Agree Or Disagree, Sheriffs Must Enforce New State Gun Law
BY Herschel Smith
5 years, 10 months ago
So says the editorial board of the Seattle Times.
After their elections, county sheriffs take an oath to uphold the laws of the country, state and county — even when they disagree.
At least 13 county sheriffs have said they won’t enforce the state’s new gun law, Initiative 1639. They must reconsider, enforce the law as it is and find another, legal way to protest. Not to do so is to flout their oath and responsibility to citizens.
And, as Attorney General Bob Ferguson warns in a sharply worded letter, the sheriffs would be held liable in the case of a gun sale that could have been prevented by the new background checks and then someone uses that gun in a crime. These elected officials should be accountable for doing their jobs.
The courts will determine whether the wide-ranging new gun law is constitutional or not. It raises the age to 21 to buy semi-automatic rifles, requires enhanced background checks for those purchases and can hold gun owners responsible if their weapon was stored carelessly and is used in a crime.
The National Rifle Association and the Second Amendment Foundation are pursuing such a court decision with a lawsuit they filed in federal court. If the sheriffs — from Adams, Benton, Ferry, Franklin, Grant, Grays Harbor, Kittitas, Klickitat, Lincoln, Mason, Pacific, Stevens and Yakima counties — want to join that lawsuit, and their county ethics laws allow it, they could.
The sheriffs have not clarified what part of the law they plan not to enforce, with journalists who have asked. Gun stores could lose their licenses if they sell to someone under age, regardless of whether their county sheriff will look the other way.
Sheriffs and other law-enforcement officers are already doing the enhanced background checks for handgun purchases, so refusing to do so for semi-automatic rifles would be illogical. At least one sheriff, Franklin County Sheriff Jim Raymond, said he would follow the new rules concerning background checks and a 10-day waiting period. Their main responsibility under the new law is to check at least three state and federal databases for outstanding warrants and pending criminal charges.
“These enhanced background checks keep guns out of the hands of dangerous individuals who lawfully cannot own firearms because of a mental illness or criminal record,” Ferguson wrote in a letter to law enforcement.
The First Amendment protects the right of free speech for county sheriffs and all of us. They may continue to object to the law with their words. But their actions must stick to their oath of office, in which they promised to uphold the law of their county, state and country.
The sons and daughters of libertarian hippies so quickly morphed into statists, controllers and communists that you didn’t even notice. Signs gave way to 中华人民共和国, and disdain for the politicians gave way to blind, unquestioning trust in senators and black robed tyrants, as long as they say everything is okay.
So here is their logic. A law gets made, and as long as the judges say it’s okay (since they’re infallible), the Sheriffs must enforce it. But the Sheriffs take an oath to the U.S. constitution too, whether they attended Yale or Emory law school or not. And every man has a conscience, is accountable to God, and must do what he thinks is righteous without being a respecter of persons. I’m left wondering how the Sheriffs feel about being considered monkeys who obey orders without thinking?
That gun control and confiscations preceded every genocide in recent history is irrelevant or unknown to these sophomores on the editorial board, and that mass shootings at the hands of state actors in “gun free” nations approaches 170 millions souls (death by government) matters not to these moral pygmies.
They could be betting that once the state declares such-and-such concerning guns, the hundreds of millions of gun owners in America will willingly comply. They could be right about a large fraction of them. I suspect that were AR-15s to be declared illegal except in the hands of LEOs, all but ten million people would comply.
And there are other less draconian edicts in the pipeline as well to catalyze death by a thousand cuts, from lockup requirements for your guns, to increased age before buying, waiting periods, red-flag confiscation laws (one potential red flag being that you believe the second amendment codified God-given rights to ameliorate tyranny), no more bequeathing of firearms in wills, etc., etc. They have all the solutions. They will tell you so.
But ten million. Come up with your own number, folks. Ten million, five million, fifteen million. Or two million. Recall at the absolute height of the war in Iraq (in which my son fought, so I know these things) that the Multinational Force estimated the total number of combatant insurgents to be approximately 20,000. No more than 20,000 combatants in Iraq caused the torment you watched for a decade, and required saturation by several hundred thousand troops to quell, including 5000 U.S. deaths and around 50,000 more casualties.
Compare those numbers. Two million (a very low estimate) versus 20,000. And here is the thing to ponder. The editorial board of the Seattle Times doesn’t care. They don’t mind some shedding of blood, some violence, some brutality, because good communists never do.
On February 20, 2019 at 12:43 am, BRVTVS said:
It’s not just Iraq, take a look at our experiences in Vietnam. The reports from those who were there are quite different from the Hollywood version that was fed to the public. https://youtu.be/tixOyiR8B-8
On February 20, 2019 at 7:57 am, ragman said:
They don’t care unless it’s their blood. And believe me, their precious bodily fluids will be the first to fertilize the tree of liberty.
On February 20, 2019 at 8:37 am, Bubba said:
There are approximately 600,000 armed individuals in WA, these people are spread out through 39 counties. Many were caught flat-footed by the clinton gun ban and the ensuing ammunition shortage. These folks have long memories and they were not surprised by obama and those like him. Very many are veterans and most will not be be disuaded to surrender their property.
On February 20, 2019 at 8:49 am, Duke Norfolk said:
Seattle is a sanctuary city. I’m sure that their opinion on that is exactly what it is on the enforcement of gun laws. Yeah, right. But of course these people are completely shameless in the hypocrisy. Nothing new under the sun.
On February 20, 2019 at 9:43 am, Frank Clarke said:
https://dispatchesfromheck.blogspot.com/2015/12/heretofore-otherwise-law-abiding-gun.html
There is a scene in John Ross’ “Unintended Consequences” where a retired SAS officer briefs the President on the difficulties encountered suppressing the IRA. He notes that large numbers of professional soldiers were employed –on an island– to battle about 200 self-trained Irish revolutionaries.
“200 thousand?” someone asks.
“No,” he replies, “200.”
At the Malheur Wildlife Refuge, the protesters didn’t want to kill anybody, they just wanted to protest. If that ever changes…
On February 20, 2019 at 10:00 am, Fred said:
I’ve started asking anybody who brings up politics or the current state of America’s affairs a simple and rather ugly question; who do we have to kill to make this stop?
On February 20, 2019 at 1:26 pm, MTHead said:
Once again, sheriffs are under no obligation to enforce anything. Supreme court has ruled on this many times. They can watch someone murder you if they want. funding is generally the problem.
The 2A is not a grant of a right! it is a prohibition to “ALL GOVERNMENT” for violation of a human right. And any government official in act of violation is “NOT WITHSTANDING” under the constitution!( Also ruled on several times). The very authority they use to create the law has already disclaimed them. and the local sheriff doesn’t need a black robed troll to explain that to them. he can just go about his business as usual. funding and collusion will be the problem.
On February 20, 2019 at 1:40 pm, Bram said:
The ones I’ve seen also take an oath to protect and uphold the Constitution. They have no obligation to uphold clearly unconstitutional laws.
On February 20, 2019 at 3:58 pm, MTHead said:
I believe our problem is we refuse to actually be the criminal they portray us to be. and if given the change will prosecute us for being! If we ran around in packs and refused to obey them, started acting like saintly MS-13 members. hanging heroin dealers, and kaneing petty thieves. who could stop us? if you picked on one of us, you confronted all of us?……… Dangerous talk? Dangerous times!
On February 20, 2019 at 4:51 pm, Georgiaboy61 said:
Re: “No more than 20,000 combatants in Iraq caused the torment you watched for a decade, and required saturation by several hundred thousand troops to quell, including 5000 U.S. deaths and around 50,000 more casualties” and “Compare those numbers. Two million (a very low estimate) versus 20,000.”
In 1940, quietly and without much fanfare – the Marine Corps released a small book entitled “Small Wars Manual,” which contained the distilled lessons of the various “banana wars” and other interventions and campaigns waged and/or fought by the Corps in the previous fifty or so years in places as varied as Nicaragua, Haiti, Santo Domingo (Dominican Republic), Mexico, the Philippines, amongst others.
One of the findings presented in that volume was that it took – on average – seven Marines (boots on the ground) for every guerilla or “insurrecto” – to successfully oppose and quell an armed rebellion, guerilla war, insurrection, or other irregular armed uprising.
Seasoned Marines who had seen combat in those places upped that number to a ten-to-one ratio, and that’s not counting native (indigenous) forces such as cooperating regular military, paramilitary or constabulary personnel.
In short, counter-insurgency warfare – “COIN” as it has come to be known today – is extremely manpower-intensive enterprise. Technology, experience and training only somewhat mitigate the lopsided math – and the very same factors serve as force-multipliers for irregular forces as well.
The Germans and Japanese learned that hard lesson during the Second World, during their respective occupations of territory, as did the French, British, Americans, Russians and other major nation-states during the post-war era of anti-colonial and revolutionary conflicts in Africa, Asia, South and Central America and other locations.
These irregular conflicts, which have since come to be known as “fourth-generation warfare” in some circles, have proven to be a veritable hornet’s nest for nation-state militaries, who have a decidedly mixed-to-poor won/loss record in these conflicts.
On February 20, 2019 at 6:30 pm, BRVTVS said:
@Georgiaboy61
Interesting, I found a link for a free download at https://archive.org/details/UsmcSmallWarsManual1940Reprinted1990.
On February 21, 2019 at 9:10 am, jayne cobb said:
They’ll mind when it’s their blood.
On February 21, 2019 at 2:08 pm, Gryphon said:
Don’t Forget that the (zionist) War against Iraq was conducted by Massive Aerial Bombardment that essentially Destroyed all Infrastructure in that Modern Country, BEFORE the “boots on the ground” tried to Suppress the Resistance of the Invaded People. That Strategy is Impossible to use in the CONUS, as the communist element (including .gov) would Die Off without the Infrastructure to support them.
So, open 4-G War here is going to be conducted Without the Firepower to Massively Suppress an Insurrection by making it hard for the Resistance just to Survive on a Daily Basis.
Also, the Practice of “Buying Off” various Factions in a Fractured Political environment would not be Effective, as the Economic Disruption caused by a (un)Civil War would quickly render Pallets of Shrink-Wrapped Benjamins from the kosher ‘federal reserve bank’ worth less than Toilet Paper.
Good Luck, commies, you’re gonna need it….
On February 21, 2019 at 11:01 pm, Blake said:
At least 13 county sheriffs have said they won’t enforce the state’s new gun law, Initiative 1639. They must reconsider, enforce the law as it is and find another, legal way to protest. Not to do so is to flout their oath and responsibility to citizens.
———–
Uh, someone should point out to the paper Sheriffs choosing not to enforce a clearly unconstitutional law is legal.
That’s part of their job description.
On February 22, 2019 at 2:16 am, Publius said:
Any law that is in conflict with any provision of the constitution is not law and is null and void of law and no citizen is bound to obey it and no court is to obey it or enforce it, read Marbury V. Madison.
Also American Jurisprudence Book 16 constitution law section, Sec. 256: and sec. 155: There is also Sec. 97: and Bary V. United States-273 US 128 go’s with it! Any constitutional provision intended to confer a benefit should be liberally construed in favor in the clearly intended and expressly designated beneficiary!!! You are the Beneficiary of the United States Constitution.
On February 22, 2019 at 8:58 am, Kevin said:
Only 10 million that would be disappointing.
On February 22, 2019 at 9:15 am, Jess said:
It doesn’t take much of a gander at history to know the Progressives want an armed conflict. It works in the final subjugation of citizens, allows huge confiscations of wealth, and eliminates those they consider useless. It worked in Russia, China, Vietnam, Germany and Cambodia. It’s working in Venezuela, and many European nations.
The only thing that will change this path is a judiciary that won’t waver from Constitutional guidelines, and a responsible media.
On February 22, 2019 at 4:21 pm, June J said:
The sheriffs who refuse to blindly go along with the progressive socialist takeover of their country should take every opportunity to closely examine the vehicles, documentation and other property of each legislator that voted for this law who happens to wander into their jurisdiction. Ditto for “journalists” who support the law.
On February 23, 2019 at 11:08 am, Ned2 said:
Non compliance is working.
Look at NY, CT, MD and NJ. Compliance rates of less than 20% to all new gun regulations over the last decade. That’s encouraging, but what’s even more encouraging is the statists, despite being in power, have done nothing to counter the disobedience.
I think the statists are scared. Let’s keep them that way.
On February 23, 2019 at 11:19 am, Ned said:
Here’s an interesting development – a Facebook death threat issued by soy addled Bolshevik filth: https://www.khq.com/news/omak-man-arrested-in-connection-to-facebook-death-threats-towards/article_61aeebbe-3561-11e9-8ee8-2353ac0e9d6c.html