Of Arms and the Law

Navigation
About Me
Contact Me
Archives
XML Feed
Home


Law Review Articles
Firearm Owner's Protection Act
Armed Citizens, Citizen Armies
2nd Amendment & Historiography
The Lecture Notes of St. George Tucker
Original Popular Understanding of the 14th Amendment
Originalism and its Tools


2nd Amendment Discussions

1982 Senate Judiciary Comm. Report
2004 Dept of Justice Report
US v. Emerson (5th Cir. 2001)

Click here to join the NRA (or renew your membership) online! Special discount: annual membership $25 (reg. $35) for a great magazine and benefits.

Recommended Websites
Ammo.com, deals on ammunition
Scopesfield: rifle scope guide
Ohioans for Concealed Carry
Clean Up ATF (heartburn for headquarters)
Concealed Carry Today
Knives Infinity, blades of all types
Buckeye Firearms Association
NFA Owners' Association
Leatherman Multi-tools And Knives
The Nuge Board
Dave Kopel
Steve Halbrook
Gunblog community
Dave Hardy
Bardwell's NFA Page
2nd Amendment Documentary
Clayton Cramer
Constitutional Classics
Law Reviews
NRA news online
Sporting Outdoors blog
Blogroll
Instapundit
Upland Feathers
Instapunk
Volokh Conspiracy
Alphecca
Gun Rights
Gun Trust Lawyer NFA blog
The Big Bore Chronicles
Good for the Country
Knife Rights.org
Geeks with Guns
Hugh Hewitt
How Appealing
Moorewatch
Moorelies
The Price of Liberty
Search
Email Subscription
Enter your email address:

Delivered by FeedBurner

 

Credits
Powered by Movable Type 6.8.7
Site Design by Sekimori

« NRA Board elections | Main | Brady releases its annual report card »

Washington State Supreme Court on incorporation

Posted by David Hardy · 18 February 2010 10:18 AM

State v. Sieyes (pdf), handed down today. Defendant was charged with possession of a handgun by a minor. The court, in an extremely thoughtful ruling (citing Joyce Malcolm, Eugene Volokh, William van Alstyne and others) rules that the 14th Amendment due process clause incorporates the right to arms and makes it binding on the States, then remands for a determination as to whether the law passes muster (which was barely briefed). The dissent argues there is no need for remand, because strict scrutiny applies and the law fails that test. The dissent has interesting references to teenager possessing arms, and serving in the militiary, throughout American history.

· 14th Amendment

4 Comments | Leave a comment

Jeff | February 18, 2010 12:41 PM | Reply

Out of curiosity: Would a state supreme court decision like this make any impression on the US Supreme Court?

Jeff

Hank Archer | February 18, 2010 12:48 PM | Reply

Any court decision could make an impression on any other court, depends on how its reasoning stikes the other judge(s).

In other words, "It couldn't hurt!"

Meltonlaw | February 18, 2010 1:29 PM | Reply

A state's supreme court is the final determiner of the laws of that state. Even the SCOTUS has to abide by those decisions in an action that deal solely with the laws of that state. Thus for Washington state the 2nd Amendment is now incorporated. Problem is that this is possible a Federal question.
As to precedential value, this case would have a persuasive precedent on the SCOTUS but is certainly not binding unless it was a question of state laws - statute or commonlaw.

shawn | February 18, 2010 1:58 PM | Reply

Johnson is dead on. The standard of review must be addressed in McDonald. Strict Scrutiny is the correct answer and for the majority to not say so, in this and the Heller court, is simply allowing liberal justices to not strike these laws down.

There is still hope in this case that the Court of Appeals will go with the dissent and apply the SS standard to the statue. Then if the WSC doesn't like it, it can take the case up again...which it won't.

So, if the COA's applies a lesser standard, then I doubt the WSC would take up the case again either. Lets hope it is properly argued below. This is going to have an effect nation wide...unless McDonald case puts this issue to rest.

Leave a comment