Washington Governor Signs Bill Effectively Banning Knives on Public Transportation

Critter

Critter

Platinum Member
Joined
Mar 23, 2003
Messages
1,746
[Post in General approved by Spark]

Washington Governor Jay Inslee yesterday signed blatantly unconstitutional anti-knife (and anti-gun) SB 5444. The new law goes into effect on June 6th, 2024. From that date it will be illegal to possess ANY knife at a "transit station" including bus, train and trolley stops! As such, unless you manage to board and get off public transport somewhere other than a "transit station," it will be impossible to legally carry a knife on public transit.

The legislators who voted for this and the Governor cannot say they weren't warned that this would adversely affect their constituents who use public transit, especially the economically disadvantaged who have no alternative and must carry a knife for their jobs. They are now potentially subject to criminal charges for just trying to make an honest living. It is a law begging to be abused. Sadly, there's nothing "unintended" in this new law, they all knew the consequences and did it anyway.

This a very frustrating loss for us, having already stopped nine bad knife ban bills from passing over the past decade and a half, all never getting out of committee!

Second Amendment lawsuits that will ultimately impact this unconstitutional new law are in various stages of litigation in the Ninth Circuit (that includes Washington) and around the country, including Knife Rights' cases. Some of these cases will likely end up at the U.S. Supreme Court before long. One way or another, with luck this bad law won't be on the books for long.

Knife Rights is America’s grassroots knife owners’ organization; leading the fight to Rewrite Knife Law in America™ and forging a Sharper Future for all Americans™. Knife Rights efforts have now resulted in 45 bills repealing knife bans in 28 states and over 175 cities and towns since 2010.
 
Danny Linguini said:
I’m sure that will greatly cut down violent crime on the city’s public transportation. Bravo.
Click to expand...

national-knife-amnesty.jpg


where-we-turn-these-guns-in-at.jpg


(I hope this doesn't violate any forum rules against political content...if so, please delete with my apologies...)

(("If we can't have knives, then how about pitchforks?"))
 
Last edited:
Comical Political point scoring, this is a draconian approach and as such completely impossible to enforce. It's really an a♤♡ backwards roundabout way of banning public knife carry, right? So by banning knife carry in all public transit systems, they ensured that the people would be out and about in public without a knife on them, because they couldn't have it on them when they entered the transit system --- so they had to leave it at home and thus, not have it on them
 
Last edited:
You mentioned Jay Inslee, so of course it is stupid. He recently took $3,000,000 from the WA State Police budgets, to pay for his increased security detail, as he is so important, much to the displeasure ion the State Police. He even considered running for President. John
 
polish avenger said:
Unless they plan on frisking every passenger, this is completely unenforceable.
I'm glad I live out in the sticks.
Click to expand...
I mean...*of course* they don't plan on any such thing. These laws will be used primarily against people of color, as they always are.

It's not at all "unenforceable". They will search you on the barest of pretenses, and if they find anything, it will be admissible evidence, and you will be prosecuted.
 
When they get the money, they'll install those Evolve scanners anywhere they don't want you having things.
They recently installed them at the ER entrance to one of the hospitals here, and have been confiscating lots and lots of knives.
If it's a legal knife they'll store it at security till you leave, but if it's deemed illegal, the cops get called.

Get ready folks; we might end up getting one of the futures promised us in the 1980s, but looks more like a dystopian one as opposed to the one with jetpacks and a moonbase. :(
 
That being said, although I Am Not A Lawyer, I think that Doug is incorrect in his reading of the law.

RCW 9.41.300 (14, or 17 as amended) reads: ' "Weapon" as used in this section means any firearm, explosive as defined in RCW 70.74.010, or instrument or weapon listed in RCW 9.41.250. '

But RCW 9.41.250 only refers to: 'any instrument or weapon of the kind usually known as slungshot, sand club, or metal knuckles, or spring blade knife'; or 'any dagger, dirk, pistol, or other dangerous weapon'.

The only term here which is defined is "spring blade knife". Neither RCW 9.41.250 nor RCW 9.41.010 define what a "dagger", a "dirk", or "other dangerous weapon" means for the purposes of subsections (1) (f), (g), and (h), the new sections for libraries, zoos, and transit facilities, or really, any other part of subsection (1) outside of subsection (1)(b).

RCW 9.41.300 (1)(b), which applies only to court facilities, reads: ' For purposes of this subsection (1)(b), "weapon" means any firearm, explosive as defined in RCW 70.74.010, or any weapon of the kind usually known as slungshot, sand club, or metal knuckles, or any knife, dagger, dirk, or other similar weapon that is capable of causing death or bodily injury and is commonly used with the intent to cause death or bodily injury. '

The only logical takeaway from this is that the only definition of "weapon" in the law (which again, does not actually apply outside the specific subsection) that could give us guidance as to what the meaning of the law might be, is ' any knife, dagger, dirk, or other similar weapon that is capable of causing death or bodily injury and is commonly used with the intent to cause death or bodily injury '.

*All* parts of that definition must be met for a knife to legally be classified as a "weapon" under RCW 9.41.300 (1)(b). The object of the compound phrase 'that is capable of causing death or bodily injury and is commonly used with the intent to cause death or bodily injury' is 'any knife, dagger, dirk, or other similar weapon'. That means that for a knife to be a "weapon" under this law, it must be of a type that "is commonly used with the intent to cause death or bodily injury".

This definition is repeated in subsection (2), which applies to public demonstrations (although police are required to issue a warning first).

If the definition applied merely to "any knife", then it would be illegal to use a butter knife at the lunch kiosk in the Seattle Public Library or the Woodland Park Zoo. That would obviously be nonsensical and not the intent of the law. A butter knife is obviously "capable of causing death or bodily injury", but would never be "commonly used with the intent to cause" such.

(NB: I do not currently live in Seattle, but I have lived in Seattle, and I may move back there, at some point.)

To my memory, the last time I was in the King County Courthouse in downtown Seattle, I was required to surrender my Victorinox Rambler, and it was returned to me when I completed my business and left the courthouse. A Rambler is also obviously not "commonly used with the intent to cause death or bodily injury", but I'm not about to start an argument with the security officers. However, it should also be noted that courts are required by subsection (1)(b) to provide for the safe storage of weapons. No such provision applies to libraries, zoos, or transit.
 
Last edited:
I am generally a believer in the more ( but not the most) expansive reading of Second Amendment rights. Albeit , the current Supreme Court requirement of restrictions having to be justified by the state of the law at the time of the passage of the Bill of Rights or after passage of the 14th. Amendment, is at odds with my belief in the Living / Expanding Rights interpretation of the Constitution. Heller et al. is even internally inconsistent , because Heller allows mandatory registration of firearms, bans on ‘unusual or dangerous” arms ( are not a 17 round magazine Glock or a 30 shot AR-15 , “ dangerous or unusual” arms by the standard of allowed arms in 1789 or 1868 standards of allowable arms under the effective dates of those amendments? Also Heller et all. Allows banning arms in sensitive places, giving schools , airports and courthouses as examples, all without trying to justify these exceptions/ limitations with regard to 1789 / 1868 weapon restrictions. A single citizen , so armed, would carry more usable deadly fire power than a battalion of 18th Century regular army troops.

We need clearer, consistent legal reasoning, as well as common sense legal/ practical understanding to have both a viable 2nd Amendment right and a safe society. How many of you are ready to legally allow a fellow airline passenger to carry a loaded Glock 17 and/ or AR—15 or any firearm , aboard a commercial airliner, along with you, your spouse, children , grandchildren? Really, be honest. No one wants to be locked up ,in an aluminum compartment , traveling at high speed , with everyone armed like they were about to fight the battle of Fallujah. How is Subway / Train or Bus station practically different? Your still all bunched -up, have limited or no exit ability and are very vulnerable.

So if we say no carrying loaded guns in a commercial airline cabin is not a 2nd Amendment violation, do we say , OK no guns on Commmuter Buses, Subways, Commuter trains? But what about canes, pepper spray, knives, stun guns, to give everyone some protection ability , short of mass murder. Maybe we even license carrying a 5 or six shot revolver in dense urban spaces, so a elderly or disabled person, can ride coming home from second shift work, on a nearly empty train and still give the mugger types pause that “Granny” might have S&W Chief’s Special in her pocket?

And as we continue down the Heller track, it is the police who will register the strongest, most common and deadly objections to the Supreme Court doctrine. Look at how many more police shootings there are now of unarmed citizens or people armed with cell phones , or how often police now pull their handguns on a citizen objecting , verbally and peacefully, to being bullied because they lawfully question the right to be detained on a police whim or to refuse to ID when not required to do so by law. Truth is cops are more afraid these days, not to mention undereducated in the law and de-escalation techniques, which tends to make the even the best of them more aggressive in their encounters with the public. Qualified Immunity is getting so widely over-asserted that citizens will and in some places, have already eliminated or limited the immunity, legislatively.

I’m not making rules here. I’m trying to start a discussion of ideas without getting into histrionics. No Constitutional Right is unlimited. The owner of an outlying farm probably needs more gun rights for self/ family protection than does someone living in a dense urban area. But even that urban dweller/ traveler, needs a right to protect him/ herself against a group of muggers.
 
Aaron880 said:
I am generally a believer in the more ( but not the most) expansive reading of Second Amendment rights. Albeit , the current Supreme Court requirement of restrictions having to be justified by the state of the law at the time of the passage of the Bill of Rights or after passage of the 14th. Amendment, is at odds with my belief in the Living / Expanding Rights interpretation of the Constitution. Heller et al. is even internally inconsistent , because Heller allows mandatory registration of firearms, bans on ‘unusual or dangerous” arms ( are not a 17 round magazine Glock or a 30 shot AR-15 , “ dangerous or unusual” arms by the standard of allowed arms in 1789 or 1868 standards of allowable arms under the effective dates of those amendments? Also Heller et all. Allows banning arms in sensitive places, giving schools , airports and courthouses as examples, all without trying to justify these exceptions/ limitations with regard to 1789 / 1868 weapon restrictions. A single citizen , so armed, would carry more usable deadly fire power than a battalion of 18th Century regular army troops.

We need clearer, consistent legal reasoning, as well as common sense legal/ practical understanding to have both a viable 2nd Amendment right and a safe society. How many of you are ready to legally allow a fellow airline passenger to carry a loaded Glock 17 and/ or AR—15 or any firearm , aboard a commercial airliner, along with you, your spouse, children , grandchildren? Really, be honest. No one wants to be locked up ,in an aluminum compartment , traveling at high speed , with everyone armed like they were about to fight the battle of Fallujah. How is Subway / Train or Bus station practically different? Your still all bunched -up, have limited or no exit ability and are very vulnerable.

So if we say no carrying loaded guns in a commercial airline cabin is not a 2nd Amendment violation, do we say , OK no guns on Commmuter Buses, Subways, Commuter trains? But what about canes, pepper spray, knives, stun guns, to give everyone some protection ability , short of mass murder. Maybe we even license carrying a 5 or six shot revolver in dense urban spaces, so a elderly or disabled person, can ride coming home from second shift work, on a nearly empty train and still give the mugger types pause that “Granny” might have S&W Chief’s Special in her pocket?

And as we continue down the Heller track, it is the police who will register the strongest, most common and deadly objections to the Supreme Court doctrine. Look at how many more police shootings there are now of unarmed citizens or people armed with cell phones , or how often police now pull their handguns on a citizen objecting , verbally and peacefully, to being bullied because they lawfully question the right to be detained on a police whim or to refuse to ID when not required to do so by law. Truth is cops are more afraid these days, not to mention undereducated in the law and de-escalation techniques, which tends to make the even the best of them more aggressive in their encounters with the public. Qualified Immunity is getting so widely over-asserted that citizens will and in some places, have already eliminated or limited the immunity, legislatively.

I’m not making rules here. I’m trying to start a discussion of ideas without getting into histrionics. No Constitutional Right is unlimited. The owner of an outlying farm probably needs more gun rights for self/ family protection than does someone living in a dense urban area. But even that urban dweller/ traveler, needs a right to protect him/ herself against a group of muggers.
Click to expand...

It's not just about the transit, it's about everything someone must attend to throughout the day. In some urban areas, public transit is the best or in some cases only way to get around. I'm perfectly fine with all otherwise law abiding citizens carrying a knife, or better yet, a firearm in these areas. Taking the transit to their retail job, to their errands such as a grocery store and maybe a bank, and then back home where they may have to walk several blocks home, and being disarmed for it all is a perversion of justice.

The 2nd Amendment specifically was created to give U.S. citizens protection of the God-given right to self-preservation by the most effective means necessary. From what they had in 1791 up through today, American citizens have a right protected from, not given by, the government to protect themselves from criminals, and the government itself.

And yes, I'm a 2A absolutist. Affordability of tanks, nukes, etc. means most people can't practically have them. But our rights aren't from our government. It's our government's job to protect our rights, or be refreshed with people who will. Knives, weapons, all of it.
 
Aaron880 said:
I am generally a believer in the more ( but not the most) expansive reading of Second Amendment rights. Albeit , the current Supreme Court requirement of restrictions having to be justified by the state of the law at the time of the passage of the Bill of Rights or after passage of the 14th. Amendment, is at odds with my belief in the Living / Expanding Rights interpretation of the Constitution. Heller et al. is even internally inconsistent , because Heller allows mandatory registration of firearms, bans on ‘unusual or dangerous” arms ( are not a 17 round magazine Glock or a 30 shot AR-15 , “ dangerous or unusual” arms by the standard of allowed arms in 1789 or 1868 standards of allowable arms under the effective dates of those amendments? Also Heller et all. Allows banning arms in sensitive places, giving schools , airports and courthouses as examples, all without trying to justify these exceptions/ limitations with regard to 1789 / 1868 weapon restrictions. A single citizen , so armed, would carry more usable deadly fire power than a battalion of 18th Century regular army troops.

We need clearer, consistent legal reasoning, as well as common sense legal/ practical understanding to have both a viable 2nd Amendment right and a safe society. How many of you are ready to legally allow a fellow airline passenger to carry a loaded Glock 17 and/ or AR—15 or any firearm , aboard a commercial airliner, along with you, your spouse, children , grandchildren? Really, be honest. No one wants to be locked up ,in an aluminum compartment , traveling at high speed , with everyone armed like they were about to fight the battle of Fallujah. How is Subway / Train or Bus station practically different? Your still all bunched -up, have limited or no exit ability and are very vulnerable.

So if we say no carrying loaded guns in a commercial airline cabin is not a 2nd Amendment violation, do we say , OK no guns on Commmuter Buses, Subways, Commuter trains? But what about canes, pepper spray, knives, stun guns, to give everyone some protection ability , short of mass murder. Maybe we even license carrying a 5 or six shot revolver in dense urban spaces, so a elderly or disabled person, can ride coming home from second shift work, on a nearly empty train and still give the mugger types pause that “Granny” might have S&W Chief’s Special in her pocket?

And as we continue down the Heller track, it is the police who will register the strongest, most common and deadly objections to the Supreme Court doctrine. Look at how many more police shootings there are now of unarmed citizens or people armed with cell phones , or how often police now pull their handguns on a citizen objecting , verbally and peacefully, to being bullied because they lawfully question the right to be detained on a police whim or to refuse to ID when not required to do so by law. Truth is cops are more afraid these days, not to mention undereducated in the law and de-escalation techniques, which tends to make the even the best of them more aggressive in their encounters with the public. Qualified Immunity is getting so widely over-asserted that citizens will and in some places, have already eliminated or limited the immunity, legislatively.

I’m not making rules here. I’m trying to start a discussion of ideas without getting into histrionics. No Constitutional Right is unlimited. The owner of an outlying farm probably needs more gun rights for self/ family protection than does someone living in a dense urban area. But even that urban dweller/ traveler, needs a right to protect him/ herself against a group of muggers.
Click to expand...
You can not legislate morality. All attempts to do so only strip good people of their ability to protect themselves from evil. Unfortunately, too many people believe that the government is supposed to protect them in all aspects of their life because it relieves them of their duty to be responsible for themselves and their actions.
 
Last edited:
WedgeAntilles said:
It's not just about the transit, it's about everything someone must attend to throughout the day. In some urban areas, public transit is the best or in some cases only way to get around. I'm perfectly fine with all otherwise law abiding citizens carrying a knife, or better yet, a firearm in these areas. Taking the transit to their retail job, to their errands such as a grocery store and maybe a bank, and then back home where they may have to walk several blocks home, and being disarmed for it all is a perversion of justice.

The 2nd Amendment specifically was created to give U.S. citizens protection of the God-given right to self-preservation by the most effective means necessary. From what they had in 1791 up through today, American citizens have a right protected from, not given by, the government to protect themselves from criminals, and the government itself.

And yes, I'm a 2A absolutist. Affordability of tanks, nukes, etc. means most people can't practically have them. But our rights aren't from our government. It's our government's job to protect our rights, or be refreshed with people who will. Knives, weapons, all of it.
Click to expand...
Wedge: I get that u state an “ absolutist “ 2A position, even including , as u said, “ nukes”. Now let me say that u correctly note, without quite stating it , that our 2A rights include what was lawful in 1791, which means under British Common Law, which our Constitution SPECIFICALLY INCORPORATES AS OF 1791.

Well there were no nukes, tanks, repeating firearms, invented or probably even contemplated in 1791. What category do those weapons fall-in? Also, in Britain and the Colonies, there were all sorts of weapon restrictions. Some national Some local. Some urban and others rural?

We both agree that there was a generalized common law right of a non-felon, sane, adult (21) to own & carry arms. But ,as noted that right was limited , in some places and types of arms, NOT as you assert by the best means possible. You are reading into the words of the text and expanding their naked meaning. A No-No to a Strict Constitutional Comstructionist.

So you do believe in a living/ expanding interpretation of the Constitution. Me too! It means that we have to decide what things like: “ freedom of speech, press and religion” “ due process of law”; “ secure in their persons and property”, “ equal protection of the law”, “ freedom of the press”, all Intentionally general statements meant by Madison for Judicial and Legislative interpretation, means in any given era or situation. Classic example , if u r a Textual Absolutist on the 1A, then, in that case u r free to false cry “ fire” in a crowded theatre, right? See what I mean? No right is absolute and rights are expandable and ( in wartime for example) constrictavle.

By one theory, applying the theme that what was lawful when the 14th A was enacted ( 1868 ), and the Constitutional. Bill of Rights was therefore applicable to the States. ( They only applied to the Federal Government before that date), your 2A right to own and bear arms would be limited to revolvers or Pepperbox pistols of .45 cal. or less, holding 8 or less shots and lever action carbines of up to 15 rounds single shot, sniper type , rifles of about .45 cal.and shotguns of 2 rounds. Why, because that what was in existence in 1868 and available to average citizens. That interpretation is perfectly plausible for a Conservative, Textualist , Strict Construction Justice. I’m am not saying that is my opinion, because it is not. However, it is logically defensible under common rules of judicial and statutory construction under Strict Textualist interpretive principles.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top