11 County Sheriffs in WA state unite in REBELLION against new gun control.

If a sheriff is not an expert on the constitutionality of a law, neither are those who implemented the law to begin with. It is not constitutional simply because they say so.

 

When ignorant, or even corrupt, politicians enact blatantly unconstitutional laws it is the sworn duty of Sheriffs to NOT enforce that law. Such actually can facilitate the courts taking a more timely evaluation of the law. If the courts overturn the law, then the sheriff has prevented perhaps irreparable damage to the rights and freedoms of the people he serves. If the courts uphold the law, and the sheriff still refuses to enforce it, then he can be removed by the people at the next election... unless the people approve of his actions.

 

Sherriffs who now make legal opinions. What if it is upheld in court and the sherriff gets reelected and he still refuses to enforce it. What if in the south sherriffs who were refusing to admit black kids to white schools just kept on doing that if they got reelected .

You have abandoned the constitution when you allow anyone but the judiciary to rule on it

 

That is why Sherriff's are elected, unlike urban chiefs of police, who only kiss the bottoms of the commissioners who appoint them and firearm related crimes are through the roof in their districts.

Politicians mostly Democrats, do not want to solve or reduce violent crimes, because like anti-gunners they support, they need dead bodies to promote their cause, their very mentally sick, almost to the point of being criminally insane.

Normal people would never use death to promote a cause, however anti-gunners have no problem doing such.

And the reality is, they love death by firearms, because it provides them with more opportunities to promote their cause.

They care nothing about life, period.

 

You would have been very popular with certain whites in the south in the fifties

 

When a law is enacted, such as in Washington, that is so completely and blatantly unconstitutional and damaging to the core rights of the people, then it is the sworn duty of the Sheriff to refuse to enforce it.

The courts have, at this point, almost completely proven themselves to be nothing but a rubber-stamp on governmental overreach against the rights of the people. It is the courts that have abdicated their credibility and put us into the situation we are currently in; not the sheriffs.

 

That's what sherriffs said in the south about laws to allow black people to vote and other rights. They decided what was constitutional and what was not.

Sherriffs enforce the law....not decide what is constitutional.

 

Well you tell me. This is from the National Sheriff's Association. I suppose as it's their web site they could just be making it up>

 

That is the justification sherriffs in the south used to deny rights to blacks.

They were doing it for america

 

How about we let individual cops decide what is constitutional? They swear an oath too. Same for individual soldiers. I mean if sherriffs dont need to obey state law....why should individual cops?

 

Sheriffs take an oath to the Constitution, and they must act to uphold that oath.

When the law is in conflict with the Constitution it is their duty to protect the Constitution, not the unconstitutional law.

 

So are you suggesting that the voters through a referendum decide what is Constitutional?

 

Nope. That is the job of the courts and courts alone. But a law is presumed constitutional untill overturned in court

 

Cops and soldiers take the same oath. Can they decide for themselves what is constitutional?

 

Hey chief....I'm not cleaning that head....that is unconstitutional!!!

 

I live in an area that is rural, white, conservative, christian (I know, why am I here). I would guarantee you there are some small towns around here where I could get people to vote against allowing ethnic minorities to live in their town. Does that mean the chief of police would have to run people out of town?

 

Yes. But it would never get that far. It would take about a minute to get an injunction. Why don't sherriffs get an injunction here?

 

I know from experience some soldiers do what they want. I was fired from my last leadership position for threatening soldiers. Seems I told them to stop screwing off and get to work or I would kick some ass. The soldiers took issue with that and told the commander I was mean to them. That's right, I got fired for being mean to soldiers.

 

But until the injunction the cops would have to escort people out of town?

 

They can refuse a direct order from a officer? Come on rich

 

Yep. The injunction would happen first in so obvious a case

 

The case in the OP was obvious before the election and it is still sitting there.

Why is my example so obvious and the gun control issue not?

 

It is not obvious to any judge in the state. Trust me....it would not be hard to get the order. Why hasn't anyone even filed a case?

 

People have been fighting this since before the election. There were efforts to keep it off the ballot because some saw it as unconstitutional. The NRAs ILA started fighting it the week after the election.

So if an injunction took a while in my fictional example you would be good with running people out of town? Should cops refuse to enforce an unfair law like that?

 

Then a judge has seen it and said there is no call for am injunction.

Cops don't decide what is fair.....judges do