Washington Governor Signs Bill Effectively Banning Knives on Public Transportation

Critter said:
[Post in General approved by Spark]

Washington Governor Jay Inslee yesterday signed blatantly unconstitutional anti-knife (and anti-gun) SB 5444. The new law goes into effect on June 6th, 2024. From that date it will be illegal to possess ANY knife at a "transit station" including bus, train and trolley stops! As such, unless you manage to board and get off public transport somewhere other than a "transit station," it will be impossible to legally carry a knife on public transit.

The legislators who voted for this and the Governor cannot say they weren't warned that this would adversely affect their constituents who use public transit, especially the economically disadvantaged who have no alternative and must carry a knife for their jobs. They are now potentially subject to criminal charges for just trying to make an honest living. It is a law begging to be abused. Sadly, there's nothing "unintended" in this new law, they all knew the consequences and did it anyway.

This a very frustrating loss for us, having already stopped nine bad knife ban bills from passing over the past decade and a half, all never getting out of committee!

Second Amendment lawsuits that will ultimately impact this unconstitutional new law are in various stages of litigation in the Ninth Circuit (that includes Washington) and around the country, including Knife Rights' cases. Some of these cases will likely end up at the U.S. Supreme Court before long. One way or another, with luck this bad law won't be on the books for long.

Knife Rights is America’s grassroots knife owners’ organization; leading the fight to Rewrite Knife Law in America™ and forging a Sharper Future for all Americans™. Knife Rights efforts have now resulted in 45 bills repealing knife bans in 28 states and over 175 cities and towns since 2010.
Click to expand...
it will literally end all crime
 
Aaron880 said:
Wedge: I get that u state an “ absolutist “ 2A position, even including , as u said, “ nukes”. Now let me say that u correctly note, without quite stating it , that our 2A rights include what was lawful in 1791, which means under British Common Law, which our Constitution SPECIFICALLY INCORPORATES AS OF 1791.

Well there were no nukes, tanks, repeating firearms, invented or probably even contemplated in 1791. What category do those weapons fall-in? Also, in Britain and the Colonies, there were all sorts of weapon restrictions. Some national Some local. Some urban and others rural?

We both agree that there was a generalized common law right of a non-felon, sane, adult (21) to own & carry arms. But ,as noted that right was limited , in some places and types of arms, NOT as you assert by the best means possible. You are reading into the words of the text and expanding their naked meaning. A No-No to a Strict Constitutional Comstructionist.

So you do believe in a living/ expanding interpretation of the Constitution. Me too! It means that we have to decide what things like: “ freedom of speech, press and religion” “ due process of law”; “ secure in their persons and property”, “ equal protection of the law”, “ freedom of the press”, all Intentionally general statements, meant by Madison for Judicial and Legislative interpretation, means in any given era or situation. Classic example , if u r a Textual Absolutist on the 1A, then, in that case, u r free to false cry “ fire” in a crowded theatre, right? See what I mean?
Click to expand...
Aaron880 said:
No right is absolute and rights are expandable and ( in wartime for example) constictable. Do you think American Citizens have a general right to privacy in their everyday lives, marriages, education and upbringing of their children? Me too. But , it’s not in the text of the Constitution . It may be one of those undefined rights referenced in the 9 th. A? But in the late 1950s and thru the early 1970s , in a series on Supreme Court decisions, the Supreme Court began to develop the Right of Privacy , first in marriage, but later adding defined rights that the average person already always thought they had or which had developed, in common societal understanding, The “ Right” was founded upon the 9th and 14 th Amendment and the field of privacy that was needed to actually give life to the Rights specifically promised or inferred in the 9th and 14 th Amendments. The best explanation of this living rights concept is found in the case of Griswold v. Connecticut, 381 U.S. 479. (1965). This decision is the bane of all Strict Constritionists and Textual interpretors of the U. S. Constitution. It was my favorite case to study in Law School and remains so, even today, 50 years later!

But, by one theory, applying the theme that rights guaranteed in the Bill of Rights can’t be read into the Constutional text, after what was lawful when the 14th A was enacted ( 1868 ). The year when the Bill of Rights was made applicable to the States. ( They only applied to the Federal Government before that date), your 2A right to own and bear arms would be limited to revolvers or Pepperbox pistols of .45 cal. or less, holding 8 or less shots and lever action carbines of up to 15 rounds in a non- detachable magazine, single shot, sniper type , rifles of about .45 cal.and shotguns of 2 rounds. Why, because that what was in existence in 1868 and available to average citizens. Frankly, I’m not sure how the Gatling Gun fits into this theory?. That interpretation is perfectly plausible for a Conservative, Textualist , Strict Construction Justice. I’m am not saying that is my opinion, because it is not. However, it is logically defensible under common rules of judicial and statutory construction under Strict Textualist interpretive principles.
Click to expand...
 
How will Washington’s new knife ban on public transit affect travelers’ everyday carry? When I ride services like Seattle Black Limo, I wonder how different transport types handle EDC rules. Curious what others think about safety and legal clarity for knives on buses, trains, and private vehicles.
 
jasicarubel said:
How will Washington’s new knife ban on public transit affect travelers’ everyday carry? When I ride services like Seattle Black Limo, I wonder how different transport types handle EDC rules. Curious what others think about safety and legal clarity for knives on buses, trains, and private vehicles.
Click to expand...
So if you buy a knife do you then need to walk home?

N2s
 
They're gonna roll out metal detectors before you hop on the bus, but what does this mean for every stop? They will have to install metal detectors at the cost of the bus company and every rider will have to take all their clanking dangly bits and put it in a bin for the ...driver, to, sift, through?
Seems highly impractical
 
  • Like
Reactions: DMG
ShaiHulud said:
They're gonna roll out metal detectors before you hop on the bus, but what does this mean for every stop? They will have to install metal detectors at the cost of the bus company and every rider will have to take all their clanking dangly bits and put it in a bin for the ...driver, to, sift, through?
Seems highly impractical
Click to expand...
its an impossible law to enforce.....meaning they know this and still voted for it...what's that tell you........
 
Aaron880 said:
I am generally a believer in the more ( but not the most) expansive reading of Second Amendment rights. Albeit , the current Supreme Court requirement of restrictions having to be justified by the state of the law at the time of the passage of the Bill of Rights or after passage of the 14th. Amendment, is at odds with my belief in the Living / Expanding Rights interpretation of the Constitution. Heller et al. is even internally inconsistent , because Heller allows mandatory registration of firearms, bans on ‘unusual or dangerous” arms ( are not a 17 round magazine Glock or a 30 shot AR-15 , “ dangerous or unusual” arms by the standard of allowed arms in 1789 or 1868 standards of allowable arms under the effective dates of those amendments? Also Heller et all. Allows banning arms in sensitive places, giving schools , airports and courthouses as examples, all without trying to justify these exceptions/ limitations with regard to 1789 / 1868 weapon restrictions. A single citizen , so armed, would carry more usable deadly fire power than a battalion of 18th Century regular army troops.

We need clearer, consistent legal reasoning, as well as common sense legal/ practical understanding to have both a viable 2nd Amendment right and a safe society. How many of you are ready to legally allow a fellow airline passenger to carry a loaded Glock 17 and/ or AR—15 or any firearm , aboard a commercial airliner, along with you, your spouse, children , grandchildren? Really, be honest. No one wants to be locked up ,in an aluminum compartment , traveling at high speed , with everyone armed like they were about to fight the battle of Fallujah. How is Subway / Train or Bus station practically different? Your still all bunched -up, have limited or no exit ability and are very vulnerable.

So if we say no carrying loaded guns in a commercial airline cabin is not a 2nd Amendment violation, do we say , OK no guns on Commmuter Buses, Subways, Commuter trains? But what about canes, pepper spray, knives, stun guns, to give everyone some protection ability , short of mass murder. Maybe we even license carrying a 5 or six shot revolver in dense urban spaces, so a elderly or disabled person, can ride coming home from second shift work, on a nearly empty train and still give the mugger types pause that “Granny” might have S&W Chief’s Special in her pocket?

And as we continue down the Heller track, it is the police who will register the strongest, most common and deadly objections to the Supreme Court doctrine. Look at how many more police shootings there are now of unarmed citizens or people armed with cell phones , or how often police now pull their handguns on a citizen objecting , verbally and peacefully, to being bullied because they lawfully question the right to be detained on a police whim or to refuse to ID when not required to do so by law. Truth is cops are more afraid these days, not to mention undereducated in the law and de-escalation techniques, which tends to make the even the best of them more aggressive in their encounters with the public. Qualified Immunity is getting so widely over-asserted that citizens will and in some places, have already eliminated or limited the immunity, legislatively.

I’m not making rules here. I’m trying to start a discussion of ideas without getting into histrionics. No Constitutional Right is unlimited. The owner of an outlying farm probably needs more gun rights for self/ family protection than does someone living in a dense urban area. But even that urban dweller/ traveler, needs a right to protect him/ herself against a group of muggers.
Click to expand...
Sir, Respectfully you should look into the History of Repeating Firearms. They were around Over 200 years before the God Blessed 2A was penned!!
 
Aaron880 said:
So if we say no carrying loaded guns in a commercial airline cabin is not a 2nd Amendment violation, do we say , OK no guns on Commmuter Buses, Subways, Commuter trains? But what about canes, pepper spray, knives, stun guns, to give everyone some protection ability , short of mass murder. Maybe we even license carrying a 5 or six shot revolver in dense urban spaces, so a elderly or disabled person, can ride coming home from second shift work, on a nearly empty train and still give the mugger types pause that “Granny” might have S&W Chief’s Special in her pocket?
Click to expand...
You can transport firearms in the checked luggage. You just can't have them in the cabin. There is nowhere to check your gun in a bus or subway.
 
Aaron880 said:
Wedge: I get that u state an “ absolutist “ 2A position, even including , as u said, “ nukes”. Now let me say that u correctly note, without quite stating it , that our 2A rights include what was lawful in 1791, which means under British Common Law, which our Constitution SPECIFICALLY INCORPORATES AS OF 1791.

Well there were no nukes, tanks, repeating firearms, invented or probably even contemplated in 1791. What category do those weapons fall-in? Also, in Britain and the Colonies, there were all sorts of weapon restrictions. Some national Some local. Some urban and others rural?

We both agree that there was a generalized common law right of a non-felon, sane, adult (21) to own & carry arms. But ,as noted that right was limited , in some places and types of arms, NOT as you assert by the best means possible. You are reading into the words of the text and expanding their naked meaning. A No-No to a Strict Constitutional Comstructionist.

So you do believe in a living/ expanding interpretation of the Constitution. Me too! It means that we have to decide what things like: “ freedom of speech, press and religion” “ due process of law”; “ secure in their persons and property”, “ equal protection of the law”, “ freedom of the press”, all Intentionally general statements meant by Madison for Judicial and Legislative interpretation, means in any given era or situation. Classic example , if u r a Textual Absolutist on the 1A, then, in that case u r free to false cry “ fire” in a crowded theatre, right? See what I mean? No right is absolute and rights are expandable and ( in wartime for example) constrictavle.

By one theory, applying the theme that what was lawful when the 14th A was enacted ( 1868 ), and the Constitutional. Bill of Rights was therefore applicable to the States. ( They only applied to the Federal Government before that date), your 2A right to own and bear arms would be limited to revolvers or Pepperbox pistols of .45 cal. or less, holding 8 or less shots and lever action carbines of up to 15 rounds single shot, sniper type , rifles of about .45 cal.and shotguns of 2 rounds. Why, because that what was in existence in 1868 and available to average citizens. That interpretation is perfectly plausible for a Conservative, Textualist , Strict Construction Justice. I’m am not saying that is my opinion, because it is not. However, it is logically defensible under common rules of judicial and statutory construction under Strict Textualist interpretive principles.
Click to expand...
Edit: this is a necro thread. Nevermind.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top