Judge Says Seattle Gun Ban Constitutional

D

dirt reaper

Inactive
Here is the link:

http://www.kirotv.com/news/22824555/detail.html

This ruling could possibly have a chilling effect for law abiding folks all over Washington state.

Will this ruling open the floodgates for other cities to follow suit? I would guess, yes it will.

I have been following this issue for a while and I have always wondered why this was challenged using the 2nd Admendment when WA has another powerfull law called "no preemption". The purpose of which is to avoid the cascade of patch-work laws passed by cities and counties that differ from state law. Not sure if "no preemption" is just state law or in the constitution?

The chilling cascade of this law is one may never be sure if a law pertains to this side of the street or the other.

Confused?

Any input would be greatly appreciated.

Thanks

ps. I did a search prior to posting. I hope I did not miss this if it is an active discussion.
 
Will this ruling open the floodgates for other cities to follow suit? I would guess, yes it will.
Click to expand...

Only until McDonald vs Chicago is decided. After that, it doesn't stand a snowball's chance in hell. This judge has got to know that.
 
Why even worry about it.

news article said:
There are no criminal or other penalties under the city's gun ban.
Click to expand...

If you are a CCW holder just ignore it, if you use your weapon, or otherwise get caught, what are they going to do? Shake their finger at you and say naughty boy?
 
What Peetza said...

Pechman's ruling essentially supports the position of Chicago in Chicago v. Mcdonald.

It also has the same unintended consequences - among which are that if the Second Amendment "constrains only the actions of Congress and not cities or states"; then logically the same may be said of the First, Third, and Fourth amendments...which may cause a great deal of consternation.

(There are those who might argue that the State of Illinois banning free speech might actually be a good thing, but they do so quietly... ;) )

It is unlikely that SCOTUS would hold that some amendments constrain only the actions of Congress, while others constrain the actions of cities and states. (It would be kinda like the Pigs in Orwell's "Animal Farm" - "all animals are created equal, but some animals are more equal than others!")
 
Last edited:
I am also confused. Isn't this the same ban that NRA already challenged and got overturned on state law preemption grounds?

Not to mention that Washington is in the 9th Circuit, which so far is the only Circuit Court of Appeals to find the Second Amendment incorporated against the states, Is the District Court judge presuming that because the ruling was vacated pending McDonald that he can just rule however he wants?
 
To clarify things a bit.

The prior opinion of two weeks ago in the State District Court, ruled that the ban was void according to WA State preemption law. This ruling is still valid.

What happened in the Federal Court was a suit for damages (section 1983 - civil rights violation). Here the federal judge ruled according to current 9th circuit precedent.

Remember, the Nordyke opinion was rescinded by the en banc call. That case is on hold, awaiting the decision of McDonald.

So, the federal judge did what was correct, at this time. The federal decision does not negate the State decision. It still holds and the Seattle ban is void.
 
There is a big difference between an action being constitutional and an action being illegal.

The Seattle gun ban was declared to be constitutional by a pretty much meaningless Federal district court judge. And it was only declared to be constitutional at the Federal level, which has no bearing on whether it is constitutional according to the Washington state constitution.

However, the Seattle gun ban is still ILLEGAL. That was determined at the Washington state court level. Seattle, as well as no other Washington city or county, can legally ban firearms on public property - to do so is still an illegal act in Washington, whether or not the Federal courts rule that it is constitutional at the Federal level.

The same is true in the opposite direction as well. While possession of a handgun in places like Chicago is a Constitutionally protected right according to the US Constitution, it is still an illegal act (at this time).
 
state v.s. federal

Well, according from what I've been reading off the constitutional site, the 2nd amendment does only refer to the federal directorate and not the state. The states are supposed to stand as individual sovereigns to legislate whatever laws they want to impose on the folks within their boundaries.

Seemingly, the federal government could use covert persuasion to blackmail the states into passing laws in accordance with what the liberals in D.C. see as necessary to disarm the American populace or at least hobble them sufficiently to prove them no threat to D.C. which I do believe has been the previous Modus operandi for the last 20 years.......

Consequently, the American populace should continue to press forward the issue of state rights and above all prevent local politicians from legislating or confirming strict gun laws.

another wrench in the cogs ......how can a federal court rule on a state issue?
shouldn't this issue be addressed by a state court dealing with the state's
constitution pertaining to gun laws?

the federal courts should only have the power to rule when federal law has been breached.

sewerman
 
Thank you one and all for your input.

I was out to the range early this morning and got an earfull from some good people. I am unable to get out of the house much anymore and tend to rely on the local news(joke) for much of my information.

I do not think the overturn of the Seattle ban at the state level on preemtion laws was even reported. Local Seattle media at it's best.

Again, thank you for information.

Back to lurking,

J
 
Well, according from what I've been reading off the constitutional site, the 2nd amendment does only refer to the federal directorate and not the state. The states are supposed to stand as individual sovereigns to legislate whatever laws they want to impose on the folks within their boundaries.
Click to expand...


Wait a sec here, why is this the case only with the 2nd Amendment, and not the rest of the Bill of Rights? Why is it being treated differently?

Or are you saying that states can also pass laws nullifying other Bill of Rights? Something seems screwy about all of this to me.

Can a state outlaw freedom of speech and freedom of religion? Allow double jeopardy?? Delay the right to a speedy trial???

Why should a state be able to usurp the 2nd Amendment?

If this is not all settled in law, then it is high time for the US Supreme Court to clarify this once and for all.

.
 
LanceOregon said:
Wait a sec here, why is this the case only with the 2nd Amendment, and not the rest of the Bill of Rights? Why is it being treated differently?
Click to expand...

Because what sewerman said was right until the 14th Amendment. Then each of the BORs had to be incorporated by case law. Not all of the BORs have been incorporated against the states; grand jury and quartering of soldiers for two.

Note to sewerman; see 14th Amendment for your answers about the states.
 
I still don't understand. You are saying that the 14th Amendment somehow negated the Bill of Rights? What the hell is up with that? I see nothing in the text of the 14th Amendment about this subject. How was such a twisted interpretation made?

I have got to believe that this was definitely not the intention of the founding fathers. How on earth did politicians get away with doing that?

There must be more behind this.

I am really losing confidence in our government. It would almost seem that the constitution is now meaningless and irrelevant.

.
 
LanceOregon said:
You are saying that the 14th Amendment somehow negated the Bill of Rights?
Click to expand...

No, the 14th amendment attempted to apply the BoRs to the states which a previous Supreme Court decision; Barron vs. Baltimore 1833 had said that the BoRs did not apply to the states.

The Slaughterhouse Cases, however, said the 14th Amendment protected the "privileges or immunities" conferred by virtue of the federal United States citizenship to all individuals of all states within it, but not those privileges or immunities incident to citizenship of a state. That case is still precedent even though many think it wrongly decided.

LanceOregon said:
It would almost seem that the constitution is now meaningless and irrelevant.
Click to expand...

The Constitution means what the Supreme Court and the Congress says it means not what we individuals think it means.

Otherwise, we would have anarchy with each and every person deciding what was constitutional or not.

Every time you here somebody say on TFL that some law or regulation is unconstitutional and there is not a court case to back that up then you are merely expressing your opinion but the only opinion that counts is that of the court.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top