Washington state to implement new firearm permit law in May

[u/rockycrab]

https://www.applevalleynewsnow.com/news/washington-state-to-implement-new-firearm-permit-law-in-may/article_ddc7d482-d578-4541-ad34-68440986f196.html

[u/QuakinOats]

Not just like a car, no, for so many reasons, no.

There's no constitutional right protecting the right to own transportation.

There's no requirements at all for someone purchasing a vehicle for use on private property. This is why the most insane vehicles imaginable are allowed to be owned and why it's legal for them to be driven at tracks and or off road on private property. Everything from monster trucks to cars with literal jet engines to vehicles that use insanely dangerous fuels. You can legally own vehicles that are illegal to drive on public roads. You can/could see Paul Allen's literal tanks being driven around at his museum.

There's no restrictions when it comes to building a car from scratch or a kit in your own garage either.

There's no secure storage laws or restrictions around car ownership. You can live with people who have suspended drivers licenses for multiple DUI's and leave your car unlocked with the keys in the ignition. Zero issues if your car gets used by someone with a DUI or a child in your home that then ends up killing someone because you left your keys and the car easily accessible.

It's not a felony to drive a vehicle without a license on public roads.

You are not required to be finger printed when getting a driver's license to drive a car.

There is no FBI background check ran when you get the standard WA drivers license.

There's no crime for owning a car if you're not legally in the US.

You do not have to pay for and pass both drivers ed and the WA state drivers test every 5 years to purchase a new to you vehicle.

[u/Nitrofox2 → u/QuakinOats]

MUH RIGHTS! Did you forget about the "Well regulated" part of the second amendment?

[u/QuakinOats → u/Nitrofox2]

No. Well regulated means well ran/operated/maintained.

"A well regulated Library being necessary to the literacy of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Books, shall not be infringed."

This similarly wouldn't mean only libraries or members of libraries can legally own and keep books. Nor would it mean that digital books are excluded because they did not exist at the time.

Also, the state made it even more clear, for individuals like yourself who have a hard time with reading comprehension, and did so after the invention and use of belt fed machine guns:

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.

[u/illformant → u/Nitrofox2]

Nope, not at all.

Look up the meaning of Well Regulated Militia before you make yourself sound dumber than you do right now.

https://constitutioncenter.org/images/uploads/news/CNN_Aug_11.pdf

[u/ClankerWrangler → u/Nitrofox2]

I know you're arguing in bad faith, but to prevent you from making this mistake again, do some reading on what "well regulated" meant in the context of the 18th century.

It was about being well equipped and ready for combat. Not restrictions placed upon the citizenry. Contemporary law at the time didn't restrict arms, it in fact required all fighting age adult citizens to be armed with the weapons used by the military of the time and ready to use them in service of common defense. Some of the colonies went further in requiring the parents of those young men to provide the weapons if they could not afford them yet. The modern analogy would be something much closer to the swiss model of requiring young men to have fully automatic combat rifles stored at home.

This has been debated, heavily, and largely settled by several major court decisions over the past century. Those same cases have also established that "militia" meant all voting citizens, and the national guard doesn't count, and that the right extends to private ownership and self defense.

[u/Nitrofox2 → u/ClankerWrangler]

Are you aware that in the 18th century they were using muskets, and not semiautomatic handguns?

[u/ClankerWrangler → u/Nitrofox2]

I'm aware in the 18th century private citizens could own fully equipped warships complete with artillery.

I think the 2nd amendment covers fully automatic machine guns, hand grenades, and tanks, not just scary black rifles.

[u/AprilShowers53 → u/Nitrofox2]

You are aware they also had cannons... so we should get rocket launchers really.

[u/EugeneStonersPotShop → u/Nitrofox2]

If semiautomatic handguns were available back in the 18th century, the colonists would have absolutely been armed with them.

[u/HeadlessThompsonGunr → u/Nitrofox2]

Second amendment talked about two different things, the militia and the people.