Washington CPL against Washington's constitution?

[SWATcashJeremy]

Washington's state constitution reads thusly

"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."
Wash. Const. Art. I, Sect. 24


Bearing arms means act of possessing on ones body does it not?


Requiring a permit to carry would be impairing that right would it not?

I guess that means the claims that you can be arrested for brandishing a firearm by carrying in a holster are null and void too.

comments?

thoughts?

flames?

 

[Thain]

No, it is not an impairment of that right. You are not obtaining a license to bear arms, you are obtaining license to conceal that arm. There is a difference in the law.

 

[SWATcashJeremy]

what about as far as carrying open carry

 

[frankie_the_yankee]

Washington's state constitution reads thusly

"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."
Wash. Const. Art. I, Sect. 24


Bearing arms means act of possessing on ones body does it not?

Yup.

Requiring a permit to carry would be impairing that right would it not?

Nope. Certainly not in the opinion of the courts of the state of Washington, which is all that matters.

We have a right to vote, but felons can be barred from voting. A permit requirement may not necessesarily impair the right as long as permits are available to any adult LAC.

I guess that means the claims that you can be arrested for brandishing a firearm by carrying in a holster are null and void too.

Why? You have the right to keep and bear arms. But not necessarily anywhere, all the time, and in any manner. All rights have limitations.

I flat out don't know if open carry is allowed in WA, or if its practioners are arrested for "brandishing". But if the courts are allowing it, then that's the way it is whether you agree or not.

comments?

thoughts?

You can't substitute your opinion for that of the courts. Just because you think something is an impairment doesn't mean that the rest of society is obliged to see it the same way.

I have no idea of the details of the law in WA, nor of any differences among the various local jurisdictions, if any.

But I do know that the way our society is organized, we elect representatives via a secret ballot to make the law, and we either elect or have appointed judges to interpret and apply it. And to keep the peace, we agree to abide by their opinions as to what the law means.

Otherwise, how would we peacefully resolve a situation where you think the law means one thing and someone else thinks it means something else that is contradictory?

We remain free to express our disagreement with their opinions if we choose to. (While recognizing that when we do, all we are doing is expressing our opinions, not "revealed truth".)

We can also exert efforts to elect different representatives and/or judges if we don't like the way the current ones are performing.

But what we cannot do is to simply declare laws to be unconstitutional and disobey them. You do that, and you go to jail.

Note that my use of the word "you" above is not meant to apply to you personally - just to the collective "you".

 

[LoneStranger]

Believe that there has been a poster on this board and on "The Firing Line" who has experience with open carry in Washington state. You might wish to take a few minutes and run a search for this. I'm not in the mood to do it or I would.

 

[Gray Peterson]

Violation of Washington's Constitution?

Bearing arms=open carry.

Open carry is legal and lawful in Washington state, however it wasn't until about 2 years ago when myself and other activists took the time and the effort to educate the individual police departments to tell their officers it was legal too.

Washington's OpenCarry.org forum

 

[SWATcashJeremy]

Thank you Lonnie Wilson


Frankie the yankee...allow me to correct you a bit...the phrase "shall not be impaired" is a legal term with a root word "impaired" this word means: weakened, diminished, or damaged.

Placing limits on a right is a form of weakening that right.

 

[frankie_the_yankee]

SWATcashJeremy says....

Frankie the yankee...allow me to correct you a bit...the phrase "shall not be impaired" is a legal term with a root word "impaired" this word means: weakened, diminished, or damaged.

I'm well aware of that.

Placing limits on a right is a form of weakening that right.

In your opinion. Others may hold different opinions about that.

And should the day come when your opinion is held by a majority of the Washington State Supreme Court, the law will reflect that.

Until then, it is what it is.

 

[.cheese.]

Bearing arms=open carry.

Are there existing judicial opinions affirming this?

I can think of how this would not be the case.

an aunt that comes for Christmas and says "I come bearing gifts." ... could have the gifts in the car.

I don't know.... I'm just thinking in print right now I suppose.

 

[RevolvingCylinder]

In your opinion. Others may hold different opinions about that.

It's not an opinion. It's a statement in a document.

an aunt that comes for Christmas and says "I come bearing gifts." ... could have the gifts in the car.

Your Aunt is not bearing gifts unless she is carrying them through the door. In your example, her car is bearing gifts. She could be said to be keeping gifts though.

From Merriam-Webster Dictionary:

Main Entry:
bear
Function:
verb
Inflected Form(s):
bore Listen to the pronunciation of bore \ˈbȯr\; borne also born Listen to the pronunciation of born \ˈbȯrn\; bear·ing
Etymology:
Middle English beren to carry, bring forth, from Old English beran; akin to Old High German beran to carry, Latin ferre, Greek pherein
Date:
before 12th century

transitive verb1 a: to move while holding up and supporting b: to be equipped or furnished with

To bear most certainly means to carry.

CPL/CCW/[legal buzz-acronym here] permits are a violation of Amendment II of the US Constitution let alone the constitutions of the states. Do I need to define permit to anyone and explain why it does not mean right or am I done giving an English lesson for now?

Since I'm tired of repeating that like a broken record, I'm putting it into my signature.

 

[.cheese.]

To bear most certainly means to carry.

right... I wasn't meaning to question that.

I was wondering about the "open carry" part.

 

[frankie_the_yankee]

frankie_the_yankee says:

In your opinion. Others may hold different opinions about that.

RevolvingCylinder says:

It's not an opinion. It's a statement in a document.

Sure. But what does that statement mean? (Hint: The answer to that question is someone's opinion of what it means.)

Why is it so hard for some to grasp that what you think about something is not revealed truth? It is merely your opinion.

Others may read the same words as you and honestly believe that the meaning of those words is different than you honestly believe it is. Ultimately, there are only two ways of resolving differences like that. We can appeal to persons whom we both recognize to be fair referrees - i.e. the courts - to render an interpretation that we both agree to peacefully live with, or we can resolve our differences through force of arms.

In our society, we have by consensus adopted the peaceful route.

From Merriam-Webster Dictionary:

Quote:
Main Entry:
bear
Function:
verb
Inflected Form(s):
bore Listen to the pronunciation of bore \ˈbȯr\; borne also born Listen to the pronunciation of born \ˈbȯrn\; bear·ing
Etymology:
Middle English beren to carry, bring forth, from Old English beran; akin to Old High German beran to carry, Latin ferre, Greek pherein
Date:
before 12th century

transitive verb1 a: to move while holding up and supporting b: to be equipped or furnished with

To bear most certainly means to carry.

It is common among curbstone lawyers to appeal to the dictionary. Too bad that the dictionary definition of a word is not necessarily what the word means when used is a particular law.

The ultimate referrees of matters like this are the courts.

CPL/CCW/[legal buzz-acronym here] permits are a violation of Amendment II of the US Constitution let alone the constitutions of the states. Do I need to define permit to anyone and explain why it does not mean right or am I done giving an English lesson for now?

That may be what it means to you, but as a society we agree to peacefully abide by what the courts have to say about it, until and unless we can prevail upon them to render a new interpretation more to our liking.

If the SCOTUS ever rules that CHL's are a violation of the 2A, your opinion will have carried the day. Until then, it is just your opinion.

So don't bother with the English lesson. We don't need it. Instead, check out some writings on constitutional law.

Unless you're a judge writing a majority opinion, what you might happen to think does not define what the law means.

 

[RevolvingCylinder]

It says:

"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."

That is not my opinion. It's what it says. I can say it means the sky is purple and so can say a judge but it really doesn't change the meaning of those words. A judge's role is not to legislate or repeal laws. Once he has redefined a law into obscurity(provided another law of equal or greater bearing does not contradict with said law as the basis of the judgement), he has overstepped his role as judge and rendered the legislature obsolete.

A right of the individual to bear arms is a right of the individual to bear arms.

A right is the opposite of a privilege, individual is the opposite of group, for bear see above, and arms is weapons. Unless you care to correct those definitions?

 

[frankie_the_yankee]

It may well say what it says. But it means what the courts say it means, whether you or I agree with them or not.

If someone believes otherwise, and acts on those beliefs, they will most likely end up in jail.

 

[RevolvingCylinder]

Unless of course, the executive branch disregards the judicial just as the judicial disregarded the legislative...

If said judge redefine right as privilege does that mean you need to get a permit to use the internet now?

 

[Gray Peterson]

ROBERTSON v. BALDWIN, 165 U.S. 275 (1897):

Thus, the freedom of speech and of the press ( article 1) does not permit the publication of libels, blasphemous or indecent articles, or other publications injurious to public morals or private reputation; the right of the people to keep and bear arms (article 2) is not infringed by laws prohibiting the carrying of concealed weapons;

Insofar as current Supreme Court precedent, open carry is constitutionally protected, concealed carry is not.

 

[frankie_the_yankee]

RevolvingCylinder writes.

Unless of course, the executive branch disregards the judicial just as the judicial disregarded the legislative...

If that happens, the system has broken down. It would be up to all of us to repair it by means of the ballot box. Sometimes this takes many years.

If said judge redefine right as privilege does that mean you need to get a permit to use the internet now?

If a law was passed and upheld by the judiciary as constitutional, we would have to obey it or face going to jail until and unless we could manage to change it.

________________
By their very definitions rights do not need permits to be exercised. To obtain a permit to exercise a right is a forfeiture of said right.

A little too simplistic for the real world I'm afraid. If you want to march down the street and express your opinion, you need a parade permit. The courts have upheld this principle for centuries. No one considers it a violation of the 1st Amendment.

The reason is that sometimes rights conflict with each other. So when someone exercises one right, it may prevent others from exercising some other right. (In this case, the right to freely move about.)

IOW, like so much else, your sig line simply represents your opinion of what rights are, and it is not one that the larger society shares.

Now if you wanted to talk about campaign finance laws, which I think are blatently unconstitutional in my opinion, you'd be on to something. But that's a whole 'nother thread. (Maybe even another forum.) Note also that the current SCOTUS seems to be making an effort to correct what many think are the errors of the previous Court in this area.

 

[jeepmor]

If that happens, the system has broken down.

Umm, it's the government, of course it's broken.

 

[Dave Workman]

Thain is correct.
The Washington CPL merely licenses a person to carry that firearm concealed; presumably it dates back to another era and culture in which open carry was rather commonplace and people sort of frowned on individuals who tucked their gun under a coat, as this was regarded as the habit of a scoundrel.
Washington appellate court precedent historically affirms that open carry is legal. Lonnie and his group -- and primarily Lonnie all on his own -- have been resurrecting Open Carry for the past couple of years.
At the Washington Arms Collectors gun show Saturday I had four different discussions about "O.C." and reminded those folks that, while it is legal, the OC activists need to give the public a bit of time to catch up on the learning curve, and sort of acclimate themselves to the fact that this is a legal activity.
One or two activists wanting everything to happen right now...or yesterday...could muck up the works and foul all the hard labor Lonnie has invested in this. Relax, don't get impatient and behave, and most everyone will be satisfied.
Anti-gunners, of course, will not be satisfied, but that's a given.

 

[SWATcashJeremy]

If there's any way for me to help with Lonnie and you please feel free to let me know

 

[frankie_the_yankee]

Dave says.

Washington appellate court precedent historically affirms that open carry is legal. Lonnie and his group -- and primarily Lonnie all on his own -- have been resurrecting Open Carry for the past couple of years.

Ah! Good! Finally a cite to opinions that carry weight.

If that's what the courts have held, then that (legal OC) is the current state of the law in WA state.

Curiously, where in a bygone era it was regarded by the public as somehow unsavory to conceal a weapon, today's public is leery of non-LEO's who carry openly.

Fashions change I guess.

Regardless of my opinions on the tactical "benefits" (actually drawbacks) of OC, if it's legal and someone wants to do it, they are free to do it. But I would agree with Dave that OC proponents should take care to gradually acclimate the public to OC so as not to promote a backlash.

Even constitutions can be changed if enough people want to do so.

As to the OP, I maintain that it is not unconstitutional in any way for WA state to require a permit for concealed carry, or even for open carry if the will of the people working through the legislature wanted to do so. As long as permits were available to any adult non-crazy LAC who wanted one, I seriously doubt if the courts would rule that such a law would constitute an "impairment" of the general RKBA.

 

[SWATcashJeremy]

yes you've made your opinion 3 times now..we get it

 

[AntiqueCollector]

It is an infringement but the courts and government are not going to change it unless forced to do so by the people. You could move to a state that fully recognizes the right to carry--concealed or open--without any license or permit, but unfortunately only two currently do.

 

[Autolycus]

Does bearing not mean that you can conceal it?

 

[frankie_the_yankee]

Does bearing not mean that you can conceal it?

The courts and the law have both differentiated between carrying openly and carrying concealed. This amounts to long established precedent in most jurisdictions.