priv8ter
Member
I mean, obviously, because the RCW say so, but I'm kind of confused. The Washington State Constitution states thus:
So...that's pretty plain writing. SHALL NOT BE IMPAIRED. Well, not letting me own a Machine Gun could impair my right to defend my house.
I'm still on the younger side of 30, and will admit to maybe not paying attention like I should have in school, so I'm just kind of wondering, with wording like that, how were machine guns, short barreled rifles and short barreled shotguns made illegal? And how did it become to legal to own a surpressor, but not to actually have one on a gun?
I have tried to research this myself, but, while the internet is cool for some stuff, when it comes down to actually trying to research something...there is a lot of garbage to wade through.
I appretiate any help anyone can give me.
greg
SECTION 24 RIGHT TO BEAR ARMS. 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.
So...that's pretty plain writing. SHALL NOT BE IMPAIRED. Well, not letting me own a Machine Gun could impair my right to defend my house.
I'm still on the younger side of 30, and will admit to maybe not paying attention like I should have in school, so I'm just kind of wondering, with wording like that, how were machine guns, short barreled rifles and short barreled shotguns made illegal? And how did it become to legal to own a surpressor, but not to actually have one on a gun?
I have tried to research this myself, but, while the internet is cool for some stuff, when it comes down to actually trying to research something...there is a lot of garbage to wade through.
I appretiate any help anyone can give me.
greg