# Washington State Supreme Court on 2nd Amendment



## Deaf Smith (Feb 18, 2010)

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 (Feb 18, 2010)

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


----------



## Carol (Feb 18, 2010)

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 (Feb 18, 2010)

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 (Feb 18, 2010)

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


----------



## Deaf Smith (Feb 18, 2010)

Tames D said:


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


 
Well he can just go piss off, right?

Deaf


----------



## Tames D (Feb 18, 2010)

Deaf Smith said:


> 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 (Feb 18, 2010)

Deaf Smith said:


> Well he can just go piss off, right?
> 
> Deaf


Right on!


----------



## shesulsa (Feb 19, 2010)

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 (Feb 19, 2010)

Deaf Smith said:


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


 
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 (Feb 19, 2010)

Rich Parsons said:


> Deaf,
> 
> I am for the right to bear arms.
> 
> ...


 
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 (Feb 20, 2010)

Tames D said:


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


 

I most certainly hope so.


----------



## Bob Hubbard (Feb 20, 2010)

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 (Feb 20, 2010)

Bob Hubbard said:


> 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 (Feb 20, 2010)

Andy Moynihan said:


> 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 (Feb 20, 2010)

Andy Moynihan said:


> 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 (Feb 20, 2010)

Bob Hubbard said:


> 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 (Feb 21, 2010)

Deaf Smith said:


> 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.
> 
> ...


 
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 (Feb 21, 2010)

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 (Feb 21, 2010)

Blade96 said:


> 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....


----------



## Blade96 (Feb 21, 2010)

Oh. I see. I guess it makes sense then.


----------



## seasoned (Feb 21, 2010)

Blade96 said:


> Oh. I see. I guess it makes sense then.


Just like apple pie.


----------



## David43515 (Feb 21, 2010)

Cryozombie hit the nail on the head with that one. It`s an iconic part of our culture no matter what era you look at. I think it has been because of the revolution. Since we had to fight to establish our rights as a free people I think that the idea we might have to do so again someday has always stayed somewhere in our national consiousness. We are always told that the right to bear arms is the right that protects all the other freedoms we enjoy.


----------



## Deaf Smith (Feb 21, 2010)

Blade96 said:


> 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?


 
Blade,

Part that. King George tried to take our guns at Concord. And it dawned on alot of people that, yes, power does come out of the barrel of a gun and if you don't have a way to stop the government for doing what it wants, then you are no better than a slave.

Part also the fact when we migrated to the west there was no law and the settlers brought their own law (the gun.) Self reliance was the order of the day as there was no 911 in the wilderness!

And later, after seeing what such as Hitler and Stalin did to their own people (after they had disarmed them), well yes we really do want our guns. WE ARE NOT SHEEP! And if some in the government ever decide the citizens need to be 'subjects', well then we will have to vote them out at the barrel of the gun (and yes, that option is actually in the constitution!)

Blade, I'm not a violent person, nor one of those 'militias', but there really are things worth dying for, and freedom is one of them.


----------



## Deaf Smith (Feb 21, 2010)

Rich Parsons said:


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


 
http://www.businessgreen.com/business-green/news/2258037/texas-joins-flurry-law-suits

http://www.climateark.org/shared/reader/welcome.aspx?linkid=151778

and old 2008 one:

http://legacy.signonsandiego.com/uniontrib/20080103/news_1n3warm.html

Actually google for 'EPA lawsuits' or 'state sues federal government' or 'wetland lawsuit'.

Deaf


----------



## Blade96 (Feb 21, 2010)

seasoned said:


> Just like apple pie.



Yep. 

I understand what you say. Yes, freedom is worth fighting for. Lots of examples in history and movies and tv of people fighting and dying for freedom. Even non human animals if they are trapped they try to be free.


----------



## Ken Morgan (Feb 21, 2010)

Blade96 said:


> Yep.
> 
> I understand what you say. Yes, freedom is worth fighting for. Lots of examples in history and movies and tv of people fighting and dying for freedom. Even non human animals if they are trapped they try to be free.


 
A ranking of how free a state is http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_indices_of_freedom
Im surprised that they gave the US only a satisfactory situation in one of the categories. 

Canada was founded on an entirely different set of principles then the US Blade, peace order and good governance, were more important to the founders then individual rights. Though honestly, in this day of age I really dont see any difference in levels of freedom between us and the US. 

Think of what was going on south of the border when Confederation was being negotiated. The US civil war scared the crap out of Sir John A.; he made damn sure the BNA had everything needed for a strong central government, with little chance for a civil war. He and Cartier were both lawyers, so the rule of law was paramount.   

What is freedom? In my opinion, the right to do as you please, provide you dont interfere unwontedly in the lives of others.

In many parts of the world they fight and die to posses it. Here in the west what do most people do with it? They dont participate in the political process, they dont vote, they sit at home and watch TV. 

People like the idea, of freedom, but dont have any idea what to do with it.


----------



## shihansmurf (Feb 22, 2010)

Ken Morgan said:


> People like the idea, of freedom, but dont have any idea what to do with it.


 
Amen!

An unfortunately accurate assessment of most of the populace. 

Well said.
Mark


----------



## Cryozombie (Feb 22, 2010)

Ken Morgan said:


> Here in the west what do most people do with it? They dont participate in the political process, they dont vote, they sit at home and watch TV.
> 
> People like the idea, of freedom, but dont have any idea what to do with it.



Isn't that part and parcel to being free?  Being able to make the choice to be uninvolved?  I like that no one comes and drags me to the polls or tells me who I have to vote for... I can decide to do so or to scoff and not do so, at my own discretion.


----------



## Ken Morgan (Feb 22, 2010)

Cryozombie said:


> Isn't that part and parcel to being free? Being able to make the choice to be uninvolved? I like that no one comes and drags me to the polls or tells me who I have to vote for... I can decide to do so or to scoff and not do so, at my own discretion.


 
Actually I agree with you. 

What's the line from that Rush song? "if you choose not to decide, you still have made a choice."

The fact still remains that your country and mine would both be better off if people got more involved in the political/decision making process.

To me you give up the right to ***** and complain about the government if you don't vote.


----------

