it (yet) it isn't. Very sneaky.......

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×