Skip to main content

There is a senate bill currently pending in the Washington State Legislature, SB 6272, the Washington right to protection act, which includes the following provisions:

Any lawful citizen of Washington has the right under the United States Constitution to protect themselves including, but not limited to:

(a) The use of guns and ammunition;
(b) The use of mace or other repellants; and
(c) Any other means necessary to stop an assailant.

Any lawful citizen of Washington has the right to defend himself or herself, unless he or she is in the act of committing a crime, without interference from federal or state agencies.

Law abiding citizens of Washington shall not have their gun or ammunition rights waived by any governmental agency nor shall their guns or ammunition be tracked with markings or radio frequency identification dust, paint, or any other direct identifiers.

Any lawful citizen of Washington has the constitutional right to privacy in his or her home including, but not limited to, his or her farm, vehicle, trailer, or other place of domicile, and to be anonymous as long as he or she is not in the act of committing a crime.

The bill was introduced by nine Republican state senators, six of whom have been reported to have links with the American Legislative Exchange Council.

It seems to me that this legislation is meaningless and redundant in most regards as most of these rights are already protected under state and national laws.

But it pisses me off that guns and bullets and gun owners have more rights to privacy and secrecy than I do.

I had a very unfriendly conversation with someone answering the local police phone on the topic. I wanted to find out if any stance had been taken by the local force on tracking guns and ammunition because, if the weapons and ammo were stolen and used in a crime, it would be of some aid in tracking down the perps -- and one would presume that the original owner of the weaponry would report the theft.

The fellow on the phone wanted to know immediately where I stood on the Second Amendment -- and all I could say was that the intent of the writers of the Second Amendment was not totally clear to me. I failed to get the guy's name, unfortunately, also I was nonplussed by what the Second Amendment had to do with tracking guns and ammo.

I mentioned the Trayvon Martin case in Florida and my concerns about my personal safety anywhere in public in Washington State because we have our own "no retreat" guns laws, apparently enacted in 2011 but I haven't been able to track down the bills yet. Increased hostility ensued between me and the police spokesman and he hung up on me when I angrily said I had a right not be shot down in public in Washington State because some gun nut looked at me cross-eyed.

EMAIL TO A FRIEND X
Your Email has been sent.
You must add at least one tag to this diary before publishing it.

Add keywords that describe this diary. Separate multiple keywords with commas.
Tagging tips - Search For Tags - Browse For Tags

?

More Tagging tips:

A tag is a way to search for this diary. If someone is searching for "Barack Obama," is this a diary they'd be trying to find?

Use a person's full name, without any title. Senator Obama may become President Obama, and Michelle Obama might run for office.

If your diary covers an election or elected official, use election tags, which are generally the state abbreviation followed by the office. CA-01 is the first district House seat. CA-Sen covers both senate races. NY-GOV covers the New York governor's race.

Tags do not compound: that is, "education reform" is a completely different tag from "education". A tag like "reform" alone is probably not meaningful.

Consider if one or more of these tags fits your diary: Civil Rights, Community, Congress, Culture, Economy, Education, Elections, Energy, Environment, Health Care, International, Labor, Law, Media, Meta, National Security, Science, Transportation, or White House. If your diary is specific to a state, consider adding the state (California, Texas, etc). Keep in mind, though, that there are many wonderful and important diaries that don't fit in any of these tags. Don't worry if yours doesn't.

You can add a private note to this diary when hotlisting it:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from your hotlist?
Are you sure you want to remove your recommendation? You can only recommend a diary once, so you will not be able to re-recommend it afterwards.
Rescue this diary, and add a note:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from Rescue?
Choose where to republish this diary. The diary will be added to the queue for that group. Publish it from the queue to make it appear.

You must be a member of a group to use this feature.

Add a quick update to your diary without changing the diary itself:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary?
(The diary will be removed from the site and returned to your drafts for further editing.)
(The diary will be removed.)
Are you sure you want to save these changes to the published diary?

Comment Preferences

  •  it's always going to be a "dark area" with (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    mickT, jan4insight, kurt

    regards to those who "need" to carry weapons.

    personally, if i don't have a handgun, then the chance i can shoot people drops exponentially. and i have never felt the "need to arm" against mostly made up bad guys.

    "Papoon for President - Not Insane".

    by darthburger on Mon Mar 26, 2012 at 05:39:46 PM PDT

  •  Ask them if they can point to the spot (5+ / 0-)

    in the Constitution where it says you have a right to kill someone? Yes, the Constitution gives them the right to keep and bare arms. There is no denying that. But it doesn't give them the right to kill "without interference from federal or state agencies". And notice has they've tossed the extra special "Nyah, nyah, we're a state and we can tell the federal government to fuck off" clause into that. If you can't get the 2nd Amendment crowd behind it maybe the 10th Amendment ones will help push it over the top.

    "What profit a man, if he gain the world, but has to pay taxes on it?" Paul 8:36

    From the Gospel of St. Ron Paul in the Teachings and Misunderstandings of the Words of Adam Smith

    by ontheleftcoast on Mon Mar 26, 2012 at 05:41:22 PM PDT

    •  The US Constitution Says That Where the KRATS (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      ontheleftcoast

      of SCOTUS say it says that.

      More from the private legislation takeover of all levels of government. Unlike politically crafted law, private law can be fully coordinated and standardized village, city, county, state and federal.

      We don't have any Constitutional awareness of how to prevent or check private lawmaking.

      We are called to speak for the weak, for the voiceless, for victims of our nation and for those it calls enemy.... --ML King "Beyond Vietnam"

      by Gooserock on Mon Mar 26, 2012 at 06:01:26 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Have we ever *NOT* had private lawmaking? (0+ / 0-)

        Seriously, we've had tens of thousands, hundreds of thousands, of laws and regulations created in 200+ years. How many of them weren't from special interests prodding the government? Monied interests have always had their way from Tammany Hall to Enron to ALEC. I think the only difference is they're no longer even pretending to keep it from public view. They've grown that brazen.

        "What profit a man, if he gain the world, but has to pay taxes on it?" Paul 8:36

        From the Gospel of St. Ron Paul in the Teachings and Misunderstandings of the Words of Adam Smith

        by ontheleftcoast on Mon Mar 26, 2012 at 06:06:22 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

  •  Notice Unlike the US Constitution, It Specifically (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    kurt

    does NOT say "person."

    Incidentally this also means that if I'm visiting from Ohio I don't have those rights that the residents do.

    And say, are they going to prosecute Facebook and Google for violating lawful Washington residents' privacy when internetting from inside their homes?

    THAT provision I'd chip in for.

    We are called to speak for the weak, for the voiceless, for victims of our nation and for those it calls enemy.... --ML King "Beyond Vietnam"

    by Gooserock on Mon Mar 26, 2012 at 05:58:58 PM PDT

  •  Just more paranoia-stoking by NRA, a solution (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    mickT, jan4insight, kurt

    looking for a problem.

    You have exactly 10 seconds to change that look of disgusting pity into one of enormous respect!

    by Cartoon Peril on Mon Mar 26, 2012 at 06:07:35 PM PDT

  •  I have never understood this argument (4+ / 0-)

    I never owned a gun.

    My parents never owned a gun.

    My entire dad's side of the family never owned a gun.

    My mom's side had a few people that owned guns, for hunting.

    I lived in Athens for 8 years. No one owned a handgun. Shotguns were for hunting.

    A functioning society does not need to have guns for personal safety.

    I would like to go further and say a functioning political establishment, where all people felt they were getting their voices heard, would mean guns for political use would be useless as well.

    Which would mean instead of fighting for gun rights, we should be fighting for human rights. A lot less people die that way.

  •  So in Washington it will be the law (0+ / 0-)

    that firearms cannot have serial numbers and that no records of serial numbers can be kept?

    If it passes, most of this will probably be thrown out because Federal law preempts it.

    •  Not necessarily (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      kurt

      The WA State legislature appears to have legislation pending that would remove weaponry and ammo manufactured solely in Washington State from federal scrutiny.

      I'll have to drag out my wretched research skills and find that bit of legislation.

      Thanks for this comment.

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site