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

[Boiler 43,567]

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.

[Chris Duffy 1,256]

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

[Steeleballz 7,550]

 

   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. 

[jg121783 3,907]

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.

[Steeleballz 7,550]

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.

[Dashinka 23,289]

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.

[Randyandyuni 2,682]

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

[Nature Boy 2.0 8,317]

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 February 23, 2019 by Nature Boy 2.0

[Steeleballz 7,550]

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.

[Nature Boy 2.0 8,317]

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. 

[Voice of Reason 10,298]

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.

[Boiler 43,567]

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?

 

 

[Steeleballz 7,550]

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.

[jg121783 3,907]

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.

[Steeleballz 7,550]

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.