Washington Supreme Court Incorporates 2nd

[legaleagle_45]

In State v Sieyes, the Washington Supreme Court formally incorporated the 2nd Amend as binding upon the state of Washington through the 14th Amend. The case involved a 17 year old in possesion of a handgun in violation of state law. The court remanded the case for further proceedings and made no determination of whether the law violated the 2nd Amend, stating:

In sum appellant offers no convincing authority supporting his argument that Washington’s limit on childhood firearm possession violates the United States or Washington Constitutions. Accordingly we keep our powder dry on this issue for another day.

The case is interesting because the vote was 6-1-1...

The one concurrance felt that the matter could have been resolved solely upon state constitutional grounds and that the pending decision in McDonald means that their decision would "likely to be eclipsed before the ink it takes to print it is dry."

The other vote concurred in the incorporation analysis, but dissented because he would apply strict scrutiny and find the statute unconstitutional on its face....

Attached is a complete copy of the decision and the concurring and concurring-dissenting opinions which was released today.

 

[Oro]

I read this decision this afternoon and was fairly disappointed that they did not want touch the issue of scrutiny and basically said,

"We agree the rights protected by the 2nd are applicable to states. But those rights are ours to ignore through statute."

Shocking. The dissent by Johnson hit it succinctly:

If a soldier is old enough to fight for the nation, he is
old enough to enjoy the fundamental right to keep and bear arms.
Accordingly, strict scrutiny must apply to statutes limiting this right.

A fundamental right that doesn't apply to 17 year olds? That makes sense? The majority shrugged it off saying, effectively, "Ah,his lawyer was bad, so why protect his rights?"

The lack of integrity here is shocking.

 

[legaleagle_45]

"We agree the rights protected by the 2nd are applicable to states. But those rights are ours to ignore through statute."

The way I read the opinion was that Sieyes counsel failed to raise the the arguments necessary for the court to apply the proper level of scrutiny to the case... thus the declaration:

Accordingly we keep our powder dry on this issue for another day.

 

[smoking357]

These levels of scrutiny are made-up duplicitous con job that we would be wise to ridicule. There is no judicial review in the Constitution, much less any classification of "scrutiny".

The Supreme Court made all of this up in a coup d'etat.