Clark County resident Bob Zak says conservatives will ‘fight the fight’ reinstate the right to bear arms without infringement
Editor’s note: Opinions expressed in this letter to the editor are those of the author alone and may not reflect the editorial position of ClarkCountyToday.com
Excellent article on WA news “gun law restrictions.” The Washington State Constitution, Art. 1, SS 24. “The right of the individual citizen to bear arms in defense of himself, or the state, shall NOT be impaired …” I think most of the Democrats in the state legislature know how to read. I think most everyone knows our US Constitution, 2nd Amendment, “right to bear arms shall NOT be infringed.” So when the supermajority of Democrats in our legislature push something like this new restriction to purchase a gun, either the Democrats feel like “kings” which they are not, do not know how to read, or they do something stupid, knowing that it will be overturned in the courts.
So why, Democrats are you doing this to “we the people” who you are supposed to serve? By your actions, you have planted a “root of bitterness” in the hearts of “we the people” that will come back on you in the next election. We conservatives in Clark County will “fight the fight” to reinstate the right to bear arms without infringement as our state and federal Constitutions guarantee, in our next session of the legislature unless the courts beat us to it and overturn the unConstitutional law.
Bob Zak
Hazel Dell, Lakeshore, Vancouver
Also read:
- POLL: Did the council’s debate and resolution help unite or divide the community?
The Clark County Council’s 3-2 vote to move forward with a modified ICE-related resolution followed heated public comment and sharp debate among councilors. - Opinion: SB 5292: PFML tax bill looks like a trap
Elizabeth New (Hovde) argues SB 5292 could pave the way for higher PFML payroll taxes by changing how rates are set. - Opinion: Is a state income tax coming, and the latest on the I-5 Bridge project
Rep. John Ley shares a legislative update on a proposed state income tax, the I-5 Bridge project, the Brockmann Campus and House Bill 2605. - Opinion: Washington parental rights battle goes national
Vicki Murray argues that parental rights and girls’ sports initiatives headed for the November 2026 ballot could reshape education policy in Washington and beyond. - Opinion: Olympia’s war on a free press
Nancy Churchill argues that Senate Bill 5400 threatens press freedom by subsidizing select media outlets while excluding independent journalists.
Mr. Zak’s letter collapses under the weight of its own omissions and misreadings.
First, the Washington State Constitution’s Article 1, Section 24 is quoted incompletely, leaving out the clause that limits its scope. Likewise, the Second Amendment is presented without its militia clause, a deliberate truncation that strips away historical context and legal nuance. Both omissions distort the actual text.
Second, the letter offers a false trilemma — either Democrats are tyrants, illiterate, or knowingly violating the Constitution — while ignoring far more plausible explanations grounded in legislative process, public safety data, and established precedent. Personal insults are not arguments.
Third, U.S. Supreme Court rulings from Heller to Bruen affirm that the right to bear arms is not unlimited and is subject to lawful regulation. Restrictions on purchase, possession by certain individuals, and use in sensitive locations have been repeatedly upheld. Regulation is not the same as infringement.
Fourth, the appeal to “we the people” pretends to speak for all citizens, but in reality speaks for a political subset. Constitutional rights exist for everyone, not just one faction.
Finally, declaring a law “unconstitutional” before a court has ruled is a political opinion, not a legal fact. Threatening electoral revenge may excite a base, but it has no bearing on constitutional interpretation. Washington voters, including many who support gun regulations, have repeatedly elected the very legislators the author condemns.
In short, this is not constitutional analysis. It’s partisan grievance dressed in selective quotation, legal oversimplification, and rhetorical bluster.