Uh oh."WA Supreme Court: ‘2nd Amendment applies to the states via 14th Amendment due process clause"

[beevul]

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.

“The Constitution is the rule of all courts—both state and federal judiciaries wield power to strike down unconstitutional government acts,” Sanders writes.

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

Link to the decision:

http://www.courts.wa.gov/opinions/index.cfm?fa=opinions.showOpinion&filename=821542MAJ

And of McDonald v. Chicago oral arguments start in under two weeks.

IMO, the age of denying the rights of people where firearms are concerned - ignoring the plain meaning of the second amendment and its purpose - is nearing its end.

[secondwind]

1. We'll probably start seeing States declare HCR unconstitutional.....wait and see.

[OneTenthofOnePercent]

4. If they do then it will have to be decided at the federal level.

In which case the legislation will be examined.
IMO, if they have that stupid mandate, it would be borderline unconstitutional.

[Sebastian Doyle]

6. If corporate mandates pass, I guarantee you that will be the outcome

..and the sooner the better, in that case.

[TheWraith]

13. Doubtful. Medicare has survived this long...

And it's far more invasive than any potential HCR plan.

[Don Caballero]

2. Sad news

[OneTenthofOnePercent]

3. Wow... that rocks.

To challenge this would mean to take to federal courts. Federal courts would currently back this ruling.
There's no way anti's are this stupid. I might be giving htem too much credit though.

[jmodden]

5. How about this?

A nice heavy excise tax on ammunition.

The money could be channeled to community HC clinics.

Works for me.

[beevul]

7. Ahh a poll tax.

Once found to be a fundamental right in the USSC, I would not be surprised to see taxes on guns and ammunition done away with.


IIRC theres already case law on the taxation of fundamental rights.

[OneTenthofOnePercent]

8. Ammunition is protected under the 2A

Possession and use of common arms by the people were established/affirmed in the Heller case.
I would say ammunition is farily "common", doncha know?

IOW, your proposal would be unconstitutional as evidenced by case law.
Assault of 2A rights has been happening since the 1930's and anti-gunners are running out of ammo. :)

[beevul]

9. Indeed.

"Assault of 2A rights has been happening since the 1930's and anti-gunners are running out of ammo."

It might even be said that they ARE out of ammo.

Lost public support? Check.

Lost credibility? Check.

Lost membership because of it? Check.




The anti-gun movement is on life support, and the plug (McDonald) is soon to be pulled.


Good riddance to bad rubbish, and the sooner the better.

[benEzra]

10. Unconstitutional. See Minneapolis Star & Tribune Co. v. Minnesota Commissioner of Revenue, 1983...

in which the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that a heavy tax on printer's ink violated the First Amendment freedom of the press.

http://law.jrank.org/pages/12734/Minneapolis-Star-v-Minnesota-Commissioner-Revenue.html
http://www.firstamendmentcenter.org/faclibrary/case.aspx?case=Minneapolis_Star_Tribune_v_MN_Commisioner_of_Revenue
http://supreme.justia.com/us/460/575/case.html

How would you feel about a state instituting a de facto ban on abortion by punitively taxing clinics that perform them, hmmmm? Same thing. The Supreme Court has already put the kibosh on such back-door approaches.

[aikoaiko]

11. Its fascinating how some DUers try to make an end run around the constitution...

...without any shame.

[SteveM]

12. Be careful of: "Jump, Jim Crow, Jump:"

The use of taxes to regulate a constitutional right has been tried. Not only does it not work, but it is -- ready? -- unconstitutional. No, it won't work for you or anyone else.

[AtheistCrusader]

14. We already pay a federal excise tax of 11%

On top of normal sales tax.

Thanks for asking.

[virginia mountainman]

16. Thank you!!

I reload ammunition as a hobby, you just created an nice tidy side business for me!!

[-..__...]

18. I have a much better idea...

if there were to be a "nice heavy excise tax" on ammo, how about using the money to fund firearms education and safety training in public schools and/or constructing public firing ranges?

If gun owners are the ones shouldering this burden, they should be the primary beneficences.

Not that it really matters anyhow, as I'm opposed to the idea of any excise tax on ammo... including the current excise tax.

[GreenStormCloud]

19. Try that and you will hand the Senate, House, and Presidency to the GOP for a full generation. N/T

[AtheistCrusader]

15. Mostly meaningless.

We already prett much had this with the 9th Circuit court in agreement. The 7th and the 2nd opposed. The Supreme Court will have to decide sooner or later.

That's when the fireworks come out.

[Euromutt]

17. It certainly makes no difference to Washington state

Given that our own constitution is way less open to misinterpretation than the 2nd Amendment regarding the RKBA.