WA State Constitution, "Right to keep and bear arms shall not be impaired"

[Bill O. Rights]

Good morning folks, getting close to football time, so I thought I would get something out of the way before I relax on my couch and watch the games.

I have a question for anybody who has any legal education or is a lawyer regarding our Washington State Constitution. I went to the Wa. State official state website, and I read the entire document yesterday and found the "right to keep and bear arms shall not be impaired" was pretty cut and dry. There are no other modifications to it that I could see. But I want to know if I am looking in the right place, and will our state Gov, who has been pretty quiet as of late, be able to change anything legally? Chime in if you know FOR SURE. Thank you!

 

[Alex220]

Peruse the Washington RCW 9.41 Chapter 9.41 RCW: FIREARMS AND DANGEROUS WEAPONS and you'll find a slew of conditions where the blanket statement 'right to keep and bear arms..' sets conditions on some. (Thankfully) Not all people have the right to possess and carry firearms.

btw..I perform backgrounds and issue permits for my department.

 

[DiggerP]

I would love to hear from a Constitutional attorney as well. There's a one word difference that concerns me: "impaired" vs the Second Amendment "Infringed".

As I understand it, infringe is any trespass, encroachment or violation of your right -- whether that be property, patent, Constitutional Right, etc. Impair, though, is something that not only trespasses but also has an action to make your right weaker or worse somehow. I'm not an attorney but, in my mind that's a big difference. That's the difference between "Infringe" --- you STEP on my property, you're infringing... versus "Impair" -- you have to step on my property and somehow damage or weaken my right or use of it. So long as you don't damage it, you're free to come on in whenever you want -- or maybe make a through way.

Please toss up any corrections for me if I am mistaken here -- just my perspective after reading the RCW and some history.

 

[Bill O. Rights]

Thank you..but is there anything that keeps the Governor from messing with it? I had heard there was something in place to prevent that.

 

[MisterD]

I am not a lawyer, but how about reviewing this.
United States v. Miller - 307 U.S. 174 (1939) :: Justia US Supreme Court Center

It may have been a case involving the failure of a citizen paying a tax stamp under the NFA for a short barreled shotgun, but if the SCOTUS had been informed of the use of Short barreled shotguns in WWI in 1914 by our Military for close combat protection and for guard related functions, then they may have decided differently in 1939

Look at how the SCOTUS defined the Militia as being

This implied the general obligation of all adult male inhabitants to possess arms, and, with certain exceptions, to cooperate in the work of defence." "The possession of arms also implied the possession of ammunition, and the authorities paid quite as much attention to the latter as to the former."

And that any firearm which was common to the Military at the time was consiodered as being protected under the 2A:

In 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. Certainly it is not within judicial notice that this weapon is any part of the ordinary military equipment, or that its use could contribute to the common defense.