Washington State Gun Rights Pamphlet

Navigation

User login

Online users

stevenl
Phil Owen
Bert
dr
olyrickm
einmaleins
Guglielmo
Matthew Green
Rick
Judith

Support OlyBlog

OlyBlog is run by volunteers who care about Olympia. If you like what we're doing, make a donation:

OlyBlog is powered by:

Who's new

alwayssharethejoy
olympianwatch
mpeper
BalletArtsOlymp...
gail

Washington State Gun Rights Pamphlet

Submitted by security_six on Thu, 02/07/2008 - 9:14pm.

I ran this by Rick real quick to see if he thought it was Olyblog appropriate... The link takes you to another website where you can download a PDF of a comprehensive Washington State Gun Rights pamphlet. I'm happy to discuss any issues or questions that arise from this. It is a PITA to load PDF docs on my computer right now (slow 'puter) so I would appreciate a quote of the issue in question. Thanks!

security_six's blog
Login or register to post comments

I'm looking forward to the comments.

Submitted by DJW on Thu, 02/07/2008 - 11:55pm.

n/t

Looks good

Submitted by Norm on Fri, 02/08/2008 - 12:08am.

I'm still thrown by the blade laws in this state. They are so very unclear.

Good work S6

Submitted by JT on Fri, 02/08/2008 - 8:36am.

are you going to send a link to Lt. Wilson?

“America passes the critical gate test. Open the gate and see where people go – in or out. This is still the country people flock to.” George Will

Why?

Submitted by security_six on Fri, 02/08/2008 - 4:53pm.

BTW, I want to stress this is NOT my work. I am posting the work of another.

Lt. Wilson seems to have a firm grasp of what is lawful, plus he isn't in OPA anymore IIRC.

One loves to posess arms, though they hope to never have occassion for them.

Thomas Jefferson to George Washington 1796

Here's a question...

Submitted by Rick on Fri, 02/08/2008 - 8:54am.

If carrying a gun is a civil right, why is America unique in recognizing it? While all civilized countries enumerate a common set of human rights (e.g., universal suffrage, freedom from discrimination, right to due process, freedom from being molested by the government, etc...), only America recognizes this special right to carry a lethal weapon. Why is that?

> It's OK to be nice. <
enpen's social contract

It is a means...

Submitted by Tschida on Fri, 02/08/2008 - 10:03am.

for instance to keep the government in check. That is one of the reasons the founding fathers found it important enough to include. I take it you see it as some sort of mistake? Am I correct in this assumption?

One of the great non sequiturs of the left is that, if the free market doesn't work perfectly, then it doesn't work at all-- and the government should step in.

Thomas Sowell

Well...

Submitted by Rick on Fri, 02/08/2008 - 10:12am.

...if it is a means to an end, it isn't really a right then, is it? The end might be a right, i.e., freedom from molestation by the government, but the means can't be a right, can it? Or, at least not the same kind of right as suffrage, nondiscrimination, etc., which are all intrinsic rights of the individual.

> It's OK to be nice. <
enpen's social contract

I see your point, and...

Submitted by Tschida on Fri, 02/08/2008 - 10:37am.

it seems to me that those inailiable rights are covered in other amendments of the Constitution. The Second Amendment is not the only Amendment. So it seems to me that you are kind of muddling the issue, or perhaps you are not understanding why the authors of the constution felt the right to bear arms needed to be spelled out.

One of the great non sequiturs of the left is that, if the free market doesn't work perfectly, then it doesn't work at all-- and the government should step in.

Thomas Sowell

I think I understand why they included...

Submitted by Rick on Fri, 02/08/2008 - 11:27am.

...the 2nd Amendment. They were pretty smart folks, but that doesn't mean that they didn't make some mistakes. (For example, I think they were pretty far off the mark in counting slaves as 3/5ths of a person.)

Let's assume that the 2nd Amendment exists to allow th people to rebel against an onerous government. Then why is this a crime?

KIRKWOOD, Mo. (AP) — Ten days after losing a free-speech lawsuit against this St. Louis suburb, a gunman stormed a council meeting, yelled "Shoot the mayor!" and opened fire, critically wounding the mayor, killing two police officers and three city officials.
The gunman, identified as Charles Lee "Cookie" Thornton, was fatally shot by law enforcers. He had claimed in the past city leaders stifled and harassed him.
"Understand that this was an act of war by my brother. He had an actual person, or people, that he was in battle with. That this was not a random rampage," Thornton's brother, Gerald Thornton, told MSNBC outside City Hall Friday.
The city had ticketed Thornton's demolition and asphalt business, Cookco Construction, for parking his commercial vehicles in the neighborhood, said Ron Hodges, a friend who lives in the community. Thornton had said at previous meetings he received 150 tickets. The tickets were "eating at him," Hodges said.

In short, who gets to decide that it is OK to violently overthrow the government?

> It's OK to be nice. <
enpen's social contract

Umm wait, what?

Submitted by Tschida on Fri, 02/08/2008 - 12:07pm.

The 3/5ths of a person for black people was to keep the south from instituting slavery nation wide. If the white slave owners could make a slave vote for what ever the white owner wanted it would have made it much more difficult to eliminate slavery. Not a perfect system, but better than what the alternative would have been.

Who gets to decide? I don't know. Good question. The system of voting would have to fall apart. Court would have to become exceedingly ineffective. The government would have to overstep its bounds by a long way, such as we saw in Waco, but not only that it would have to do it over and over. There would have to be a greatly reduced number of ways to redress complaints. Something like we are seeing in Venezuela with Chavez and in Iran. It would have to be a widely held opinion that their must be armed change. It would have to be sort of like the days following September 11th. When our nation was so widely unified. We are a long long way away from that right now, so it makes it difficult to imagine our nation in that state of affairs. C.

One of the great non sequiturs of the left is that, if the free market doesn't work perfectly, then it doesn't work at all-- and the government should step in.

Thomas Sowell

Where did you learn that?

Submitted by Rob Richards on Fri, 02/08/2008 - 12:14pm.

Black people weren't guaranteed the right to vote until 1965, and pretty much all of the founders owned slaves. The 3/5ths thing was just racist.

I don't recall where I learned it.

Submitted by Tschida on Fri, 02/08/2008 - 3:30pm.

You are right that many if not all founding fathers were slave owners. Many of them, Thomas Jefferson among them believed it to be wrong.

I don't dispute for a moment that it was a racist thing. But there was more to it than just race. I know the vote did not include blacks until much later (I am not sure about 1965 because of voter intimidation things, but I could be mistaken) It was a numbers thing. How many people were there. How that affected representation in congress.

One of the great non sequiturs of the left is that, if the free market doesn't work perfectly, then it doesn't work at all-- and the government should step in.

Thomas Sowell

Thanks for the thoughtful reply.

Submitted by Rick on Fri, 02/08/2008 - 12:24pm.

I think we're getting somewhere.

I don't want to make this a thread about slavery, but some would argue that the bargain with the south was a mistake that ultimately resulted the civil war.

Anyway, next question: Do you think that the right to carry a handgun is in any way a deterrent to the kind of tyrannical government you describe? I mean, Iraq was chock full of guns before we invaded (something like 2/household, including assault weapons). It didn't seem to make the Iraqis more likely to overthrow that tyrannical leader.

By the way, you know that Chavez was elected by a wide margin in Venezuela (and re-elected twice), and still has the support of the majority of the people there. He might not be the best example of the bad government that you're talking about.

> It's OK to be nice. <
enpen's social contract

Ok,

Submitted by Tschida on Fri, 02/08/2008 - 3:41pm.

In the context of today walking the street does my carrying a hand gun affect a tyrannical government? No. If we had voter fraud like in Venezuela and Cuba, in this nation eight months from now, I think you would see some sort of armed resistance come to bear. It would have to be a bad situation that evolves into something much worse and much more dangerous.

Fortunately when people who break the law and are elected officials, they go to jail. Duke Cunningham is a terrific example. James Trafficant is another example.

I find it interesting that you find value of some sort in Chavez. He has made huge strides in theft of private property, curtailed free speech in the media, and rigged elections. And that is just the light stuff. Yet you seem to hold him in some esteem, because... why? You like a socialist form of government? Why?

P.S. You might notice the difference between the Iraqi society and our society. They had Saddam's thugs running around, employing murder and rape as a way to cow the people. You had an entire population under the thumb of Saddam and his two evil kids. He used wmd's on his own people, who were/are dirt poor, starving and being treated less like people and more like Jews in 1943 Germany. This does not include the tribal war lords who did their thing. How does this compare in any way to our society and the prevelence of guns? It is not the same at all.

One of the great non sequiturs of the left is that, if the free market doesn't work perfectly, then it doesn't work at all-- and the government should step in.

Thomas Sowell

One person

Submitted by security_six on Fri, 02/08/2008 - 4:52pm.

Attacks the government, it's senseless violence. A large organized body attacks the government they are irregular forces. An entire movement is a revolution. It is a question of quantity. I maintain however that there is still ample opportunity to change government through non violent means.

One loves to posess arms, though they hope to never have occassion for them.

Thomas Jefferson to George Washington 1796

Keeping the government in check?

Submitted by Anonymously Larry on Fri, 02/08/2008 - 5:06pm.

Now, let's imagine a few thousand gun owners marching on Washington DC to say "we've had enough and we're taking over"....

Does the National Guard follow the Commander in Chief or a group of armed citizens.

Sounds like that making of a nice Civil War Soup in America.

Historical reasons

Submitted by Jurjen S. on Fri, 02/08/2008 - 4:09pm.

You might as well ask why other countries have not retained this right. In ancient Athens, owning a panoply (in the original sense) and the obligation to use it in defense of the (city-)state were conditions of citizenship; the Saxons had the custom of fyrd, which obliged every able-bodied freeman to perform military service, and supply his own weapons, armor, and equipment. The English Bill of Rights of 1689 guaranteed Englishmen (albeit only Protestants) the right to keep arms for self-defense. The Déclaration des droits de l'Homme et du citoyen of the French Revolution listed as being "natural and imprescriptible rights of man" the rights of "liberty, property, security, and resistance to oppression," and it was accepted that, in practice, the latter two required that citizens could not be prevented by the state from arming themselves. As it stands, most (possibly all) European countries had no restrictions of private ownership of weapons until the early 20th century; most restrictions imposed then were because the governments of the time were afraid of communist revolutionaries arming themselves. The US, by contrast, never faced a serious threat of an internal communist takeover; neither did Canada or Australia, which helps explain why those countries had comparatively low levels of gun control until recently. But Canada and Australia gained indepedence by negotiation, rather than by violent revolt like the US did, so it figures that private ownership of firearms as a means of keeping military power in the hands of the people rather than the central government would not be as much a part of the political-civic culture.

Many nations

Submitted by security_six on Fri, 02/08/2008 - 4:50pm.

Have at one time or another acknowledged this right, and then slowly took it away from their citizens. Great Britian and Mexico come to mind. Surely you don't think people have no right to the means for personal protection and protection from tyrany? Also I would suggest a study of English Common law how it relates to arms, personal and public defense and the right to bear arms. English Common Law is a root for many fundementals.

One loves to posess arms, though they hope to never have occassion for them.

Thomas Jefferson to George Washington 1796

So in this country...

Submitted by Rick on Fri, 02/08/2008 - 6:08pm.

...we have a unique relationship with guns, stemming from our revolutionary history (during the colonial period). Most other countries have given them up for one reason or another. What do we gain by having this unique relationship with guns, and what do we lose? Guglielmo has provided strong evidence that guns contribute to teenage mortality in places where they are available. What do we get for that cost? And is it worth it?

> It's OK to be nice. <
enpen's social contract

I really can't answer that

Submitted by security_six on Fri, 02/08/2008 - 6:14pm.

For you Rick because I have justified many reasons why I own guns and carry them. What I can tell you is many societies have considered that keeping something around despite the damage it causes is worth the damage. Consider alcohol and tobacco. Despite the deaths and health hazards, both are freely available to people of age in this country. We tried a prohibition once, it made things worse.

Alcohol, and it's related effects (drunk driving, domestic violence, etc...) is a huge public health problem, yet it continues to be sold. Since prohibition didn't work, public education and outreach has been accepted as the only and best solution to the problem.

Teach gun safety in school right along with other public health concerns.

Despite a near prohibition on any kind of gun ownership in England and a total ban on handguns, gun and handgun crime has gone through the roof there. The criminals have guns, and private citizens do not. Something pretty screwed up there when people have to cower before criminals and inneffective police...

One loves to posess arms, though they hope to never have occassion for them.

Thomas Jefferson to George Washington 1796

So your position...

Submitted by Rick on Fri, 02/08/2008 - 6:18pm.

...is impervious to evidence?

I guess not, because you're willing to talk about evidence if it supports your view.

> It's OK to be nice. <
enpen's social contract

Noooo.....

Submitted by security_six on Fri, 02/08/2008 - 6:21pm.

My position is that the benifits outweigh the cost. Much like how alcohol is still being sold and marketed in this country. The best solution is not prohibition, but education and responsibility. We all learned about the dangers of drunk driving in school, I think the same should be done with guns.

Do you have an answer to England's rising gun crime rate when citizens have no lawful handguns and longarms must be stored broken down and locked, with ammo purchases limited and registered and stored locked seperate from guns?

One loves to posess arms, though they hope to never have occassion for them.

Thomas Jefferson to George Washington 1796

What are your sources...

Submitted by Rick on Fri, 02/08/2008 - 6:26pm.

...for the English data?

> It's OK to be nice. <
enpen's social contract

Yargh...

Submitted by security_six on Fri, 02/08/2008 - 6:26pm.

Give me a few minutes.

One loves to posess arms, though they hope to never have occassion for them.

Thomas Jefferson to George Washington 1796

Try this

Submitted by security_six on Fri, 02/08/2008 - 6:40pm.

I had a nice long post then I accidentally closed the tab...

Link1

Link2

One loves to posess arms, though they hope to never have occassion for them.

Thomas Jefferson to George Washington 1796

The right to life, the right to preserve your own in self-defens

Submitted by Norm on Fri, 02/08/2008 - 7:08pm.

...that seems like a pretty big one to me. Some countries may not view this as a right, but I'm sure it's not their only issue. Carrying a weapon has a direct connection with that right. Some people choose not to acknowledge that, others do. The state keeps on issuing CPL's, so state lawmakers seem to feel like they wouldn't have the support to take away that great system. The right to defense one's self should not be questioned, imo.

But what's that got to do with...

Submitted by Rick on Fri, 02/08/2008 - 8:26pm.

...the 2nd Amendment?

Anyway, the right to self defense is already encoded in criminal law.

> It's OK to be nice. <
enpen's social contract

The thread is titled

Submitted by Norm on Fri, 02/08/2008 - 8:39pm.

"Washington State Gun Rights Pamphlet", so I am addressing the state constitution, not the second amendment of the constitution of the United States. Our state constitution spells out firearms as a mean of self defense pretty clearly, our state is not the only one to do this. Some (and scotus will rule on this hopefully later this year) say that the second amendment includes a meaning of self defense as well, simply by stating ....the right of the people to keep and bear arms.... You and I may not agree on this, but it is not the job of you or I to interpret it either.

Criminal law, is again a state level thing. I'm not aware of any law regarding the defense of self that is a federal law, if I'm wrong please let me know.

All that aside, would you agree that the defense of self is a given? If so, shouldn't one be appropriately prepared if defending one's self from an armed attacker? It would seem to me, that the appropriate preparation, when facing an armed attacker, would be to arm myself as well.

I recall a fun discussion in The Olympian

Submitted by Anonymously Larry on Sat, 02/09/2008 - 4:01am.

Where someone told me that the Second Amendment guaranteed him the right to bare arms. I told him that sleeves were optional.

Recent numbers dated January 2008 BBC

Submitted by Anonymously Larry on Sat, 02/09/2008 - 4:06am.

London gun crime figures increase

Gun offences have risen slightly, despite an overall drop in crime
Gun crime in London rose by 4% last year, but the overall number of crimes dropped for the fifth year in a row, the Metropolitan Police said.
Overall crime fell by 6.1% compared to 2006, with the number of knife crimes down by 13% and the murder figures falling by nearly 7%.
Serious crimes such as murder and rape fell sharply in the last five years.
Mayor Ken Livingstone said: "There is a resistant problem of gang-related knife and gun crime involving young people."

OlyBlog.net

OlyBlog is devoted to citizen journalism, including hyperlocal news and discussion specifically about Olympia, Washington. If you care about this community and are tired of corporate media, then this is the place for you.

If you'd like to contribute, please register for an account. Here is a list of local news beats that need to be covered. You can post your news as a personal blog entry, and it will be reviewed (and possibly edited) for promotion to the front page. Once you've established a record of responsible blogging, you can become an autonomous user. You can also send news via email. All members of OlyBlog agree to abide by our comment and fair use policies. If you are frustrated about something said in a comment thread, go here.

Now playing at: