Jump to content
Boiler

Washington state: at least 20 county sheriffs refuse to enforce new gun laws

34 posts in this topic

Recommended Posts

At least 20 county sheriffs in Washington state – more than half of the state’s total – are now publicly refusing to police new gun laws. Several county governments have also passed local resolutions officially opposing enforcement of the laws.

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2019/feb/22/washington-state-county-sheriffs-refuse-to-enforce-gun-laws

 

Inevitable, begs the question what other areas of governance will follow.


“If you know the enemy and know yourself, you need not fear the result of a hundred battles. If you know yourself but not the enemy, for every victory gained you will also suffer a defeat. If you know neither the enemy nor yourself, you will succumb in every battle.”

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Good for them, it is UnAmerican to restrict guns to law abiding citizens.  To be truthful it is Nazilike

 

I still don't understand why a driver license issued to an illegal aliens in California or Washington is good in Texas, Texas will not issue a Driver License to an Illegal alien.  But my license to carry permit issued in Texas is not recognized in California or Washington. 

 

https://www.dps.texas.gov/RSD/LTC/legal/reciprocity/index.htm


Just when you think you have TDS eradicate,  a new case shows up.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

   There are a lot of laws I don't like, but it's a dangerous precedent to start picking and choosing which ones we want to follow and which ones we don't. If you vote for legislators and they pass stupid laws, there is an important lesson in that. Don't vote for them next time. 

 

   If they want to overturn this, they should look at legal means of doing so and put more pressure on elected officials to change. It does look like another case where a large urban center has made a decision that is supported locally, but ended up dragging rural areas into something they don't want. 


995507-quote-moderation-in-all-things-an

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 minutes ago, Steeleballz said:

 

   There are a lot of laws I don't like, but it's a dangerous precedent to start picking and choosing which ones we want to follow and which ones we don't. If you vote for legislators and they pass stupid laws, there is an important lesson in that. Don't vote for them next time. 

 

   If they want to overturn this, they should look at legal means of doing so and put more pressure on elected officials to change. It does look like another case where a large urban center has made a decision that is supported locally, but ended up dragging rural areas into something they don't want. 

It could also be an issue of inadequate resources to enforce the law. In that case the sheriff has discression into how to allocate resources.


morfunphil1_zpsoja67jml.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, jg121783 said:

It could also be an issue of inadequate resources to enforce the law. In that case the sheriff has discression into how to allocate resources.

 

  True. Some said the law could not be enforced, while others said they would not. I have an issue with the latter. It's a slippery slope to choose not to enforce a law because of personal feelings on the matter. I suspect more sheriffs lean towards the former though, either due to lack of resources or ambiguity in how to even go about it.


995507-quote-moderation-in-all-things-an

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
48 minutes ago, Steeleballz said:

 

   There are a lot of laws I don't like, but it's a dangerous precedent to start picking and choosing which ones we want to follow and which ones we don't. If you vote for legislators and they pass stupid laws, there is an important lesson in that. Don't vote for them next time. 

 

   If they want to overturn this, they should look at legal means of doing so and put more pressure on elected officials to change. It does look like another case where a large urban center has made a decision that is supported locally, but ended up dragging rural areas into something they don't want. 

While what you say is true in theory, in reality there are always laws that are not enforced by law enforcenemt.  In this case, the Washington State AG can always prosecute these sheriffs, I am sure it will be endearing.


Visa Received : 2014-04-04 (K1 - see timeline for details)

US Entry : 2014-09-12

POE: Detroit

Marriage : 2014-09-27

I-765 Approved: 2015-01-09

I-485 Interview: 2015-03-11

I-485 Approved: 2015-03-13

Green Card Received: 2015-03-24 Yeah!!!

I-751 ROC Submitted: 2016-12-20

I-751 NOA Received:  2016-12-29

I-751 Biometrics Appt.:  2017-01-26

I-751 Interview:  2018-04-10

I-751 Approved:  2018-05-04

N400 Filed:  2018-01-13

N400 Biometrics:  2018-02-22

N400 Interview:  2018-04-10

N400 Approved:  2018-04-10

Oath Ceremony:  2018-06-11 - DONE!!!!!!!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I am basically against most limitations on gun ownership and use, but, willfully refusing to enforce laws on the books because of personal beliefs and being in a position committed to enforcing them seems a little odd. I liken this to sanctuary states choosing to observe the laws they like and ignoring those they do not. It's not right in either case


 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Steeleballz said:

 

   There are a lot of laws I don't like, but it's a dangerous precedent to start picking and choosing which ones we want to follow and which ones we don't. If you vote for legislators and they pass stupid laws, there is an important lesson in that. Don't vote for them next time. 

 

   If they want to overturn this, they should look at legal means of doing so and put more pressure on elected officials to change. It does look like another case where a large urban center has made a decision that is supported locally, but ended up dragging rural areas into something they don't want. 

Somewhat agree with you. Its the same principal as Democrats ignoring immigration law and setting up sanctuary cities  or the clerk that decided she was going to issue marriage L to gays 

Edited by Nature Boy 2.0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
29 minutes ago, Randyandyuni said:

I am basically against most limitations on gun ownership and use, but, willfully refusing to enforce laws on the books because of personal beliefs and being in a position committed to enforcing them seems a little odd. I liken this to sanctuary states choosing to observe the laws they like and ignoring those they do not. It's not right in either case

 

20 minutes ago, Nature Boy 2.0 said:

Somewhat agree with you. Its the same principal as Democrats ignoring immigration law and setting up sanctuary cities  or the clerk that decided she was going to issue marriage L to gays 

 

    Yeah, I think in anything personally, if there was something philosophically or morally stopping me from doing a job to the best of my abilities or to be able to do what was expected of me, it would be time to move on.


995507-quote-moderation-in-all-things-an

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, Steeleballz said:

 

 

    Yeah, I think in anything personally, if there was something philosophically or morally stopping me from doing a job to the best of my abilities or to be able to do what was expected of me, it would be time to move on.

You almost in the Middle of the road club. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Steeleballz said:

 

   There are a lot of laws I don't like, but it's a dangerous precedent to start picking and choosing which ones we want to follow and which ones we don't. If you vote for legislators and they pass stupid laws, there is an important lesson in that. Don't vote for them next time. 

 

   If they want to overturn this, they should look at legal means of doing so and put more pressure on elected officials to change. It does look like another case where a large urban center has made a decision that is supported locally, but ended up dragging rural areas into something they don't want.

You just defined the whole electoral vote vs the popular vote debate in this one sentence.

 

Enforcing the law is what lawmen should do.  Don’t like the law?  Get it changed, posthaste.  But follow it while it IS law.  However, it seems that when an unpopular like this is on the books, it can take a VERY long time to get it rectified.  Take for instance the law which allowed prosecution of women getting an abortion in NY state.  Should have been repealed decades ago.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The smallest incorporated town near me has one part time cop.

 

I think he is appointed by the Town, I know the Sheriff is voted for.

 

So if the Politicians in in my case Denver come up with something similar which would be against the wishes of the majority around here what should they prioritise?

 

 


“If you know the enemy and know yourself, you need not fear the result of a hundred battles. If you know yourself but not the enemy, for every victory gained you will also suffer a defeat. If you know neither the enemy nor yourself, you will succumb in every battle.”

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, ALFKAD said:

You just defined the whole electoral vote vs the popular vote debate in this one sentence.

 

Enforcing the law is what lawmen should do.  Don’t like the law?  Get it changed, posthaste.  But follow it while it IS law.  However, it seems that when an unpopular like this is on the books, it can take a VERY long time to get it rectified.  Take for instance the law which allowed prosecution of women getting an abortion in NY state.  Should have been repealed decades ago.

 

  Indeed. I should start a topic on that :).

 

  I do think there has to be balance. It's why I suggested splitting electoral votes in the other thread. It's also why we should leave some things to be addressed at the state and municipal levels. If my city has a problem with crime, we should first look at what we can do locally. We don't need to jump to changing how the whole state or country does something.


995507-quote-moderation-in-all-things-an

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There is one thing i havent seen anyone bring up here. The constitution trumps all other laws. All sheriffs take an oath to defend the constitution. These sheriffs could conceivably argue they are upholding their constitutional duties by not enforcing unconstitutional laws.


morfunphil1_zpsoja67jml.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, jg121783 said:

There is one thing i havent seen anyone bring up here. The constitution trumps all other laws. All sheriffs take an oath to defend the constitution. These sheriffs could conceivably argue they are upholding their constitutional duties by not enforcing unconstitutional laws.

 

   They could argue that, but that argument needs to be made in court. They can also ask that the implementation and/or enforcement of a law be delayed pending the outcome of the constitutional challenge. 

 

   The process of our legislative system is such that once laws are passed, they have the presumption of being constitutional. That does not mean they always are. If they are believed to be unconstitutional after the fact, they must be challenged in court as such. Only a court can make the ruling on constitutionality. 


995507-quote-moderation-in-all-things-an

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
- Back to Top -


Important Disclaimer: Please read carefully the Visajourney.com Terms of Service. If you do not agree to the Terms of Service you should not access or view any page (including this page) on VisaJourney.com. Answers and comments provided on Visajourney.com Forums are general information, and are not intended to substitute for informed professional medical, psychiatric, psychological, tax, legal, investment, accounting, or other professional advice. Visajourney.com does not endorse, and expressly disclaims liability for any product, manufacturer, distributor, service or service provider mentioned or any opinion expressed in answers or comments. VisaJourney.com does not condone immigration fraud in any way, shape or manner. VisaJourney.com recommends that if any member or user knows directly of someone involved in fraudulent or illegal activity, that they report such activity directly to the Department of Homeland Security, Immigration and Customs Enforcement. You can contact ICE via email at Immigration.Reply@dhs.gov or you can telephone ICE at 1-866-347-2423. All reported threads/posts containing reference to immigration fraud or illegal activities will be removed from this board. If you feel that you have found inappropriate content, please let us know by contacting us here with a url link to that content. Thank you.
×
×
  • Create New...