- Messages
- 38
- Reactions
- 64
All very interesting comments. I do find it interesting that for our state, Washington, and quite a few others as a matter of fact, our State Constitution is clearer in it's writing about some of our rights than the US Constitution. Article 1, Section 24 is pretty clear:
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.
Seems to me that for I-594 types of arguments, we should be quoting Section 24 more than the US 2nd amendment. No need to try and convince anyone who has the right in Washington State to bear arms, and there is the "shall not be impaired" which is pretty simple as well.
Since this is a State issue, shouldn't we see more use of section 24 verbiage rather than talking about the 2nd?
Jeff
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.
Seems to me that for I-594 types of arguments, we should be quoting Section 24 more than the US 2nd amendment. No need to try and convince anyone who has the right in Washington State to bear arms, and there is the "shall not be impaired" which is pretty simple as well.
Since this is a State issue, shouldn't we see more use of section 24 verbiage rather than talking about the 2nd?
Jeff