State v Hernandez Mercado :: 124 Wn2d 368
Category: Second Amendment
This analysis does not go into the record nor the conviction of an alien possessing a firearm. The dictum of the opinion is worrisome and that is the focus of this summary.
1. At 379: “There is no question that under the United States Constitution there is no absolute right even for citizens to bear arms and the state may regulate firearms under their police powers.” Obviously, these judges do not know the Constitution, or else they hold it in high contempt. The actual wording of the second amendment should, in fact, be the construction of the law. That is that, “A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.” There is much written by our Founding Fathers that affirms that the “Militia” is the people of the United States. Protecting freedom is both an external measure of the military and an internal measure for the people to guarantee a civil state, limited government and to defend their property and being. There is absolutely no provision for State or federal police powers to limit the right to keep and bear arms. Regarding our State Constitution, article 1, section 24, guarantees that, “The right of the individual citizen to bear arms in defense of himself, or the state, shall not be impaired. . ..”
2. At 380 they reaffirm a long standing judicial precedent that does not stand up to the test of separation of powers that is a principle of our Constitution. That is that, “In any constitutional challenge a statute is presumed constitutional unless its unconstitutionality is proved beyond a reasonable doubt.” An early US Supreme Court case, Marbury v Madison, 5 US 137 (1803) held that, “All laws which are repugnant to the Constitution are null and void.” Recent cases no longer hold to this view. Division one of the Washington State Appellate Court, State v Spencer, 75 WnApp 118, 121 (1994) reaffirmed the long standing precedent that “a statute is presumed constitutional. . ..” Furthermore, it went on to say that, “If possible, a court will construe a statute so as to render it constitutional.” Now the Supreme Court reaffirms that any challenge to a statute must prove it unconstitutional beyond a reasonable doubt. How does a private citizen go about proving the unconstitutionality of a law when it is the ‘duty’ of the court to construe it “so as to render it constitutional?”
Rating the Usual Suspects:
| fail | Dolliver, James | |
| fail | Durham, Barbara | |
| fail | Guy, Richard | |
| fail | Johnson, Charles | |
| fail | Madsen, Barbara | |
| fail | Smith, Charles | |
| fail | Utter, Robert |