It has been nearly four years – and will be this coming Sunday, July 11 – that Seattle resident Mary Cooper and her daughter, Susanna Stodden, were murdered along the Pinnacle Lake trail in Snohomish County, and considering the lack of a return telephone call from the county sheriff’s department, there is probably nothing new to report. (KING 5 News carried a piece about this on Wednesday.)
Cooper and Stodden were unarmed, and there is no reason to believe that they ever would have been; probably quite the opposite. Other hikers do carry firearms, and in Washington State, to carry a concealed handgun while hiking, hunting, fishing, camping or engaging in any other legitimate outdoor activity, one does not even need a concealed pistol license. They do this because bad things do happen to good people in unlikely places, including a quiet mountain trail where people are supposed to be enjoying the serenity, not being slain by a killer still at large.
Exceptions to restrictions on carrying firearms:(8) Any person engaging in a lawful outdoor recreational activity such as hunting, fishing, camping, hiking, or horseback riding, only if, considering all of the attendant circumstances, including but not limited to whether the person has a valid hunting or fishing license, it is reasonable to conclude that the person is participating in lawful outdoor activities or is traveling to or from a legitimate outdoor recreation area--RCW 9.41.060
Washington is also an “open carry” state where citizens can pack handguns openly, a practice that has already been upheld by the courts, and is constitutionally protected.
Evergreen State residents should be pleased that they are not subject to the whims of people like Chicago’s Mayor Richard Daley and his city council, which adopted a new handgun regulation package last week that is so onerous in its nature that it relegates the right to keep and bear arms to the level of a very limited privilege. Indeed, one member of the city council, Alderman Mary Ann Smith, actually boasted that the city has created “as restrictive a tool as possible” in its effort to discourage Chicago residents from exercising their newly-recovered right to have a handgun for self-defense.
A right that is so restricted that it cannot be easily exercised is no right at all.
A lawsuit has already been filed against this new handgun regulation, and is being supported by the National Rifle Association, which is not a plaintiff.
This column discussed the Pinnacle Lake murders about this time last year here, and may continue reminding readers on an annual basis until the killer is apprehended.
The statute does not and, under the Constitution, cannot prohibit the mere carrying of a firearm in public. - State v. Gregory Casad
In New York State, the penal code allows bureaucrats the authority to deny someone a carry permit on the grounds that they cannot demonstrate some special “need.” SAF Executive Vice President Alan Gottlieb quickly notes that in the wake of the McDonald ruling, the Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms now applies to state and local governments, therefore it should hardly be necessary for a private citizen to demonstrate “good cause” before he or she can exercise this civil right.
Naturally, others disagree. Gun prohibitionists have labored for years to erode our right to bear arms. They would disarm law-abiding citizens with the notion that self-defense is not an important enough reason to carry a firearm.
Recent statements from some of Chicago's city officials reflect their complete lack of respect for the Supreme Court decision. Alderman Daniel Solis stated, “the decision made by the Supreme Court is not really in the best interests of our citizens.” Alderman Sharon Denise Dixon denounced what she called the Court’s “blatant… misreading of the law.” And another city council member even went so far as to say, “[w]e’re here today because of their poor judgment." - NRA press release
Hmmmm. Why should anyone have to “demonstrate a need for self-protection” at all? Just point to the police blotter section of a local newspaper; you’ll have all the justification necessary to any reasonable person. Watch the first five stories of a local newscast. Spend an evening at the emergency room. Take a walk through Seattle’s Belltown district at night.
Self-defense is not a constitutional right, it is a natural right, a human right that is protected by the Constitution, provided one accepts the Supreme Court’s majority wisdom that the right to keep and bear arms extends far beyond service in some militia. Why some people still cannot accept that fails all rationality. They allow hatred of guns to cloud their judgment.
Homicide is also justifiable when committed either:(1) In the lawful defense of the slayer, or his or her husband, wife, parent, child, brother, or sister, or of any other person in his presence or company, when there is reasonable ground to apprehend a design on the part of the person slain to commit a felony or to do some great personal injury to the slayer or to any such person, and there is imminent danger of such design being accomplished; or(2) In the actual resistance of an attempt to commit a felony upon the slayer, in his presence, or upon or in a dwelling, or other place of abode, in which he is.—RCW 9A.16.050
Self-defense statutes were never meant to provide us with an open season on bad guys. We have a good one here in Washington and it works. Such laws are designed to protect private citizens who, faced with no other recourse, take the life of another to save their own life or the life of another. Anti-gunners argue that armed citizens carry guns so they can kill people. Armed citizens quickly reply that they carry guns to keep from being killed.
One can speak in philosophical terms about self-defense. One can discuss the act as a matter of training and preparation. However, until one is actually engaged in the act, has to draw a gun and level it at another person, the issue is academic. Say a prayer to all the gods in the heavens that it stays that way.
PLEASE FORWARD the link to this column and share with all of your chat lists and forums
More from Gun Rights Examiners
Atlanta Ed Stone | Austin Howard Nemerov | Boston Ron Bokleman | Charlotte Paul Valone | Cheyenne Anthony Bouchard | Chicago Don Gwinn | Cleveland Daniel White | DC Mike Stollenwerk | Denver Dan Bidstrup | Des Moines Sean McClanahan |Detroit Rob Reed | Fort Smith Steve D. Jones | Knoxville Liston Matthews | Los Angeles John Longenecker | Minneapolis John Pierce | National David Codrea | Seattle Dave Workman | St. Louis Kurt Hofmann | Tucson Chris Woodard
And Don’t forget to visit:
Comments
I saw this article and just had to comment on your closing prose:
I'll pass on your 'gods': there is only One True God and it is in His hands which I have placed my soul, my hope, and my future.
Anything else is pure idolatry.
Relating to the SCOTUS, with Kagan on the bench, put there by spineless Republicans RINO's, like Graham, Snow, Collins, and McCain, all it'll take to flip the 2A gains is for Scalia or Thomas to die in office.
We're that close to Tyranny.
Given the mood of the country, the severity of the current economics and the forecast by renowned economists that we are a hair's breadth away from a Depression this time next year (resulting from the Double Dip Recession that seems to be growing), should 2A rights be overturned federally and then implemented locally, chaos, anarchy, and real Civil War may not be too far behind.
The God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob is the only One in Whom solace may be found.
Cheers.
It is a very simple question with a very simple answer. Should the government be allowed to deny honest citizens the right to chose whether or not they want to arm themselves against criminals intent on breaking the law and possibly taking the victims life or go disarmed and pray that a person already bent on breaking the law will not go to the maximum and kill the victim. I submit that if a criminal is intent on breaking the law and willing to illegally carry a gun for the purpose breaking the law/forcing otehrs to do his or her will then that criminal should be subject to retaliation by the victim. Most criminals sentenced to be put to death die of something else while in prison because of the long appeal process. It is far more just that if either the criminal or the victim should have to die at the time of the crime that it be the criminal if possible. The victim should have the choice to go armed or unarmed and this should not be a choice made by government or cowardly politicans
I think I'll take the Walter Williams approach.
Come again, Straightarrow..??
Straightarrow, Can you explain Walter Williams' approach? Not all are familiar with the philosophy on Self Defense and the individual right to keep and bear arms expressed by this Economics professor from George Mason University.(I presume you refer to Walter E. Williams Professor Emeritus)
Well, one quote of Williams' may be applicable: "When you here that they have Williams' guns, you will know that Williams is dead."
JR, do you sit at your dinner table and expect the food to come out of thin air? No? Or do you use the gifts God gave you to work, earn your keep, and provide the food for yourself and your family. Then you thank God for the gift of life and intelligence, I hope.
God gives us the intelligence and tools to live, grow and preserve our lives. It is up to us to use them appropriately, not grovel before criminals and "pray."
Mr. Workman, while your appeal is good, moral, and incisive, the "gods in heaven" didn't hear you. As Elijah did, I'll encourage you to appeal to them louder, perhaps they are asleep. Or maybe too busy.
Great article as always... There are other states that have strong 2nd amendment rights, but are there any others that have strong laws / state constitutions and large anti gun populations like Washington?
Sean:
I left a message for the gods in the heavens on their answering machine, but like the Snohomish County Sheriff's Office, they have yet to return my call. Maybe they all went to the beach because of the heat.
Special T: You should try Vermont. Open or concealed carry, no permit required, and genuine left wing nutballs by the bushel in some enclaves.
Jaime and Al, Armed Geek supplied the answer to your queries.
Armed Geek,
Thank you for the quote. It was among the 90% I had forgotten or not heard from Rush's substitute host. One MUST agree with the sentiment.
Got something to say?
Examiner.com is looking for writers, photographers, and videographers to join the fastest growing group of local insiders. If you are interested in growing your online rep apply to be an Examiner today!