Rate this topic

Recommended Posts

The so-called "Revised Code of Washington" was recently changed or amended 2017 pursuant to some bill or another passed by the legislature and, as usual, administratively codified in order to obfuscate its true effect and objective from the general public, to wit:

http://app.leg.wa.gov/rcw/default.aspx?cite=9.41.040 (Unlawful possession of firearms—Ownership, possession by certain persons—Restoration of right to possess—Penalties.)

>>>(6) Nothing in chapter 129, Laws of 1995 shall ever be construed or interpreted as preventing an offender from being charged and subsequently convicted for the separate felony crimes of theft of a firearm or possession of a stolen firearm, or both, in addition to being charged and subsequently convicted under this section for unlawful possession of a firearm in the first or second degree. Notwithstanding any other law, if the offender is convicted under this section for unlawful possession of a firearm in the first or second degree and for the felony crimes of theft of a firearm or possession of a stolen firearm, or both, then the offender shall serve consecutive sentences for each of the felony crimes of conviction listed in this subsection.<<<

I have never heard or seen of such a rabid opposition to gun rights in my life. This is going to get the prosecutors in trouble with the bar.

First of all, a person who has not yet been charged with a crime cannot even legally be considered a "defendant," let alone an "offender" which is not a well-recognized legal term in the United States and in any case would have to be reserved for a defendant who has already been accused and convicted of a crime.

Second, a highly unusual anti-constitutional construction appears to be mandated by this statute, whereby the same act is considered two or three separate crimes for which consecutive sentences must be served -- whereas a defendant is usually allowed to serve concurrent sentences when the same act is considered a crime under two or three different statutes -- which is customarily done to avoid incurring *ahem* double jeopardy under the Fifth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution.

  • "ever" This word cannot be used in the negative sense in a legal context: "nothing ... ever" may have precisely the same meaning as "nothing ... always." If they meant "never," they would have had to use the word "never," but then they would be having other grammatical problems with that, because "always" and "never" are in general extremely dangerous words having more of a religious meaning than any bona fide legal interpretation.
  • "... construed or interpreted ..." Too high and mighty here. Constitutional law cannot be buried in the fine print of a codified statute.
  • "Notwithstanding any other law, ..." This is meaningless legalistic nonsense impossible to apply in practice.
  • "... convicted for [a crime or crimes] ..." No. This is not even correct English. We say "convicted of" a crime.
  • "... the felony crimes ..." By now, I am starting to be extremely nit-picky. These foreign-influenced legislative crooks are using "felony" as an adjective, which is not even correct English: "felony" is a noun; "felonious" is an adjective, which is sometimes used to qualify a specific crime, never "crimes" in general. Then they place the definite article "the" in front of the whole phrase, improperly denoting an unjustified assumption of specificity and guilt.
  • "... the felony crimes of conviction ..." Even worse yet! The crimes of conviction of the same crimes of which the defendant is convicted? No. Such an incestuous construction is absurd and completely violates all rules of civility in the English language. In fact, "crimes of conviction" can have no other meaning than "crimes of faith" in the context of a religious faith, which would violate the separation of church and state mandated by the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution.

Excuse me. If even one jot or one tittle of this law is out of order, then the entire thing must be thrown out.


Now let's get to the state bar itself. "Washington State Bar Association."

An "association" with a ".org" top-level domain? You'd think a non-profit, voluntary membership advocacy organization for lawyers, right? No, this is actually the state bar of the State of Washington, which licenses, regulates, and disciplines lawyers in the State of Washington.

But you'd have good reason to think so, because there is a "King County Bar Association"

which is a voluntary membership non-profit advocacy organization for lawyers. King County, Washington.  One step down from the entire state.  Kind of like Little League baseball versus Big League, but not really, because these lawyers for all their sophistication have failed to distinguish a voluntary membership non-profit organization from a state regulatory agency.

This should be more than enough for criminal charges of obstruction of justice in U.S. District Court, but it gets even worse.


"Voluntary" waiver made by guardian ad litem "on behalf of" defendants "at risk" to "give up" gun rights for life.

We need corporal punishment for lawyers. Hang them by their neckties until they are limp. Due process is unnecessary and uncalled for.

Share this post

Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.