Skip to main content
Report this ad

See also:

Is it time in Washington for ‘constitutional carry?’


  • Whitney 5 years ago

    Good thing you didn't have to got to Pierce county to renew. Probably be seeing you on the news tonight. If the state was really serious about increasing revenue they would legalize the use of suppressors. Ah but then those are an evil device used only by criminals and asssins. (Sarcastically speaking of course.)

  • Profile picture of jrp1947
    jrp1947 5 years ago

    At least in your state you are light years ahead of California. The men who gave us our independence never envisioned the day when citizens covered by the Constitution and Bill of Rights would not have the right to bear arms to defend this country and their families or that someone would try and define arms meant. Those were simpler times when a person said what they meant and meant what they said. The brain was engaged before mouth and politicians were part time employees. Everyone in politics earned a living doing something else most of the year. There were no professional politicians and laws were debated on merit and not special interests and trade offs in back room deals. That was considered dishonorable. A person right to self defense at least on the expected level of the attacker should be covered under the second amendment and ratified in every state. if it is reasonable to assume most criminals will be using guns then the citizen gets to carry a gun with no questions asked and if the criminal switches from guns to missiles then guess what because the cops are not going to get there until the shooting stops. That is reality folks.

  • Profile picture of ken_grubb
    ken_grubb 5 years ago

    There is at least one problem which could pop up. So long as the RCW 9.41.070 protection remains, then I don't see a problem. However, if that faded or were weakened in any law change, then it could have the effect of opening up the number of places where concealed carry could be banned.

    For the general fund, $15 per license, times 260,000 people, divided by five years, is only $780,000 a year. It's not all that much of a monetary issue, but there is still an expense at the Department of Licensing, maintaining a database, producing reports, etc. Overall, I'd guess any such change would not be budget neutral, but it would be very small.

    A cultural shift would occur as LEOs encountered people carrying guns, without a license, and with no criminal record. However, I'm guessing, at least initially, that gun owners might not like the way they were treated, by some LEOs, during traffic stops while exercising Constitutional Carry.

  • Liberty Bell 5 years ago

    "Today, we need a nation of Minutemen, citizens who are not only prepared to take arms, but citizens who regard the preservation of freedom as the basic purpose of their daily life and who are willing to consciously work and sacrifice for that freedom."

    -- John F. Kennedy

  • PavePusher 5 years ago

    Ken Grubb wrote: "However, I'm guessing, at least initially, that gun owners might not like the way they were treated, by some LEOs, during traffic stops while exercising Constitutional Carry."

    And I'd guess the LEO's would really hate how the Court treated them on obvious Civil Rights infringements.

  • Profile picture of riverworldus
    riverworldus 5 years ago

    I see a second administrative issue. CCW permits can be useful under reciprocity for carry in other states. I would hope that the state would continue to issue them for that purpose.

  • Profile picture of ejt
    ejt 5 years ago

    "The claim and exercise of a Constitutional right cannot be converted into a crime."

    “No state shall convert a liberty into a privilege, license it, and attach a fee to it.”

    - Miller v. U.S., U.S. Supreme Court,[319 U.S. 105 (1943).]

    “Where rights secured by the Constitution are involved, there can be no rule making or legislation, which would abrogate them.”

    - Miranda v. Arizona, U.S. Supreme Court,[384 U.S. 436 (1966).]

    “If the state converts a liberty into a privilege the citizen can engage in the right with impunity”

    - Shuttlesworth v Birmingham, U.S. Supreme Court,[394 U.S. 147 (1969).]

    "Officers of the court have no immunity, when violating a Constitutional right, from liability. For they are deemed to know the law.”

    - Owen v. City of Independence, MO,[445 U.S. 622, 100 S.Ct. 1398, 63 L.Ed.2d 673 (1980).]

    The general rule is that an unconstitutional statute, though having the form and name of law, is in reality no law, but is wholly void, and ineffective for any purpose; since unconstitutionality dates from the time of its enactment, and not merely from the date of the decision so branding it. An unconstitutional law, in legal contemplation, is as inoperative as if it had never been passed. Such a statute leaves the question that it purports to settle just as it would be had the statute not been enacted.

    "A void act cannot be legally consistent with a valid one. An unconstitutional law cannot operate to supersede any existing valid law. Indeed, insofar as a statute runs counter to the fundamental law of the land, it is superseded thereby.

    "No one is bound to obey an unconstitutional law and no courts are bound to enforce it."

    - 16th American Jurisprudence, 2nd Edition, Volume 16, Section 177.

  • robert 3 years ago

    just a thought might sound silly. but cant you make a "Claim of Right" , notarize it and "claim" that a license is an infringment on 2A rights and is hereby null and void in accordance with the Constitution and Magna Carta (Common Law jurisdiction)? Any state statute, ordinance, code or legislation that doesnt have anything to do about violence, p[roperty damage or theft(fraud) shouldnt apply with the individual human beiong..Makes perfect sense on paper. Hence Alaska and Vermont have it right , a License is just a mere "permission" or "registered keeper of a license or fire arm" and is nothing more than an infringment on your right to bear arms. It has nothing to do with stopping criminals, it has everything to do to stop law abiding citizens. I think its a way to track you, call me crazy but i think it is. they should have a law that states" any person who is a resident of WA state (or whatever state your in) who has a valid address, Id, or employment within the State and plan to stay here permanently shall not be debareed the use of arms including not having a license to carry if that individual has a right to own that fire arm (s)". Sort of if you have a right to carry(no criminal record) then you have the right to open carry or CCW carry.

Report this ad