The fundamental reason why it is important tounderstand the differences in rights is so we can better understand how they apply to us as individuals and how to protect them.
It is also important to understand the right to keep and bear arms in not an unlimited right, and is similar to First Amendment rights. For example, comments on articles are rarely deleted because you have the First Amendment right of free speech and to your opinions. However, that does not mean that you have an absolute right to say anything you want and your comment would never be deleted.
A legal right is created by and therefore regulated by the legislature. Knowing that, we can also apply the law to protect it.
The Washington State Supreme court has recently issued an historic opinion in State v. Christopher William Sieyes that the Second Amendment "applies to the states via the Fourteenth Amendment due process clause". This is the first state Supreme Court to recognize the protection of our right to keep and bear arms applies to all people and limits government at all levels from infringing upon this right. Quoting Justice Sanders who wrote for the majority, "Lower courts need not wait for the Supreme Court the Constitution is the rule of all courts both state and federal judiciaries wield power to strike down unconstitutional government acts." Justice Sanders also stated "This right is necessary to an Anglo-American regime of ordered liberty and fundamental to the American scheme of justice."
At the time of his arrest Mr. Sieves was 17 years old and he argued the state law prohibiting persons under the age of 18 from possessing firearms violated his right to keep and bear arms. There are nine exceptions in the state law allowing persons under the age of 18 to possess firearms, so the court did not find the law was an unconstitutional absolute prohibition. Mr. Sieves also failed to show the court why all children had an unfettered right to bear arms and actually conceded that they did not have such a right. Justice Sanders wrote “In sum appellant offers no convincing authority supporting his argument that Washington's limit on childhood firearm possession violates the United States or Washington Constitutions. Accordingly we keep our powder dry on this issue for another day”.
Even the Wisconsin Supreme Court found in Hamdan that “Wisconsin Stat. § 941.23 is similarly constitutional when applied to the defendant because it does not eliminate the right of an owner of a privately operated business to bear arms for security or defense but simply limits the manner in which he or she may exercise the right to bear arms. That is, § 941.23 does not prevent anyone from carrying a firearm for security, defense, hunting, recreation, or other lawful purposes. Rather, it limits the manner of carrying weapons, by requiring that a weapon that is on a person or within a person's reach not be concealed.67 The gist of the offense is the concealment. Thus, nothing about Wis. Stat. § 941.23 comes close to eviscerating, destroying, frustrating, or nullifying the right to bear arms in Wisconsin for the defendant here or any other person. The right to bear arms "is not impaired by requiring individuals to carry weapons openly."
The Sieyes opinion is specific to limiting the governments regulation of firearms by incorporating the Federal Constitution to the State of Washington however it does serve as a legal precedent that other state Supreme Courts may follow. This opinion should also be very helpful guidance for the U S Supreme Court as it has to decide the same issue when it hears oral arguments in the McDonald v. Chicago case next week.
Below is a link to the opinion:
Comments
Gene once again we are back to you arguing that "shall not be infringed" does not mean "shall not be infringed". I am surprised that you did not find a way to work a required training restriction in to this article.
I think the citizens of Wisconsin may be better served if you restrict your "gun privileges" fight to your home state of Minnesota.
I agree with Mr. Young, despite what appears to be a well written and researched article, the gist is that my rights come from the legislation and are interpreted by the courts. However, my right to protect my life, my family, and my property exist regardless and do not come from any court or legislation, rather it is a God given right, that I was born with. The amendment is there to protect my right from the courts, not allow them to limit it based on unconstitutional law.
Sure, in my world I believe that I have God given rights to protect me and my family with whatever means necessary however we are stuck with legislators and we are a country that is run by laws. We can only stay active in convincing people that this is a Civil Rights issue and not just a gun issue.
Lighten up guys! Gene is on our side and believes the same thing that we do. He is providing information regarding the laws that we are stuck with and need to change. Gene had a lot to do with our Carry laws in Minn. and can help in Wisc. I sure don't see any organized group of Wisconsinites getting anything done.
It's about our Civil Rights - not just guns!
GregB
"we are a country that is run by laws"
- The supreme law of the land is "shall not be infringed"
Gene, a firearms instructor, has consistently advocated that a Wisconsin concealed carry law have a training requirement. Who knows, with Gene's help we may be able to get a concealed carry law passed that will add a training requirement for open carry. That would be sure to fill up his classes.
1] Rights predate govenmen. 2] Rights, akin to breathing, require neither permission nor acceptance to exist. 3] Rights are often most evident while being violated.
"In a free nation, government has no authority to forbid me from speaking because I might shout 'Fire!' in a crowded theater. Government has no authority to forbid me from using my fist to defend myself because I might also use it to strike your nose. And government has no authority to forbid me from owning a firearm because I might shoot an innocent victim." - State Sen. Tom McClintock (CA)
For Mr. German's edification, regarding the fundamental right of the people to keep and bear arms: For government to make a distinction between open and concealed carry is - BY DEFINITION -an infringement. Rights are not a limitation for "We, the People". Rights are a limitation on the power of government.
Molon Labe.
Agreed Sean. Gene seems to be fine with prior restraint when it comes to guns and I am of the opposite opinion.
Of course, he does have a vested interest in making sure all CCW laws require a "license", which in order to procure you must pay to attend a class and pay to get said 'permit". I am sorry Gene, but every State should have CCW laws like Vermont and Alaska, that is, no permit required.
Actually I do have an absolute right to say whatever I want. The govenrment has merely reserved for itself the power to censure what I've said, but notice that government censure can only happen after the fact. You are also free to delete this. Whether you choose to or not depends on how far you are willing to allow the free expression of disagreement with you, or the words used to go.
I also have an absolute right to be armed. In just what way can that right be denied? No power on earth can deny me the right to carry what I want, where I want, when I want. That right can be censured, but it cannot be denied.
It is not an arguement of the differences between rights and privledges. It is an argument between the differences between the free practice of natural rights and the governments power of censure.
If you think I am wrong consider this, felons have been censured in the free practice of their right to arms. That censure does not prevent them from having and using arms con't
If the power of censure had the effect of removing the right, there'd be no such thing as and no need for "gun control".
Obviously it’s necessary that some laws exist with written penalties for violations.
According to the law(s) as written, the defendant was in violation, and did not qualify for any exceptions provided.
Not knowing the exacting details, I presume the driver of the vehicle was not of adult age, or could have satisfied the adult supervisor provision.
The officer did have the option to simply inform Mr. Sieyes of the offense, confiscate the firearm and tell him to have the lawful owner come pick it up at the station---but chose to arrest him.
Curiously conflicting is the establishment of an age when a person is legally an adult and regarded as legally responsible for ones actions--but as a ‘juvenile’ Mr. Sieyes--who effectively violated no one else’s ‘rights’ and thus committed no actual crime--was arrested, tried, convicted, sentenced to ‘incarceration’, 1 year supervision, community service and fined $100.
Seems to me a rather harsh way for the State to threat it's children.
There is NOT ONE single gun control law that can even be shown to work.
None of the CDC, DoJ, nor the National Academy of Science has been able to identify any (ANY!) gun control law which can be shown to reduce any (ANY!) of murder, violent crime, suicides nor accidents.
We could also of course solve more crimes, save more innocent lives, put away more dangerous criminals if we were to suspend the 4th, 5th, and 6th amendment rights of anyone with a felony or maybe even a serious misdemeanor.
Doing that wouldn't even offend the rights of the law-abiding; this is a much better comparison with the idea of trying to control guns by the law-abiding or making them prove they are not felons to buy or carry a firearm.
BTW, one of those laws that cannot be shown to accomplish anything is the Brady/NICS background check itself.
You GD Idiot - the First Amendment nas nothing to do with posting on your privately owned web-site, it's a restriction on the government's power to censor free speech.
You need to wake up & grow up & try to understand what "shall not be infringed" means.
Don K
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!