Seattle v Montana :: 129 Wn2d 583
Category: Second Amendment
Montana and McCullough were convicted in Seattle Municipal Court for unlawful use of a weapon. Their convictions were overturned in superior court. The issues before the Supreme Court are two:
1. Does SMC 12A.14.080 violate the right to bear arms in article I, section 24 of the Washington Constitution?
2. Is SMC 12A.14.080 unconstitutionally vague or overbroad?
Justice Talmadge begins his reasoning with the reminder that art. 1, sec. 24 of the Washington State Constitution “is not absolute and permits reasonable regulation of arms.” [at 587 & 593]. Then he makes a few arguments regarding the reasonable regulation of arms and public safety. He then goes off on a tangent about the character of these knives (one was a paring knife and the other a fishing knife) and how they are not “arms.” As such, the reasoning goes, there are no constitutional protections and may be regulated as the City sees fit.
He argues that people have a right to use public areas without fearing for their lives and that it is reasonable that people be required to carry weapons in a manner that will not warrant alarm. This reasoning does not even apply to the case, because both men were carrying their weapons concealed. Neither had displayed nor used their weapons.
Justice Durham wrote separately but concurred in the result. We commend her for her argument: “I believe it is unwise to speculate about the boundaries of the ‘reasonable regulation’ limit on the constitutional right to bear arms in self-defense.” [at 599]. However, she limits the constitutionality of the ordinance to “as applied to these Respondents.” [at 599]. In other words, a bad law is good if used against a bad guy.
Justice Alenxander wrote a masterful piece on the right to bear arms and the intent of the framers “absolutely to protect a person’s right to carry arms for personal defense.” [at 600]. He argues “the majority incorrectly determines that the ordinance . . . passes muster under Washington’s [C]onstitution when applied to a case where the knives are “arms.” [at 600]. But he concludes that these weapons are not arms and “are not afforded protected status . . ..” [at 601]. So we get around the constitutional question by redefining the word “arms.”
Rating the Usual Suspects:
| pass | Fox, Neil | |
| pass | Gain, Brian | |
| pass | Schwartz, Miriam | |
| fail | Alexander, Gerry | |
| fail | Dolliver, James | |
| fail | Durham, Barbara | |
| fail | Guy, Richard | |
| fail | Hightower, Judith | |
| fail | Johnson, Charles | |
| fail | Madsen, Barbara | |
| fail | Mamiya, Ron | |
| fail | Pekelis, Roselle | |
| fail | Sidren, Mark | |
| fail | Smith, Charles | |
| fail | Talmadge, Phil |