Most gun owners understand (and appreciate) the United States Constitution. We know that attacks on our rights will continue. Our Founding Fathers clearly understood that the protections afforded by the Constitution should not be altered on a whim or in the heat of some fleeting social controversy. As a result, amending the Constitution is not an easy process; it requires serious consensus.According to the Federal

Register: “The U.S. Constitution provides that an amendment may be proposed either by the Congress with a two-thirds majority vote in both the House of Representatives and the Senate or by a constitutional convention called for by two-thirds of the State legislatures. A proposed amendment becomes part of the Constitution as soon as it is ratified by three-fourths of the States.”Note that the U.S. Constitution has only

been amended 17 times since the adoption of the Bill of Rights in 1791.However, state constitutions are a different matter. They can have a more immediate and direct effect on our lives — and not always for the better. More importantly, they can be far more easily changed than the U.S. Constitution. The forces intent on restricting (or even eliminating) our rights have taken notice of this. A perfect example is what is

happening here in Florida, where there is a movement to institute yet another “assault weapons” ban.With more than a million concealed weapons license holders (and millions more gun owners) in Florida, gun control has been extremely unpopular. But Florida, like many states, allows a “ballot initiative” which bypasses the Legislature and puts the question directly to the voters. Anti-gun activists are attempting to have

this one on the ballot for the 2020 election.Firearms-related initiatives are often intentionally worded to be deceptive and/or extremely misleading since the authors know the public is woefully ignorant about guns and violence issues. As a constitutional lawyer friend says, they basically use “mob rule — forcing us to fight back in court challenges” after the fact. Such court challenges are also very expensive, with no

guarantee that the courts will even consider the matter.The Florida proposal defines assault weapons as being “semi-automatic rifles and shotguns capable of holding more than 10 rounds of ammunition at once.”


And while it would ban possession of the weapons, it would include “an exemption for people who had the weapons before the ban went into effect but would add a registration requirement” [emphasis ours]. Here again, yet another “back-door” means to introduce gun registration.


You and I know that such laws can never save a single life. But what they can do is turn millions of innocent citizens into criminals overnight. Worse, as part of the Florida State Constitution, the new amendment will undoubtedly be used as a basis for even more onerous restrictions.True, the United States Supreme Court has made some rulings that are more in keeping with the actual meaning of the

Constitution, especially when it comes to the Second Amendment. But they have recently refused to even hear some critical cases arising out of some highly questionable state laws.The bottom line is that wherever you live, it is imperative that you stay informed of such proposals and how they impact your rights. Then get involved. Call, write and email your legislators, and your governor, over and over.

The rights you save may be your own.

You may have seen the news about Chief of Police Loren Culp, who turned the tables on liberal legislators by declaring his Washington State town of Republic a “Sanctuary City” … for gun owners!

See the full story from the Yakima Herald.

According to the Yakima Herald, Chief Culp’s ordinance was proposed “in response to I-1639, which state voters approved earlier this month. [It] raises the age limit to buy some weapons from 18 to 21 and opens a gateway to prosecute people who sell guns to customers who can’t legally own them.”

There’s much more, including massive regulations on dealers and totally unenforceable “universal background checks” — even between two individuals. One particularly troubling regulation is on page 12 of I-1639:

NEW SECTION. Sec. 5. SECURE GUN STORAGE. A new section is added to chapter 9.41 RCW to read as follows:

(1) A person who stores or leaves a firearm in a location where the person knows, or reasonably should know, that a prohibited person may gain access to the firearm:

(a) Is guilty of community endangerment due to unsafe storage of a firearm in the first degree if a prohibited person obtains access and possession of the firearm and causes personal injury or death with the firearm…

Now, in fairness, there are additional sections that exempt the gun owner from liability under certain specific circumstances, including if:

(d) The prohibited person’s access to the firearm was obtained as a result of an unlawful entry, provided that the unauthorized access or theft of the firearm is reported to a local law enforcement agency in the jurisdiction in which the unauthorized access or theft occurred within five days of the time the victim of the unlawful entry knew or reasonably should have known that the firearm had been taken.

We would certainly hope so. After all, it is a fundamental principle of American common law that no person should be held criminally liable for the unlawful acts of another. However, the wording only says:

(a) The firearm was in secure gun storage, or secured with a trigger lock or similar device that is designed to prevent the unauthorized use or discharge of the firearm…

What constitutes “secure gun storage” is not clearly and unambiguously defined. And what kind of “similar device” (a safe, a locked wall-storage unit or gun rack, etc.) is not specified.

However, even if you escape criminal prosecution, there is no immunity in the law against civil lawsuits. If a storekeeper was shot by a 17-year-old gang member (who obtained the gun when he burglarized your home), the family would quite possibly be able to sue in civil court.

If that happens, a savvy plaintiff’s attorney would be happy to suggest to a jury that whatever means you used to secure your firearm was “inadequate” or even negligent. After all, he or she will argue, “If your gun had been secured properly, it wouldn’t have been stolen.”

The larger issue at stake is the concept of preemption — that federal and state laws take precedence over local ordinances. Local municipalities cannot enact more restrictive firearms-related laws, which is exactly what Seattle’s I-1639 does.

Opponents argue that Chief Culp is doing the same thing. Not so; his proposal is intended to contravene more restrictive laws, not enact them. It remains to be seen how this conflict will be resolved, but the chief should get credit for highlighting the problem.

More info:
Complete (30-page) text of I-1639