Ok, so Washington State hasn’t actually seceded from the Union yet. However, according to one Federal judge it must have…
“A federal judge ruled Thursday that Seattle's ban on carrying firearms in city parks and community centers is constitutional.”
“In her ruling, U.S. District Court Judge Marsha J. Pechman wrote that under current case law, the Second Amendment constrains the actions of Congress, not cities and states. Therefore the city was within its rights to enact the ban.”
Now I am not a Constitutional Lawyer; however, thankfully, the Framers of this country and this State (as well as most states) wrote their Constitutions in words that even a laymen like myself can understand:
The Constitution of the United States says:
- Amendment 2 – Right to Bear Arms. A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.
The Washington State Constitution says:
- ARTICLE I, SECTION 2 SUPREME LAW OF THE LAND. The Constitution of the United States is the supreme law of the land.
- ARTICLE I, 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.
So, I ask you, after reading the above plain English statements, how is it that the 2nd Amendment of the Constitution only applies to actions of Congress?
I am also pondering, what her Honor considers “current case law” – considering the U.S. Supreme Court (Heller v. Washington D.C.) just recently ruled that the right to keep and bear arms is a “personal right” guaranteed by the Constitution of the United States.
I am a simple scientist, I usually put two and two together and make four. So I ask you, if the U.S. Constitution guarantees a personal right to keep and bear arms, and the Washington State Constitution shows deference to the U.S. Constitution, as well as guaranteeing an individuals right to “keep and bear arms” – how is it that in this case it doesn’t apply?
I welcome all you Constitutional Law Scholars out there to explain this one to me, because frankly I am dumbfounded!