February 18th, 2010 05:18 PM
WA Supreme Court: ‘2nd Amendment applies to the states via 14th Amendment due process
The Washington State Supreme Court delivered a haymaker to anti-gunners – and strong reinforcement to gun rights advocates – Thursday morning when it handed down an opinion in the case of State v. Sieyes that states bluntly, “We hold the Second Amendment applies to the states via the Fourteenth Amendment due process clause.”
The majority opinion, written by Justice Richard B. Sanders, was signed by five other justices including Chief Justice Barbara A. Madsen, with a (sort-of) concurring opinion from Justice Debra L. Stephens that takes issue with the incorporation premise, and a partly-concurring and partly-dissenting opinion from Justice James M. Johnson that argues the majority ruling isn’t strong enough.
Although the issue of incorporation is at the heart of McDonald v. Chicago, the Second Amendment Foundation's case now before the United States Supreme Court for which oral arguments are scheduled March 2, Sanders notes in his majority state-level opinion that even though the high court “did not expressly consider incorporation of the right to bear arms” in the June 2008 Heller ruling, “that need not stop the rest of us.” He maintains that lower courts “need not wait for the Supreme Court” on the question of incorporation. (Read more about the McDonald case here.)
“The Constitution is the rule of all courts—both state and federal judiciaries wield power to strike down unconstitutional government acts,” Sanders writes.
The Second Amendment right to bear arms applies to the states through the due process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.-Washington State Supreme Court, State v. Sieyes
The case involves a then-17-year-old defendant, Christopher Sieyes, who was a passenger in a car pulled over by a Kitsap County sheriff’s deputy. The deputy found a loaded Bersa .380 ACP pistol under Sieyes’ seat and arrested him. In October 2007, the trial court found Sieyes guilty of second degree illegal firearms possession, and the teen appealed on several grounds, one of which is that state law prohibiting firearms possession by certain individuals is “an absolute prohibition on firearm possession by minors” and is therefore unconstitutional.
Thursday’s ruling went against Sieyes’ argument that the law violates his constitutional rights, under either the federal or state constitutions. Part of the case was remanded back to the Court of Appeals for further action.
In her concurring opinion supporting the court’s position that Sieyes’ rights were not violated, which was also signed by Justice Mary E. Fairhurst, Justice Stephens argued against the court’s eagerness to take a position on incorporation, since it has yet to be decided by the U.S. Supreme Court.
Having determined the Second Amendment protects individual rights against state interference...'-Justice Richard B. Sanders
“For me,” Stephens writes, “the discussion ends there, and I would refrain from engaging in an extended exploration of the unsettled question of federal incorporation of the Second Amendment. Restraint is particularly appropriate here because the very question is currently pending before the United States Supreme Court.
“I do not believe this is an instance where there is anything to be accomplished,” she adds, “particularly as our opinion is likely to be eclipsed before the ink it takes to print it is dry.”
Johnson, taking issue with the court majority for not applying strict scrutiny to its examination of Sieyes’ constitutional claim, writes, “the majority disregards our long-standing national tradition allowing younger citizens to bear arms and the level of protection that we customarily accord to fundamental rights. I therefore write separately to emphasize that strict scrutiny is the appropriate standard of review for Second Amendment challenges to statutes restricting these important constitutional rights.
Strict scrutiny is the appropriate standard of review for Second Amendment challenges to statutes restricting these important constitutional rights. - Justice James M. Johnson, Concur/Dissent in part
“This conclusion is inescapable,” he continues, “when one considers the fundamental nature of the right to keep and bear arms throughout our nation’s history and our legacy of extending that right to young people. Youth have been permitted and even on occasion requested to bear arms since our country’s nascent days and throughout the history of our state.
“What were these teenagers fighting for,” Johnson asks. “I remind the court that, among other things, they fought for the right to bear arms…”
Under existing statute, Sieyes should not have had that pistol under his car seat, but this case has opened a can of worms for gun prohibitionists, and the lid may be off permanently, depending how the U.S. Supreme Court rules in the McDonald case in late May or early June.
However, if the recent performances of both former Seattle Mayor Greg Nickels and his successor, Mike McGinn are any indication, anti-gunners will likely pursue their childish demand that the law be changed. Nickels was advised by Attorney General Rob McKenna that his desire to ban guns in the city was illegal. He did it, anyway and left McGinn and the city holding that bag. The other day, King County Superior Court Judge Catherine Shaffer ripped a hole in the bag, causing McGinn to infamously rant that he wants the legislature to change the law, something Nickels had lobbied for when he was in office.
The Sanders opinion sends a strong signal that Seattle will fare poorly if it appeals Shaffer’s ruling, because it squarely defines the state Supreme Court’s position on gun rights.
If commentator Ken Schram’s blistering criticism of McGinn on KOMO Wednesday evening upset the mayor’s stomach and gave group indigestion to the minions over at Washington CeaseFire, Thursday’s state Supreme Court ruling should guarantee them ulcers.
Former Army Infantry Captain; 25 yrs as an NRA Certified Instructor; Avid practitioner of the martial art: KLIK-PAO.
February 18th, 2010 05:56 PM
I disagree with that courts decision wholeheartedly. This is an incompetent ruling that enumerates rights to the state of Washington that the state may never legitimately posses. It is the supreme truth in all 2nd Amendment cases that our freedom applies to individuals, not to states. The Bill of Rights is explicit as it states, "...the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed." Our penultimate liberties are NOT reserved to the states that they might benevolently grant them back to us as this ruling claims. Our rights are claimed for all Americans, endowed to us by our Creator, as we are made in His image, not by Washington!
February 18th, 2010 07:42 PM
However, the 2A has yet to be recognized by any court as a civil right through incorporation via the 14A.
- know the difference
is a fancy name for crappy fighter
You have never lived until you have almost died. For those that have fought for it, life has a special flavor the protected will never know
February 18th, 2010 09:52 PM
You misunderstand what they are saying.
Originally Posted by Ronny
What this means is that the Washington Supreme Court believes that the states are restricted from infringing upon our 2nd amendment rights, just like the federal government. They believe that the 2A is a civil right through incorporation via the 14A.
the Second Amendment protects individual rights against state interference...'-Justice Richard B. Sanders
February 19th, 2010 01:15 AM
DING DING DING. we have a winner.
Originally Posted by ak56
the WA Supreme Court says that the 2nd amendment is a restriction to this state.
when will the rest catch up?
Take that EX-mayor Nichols.......
"I cannot undertake to lay my finger on that article of the Constitution, which granted a right to Congress of expending, on objects of benevolence, the money of their constituents." -1792, James Madison
There are always too many Democratic, Republican and never enough U.S. congressmen.
March 28th, 2010 02:17 PM
if only chicago's mayor daley would get told this too
March 28th, 2010 09:19 PM
Be patient. The Supreme Court Of The United States is like a bottle of ketchup. We watch with anticipation as the tomato-y goodness slowly oozes. Will it be watered down, or redolent of the Founders' intent? We want to know, now, but the ketchup takes its time. And so, it makes us wait, until one day, when it will pour forth its wisdom, and the ketchup will cover the fries as the 2nd Amendment will cover the states...
Originally Posted by dmaxx3500
Yes. I, too, am hungry to taste this sweet-yet-savory victory.
March 29th, 2010 06:45 AM
Darn it. You made me hungry.
Originally Posted by Tom357
March 29th, 2010 05:39 PM
Can you make mine a Chicago double and a side of Wisconsin?
Originally Posted by ming
Freedom is never more than one generation away from extinction. We didn't pass it to our children in the bloodstream. It must be fought for, protected, and handed on for them to do the same.
March 29th, 2010 05:45 PM
The 14th has kicked ther rear more than one time......
"The sword dose not cause the murder, and the maker of the sword dose not bear sin" Rabbi Solomon ben Isaac 11th century
April 11th, 2010 04:35 PM
The Washington State Supreme Court has no authority to state anything except as to Washington State. The statement that the 2dA applies to other states has no substance because the WSSC has no authority in other states. It isn't even a valid precedence. It was my understanding that Washington state had the 2d Amendment already incorporated in their Constitution. An act of bravado not bravery. Politicos trying to get support.
Now if the SCOTUS says the same thing it would carry weight, but only in the five (5) states that have not already included the RTKBA into their state constitutions. Yup, that's right, 45 states already have the 2d Amendment incorporated into their state constitutions! BTW, Illinois is one of the states that has an individual RTKBA provision in their constitution.Hawaii does too!
California, Iowa, Minnesota, New Jersey and New York do not. Outside of these five states , I do not see that MacDonald vs Chicago is going to effect much of anybody else. The rest of us (including the state of Illinois) are already complying with the SCOTUS possible decisions.
Are you really confused now? Me too.
Retired Marine, Retired School Teacher, Independent voter, Goldwater Conservative.
By jfl in forum The Second Amendment & Gun Legislation Discussion
Last Post: November 25th, 2009, 06:56 PM
By JonInNY in forum The Second Amendment & Gun Legislation Discussion
Last Post: November 18th, 2009, 10:01 AM
By Blackeagle in forum The Second Amendment & Gun Legislation Discussion
Last Post: April 23rd, 2009, 04:26 PM
By Thanis in forum The Second Amendment & Gun Legislation Discussion
Last Post: January 21st, 2009, 05:39 AM
By nf9648 in forum The Second Amendment & Gun Legislation Discussion
Last Post: May 13th, 2005, 08:01 PM
Search tags for this page
14th amend due process clause importance
14th amendment covers 2nd amendment
14th amendment washington state
2008 ruling that the second amendment applies to individuals
2nd amendment in, wa
washington state and federal due process rights
washington state s stance on second amendment
washington state sheriff on 2nd amendment
washington state sheriffs on 2nd amendment
Click on a term to search for related topics.
» DefensiveCarry Sponsors