Washington, State Police Chief won't enforce stupid new gun laws...

[2aguy]

Yep....at least one law enforcement official understands how stupid the new Washington, State gun laws are...

A new sanctuary city for Second Amendment rights


The city of Republic in Washington state is mulling legislation that would shield residents from state gun control laws that were approved by voters last week.

Republic Mayor Elbert Koontz said the Republic City Council will begin discussing the idea of becoming a “sanctuary city” to protect residents against Initiative 1639, which goes into effect Jan. 1, The Spokesman-Review reported.

The sweeping gun-control measure includes raising the age limit for buying semi-automatic rifles from 18 to 21 and requiring buyers of those weapons to pass an enhanced background check, show proof of firearms-training and complete a 10-day waiting period before obtaining the weapon.

Their police chief wasn’t waiting around for any new legislation to pass. He already announced, “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 a citizens right to keep and Bear Arms, PERIOD!”

In a way, it’s sort of a shame that it has to come to this. When a state passes laws, they’re supposed to apply to the entire state. (Unless the state has “charter cities” under the state constitution as California does.) But what do you do when the state begins passing laws which seem to clearly abridge the Second Amendment rights of the citizens or when the laws conflict with federal law? The entire concept of supremacy sort of goes out the window at that point.

 

[SassyIrishLass]

The second amendment says the right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.


Bingo

 

[Rambunctious]

Back down gun grabbers or you will lose big in 2020....

 

[Eric Arthur Blair]

Ferry County is in the sensible side of the state and far away from King county, the coast and all the leftist swine
that flocked to Washington and turned it into a lunatic asylum.
If you could take east of the Cascades from Washington and combine it with the east side of Oregon and take some of the politically disaffected Nor Cal counties, and hope the coast slides into the ocean, you would have a fine state where people's votes actually counted for something and they didn't have lunatic legislators ruining a good thing.

 

[protectionist]

I'm a gun owner and holder of a CCW permit, and I carry my .380 semiautomatic just about everywhere I go. But I agree with requiring buyers of rifles to pass a background check (depending on how "enhanced"), show proof of firearms-training, and complete a waiting period before obtaining the weapon.

Maybe that waiting period could be less than 10 days. In Florida, it's 3 days, but there should be enough time for a federal FBI check to be done. As for the training, it wouldn't be good to have untrained people running around with guns (even if just to protect the gun owner himself from his own ignorance)

 

[cnm]

The second amendment says the right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.


Bingo

Yet it is infringed, and I bet the police chief upholds that infringement. I bet he enforces the restrictions surrounding automatic weapons, a basic infringement.

 

[cnm]

But I agree with requiring buyers of rifles to pass a background check (depending on how "enhanced"), show proof of firearms-training, and complete a waiting period before obtaining the weapon.

If the buyer has passed an enhanced background check and shown proof of training, of what utility is a waiting period?

 

[protectionist]

If the buyer has passed an enhanced background check and shown proof of training, of what utility is a waiting period?

It is part of the background check. It's is the time you wait for the the check to be done, and then obtain the results.

 

[JustAnotherNut]

Yep....at least one law enforcement official understands how stupid the new Washington, State gun laws are...

A new sanctuary city for Second Amendment rights


The city of Republic in Washington state is mulling legislation that would shield residents from state gun control laws that were approved by voters last week.

Republic Mayor Elbert Koontz said the Republic City Council will begin discussing the idea of becoming a “sanctuary city” to protect residents against Initiative 1639, which goes into effect Jan. 1, The Spokesman-Review reported.

The sweeping gun-control measure includes raising the age limit for buying semi-automatic rifles from 18 to 21 and requiring buyers of those weapons to pass an enhanced background check, show proof of firearms-training and complete a 10-day waiting period before obtaining the weapon.

Their police chief wasn’t waiting around for any new legislation to pass. He already announced, “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 a citizens right to keep and Bear Arms, PERIOD!”

In a way, it’s sort of a shame that it has to come to this. When a state passes laws, they’re supposed to apply to the entire state. (Unless the state has “charter cities” under the state constitution as California does.) But what do you do when the state begins passing laws which seem to clearly abridge the Second Amendment rights of the citizens or when the laws conflict with federal law? The entire concept of supremacy sort of goes out the window at that point.

The article forgot the part about having to keep all firearms securely stored, as well......and they're already going to court over it (not this town, but NRA and the Second Amendment Foundation) Apparently most law enforcement did not support this law.

Not only does the Cascade Range split this state in half, but the politics as well.....they have talked of splitting into 2 states which would be great, but that's all they've done...…..talk

 

[NewsVine_Mariyam]

But I agree with requiring buyers of rifles to pass a background check (depending on how "enhanced"), show proof of firearms-training, and complete a waiting period before obtaining the weapon.

If the buyer has passed an enhanced background check and shown proof of training, of what utility is a waiting period?

In California they originally referred to it as a "cooling off" period for those individuals who were making the purchase out of "anger" or with the intention of using it against a specific person. The premise was that if you delay when they could take possession of the weapon so that it was not immediately, then you would likely decrease the number of individuals who would be shot in anger.

Or something like that.

 

[NewsVine_Mariyam]

This isn't the first time that Washington state law enforcement has refused to enforce gun control laws of dubious constitutionality. Back in December 2014 there was a rally held at the Olympia capital to protest the passage into of Initiative 594. The Washington State Patrol announced that it would not arrest anyone for the "unlawful" transfer of a weapon. The law also required enhanced background checks yet here we are again with more legislation requiring even more strigent background checks? If it seems like this will never end you're correct because when the gun control groups were campaigning for the passage of the iniative they swore that it's scope was limited to XYZ yet the minute it passed they announced their intentions to go after their next goal in their quest to ultimately restrict all gun ownership by private citizens

This was the very first protest I ever attended:

Over 1,000 Gun Owners Violate Washington State Law - In Front Of Police!

Fed up with the passage of an 18½-page incoherent, rambling, unconstitutional gun control initiative that was bankrolled by billionaires, gun owners across Washington State held the largest felony civil disobedience rally in the nation's history, brazenly titled "I Will Not Comply." No one was hurt and no stores were looted. Between 1,000 and 3,000 lawful gun owners showed up openly armed at the state capitol in Olympia, Wash., on Saturday to defy the newly passed gun control law, I-594.

Organizer Gavin Seim made the extraordinary nature of the rally very clear, "This isn't just a protest. We are here to openly violate the law." Attendees publicly transferred their guns to each other in violation of I-591's background check provisions, and some even bought and sold guns just a few feet away from law enforcement. A fire pit blazed throughout the rally, and at the conclusion, gun owners lined up to burn their concealed weapons permits. A petition was circulated affirming gun owners' refusal to follow I-594, which ended with, "We pledge our blood. We will not comply."

As the RSVPs in advance of the rally grew to over 6,000, the police - most who probably detest I-594 - decided not to enforce the law. The Washington State Patrol announced there would be no arrests for exchanging guns - not even for selling guns. Seim refused to obtain a permit to hold the rally, citing the right of people to peaceably assemble.

The rally could not be dismissed as fringe elements. Several lawmakers and lawmen spoke, including former Graham County Sheriff Richard Mack of Arizona, Washington State Rep. Elizabeth Scott (R-Monroe) and Rep. Graham Hunt (R-Orting), who sported an AR-15 during his speech. Mack advised gun owners engaging in civil disobedience to "put your sheriff next to you to keep it peaceful." Scott defiantly explained in her speech, "I will not comply with I-594 because it is unconstitutional, unenforceable and unjust. It is impossible to enforce this law unless there is a police officer on every back porch and in every living room. So it will be enforced selectively." She noted that Founding Father Alexander Hamilton said any law that violates the Constitution is not valid, and there is a moral obligation to disobey unjust laws.​

 

[protectionist]

In California they originally referred to it as a "cooling off" period for those individuals who were making the purchase out of "anger" or with the intention of using it against a specific person. The premise was that if you delay when they could take possession of the weapon so that it was not immediately, then you would likely decrease the number of individuals who would be shot in anger.
Or something like that.

On the other hand, the waiting period could be dangerous for the gun buyer who could be under a serious, immediate threat, and could actually wind up dead or seriously injured, by the time he/she finally actually gets to possess the gun. Often this could be a young woman, with small children.

As is the case with many things in life, the only choices are bad ones, but I still think the 3 day waiting time we have in Florida is the right thing. The last thing that should happen is for guns to be legally sold to people with violent criminal records, or dangerous mental impairments.

 

[NewsVine_Mariyam]

On the other hand, the waiting period could be dangerous for the gun buyer who could be under a serious, immediate threat, and could actually wind up dead or seriously injured, by the time he/she finally actually gets to possess the gun. Often this could be a young woman, with small children.

Agreed.

As is the case with many things in life, the only choices are bad ones, but I still think the 3 day waiting time we have in Florida is the right thing. The last thing that should happen is for guns to be legally sold to people with violent criminal records, or dangerous mental impairments.

Those people are generally already prohibited. On the other hand though, domestic violence abusers will often have a lengthly history of making threats and engaging in violent and other unlawful behavior but until they're actually convicted or have been served with a restraining/no contact order, the prohibition against them possessing a firearm never kicks in.

 

[Dana7360]

Yep....at least one law enforcement official understands how stupid the new Washington, State gun laws are...

A new sanctuary city for Second Amendment rights


The city of Republic in Washington state is mulling legislation that would shield residents from state gun control laws that were approved by voters last week.

Republic Mayor Elbert Koontz said the Republic City Council will begin discussing the idea of becoming a “sanctuary city” to protect residents against Initiative 1639, which goes into effect Jan. 1, The Spokesman-Review reported.

The sweeping gun-control measure includes raising the age limit for buying semi-automatic rifles from 18 to 21 and requiring buyers of those weapons to pass an enhanced background check, show proof of firearms-training and complete a 10-day waiting period before obtaining the weapon.

Their police chief wasn’t waiting around for any new legislation to pass. He already announced, “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 a citizens right to keep and Bear Arms, PERIOD!”

In a way, it’s sort of a shame that it has to come to this. When a state passes laws, they’re supposed to apply to the entire state. (Unless the state has “charter cities” under the state constitution as California does.) But what do you do when the state begins passing laws which seem to clearly abridge the Second Amendment rights of the citizens or when the laws conflict with federal law? The entire concept of supremacy sort of goes out the window at that point.

So a redneck from eastern Washington, in a town of 1073 people the sheriff says he won't enforce the law and the city wants to get a law exempting them from the law.

The city can try to do that but the city will lose in court. The judges on our state Supreme Court are elected by the people. Not appointed by any politician. Which means the state Supreme Court is a liberal court here. Politicians and judges here are very reluctant to undo any ballot initiative. Especially one passed with 60% of the vote. The last time I can remember of our Supreme Court reversing one of our ballot initiatives was in the 80s with WPPS. I'm sure they've reversed some since but I just can't remember one. That's how rare it is for any ballot initiative vote on by the people is reversed.

You're so scared of gun safety laws it's really unhealthy. That's pretty much all you post about.

A very good therapist might be able to help you with that problem.

Maybe that's why you're so afraid of real gun safety laws. The mentally unstable is prevented from guns here and those who show violence and being a threat to themselves or someone else can get their guns confiscated due to another ballot initiative we passed a couple years ago.

If I were you, I wouldn't hold my breath on that sheriff being able to not enforce that law and for that city to get an exemption from the law.

You don't live in Washington. You don't know our courts.

 

[2aguy]

Yep....at least one law enforcement official understands how stupid the new Washington, State gun laws are...

A new sanctuary city for Second Amendment rights


The city of Republic in Washington state is mulling legislation that would shield residents from state gun control laws that were approved by voters last week.

Republic Mayor Elbert Koontz said the Republic City Council will begin discussing the idea of becoming a “sanctuary city” to protect residents against Initiative 1639, which goes into effect Jan. 1, The Spokesman-Review reported.

The sweeping gun-control measure includes raising the age limit for buying semi-automatic rifles from 18 to 21 and requiring buyers of those weapons to pass an enhanced background check, show proof of firearms-training and complete a 10-day waiting period before obtaining the weapon.

Their police chief wasn’t waiting around for any new legislation to pass. He already announced, “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 a citizens right to keep and Bear Arms, PERIOD!”

In a way, it’s sort of a shame that it has to come to this. When a state passes laws, they’re supposed to apply to the entire state. (Unless the state has “charter cities” under the state constitution as California does.) But what do you do when the state begins passing laws which seem to clearly abridge the Second Amendment rights of the citizens or when the laws conflict with federal law? The entire concept of supremacy sort of goes out the window at that point.

So a redneck from eastern Washington, in a town of 1073 people the sheriff says he won't enforce the law and the city wants to get a law exempting them from the law.

The city can try to do that but the city will lose in court. The judges on our state Supreme Court are elected by the people. Not appointed by any politician. Which means the state Supreme Court is a liberal court here. Politicians and judges here are very reluctant to undo any ballot initiative. Especially one passed with 60% of the vote. The last time I can remember of our Supreme Court reversing one of our ballot initiatives was in the 80s with WPPS. I'm sure they've reversed some since but I just can't remember one. That's how rare it is for any ballot initiative vote on by the people is reversed.

You're so scared of gun safety laws it's really unhealthy. That's pretty much all you post about.

A very good therapist might be able to help you with that problem.

Maybe that's why you're so afraid of real gun safety laws. The mentally unstable is prevented from guns here and those who show violence and being a threat to themselves or someone else can get their guns confiscated due to another ballot initiative we passed a couple years ago.

If I were you, I wouldn't hold my breath on that sheriff being able to not enforce that law and for that city to get an exemption from the law.

You don't live in Washington. You don't know our courts.

You need to work on your reading comprehension if that is what you think you are reading in my posts....I post about self defense and the Right to be able to defend yourself, and I explain why dumb asses such as yourself don't understand anything about gun laws and gun control....

Try reading slowly and sounding out the words, it will help you get the point...

 

[Toronado3800]

The second amendment says the right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.


Bingo

2nd says some bunk about militias and arms.

What it meant was pretty much everyone gets a gun.

 

[Toronado3800]

Yep....at least one law enforcement official understands how stupid the new Washington, State gun laws are...

A new sanctuary city for Second Amendment rights


The city of Republic in Washington state is mulling legislation that would shield residents from state gun control laws that were approved by voters last week.

Republic Mayor Elbert Koontz said the Republic City Council will begin discussing the idea of becoming a “sanctuary city” to protect residents against Initiative 1639, which goes into effect Jan. 1, The Spokesman-Review reported.

The sweeping gun-control measure includes raising the age limit for buying semi-automatic rifles from 18 to 21 and requiring buyers of those weapons to pass an enhanced background check, show proof of firearms-training and complete a 10-day waiting period before obtaining the weapon.

Their police chief wasn’t waiting around for any new legislation to pass. He already announced, “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 a citizens right to keep and Bear Arms, PERIOD!”

In a way, it’s sort of a shame that it has to come to this. When a state passes laws, they’re supposed to apply to the entire state. (Unless the state has “charter cities” under the state constitution as California does.) But what do you do when the state begins passing laws which seem to clearly abridge the Second Amendment rights of the citizens or when the laws conflict with federal law? The entire concept of supremacy sort of goes out the window at that point.

Sounds like a man risking his job for what he believes in, gotta admire that.

In some way most folks do some form of that, even in law enforcement sometimes an officer lets old ladies out of speeding tickets or don't enforce the pot laws as vigorously as they used to.

Its both conservative in his reading of the Constitution and liberal in his stretching the limits of his job.

Can't say that we want every cop doing what he thinks is right though. The place would be a mad house.

 

[pismoe]

The second amendment says the right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

Bingo

Yet it is infringed, and I bet the police chief upholds that infringement. I bet he enforces the restrictions surrounding automatic weapons, a basic infringement.

-------------------------------------- don't know his thought on Machine guns but there are a few states right near him and right below Washington where people own machine guns CNM . ------------------- just some info that you might not be aware of CNM .

 

[Dana7360]

Yep....at least one law enforcement official understands how stupid the new Washington, State gun laws are...

A new sanctuary city for Second Amendment rights


The city of Republic in Washington state is mulling legislation that would shield residents from state gun control laws that were approved by voters last week.

Republic Mayor Elbert Koontz said the Republic City Council will begin discussing the idea of becoming a “sanctuary city” to protect residents against Initiative 1639, which goes into effect Jan. 1, The Spokesman-Review reported.

The sweeping gun-control measure includes raising the age limit for buying semi-automatic rifles from 18 to 21 and requiring buyers of those weapons to pass an enhanced background check, show proof of firearms-training and complete a 10-day waiting period before obtaining the weapon.

Their police chief wasn’t waiting around for any new legislation to pass. He already announced, “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 a citizens right to keep and Bear Arms, PERIOD!”

In a way, it’s sort of a shame that it has to come to this. When a state passes laws, they’re supposed to apply to the entire state. (Unless the state has “charter cities” under the state constitution as California does.) But what do you do when the state begins passing laws which seem to clearly abridge the Second Amendment rights of the citizens or when the laws conflict with federal law? The entire concept of supremacy sort of goes out the window at that point.

So a redneck from eastern Washington, in a town of 1073 people the sheriff says he won't enforce the law and the city wants to get a law exempting them from the law.

The city can try to do that but the city will lose in court. The judges on our state Supreme Court are elected by the people. Not appointed by any politician. Which means the state Supreme Court is a liberal court here. Politicians and judges here are very reluctant to undo any ballot initiative. Especially one passed with 60% of the vote. The last time I can remember of our Supreme Court reversing one of our ballot initiatives was in the 80s with WPPS. I'm sure they've reversed some since but I just can't remember one. That's how rare it is for any ballot initiative vote on by the people is reversed.

You're so scared of gun safety laws it's really unhealthy. That's pretty much all you post about.

A very good therapist might be able to help you with that problem.

Maybe that's why you're so afraid of real gun safety laws. The mentally unstable is prevented from guns here and those who show violence and being a threat to themselves or someone else can get their guns confiscated due to another ballot initiative we passed a couple years ago.

If I were you, I wouldn't hold my breath on that sheriff being able to not enforce that law and for that city to get an exemption from the law.

You don't live in Washington. You don't know our courts.

You need to work on your reading comprehension if that is what you think you are reading in my posts....I post about self defense and the Right to be able to defend yourself, and I explain why dumb asses such as yourself don't understand anything about gun laws and gun control....

Try reading slowly and sounding out the words, it will help you get the point...

Wow are you stupid. I mean I've always know you weren't bright but wow, you're really a special kind of stupid aren't you?

That law doesn't take the right to self defense from anyone.

I tell you actual facts of what will happen to that sheriff and town then you go on about self defense. That small hick town is in the middle of nowhere eastern Washington. No one is going to take anyone's guns they use legally for hunting and self defense. Though since that town is in the middle of nowhere, has only 1073 people, they don't have anyone to defend themselves from. Everyone knows everyone in the town. About the only thing that the person would need to defend themselves from is a rattle snake in the summer. That's about it.

This is about safety. Not about your paranoia. If you think a redneck in a small hick town of 1 thousand people is some sort of victory against the new law, you're even more stupid than I thought.

Yes, you have mental problems and that's why you're so afraid of gun safety laws. You're afraid your mental problems will get your guns taken from you. No law abiding person can take the law we just passed and say it takes someone's right to self defense from them.

You're grasping at very flimsy straws and it's very pathetic.

 

[cnm]

In California they originally referred to it as a "cooling off" period for those individuals who were making the purchase out of "anger" or with the intention of using it against a specific person.

Yes. But if one has previously passed an enhanced background check and shown proof of training then it can be assumed one has shown one does not need to cool off, Shirley.