Police Chief In Eastern Washington Says His Officers Won’t Enforce New Gun Laws
BY Herschel Smith
6 years ago
REPUBLIC, Wash. – The police chief in Republic, Washington said on social media that he won’t allow his department to enforce the regulations passed by voters under Initiative 1639, saying the new gun laws violate the 2nd amendment.
Initiative 1639 passed with a statewide approval of nearly 60 percent of the vote. In Ferry County, where Republic is located, 73 percent of voters said no to the measure, which was 2,542 votes against.
Initiative 1639 makes Washington’s gun laws some of the most strict in the nation. It raises the age limit for some gun purchases; it has a safe storage provision that can lead to criminal charges if gun owners allow someone not authorized to access a gun displays it or uses it to commit a crime; and puts an enhanced background check and waiting period in place for people who want to buy a semi-automatic rifle.
On a Facebook page called “Republic Police WA”, Chief Loren Culp wrote “The second amendment says the right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. As long as I am Chief of Police, no Republic Police Officer will infringe on citizens right to keep and Bear Arms [sic], PERIOD!”
The post has more than 2,000 shares on Facebook.
The Facebook page also posted the text of a proposed ordinance for “prohibition on state and federal infringement of the right to keep and bear arms.” The ordinance also called on neighboring communities and jurisdictions in the state to pass similar ordinances, and for the copies of the ordinance to be transmitted to the lawmakers that represent that district for them to introduce legislation on the matter next session.
Okay and very well. I believe you, and I applaud your decision. So far, so good. This raises the question for controllers: if local police chiefs like this won’t do the dirty (and potentially deadly) work of gun confiscations, then who will and how will you collect all of those firearms you seem to want?
The only viable answer for you is FedGov, and that raises the second issue here. The chief didn’t go far enough. So what happens, Mr. Culp, when FedGov comes to town with their teams of gun confiscators and goes door to door looking for firearms? Will you use your officers to stop the confiscations? Because if you don’t, your words are empty.
And the proposal flirts with nullification. We’ve discussed this many times. Nullification laws are merely emblematic and for the purpose of garnering votes during the next election unless the one doing the nullifying is will to trot out the armor to stop the laws from being enforced. So, is the county or state willing to put FedGov agents in the state penitentiary for coming to town with aims at gun confiscations?
Because if not, the nullification is meaningless and you may as well sip tea and nibble crumpets with the rest of the courtiers.
On November 16, 2018 at 8:53 am, Fred said:
Within a year, maybe a bit longer the headline will read: Embattled Police Chief Resigns Amid Budgetary Irregularities And a String Of Mismanagement Accusations. Or some such.
On November 16, 2018 at 9:30 am, Pat Hines said:
We must move in sequence, sliding from one to another as necessary. We will establish a southern, Christian homeland.
Interposition
Nullification
Secession
On November 16, 2018 at 9:39 am, BRVTVS said:
In the case of Washington’s new law, I doubt the Feds will use their resources to enforce a state law. I think it’s more likely that the (dyslexically named) state police and sheriff will take up the slack. I think a police chief making such a statement is not useless, so long as he makes it clear to the people that other agencies might not have the same scruples. To refuse to participate in an evil is valuable even if one knows other will do so.
On November 16, 2018 at 9:53 am, Mark Matis said:
If Chief Culp will not, there are others who will.
On November 16, 2018 at 11:55 am, RCW said:
Although I agree with the Captain’s conclusion, the Police Chief’s directives would have more oomph & real teeth if the local sheriffs backed him up.
On November 16, 2018 at 3:18 pm, scott s. said:
Nullification seems to be more than merely emblematic when it comes to “sanctuary”.
On November 16, 2018 at 8:10 pm, Gryphon said:
Political Pandering (even if he’s Not an Elected Official). State Police will simply “Remove” him, at Orders of the feral government. Then He would be Replaced with someone who would “Just Follow Orders”. And all the little piglets would Fall in Line, in Fear of Losing Pay and Pensions. This Won’t be Resolved until the Smoke on the Battlefield Clears and the Carrion is Disposed of.
Aaand, there’s This – https://www.zerohedge.com/news/2018-11-16/california-democrat-threatens-nukes-if-americans-dont-hand-over-their-guns
Commiecrat threatens use of Nuclear Weapons in Civil War.
On November 17, 2018 at 2:46 pm, Tim said:
If your local Sheriff is a right-minded person such as this man, then individuals or representatives from responsible citizen gunowner groups should meet with local Constitutional Sheriffs, and pledge physical support & volunteer deputy service to the Department should they require it for either show-of-force displays (such as Bundy situation) to anti-constitutional federal LE or if the situation degrades further, to determined resistence to same (such as Bundy stand-off). You don’t require overswhelming displays of force (though preferable) but a large enough group to establish to the alledged authorities that not all of them will go home to dinner intact if tyrannical political leadership should decide to push unconstitutional actions.
On November 18, 2018 at 7:26 pm, Gryphon said:
Tim – Exactly.The Bundy Ranch Incident (the Original event, not that nonsense at the Wildlife Refuge) was a Frightening Event for the ‘controllers’, as it was a Self-organizing response to what the feral .gov thought would be a simple “Raid” event against a few Citizens. They were Surrounded in Layers, with people responding as far away as New Hampshire, from what I read at the Time. If a “Local” Defense Force can create a Standoff and Publicize it Fast Enough, I’m pretty sure the Same Result would occur.
Having the Local Sheriff or C.O.P. at the forefront of it would Raise the Stakes a few Orders of Magnitude for the ferals – the political ‘Optics’ of a Shoot-Out involving Citizens and Local LEO on the Same Side would make it almost Impossible for them to use the Army (or Drones) to enforce whatever Diktat they are attempting.
If there is going to be another Rebellion (not a ‘civil war’) against the Domestic Tyrants, it would very likely start with something like This. Remember, “Lexington Green” was a (failed) Gun Confiscation Exercise by the ‘Legitimate’ Government against a Citizen’s Militia; the Reason in the First Place for the “Militia Clause” in the Constitution.