Too tight a line on gun possessionThe Washington Supreme Court has missed a chance to clarify what it means to be armed in the commission of a crime. An armed crime should be one in which the person uses the weapon to effect the result.
The case, Washington v. Gurske, involved a man stopped for an illegal left turn while driving. Police discovered his driver's license had been suspended, arrested him and searched his truck. Behind the driver's seat was a backpack that contained three grams of methamphetamine. He was convicted of felony possession of an illegal drug and sentenced to an extra 18 months because his backpack also contained a pistol and ammunition clip. To fire the gun, he would have had to stop the truck, get out of the driver's seat, flip it forward, unzip the pack, find the gun and clip, and insert the clip. The court ruled unanimously that he was not armed.
But the decision, written by Justice Barbara Madsen, leaves police and prosecutors with little guidance in future cases. Justice Richard Sanders wrote, with some justification, that its reasoning "bears more than a passing resemblance to Justice Potter Stewart's famed description of hardcore pornography: 'I know it when I see it.' "
Justice Tom Chambers said the liberal use of gun enhancements by courts in this state now presses against the individual right to bear arms guaranteed by the state constitution. Extra prison time should not be imposed for weapons, Chambers wrote, if the weapon was not "actually used in a crime in any meaningful way."
His words would have made a clearer and more reasonable rule for Washington courts.
http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/editorialsopinion/2002453659_guned28.html*FW Note:Excuse me, but "
Extra prison time should not be imposed for weapons if the weapon was not actually used in a crime in any meaningful way." seems rather straight-forward to me, and eminently fair to boot.
:?
