US federal:
...the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.
As everyone knows, this was affirmed as an individual right applying to the States in McDonald v Chicago, 2010.
WA state:
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...
This was upheld by the WA Supreme Court in State v. Christopher William Sieyes, where the constitutionality of WA firearm laws was challenged, although frustratingly the Court was vague on the level of regulation that would pass scrutiny.
Given both of those developments in the last six months, has anyone in Olympia asked Attorney General McKenna (allegedly a pro-2A Republican who has provided numerous gun related opinions in the past few years) for an analysis of which WA firearm laws may now be unconstitutional?
It seems inconsistent that WA has onerous restrictions on items like full auto guns, suppressors and short barrel rifles when constitutionally our rights are equal or better than most states, and are not supposed to be impaired?!
Are there any cases pending in WA on this topic?
...the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.
As everyone knows, this was affirmed as an individual right applying to the States in McDonald v Chicago, 2010.
WA state:
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...
This was upheld by the WA Supreme Court in State v. Christopher William Sieyes, where the constitutionality of WA firearm laws was challenged, although frustratingly the Court was vague on the level of regulation that would pass scrutiny.
Turning to the question of whether RCW 9.41.040(2)(a)(iii) is constitutional, the Court declined to apply the traditional levels of scrutiny to firearm regulation. The Court voiced agreement with Heller -- that strict scrutiny would invalidate most infringements on the Second Amendment, while a rational basis test would set too low a standard to protect the right to bear arms. "We follow Heller in declining to analyze RCW 9.41.040(2)(a)(iii) under any level of scrutiny. Instead we look to the Second Amendment's original meaning, the traditional understanding of the right, and the burden imposed on children by upholding the statute." Justice Sanders acknowledged the Court's "occasional rhetoric" about the "reasonable regulation" of firearms, but argued the Court has never settled on a precise standard of review.
However, the Court found that Christopher Sieyes made inadequate arguments on whether the law was unconstitutional. "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 Supreme Court held that Sieyes failed to demonstrate that the statute was an unconstitutional violation of his right to possess a gun. The case was remanded for consideration of additional issues.
Gun rights advocates will see this as a partial missed opportunity. After the landmark ruling in Heller, the Washington Supreme Court asked the parties in Sieyes to address whether the Second Amendment applies to the states and the appropriate standard of scrutiny for evaluating firearm regulations. Justice Sanders has long railed against the Court's reliance on "reasonable regulation" of gun rights, and no doubt wanted to go further in clarifying the court's jurisprudence. Thus his criticisms of the appellant for inadequately briefing some of these constitutional issues. Even so, the Court firmly holds that the Washington Constitution protects the individual right to bear arms.
Given both of those developments in the last six months, has anyone in Olympia asked Attorney General McKenna (allegedly a pro-2A Republican who has provided numerous gun related opinions in the past few years) for an analysis of which WA firearm laws may now be unconstitutional?
It seems inconsistent that WA has onerous restrictions on items like full auto guns, suppressors and short barrel rifles when constitutionally our rights are equal or better than most states, and are not supposed to be impaired?!
Are there any cases pending in WA on this topic?
