"[ Robert-Coyote ]" wrote:
>
> How can any state claim specficly that the right to Guns extends only to use
> as a armed govmt millitia and not for personal use without violateing the
> equal protection act when the Washington state constitution cleary states
> they are for the individual citizen's personal defense ?
>
> SECTION 24 RIGHT TO BEAR ARMS.
> The right of the individual citizen to bear arms in defense of himself, or
> the state, shall not be impaired, but nothing in this section shall be
> construed as authorizing individuals or corporations to organize, maintain
> or employ an armed body of men.
Well, that is just Washington State, but the RCW you cite is specifically to
prevent private armies. A militia is not a private army, it is a community one.
The definition of 'militia' is all able bodied eligible voters in a community.
The militia is not a state or national government controlled, regulated, or
organized group. The above cited clause does conform with the equal protection
clause because it prevents your neighbor from hiring a private army where you
cannot. The interesting thing about this clause is that it seems to outlaw all
private security corporations in Washington State, something I know for a fact
is not being enforced. Taking Seattle specifically, take the security forces at
Broadmoor down Madison Park way.... They are armed, they are also in the employ
of a private corporation.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Thu Jul 27 2000 - 14:14:08 MDT