American Gun Ownership Highest In 18 Years

[The Brain]

Surely the argument against the lawsuit is that the law isn't in fact unconstitutional (if it isn't), not that it's sensible/whatever? A bit chilling with people in office who wipe their asses with the constitution.

[Valmy]

I do not know the details of the Washington Law that prevents gun regulation.

But I do not really understand how this statute would be enforced. I guess in the event that the police are in somebody's home for some other reason they could ticket them for unlocked firearm storage? I mean you couldn't get a warrant to investigate based on nothing more than a suspicion somebody broke a city ordinance.

[Syt]

Austria has such a requirement, but all legal gun owners are registered, so as far as I understand it's a system of random spot checks. Austria has ca. 30 guns per 100 people.

[derspiess]

Surely the argument against the lawsuit is that the law isn't in fact unconstitutional (if it isn't), not that it's sensible/whatever? A bit chilling with people in office who wipe their asses with the constitution.

It has nothing to do with the US constitution.  Washington has a preemption law that prohibits localities from enacting any restrictions greater than the those at the state level:

https://app.leg.wa.gov/rcw/default.aspx?cite=9.41.290

[Valmy]

Ok having read that I think this is probably a test case to push a little further since they got away with the gun and bullet tax. Similar to what the states do when trying to regulate abortion.

[Admiral Yi]

I do not know the details of the Washington Law that prevents gun regulation.

But I do not really understand how this statute would be enforced. I guess in the event that the police are in somebody's home for some other reason they could ticket them for unlocked firearm storage? I mean you couldn't get a warrant to investigate based on nothing more than a suspicion somebody broke a city ordinance.

After the fact, like if your five year old takes the Python to show and tell.

[The Brain]

Surely the argument against the lawsuit is that the law isn't in fact unconstitutional (if it isn't), not that it's sensible/whatever? A bit chilling with people in office who wipe their asses with the constitution.

It has nothing to do with the US constitution.  Washington has a preemption law that prohibits localities from enacting any restrictions greater than the those at the state level:

https://app.leg.wa.gov/rcw/default.aspx?cite=9.41.290

I'm not talking about the US, I'm talking about Washington state. I thought states had constitutions, but the 2010 ban on firearms in city parks was actually found to be in violation of the US constitution?

[dps]

Surely the argument against the lawsuit is that the law isn't in fact unconstitutional (if it isn't), not that it's sensible/whatever? A bit chilling with people in office who wipe their asses with the constitution.

It has nothing to do with the US constitution.  Washington has a preemption law that prohibits localities from enacting any restrictions greater than the those at the state level:

https://app.leg.wa.gov/rcw/default.aspx?cite=9.41.290

I'm not talking about the US, I'm talking about Washington state. I thought states had constitutions, but the 2010 ban on firearms in city parks was actually found to be in violation of the US constitution?

Yes, states all have their own constitutions, but nothing in a state constitution or state statutes can violate provisions of the US Constitution.  So a local ordinance in a city in Washington might be void because it violates something in the US Constitution (as apparently the park ordinance was) or be void because it violates the state constitution.  In this case, though, it seems that the ordinance is in conflict with a state law--at least that's apparently what the lawsuit claims--not with either the state or US Constitution.

However, if the lawsuit fails, I would expect it to be re-filed in federal court on 2nd Amemdment grounds.

[The Brain]

Surely the argument against the lawsuit is that the law isn't in fact unconstitutional (if it isn't), not that it's sensible/whatever? A bit chilling with people in office who wipe their asses with the constitution.

It has nothing to do with the US constitution.  Washington has a preemption law that prohibits localities from enacting any restrictions greater than the those at the state level:

https://app.leg.wa.gov/rcw/default.aspx?cite=9.41.290

I'm not talking about the US, I'm talking about Washington state. I thought states had constitutions, but the 2010 ban on firearms in city parks was actually found to be in violation of the US constitution?

Yes, states all have their own constitutions, but nothing in a state constitution or state statutes can violate provisions of the US Constitution.  So a local ordinance in a city in Washington might be void because it violates something in the US Constitution (as apparently the park ordinance was) or be void because it violates the state constitution.  In this case, though, it seems that the ordinance is in conflict with a state law--at least that's apparently what the lawsuit claims--not with either the state or US Constitution.

However, if the lawsuit fails, I would expect it to be re-filed in federal court on 2nd Amemdment grounds.

I had to google the 2010 park ban because it seemed odd to me that it would be a US constitution issue, and it seems it was a violation of state law and not unconstitutional (state or US), so AFAICT confusion stems from the article quoted earlier in the thread wrongly using the term "unconstitutional".

[Valmy]

However, if the lawsuit fails, I would expect it to be re-filed in federal court on 2nd Amemdment grounds.

That does not make much sense to me. No where in the Constitution does it say a state or local government cannot regulate the storage of fire arms not in use. Is that interstate commerce? 

[dps]

However, if the lawsuit fails, I would expect it to be re-filed in federal court on 2nd Amemdment grounds.

That does not make much sense to me. No where in the Constitution does it say a state or local government cannot regulate the storage of fire arms not in use. Is that interstate commerce? 

I didn't say that I thought it would be a winning argument.

[Tonitrus]

However, if the lawsuit fails, I would expect it to be re-filed in federal court on 2nd Amemdment grounds.

That does not make much sense to me. No where in the Constitution does it say a state or local government cannot regulate the storage of fire arms not in use. Is that interstate commerce? 

I didn't say that I thought it would be a winning argument.

I thought that'd be the Equal Protection angle...not interstate commerce.

[Valmy]

That was a joke not an actual legal opinion 

[garbon]

Surely the argument against the lawsuit is that the law isn't in fact unconstitutional (if it isn't), not that it's sensible/whatever? A bit chilling with people in office who wipe their asses with the constitution.

It has nothing to do with the US constitution.  Washington has a preemption law that prohibits localities from enacting any restrictions greater than the those at the state level:

https://app.leg.wa.gov/rcw/default.aspx?cite=9.41.290

I'm not talking about the US, I'm talking about Washington state. I thought states had constitutions, but the 2010 ban on firearms in city parks was actually found to be in violation of the US constitution?

Yes, states all have their own constitutions, but nothing in a state constitution or state statutes can violate provisions of the US Constitution.  So a local ordinance in a city in Washington might be void because it violates something in the US Constitution (as apparently the park ordinance was) or be void because it violates the state constitution.  In this case, though, it seems that the ordinance is in conflict with a state law--at least that's apparently what the lawsuit claims--not with either the state or US Constitution.

However, if the lawsuit fails, I would expect it to be re-filed in federal court on 2nd Amemdment grounds.

I had to google the 2010 park ban because it seemed odd to me that it would be a US constitution issue, and it seems it was a violation of state law and not unconstitutional (state or US), so AFAICT confusion stems from the article quoted earlier in the thread wrongly using the term "unconstitutional".

States have their own constitutions.

[The Brain]

Surely the argument against the lawsuit is that the law isn't in fact unconstitutional (if it isn't), not that it's sensible/whatever? A bit chilling with people in office who wipe their asses with the constitution.

It has nothing to do with the US constitution.  Washington has a preemption law that prohibits localities from enacting any restrictions greater than the those at the state level:

https://app.leg.wa.gov/rcw/default.aspx?cite=9.41.290

I'm not talking about the US, I'm talking about Washington state. I thought states had constitutions, but the 2010 ban on firearms in city parks was actually found to be in violation of the US constitution?

Yes, states all have their own constitutions, but nothing in a state constitution or state statutes can violate provisions of the US Constitution.  So a local ordinance in a city in Washington might be void because it violates something in the US Constitution (as apparently the park ordinance was) or be void because it violates the state constitution.  In this case, though, it seems that the ordinance is in conflict with a state law--at least that's apparently what the lawsuit claims--not with either the state or US Constitution.

However, if the lawsuit fails, I would expect it to be re-filed in federal court on 2nd Amemdment grounds.

I had to google the 2010 park ban because it seemed odd to me that it would be a US constitution issue, and it seems it was a violation of state law and not unconstitutional (state or US), so AFAICT confusion stems from the article quoted earlier in the thread wrongly using the term "unconstitutional".

States have their own constitutions.

Thank you for contributing.