News:

And we're back!

Main Menu

American Gun Ownership Highest In 18 Years

Started by jimmy olsen, October 27, 2011, 10:48:23 AM

Previous topic - Next topic

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.
Women want me. Men want to be with me.

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.
Quote"This is a Russian warship. I propose you lay down arms and surrender to avoid bloodshed & unnecessary victims. Otherwise, you'll be bombed."

Zmiinyi defenders: "Russian warship, go fuck yourself."

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.
I am, somehow, less interested in the weight and convolutions of Einstein's brain than in the near certainty that people of equal talent have lived and died in cotton fields and sweatshops.
—Stephen Jay Gould

Proud owner of 42 Zoupa Points.

derspiess

Quote from: The Brain on July 23, 2018, 01:09:44 PM
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
"If you can play a guitar and harmonica at the same time, like Bob Dylan or Neil Young, you're a genius. But make that extra bit of effort and strap some cymbals to your knees, suddenly people want to get the hell away from you."  --Rich Hall

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.
Quote"This is a Russian warship. I propose you lay down arms and surrender to avoid bloodshed & unnecessary victims. Otherwise, you'll be bombed."

Zmiinyi defenders: "Russian warship, go fuck yourself."

Admiral Yi

Quote from: Valmy on July 23, 2018, 02:22:13 PM
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

Quote from: derspiess on July 23, 2018, 02:43:42 PM
Quote from: The Brain on July 23, 2018, 01:09:44 PM
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?
Women want me. Men want to be with me.

dps

Quote from: The Brain on July 23, 2018, 04:10:40 PM
Quote from: derspiess on July 23, 2018, 02:43:42 PM
Quote from: The Brain on July 23, 2018, 01:09:44 PM
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

Quote from: dps on July 23, 2018, 07:51:26 PM
Quote from: The Brain on July 23, 2018, 04:10:40 PM
Quote from: derspiess on July 23, 2018, 02:43:42 PM
Quote from: The Brain on July 23, 2018, 01:09:44 PM
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".
Women want me. Men want to be with me.

Valmy

Quote from: dps on July 23, 2018, 07:51:26 PM
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?  :P
Quote"This is a Russian warship. I propose you lay down arms and surrender to avoid bloodshed & unnecessary victims. Otherwise, you'll be bombed."

Zmiinyi defenders: "Russian warship, go fuck yourself."

dps

Quote from: Valmy on July 23, 2018, 10:00:51 PM
Quote from: dps on July 23, 2018, 07:51:26 PM
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?  :P

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

Tonitrus

Quote from: dps on July 23, 2018, 10:05:10 PM
Quote from: Valmy on July 23, 2018, 10:00:51 PM
Quote from: dps on July 23, 2018, 07:51:26 PM
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?  :P

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  :P
Quote"This is a Russian warship. I propose you lay down arms and surrender to avoid bloodshed & unnecessary victims. Otherwise, you'll be bombed."

Zmiinyi defenders: "Russian warship, go fuck yourself."

garbon

Quote from: The Brain on July 23, 2018, 08:13:00 PM
Quote from: dps on July 23, 2018, 07:51:26 PM
Quote from: The Brain on July 23, 2018, 04:10:40 PM
Quote from: derspiess on July 23, 2018, 02:43:42 PM
Quote from: The Brain on July 23, 2018, 01:09:44 PM
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.
"I've never been quite sure what the point of a eunuch is, if truth be told. It seems to me they're only men with the useful bits cut off."
I drank because I wanted to drown my sorrows, but now the damned things have learned to swim.

The Brain

Quote from: garbon on July 24, 2018, 01:39:28 AM
Quote from: The Brain on July 23, 2018, 08:13:00 PM
Quote from: dps on July 23, 2018, 07:51:26 PM
Quote from: The Brain on July 23, 2018, 04:10:40 PM
Quote from: derspiess on July 23, 2018, 02:43:42 PM
Quote from: The Brain on July 23, 2018, 01:09:44 PM
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.
Women want me. Men want to be with me.