https://www.seattletimes.com/opinion/ou ... -language/Quote:
Hugh Spitzer teaches at the University of Washington School of Law. The views expressed are solely his own and do not reflect a position of the University of Washington.
Looked this clown up, he went to Berkeley, figures. CA is one of the few states where the state constitution does not guarantee the right to bear arms.
This piece is obviously written and published at the beginning of our state legislative session to try and run interference for anti-gun legislators and pretend our rights aren't as solid as they are.
Some of his more absurd claims:
Quote:
Washington’s 1889 Constitution includes very special language that establishes a strong right to bear arms coupled with strong language reinforcing the Legislature’s power to control or even ban private militia groups.
While A1Sec24 states that the state does not AUTHORIZE groups of armed individuals, there actually is nothing in the state constitution or state law to BAN private groups. Why?
Because the federal Constitution guarantees the right to peaceably assemble and 2A specifically protects well regulated militias.Cannot believe this guy teaches Con law...
Quote:
Article 1, Section 24 of Washington’s Constitution states: “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.”
This language contrasts with the U.S. Constitution’s Second Amendment, which recites the necessity of “a well regulated militia” and then confirms “the right of the people to keep and bear arms.”
Does this guy know what "contrasts" means? They aren't contrary. The 2nd Amendment guarantees the right to firearms and organize, and WA State also guarantees the right to firearms but takes no binding position on organizing...
Holy shit I hope no one uses this guy to write a contract or a will.
Quote:
Until very recently, legal scholars and American courts viewed the Second Amendment as only protecting states’ rights to retain their national guards.
Bullshit. This "constitutional law professor" is blatantly ignoring Nunn v Georgia and US v Miller, among many other old cases that predated DC v Heller. He's either dishonest or incompetent.
Quote:
But both the territorial Legislature and the first Legislature after statehood passed statutes tightly regulating the use of firearms in specific ways. Concealed weapons were banned for everyone except police and railroad detectives, and pistols had to be carried on the hip in plain view. The popular view was that only card sharks and other low-lifers would hide their handguns. Statutes prohibited any form of guns in bars and taverns, or brandishing firearms in public.
Popular view? What? Did he get in his DeLorean, get up to 88mph and survey the WA settlers?
Quote:
In other words, Washington’s founders simultaneously entrenched a strong personal right to own guns along with the concept that reasonable regulation of firearms made sense
Along with...? No. The second part of his sentence does not follow. This is gaslighting, plain and simple.
Quote:
Consequently, the people who drafted Washington’s Constitution wanted to make it crystal clear that a strong right to bear arms would be tied to equally strong language affirming the Legislature’s right to regulate weapons and, more importantly, to control or prohibit armed groups including private “militias.” Early in our statehood, the Washington State Supreme Court in 1907 declared that “armed bodies of men are a menace to the public, their mere presence is fraught with danger,” and the state had wisely reserved to itself control over organized groups with weapons.
More dishonest and shady phrasing on his part. Nothing in the state Constitution ties the right to bear arms to regulations or control over groups. Nothing. It literally takes no position on it. Jesus, in law school they teach that most of the time when the law does not take a position that you cannot infer anything from that. This guy is flunking basic legal theory. Also, that decision he references refers to VIOLENT GROUPS THAT ARE BREAKING EXISTING STATUTES. He is conflating all armed groups with violent ones. More dishonesty.
Quote:
Further, under our state constitution the Legislature can take firm action if necessary to constrain or outlaw so-called citizen militias and other armed groups that endanger public safety, and the public institutions and officials we elect to serve us.
What a dipshit. Of course the state can outlaw people who are breaking the law. THEY ARE ALREADY BREAKING THE LAW.
This is the kind of dishonest rhetoric and slimy tricks that will be played out in the push to impair our rights in the coming legislative session. If you see anyone reference this douche's screed, refer them to these replies.
_________________If you vote for Biden you are voting to be murdered when he sends Beto to come take your "semi automatic assault weapon" (any semi auto).
If you have family or friends voting for Biden show them this and ask if they are willing to vote for your murder or maybe even their own if they are gun owners or live with any.
https://nypost.com/2020/03/03/joe-biden ... n-control/Quote:
“I want to make something clear, I’m going to guarantee you this is not the last you’ve seen of him (Beto),” Biden said Monday evening during a campaign rally in Dallas. “You’re (Beto) going to take care of the gun problem with me. You’re (Beto) going to be the one who leads this effort.”
https://www.newsweek.com/beto-orourke-g ... ns-1465738Quote:
[Beto O'Rourke Suggests Police Would 'Visit' Homes To Implement Proposed Assault Weapons Ban] "In that case, I think that there would be a visit by law enforcement to recover that firearm... ..."If someone does not turn in an AR-15 or an AK-47, one of these weapons of war...then that weapon will be taken from them"