She doesn’t bug me too bad, but may as well wait til trump replaces her before ruling on any gun laws.
She missed the oral arguments of the first case of the year, I don't see her hanging on too much longer.
I always find it interesting in situations like the one in the OP that some county sheriff thinks it is up to him to determine what is constitutional.
Could a law requiring sheriffs to confiscate guns en masse from their constituents ever be Constitutional?
Its not. Its up to his constituents in his county. They, and only they, elected him and can remove him if they're unhappy with his interpretation of the law (unless he breaks the law). Its a local check against centralized authority. And IMO its working as intended. Given what I know of Klickitat County (I've been through there many times) his constituents are likely highly supportive of his interpretation in this matter. Just some relevant background- WA state east of the cascades is at least as conservative as Seattle is liberal. Much in the same way that LA and SF are able to dictate state law to CA, the greater metro areas of coastal WA dictate law to the rest of the state. I-1639 will never be enforced in any meaningful manner in rural WA, and Sherriff Songer is merely a more vocal example of the reason why.
Local sheriff's dont get to determine what is constitutional . It is wrong when it is done by both sides.....and it is done by both liberals and conservatives
Rather interesting. In previous posts the member Vegas Giants alleges that supposedly "anything is up for grabs" when it comes to discussion of firearm-related restrictions. Now when being presented with an example of such a mindset actually being employed, it is being objected to.
Dickheadism. dick-head-ism /'dickhead'ism/ noun a crime, typically involving retardism, regarded as more serious than a misdemeanor, and usually punishable by imprisonment for more than one year or by death. "he pleaded guilty to six dickheadisms"
You're the one proposing using it as a legal pretext. Provide the definition. ...unless you don't think laws need to be objective.