In the ever-evolving discourse around the Second Amendment, recent events in Washington state have catapulted the debate into the national spotlight.
The focal point of this ongoing battle is the recent ruling by Judge Gary Basher of Cowlitz County, which deemed the state’s ban on magazines holding more than ten rounds unconstitutional. This decision underscores a pivotal moment in our understanding and application of constitutional rights, specifically the right to keep and bear arms.
A Judge’s Stand on Constitutional Grounds
Judge Basher’s decision, issued on April 8th, 2024, didn’t just stir the pot; it boiled it over. In a meticulously crafted 55-page ruling, he addressed the ban imposed by Washington state, highlighting its contradiction with both the state and federal constitutions. The judge’s argument was clear: the restrictions infringe on the fundamental individual right to bear arms—a cornerstone of American liberty.
The Immediate Backlash and a Supreme Court’s Pause
However, the victory was short-lived. Within a mere 88 minutes post-decision, a Supreme Court commissioner, a role akin to a high-level law clerk, issued a stay. As the seattletimes.com reported:
“Attorney General Bob Ferguson filed an emergency appeal to the state Supreme Court, seeking to get the law back on the books. Michael Johnston, the Washington state Supreme Court commissioner, granted an emergency stay Monday evening, keeping the ban in effect, for now.”
This action temporarily halted the enforcement of Judge Basher’s ruling, sparking a flurry of debate and confusion about the powers and limits of legal authorities in such significant matters.
The Hearing: A Display of Judicial Theater?
On April 17th, 2024, Commissioner Michael Johnson conducted a hearing to deliberate whether to uphold his stay. The proceedings, lasting 57 minutes, didn’t just highlight the legal arguments but also unveiled the commissioner’s overtly active role in the discussion, which arguably overshadowed the essence of judicial impartiality and listening. This hearing, streamed online here, seemed less about judicial review and more a performance of judicial theater—where the outcome felt predetermined and the process, a mere formality.
Ignorance of the Role of Firearms and Magazines
Critics argue that the commissioner’s approach to defining what constitutes an “arm” under the Second Amendment is narrow and historically unfounded. The argument that a magazine isn’t an arm because a firearm can operate with fewer rounds is a dangerous oversimplification that ignores the integral role of magazines in the functionality of modern firearms. Such interpretations threaten to undermine not just the letter of the law but its spirit, as envisioned by the framers of the Constitution.
As the community awaits the commissioner’s final decision, it’s crucial to engage in informed and respectful dialogue about the implications of this case. The ongoing legal processes not only test the resilience of our judicial system but also challenge us to reflect on the balance between safety and liberty.
This isn’t just about a magazine capacity ban; it’s about affirming the sanctity of our constitutional rights against erosions masked as regulatory measures. As proponents of the Second Amendment, we must remain vigilant, informed, and ready to advocate for rights that, once eroded, may be irretrievable.
The case in Washington is a microcosm of a larger national debate on gun rights. It exemplifies the challenges faced by constitutional rights in contemporary legal and political climates. As this case progresses, it may well set a precedent that will influence not only future interpretations of the Second Amendment but also the broader dialogue around civil liberties in America.
Let’s ensure our voices are heard, our rights defended, and our freedoms preserved.
Big thanks to video host Mark Smith at Four Boxes Diner, where these issues are explored in depth. For those seeking to understand the nuances of this legal battle and its implications for Second Amendment rights, the video provides a compelling visual and auditory insight into the complexities of this crucial issue.
This sort of nonsense is anathema to the rule of law. It’s sort of like, “The law be damned if it doesn’t comport with my jaundiced view of what I think it should be.” It’s these kinds of self-important nincompoops that trigger revolutions. Cheap tin badges (and improperly assumed authority) confer way too much power in certain small minds.
It has nothing to do with ignorance or even stupidity. It has everything to do with the political ideology that doesn’t believe that law abiding citizens should be free from government control. Toady id the anniversary of 77 ordinary men who chose to say No to such tyranny. Putting their very lives on the line so that their countrymen could live free and thus al,owing ‘YOU’ to live free from government tyranny. If you have the courage to preserve it.
This nerd has OVERSTEPPED its authority. The decision rests WITH Our American Constitution, NOT with a COMMUNIST OPERATIVE who wants to DISARM Legal Law Abiding American CITIZENS!!!!
Basher’s decision is outstanding. You all should read it. He spanks every one of the leftwing gun-grabbing authoritarian arguments for gun control, and using scotus and history basically reiterates the case scotus made: pretty much all gun laws are unconstitutional since they were all written after 1791 and most after 1868 as well. Heck, Nfa from 1934 has not a whiff of Constitutional authority! He says like SCOTUS if a substantially similar law(ie infringement) didn’t exist in 1791, then it’s unconstitutional. If something similar existed as law then, and more examples up to 1868, then maybe it might possibly be… Read more »
Don’t care what activists declare. We all know in common use is protected, and 700 million magazines are not going away. We will use them. We will disobey unconstitutional decrees, as it is our duty. And as scotus said, an unconstitutional statute creates no crime, has no authority, makes no law, and has no bearing. We also all know shall not be infringed means every restriction, limit, ban, rule, is unconstitutional, as are ALL GUN LAWS.
If a Supreme Court Commissioner can issue a stay on a judge’s decision, then why do we need a judge or a Supreme Court? Is this Commissioner an elected position? I would like to see an article on how this was possible. I thought a judge’s decision could only be affected by another court, not a simple clerk.
“We’re gonna give you a fair trial, then hang you.”
That seems to sum up Washington’s justice system these days.
There is no law and order when those charged with upholding it substitute their own opinions – buttressed by the power of their office and the power of the state – for the decisions handed down by those charged with making those decisions. By any measure, this is lawlessness. The massive influence of the state has increasingly been used, under these Leftist/Democrat administrations, to obstruct the proper workings of government, and to invert the role of citizen as sovereign to citizen as subject. These petty tyrants need to be erased from the public square – their role extinguished, their office… Read more »
“‘m.j. states, it is lawful to ban magazines that hold more than ten rounds”, according to this IMBOCILE”, YEAH RIGHT! The Garandoni Rifle had a magazine that held 21 or 23 acording to FACTUAL RECORDS. OH YES! By-the-Way, the Garandoni Rifle was produced around 1803 and was used in a County’s Army. History and Text PROVES bans on Magazines IS UNLAWFUL and UNCONSITUTIONAL!!
The implications of this case? Be sure to advocate for rights that once eroded will disappear? Respectful advocation? Yeah, no! We are beyond that. Protests, letter writing, calls to elected officials and advocating for civil rights are all met with derision, disdain and unconstitutional acts by arrogant, ignorant criminals masquerading as arbiters of the law. Rights must be exercised, defended, and forcefully so, per our very founders and eons of history.