I'm kind of surprised no one else has posted this already. It appears the WA state Supreme Court has incorporated the 2nd amendment under the due process clause of the 14th. Volokh Conspiracy article here.
A couple excerpts
"Like Presser and Cruikshank we question
the relevance of United States v. Miller to the instant matter, albeit for different reasons. Miller concerned the constitutionality of a federal regulation barring interstate transport of, for example, an unregistered sawed-off shotgun. The Court upheld the federal regulation stating, “n the absence of any evidence tending to show that possession or use of a ‘shotgun having a barrel of less than eighteen inches in length’ at this time has some reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia, we cannot say that the Second Amendment guarantees the right to keep and bear such an instrument.” Id. at 178. Miller’s holding stands for the proposition—and little more—that certain types of weapons are
not linked to militia service."
"Sieyes’s objection may be that he was 17 years old at the time of his arrest, and his right to bear arms should be equal to that of an 18-year-old’s, but his arguments fail to challenge the statutory age limit set by this statute. 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 Second Amendment right to bear arms applies to the states through the due process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment."
All in all very cool and as IANAL I am not sure what to add other than Hooah!
but I'll try.
In the opinion both the 2nd and 7th circuit courts of appeal get dressed down for using Presser and Cruikshank as reasons to buck Maloney and McDonald up to SCOTUS. They also go into quite a bit of detail outlining the use of Duncan v Louisiana and how it is used to determine whether or not a right meets the due process test that Duncan lays out which I found helpful, it also makes it pretty clear that if SCOTUS uses Duncan McDonald will be a slam dunk.
A couple excerpts
"Like Presser and Cruikshank we question
the relevance of United States v. Miller to the instant matter, albeit for different reasons. Miller concerned the constitutionality of a federal regulation barring interstate transport of, for example, an unregistered sawed-off shotgun. The Court upheld the federal regulation stating, “n the absence of any evidence tending to show that possession or use of a ‘shotgun having a barrel of less than eighteen inches in length’ at this time has some reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia, we cannot say that the Second Amendment guarantees the right to keep and bear such an instrument.” Id. at 178. Miller’s holding stands for the proposition—and little more—that certain types of weapons are
not linked to militia service."
"Sieyes’s objection may be that he was 17 years old at the time of his arrest, and his right to bear arms should be equal to that of an 18-year-old’s, but his arguments fail to challenge the statutory age limit set by this statute. 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 Second Amendment right to bear arms applies to the states through the due process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment."
All in all very cool and as IANAL I am not sure what to add other than Hooah!
but I'll try.
In the opinion both the 2nd and 7th circuit courts of appeal get dressed down for using Presser and Cruikshank as reasons to buck Maloney and McDonald up to SCOTUS. They also go into quite a bit of detail outlining the use of Duncan v Louisiana and how it is used to determine whether or not a right meets the due process test that Duncan lays out which I found helpful, it also makes it pretty clear that if SCOTUS uses Duncan McDonald will be a slam dunk.
Last edited by a moderator: