The Right to Self-Defense: Is It Being Impaired?

This is a very complex and convoluted issue. There are many varying opinions as to whether, or not, initiatives like the one recently passed in Washington State - 1639 - which seems to obviously counter what the state's Constitution says about the matter of self-defense and the right to bear arms is being impaired. 

My take on why it is so complex and convoluted for most citizens of the state, is that a long established maneuvering of political influence, partly from local levels like Seattle, and state levels like the state Supreme Court - or, as one of our recent radio talk show hosts liked to call it, the "Seattle Supreme Court" - that is stacked with judges who are blatantly liberal in their ideology regarding firearms use and an interpretation of the meaning of the language in the state's Constitution on self-defense and public safety, is entrenched in our state's legal arena.

Reading this article by the Gillfords Law Center makes it clear as to the bias of the State Supreme Court which I speak above. While it cites cases where the decision has "balanced" the state Constitution's right for a citizen to self-defense in their own home, it ignores two glaring points when it comes to this new law's impairment of that right.

First, it speaks only to the criminal act of those carrying a weapon. It ignores the legal right to carry concealed in public for the purpose of self-defense should an individual encounter an illegal act being committed by someone in public. Furthermore, it also ignores the individual's right to keep, in their home, a firearm for self-defense handy for fending off an intruder threatening their life when the new law requires that the homeowner keep their weapon(s) in a locked device to keep children, who might be in the house, from accessing it.

Notice I use the word "individual" here, because the state's Constitution specifically uses this word in addressing the issue. Today, the emphasis is on the "collective", or public, safety which seems to now take precedence over individual rights by liberal/socialists.

More recent communication by the state's Attorney General, Bob Ferguson, has focused on county sheriffs claiming they would not perform background checks under the new law. But this report on the issue says that:

A large number of county sheriffs around the state, including Rick Scott in Grays Harbor County and Robin Souvenir in Pacific County, have recently said they would not actively enforce the initiative based on what they see as a conflict with the right to bear arms in the U.S. and State Constitutions. [Emphasis mine.]

The new law specifically enforces citizens who have weapons in the homes to have them locked up to prevent children from getting to them, but at the same time impairs the individual from accessing their weapon to defend themselves in the case of a burglar entering their house. Yet, if one doesn't, then - starting July 1st of this year - if their weapon is stolen from their house by a thief and is used in a crime, the owner can be prosecuted! Does such a law respect the individual's right? It has nothing to do with public safety in this instance!

But A.G. Ferguson appears to make it out as though they're saying they refuse to perform them on "semiautomatic assault rifles."

The law goes into effect July 1. In his letter, Ferguson said, “Just like handgun purchases, local law enforcement officials are required to perform these background checks. As far as I know, no Washington sheriff or police chief has refused to perform these enhanced background checks for handguns. Why refuse to perform them for semiautomatic assault rifles?”

Could it be that the definition of  "assault rifles" doesn't apply to those who carry concealed, or keep their self-defense tool in their homes for protection? Note that the definition of "assault rifle" is as follows, using the key term of "for infantry use" in it?

as·sault ri·fle

Dictionary result for assault rifle

noun

noun: assault rifle; plural noun: assault rifles

1. a rapid-fire, magazine-fed automatic rifle designed for infantry use.

Since the State Constitution already specifies that this right doesn't allow for organized militias, military, or armies, then why does the A.G. insist on using it? It seems to me that the Media (D) is counting on the average ignorance by its viewers/readers to get away with not realizing just how stupid the A.G. is about this issue. He seems to be letting his ideology get in his way of his requirement to understand the law clearly.