ANALYSIS: Attorney General Pam Bondi’s announcement that the Department of Justice’s Civil Rights Division has launched an investigation into the Los Angeles County Sheriff’s Department “to determine whether it is engaging in a pattern or practice of depriving ordinary, law-abiding Californians of their Second Amendment rights” amounts to a warning shot across the bow of anti-gunners in other states.
The announcement essentially says so in the second paragraph, explaining this probe is “part of a broader review of restrictive firearms-related laws in California and other States.”
Nowhere has this announcement been cheered louder than in Washington state, where law-abiding gun owners and Article 1, Section 24 of the State Constitution are under withering attack by majority Democrats in the State Legislature.
By bizarre coincidence, about the same time Bondi’s DOJ was announcing its investigation on Thursday, March 27, the Washington State Senate’s Law & Justice Committee was advancing Engrossed Second Substitute House Bill 1163, an onerous bill requiring a permit-to-purchase in order to buy a firearm. The bill, which appears poised to pass, mandates completion of a firearms safety course including a 50-round live fire component, a background check and fingerprinting. These would also be requirements for obtaining a concealed pistol license in the state, beginning late next year. HB 1163 was sent to the Senate Ways and Means Committee.
Second Amendment advocates have already promised federal legal action against the state. The reaction from supporters of this bill has been to note how such laws have been adopted in about a dozen other states.
But there is a difference between those states and Washington, which might appear at or near the core of any lawsuit. Article 1, Section 24 of Washington’s Constitution says this: “The right of the individual citizen to bear arms in defense of himself, or the state, shall not be impaired…” This language was adopted Nov. 11, 1889, and only one other state has the exact same language in its constitution: Arizona, where it was adopted in 1912, when statehood was achieved.
Other state constitutions mention “shall not be infringed” or “not abridged,” but only Washington and Arizona apparently prevent the right from being impaired.
According to the Merriam-Webster dictionary:
Infringe means “to encroach upon in a way that violates law or the rights of another.”
Abridge means “shortened or condensed especially by the omission of words or passages.”
Impaired means “being in an imperfect or weakened state or condition: such as
a: diminished in function or ability: lacking full functional or structural integrity
b: unable to function normally or safely (as when operating a motor vehicle) because of intoxication by alcohol or drugs.”
Critics argue forcefully that HB 1163’s permit-to-purchase and its prerequisites constitute impairments.
Incidentally, in about eight states including California, Maryland, New York, New Jersey and Minnesota, there is no specific state constitutional right-to-bear-arms provision. The Washington/Arizona provision is considered by many to be one of the strongest in the nation. In the Evergreen State, HB1163 may be on a collision course with the state constitution and with the Second Amendment, which was incorporated to the states via the 14th Amendment in the June 2010 Supreme Court ruling in a case known as McDonald v. City of Chicago. By no small coincidence, the McDonald case was brought to the Supreme Court by the Second Amendment Foundation, which is based in Bellevue, Wash.
The DOJ announcement was not really subtle. It is not just an investigation of the LA County Sheriff’s Department’s foot dragging on gun permit applications. This may be the opening act of what could become a legal and constitutional drama rivalling a Taylor Sheridan mini-series.
It seems like a clear warning to other states which have taken Supreme Court rulings in Heller, McDonald and Bruen as a dare, with anti-gunners working overtime to skate around the high court’s language.
“This Department of Justice will not stand idly by while States and localities infringe on the Second Amendment rights of ordinary, law-abiding Americans,” Bondi said. “The Second Amendment is not a second-class right, and under my watch, the Department will actively enforce the Second Amendment just like it actively enforces other fundamental constitutional rights.”
Bondi’s statement is not at all vague, and it clearly exhibits the vast difference between the DOJ today, and the department under the previous administration.
“Some States and localities, however, have resisted this recent pro-Second Amendment caselaw,” the DOJ announcement says. “And California has been a particularly egregious offender. In response to recent Supreme Court caselaw, California enacted new legislation to further restrict the ability of ordinary, law-abiding Californians to keep and bear arms. And many California localities appear to be imposing additional burdens beyond those required by California state law, including by subjecting ordinary, law-abiding Californians to expensive fees and lengthy wait times associated with applications for concealed handgun licenses.”
Does that sound like any other state?
Even the traditionally anti-gun Seattle Times recently editorialized against HB 1163, arguing, “Reducing the number of illegally obtained guns is a worthy cause and something that needs to be done to make our streets, schools and communities safer. But HB 1163 would not keep those with illegal and deadly intentions from getting their hands on a gun. In fact, the intended purpose of the bill could backfire.”
Indeed, it could. According to various sources, the Washington State Patrol, which does background checks in the state, rather than the National Instant Check System (NICS), is running way behind in conducting checks now. Add to that burden another 100,000 to 200,000 permit-to-purchase and CPL checks annually, and the system won’t just bog down, it will crash, resulting in massive delays in clearance. This may be exactly what anti-gunners want, until they are held responsible.
The Seattle Times editorial suggests the newspaper has finally figured out what this is all about.
“Some lawmakers have tried to make this bill about the cost to exercise one’s Second Amendment rights. It is not. It’s about acknowledging gun ownership as a constitutional right and a part of America’s culture.”
While Democrats and their wealthy allies in the gun prohibition lobby think this is about guns, firearm owners recognize this is a battle about rights; their rights, their children’s rights and the DOJ agrees.
RELATED:
About Dave Workman
