I-1639 being challenged (Seattle: plumbing, golf, reviews)

[Seacove]

Originally Posted by thatguy950

Funny when liberals use stand on state’s rights or The Constitution when reinforces their agenda...

One could also always move to a more liberal country with no guns at all.

The state voted for this. There are more gun friendly states where the state votes that way.

[notnamed]

Originally Posted by Corvette Ministries

Well, they don't specifically mention a SAFE, but ...

Right it specifically does not specify what secure storage is and has an exemption if it took breaking and entering to get it. If you don’t have a prohibited person in your household you could have it loaded and out on the kitchen counter and just closing your front door counts as secured.

So they basically have to be a member of your household. And if you raised a monster and let them have free access to your weapons in a school shooting, then yeah you should be guilty of community endangerment at the least.

[PS90]

Funny how the liberals are up in arms about the grocery tax, and keep talking about how it should be overturned by the state supreme court, but they are also the first ones to scream "the voters voted 1639 in!".

[Swampoid13]

Originally Posted by Seacove

State's rights. One can always move to a more gun friendly state. Guns aren't illegal in Washington, we just voted for some controls.

Yep exactly. The state chose this.

[PS90]

I can't speak for anyone else, but this bill passing just encouraged myself and 2 friends to buy 2 new AR lowers each. This will be a short-lived boon to the WA gun industry, at least.

[sll3454]

Some of the comments here point out that the state voted for this.


Yes, the majority of voters did. However, the Bill of Rights protects the rights of the minority from the will of the majority. It's an important part of how this country works. Allowing the majority to impose its will on the minority simply because it's a majority is NOT a good idea.

[rkcarguy]

This states supreme justices also upheld the Hirst decision, which denied people the use of their wells on private property, even existing ones, which in turn barred them from getting permits for building a home on that property.

"No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."

[Corvette Ministries]

Originally Posted by sll3454

Some of the comments here point out that the state voted for this.


Yes, the majority of voters did. However, the Bill of Rights protects the rights of the minority from the will of the majority. It's an important part of how this country works. Allowing the majority to impose its will on the minority simply because it's a majority is NOT a good idea.

LOL. In today's PC climate, to have the minority imposing their will on the majority is not so great either.

[thatguy950]

Originally Posted by Seacove

The state voted for this. There are more gun friendly states where the state votes that way.

So subverting The Constitution is ok if the state votes for it? Bet many would disagree if different Amendments were being eroded.

State’s Rights only work, at a fundamental level, when The Constitution is still upheld and not encroached upon

[Seacove]

Originally Posted by thatguy950

So subverting The Constitution is ok if the state votes for it? Bet many would disagree if different Amendments were being eroded.

State’s Rights only work, at a fundamental level, when The Constitution is still upheld and not encroached upon

Muskets are probably legal.