JavaScript is disabled
Our website requires JavaScript to function properly. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser settings before proceeding.
Messages
38
Reactions
64
I find it interesting in all the various threads and comments about Washington's efforts to restrict our 2nd amendment rights, I don't see much mentioned about Washington State's own constitution.

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.

Sure can't be much clearer than that. Right there, black and white, no Militia word, no commas to acknowledge or not. Just a simple God given right to bear arms in my own defense. It truly makes me wonder how all these initiatives and laws stand up to "Shall Not be Impaired", within the state of Washington. :(

Jeff
 
The response is that "if you have a black powder musket that is good enough. You are armed, you can use it for defense so that is all you need."

Then a liberal court would say "no one would use a nuke to defend themselves so it is clear that limits can be be established, no one gets anything other than a musket"

Then the politician would say "the court says limits are common sense, so you need to keep your musket unloaded"

Then the next politician says "unloaded musket could hurt a child. you need to keep your unloaded musket encased in solid cement with your black powder separated into sulfur, charcoal and saltpeter"

Then next politician says "close the saltpeter loophole! you can only use bat guano"

and that why we now have 43 genders.
 
In Washington there is no meaning of the word impaired as it pertains to our state constitution. They don't give a damn and will do whatever they want then say sue me with a bought and paid for Supreme Court.

They're just as bad as California politicians and you could sure see how it's going down there.:mad:
 
Last Edited:
Might be 44 soon since The word "avocado" comes from the Spanish aguacate, which in turn comes from the Nahuatl word āhuacatl [aːˈwakat͡ɬ], which goes back to the proto-Aztecan *pa:wawhich also meant "avocado".Sometimes the Nahuatl word was used with the meaning "testicle", because of the likeness between the fruit and the body part.
Might be offensive to some that identify as that particular fruit.
 
I find it interesting snippp...

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.

Sure can't be much clearer than that... :(
Jeff

Thanks for bring this section up, personally, I found the last section far more interesting if you consider the fact the cities, townships, and counties are ALL corporations which have all organized, maintain, or employ an armed body of men - called sheriffs, police agencies, and soforth?
 
Political hacks rule the people through an implied threat of force. The people tend to have blinders and a narrow focus. Some bend, and some ignore. Go outside and look around...count the homes, estimate the population. When the math is done it will appear obvious the hacks can never fully implement their BS without the people cowering in fear of an implied threat by a big paper tiger.
 
bolus is right, it will just be interpreted as something that can be restricted, as long as you can still bear SOMETHING, the right to bear in itself will not be impaired.
 
Thanks to the courts and certain political mindsets, things that, to an ordinary, common sense mind, would be clear as day, are now clear as mud. Words don't mean what we think they mean any longer, so long as someone can challenge you on it. The Constitution, and the words in it, are up to constant interpretation and change, simply based on how someone feels they should be interpreted. In reality, it's perfectly clear what the words mean, so to those that don't like that, they change the rules. And many, many people in this country are just fine with that. No more critical thinking skills, it's all feels now. And unfortunately, we're usually the ones on the wrong end their word manipulations :(:mad: Relativism BS: my truth is what I say it is, there is no standard, there is no absolute truth. I define it for myself, regardless of what the words say.
 
Last Edited:
Oregon says almost the same thing!
Article 1, Section 27 of the Oregon Constitution states: "The people shall have the right to bear arms for the defence [sic] of themselves, and the State, but the Military shall be kept in strict subordination to the civil power[.]"
 
I gender identify as an A-10 from now on! :D:p:D
off to the DMV tomorrow for my new licence and voter registration where I will be choosing Patriot Voter and I will hereby sign all letters and official documents with a 30 mm strafing run! :)
c47ad00725507242dd6b0b5068c512f0.jpg
 
Article I, section 24 of the Washington State Constitution (not an actual amendment) states: "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." This appears to be the opposite of the Second Amendment. There's no question it's an individual right but not a right to form a militia.
"This 'right to bear arms' is an individual right that exists in the context of that individual's defense of himself or the state." City of Seattle v. Evans, 184 Wn.2d 856, 366 P.3d 906 (2015). The Washington Supreme Court interprets the state right to bear arms "separately and independently" of the Second Amendment. State v. Jorgenson, 179 Wn.2d 145, 312 P.3d 960 (2013). The state right to bear arms is "subject to reasonable regulation pursuant to the State's police power." "[A] constitutionally reasonable regulation is one that is 'reasonably necessary to protect public safety or welfare, and substantially related to legitimate ends sought.'"

I wrote that paragraph as part of materials for a gun law seminar I gave last year. I would say that the U.S. Supreme Court's interpretation of 2A is stronger than the Washington Supreme Court's interpretation of the state counterpart.
 
I gender identify as an A-10 from now on! :D:p:D
off to the DMV tomorrow for my new licence and voter registration where I will be choosing Patriot Voter and I will hereby sign all letters and official documents with a 30 mm strafing run! :)
Pussy. I identify as a B-52, and my signature is a Mk 28 thermonuclear delivery.

:p
 

Upcoming Events

Oregon Arms Collectors March Gun Show
Portland, OR
Tillamook Gun & Knife Show
Tillamook, OR
"The Original" Kalispell Gun Show
Kalispell, MT
Teen Rifle 1 Class
Springfield, OR
Kids Firearm Safety 2 Class
Springfield, OR

New Resource Reviews

New Classified Ads

Back Top