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

And it should be held accountable for it. Doing so furthers corruption and undermining of the law.

 

I'm somehow unsurprised you would be confused by that. That's how it's supposed to work in a free Constitutional Republic.

 

Yeah I guess it was awful when we redefined free man, voter and marriage. Lol

 

And they know this based on their deep knowledge of constitutional law. Lol

 

I believe George Wallace stood on the doorsteps of a school trying to do the exact same thing.

He left when the troops were sent in

 

This law was voted on by the public. Do you suggest the average citizen has knowledge of constitutional law?

 

No I don't. The next step in the process would be for the law to be challenged in district court.....where there are judges who are experts on the constitution.

 

Exactly. The challenge should occur before it becomes law not after.

 

So, does that mean sheriffs should enforce immigration laws?

 

Yes they should.

See how easy that is?

 

Absolutely they should.

All Sheriffs take an oath to enforce and defend the U.S. Constitution and enforce federal laws.

 

And state laws

 

Have you ever looked at a county sheriffs oath of office ?

It always mentions first enforcing and defending the U.S. Constitution then mentions the state's constitution and laws.

Peace Officer Oath of Office, State of California

PEACE OFFICER OATH OF OFFICE, State of California
California Constution Article 20, Sec. 3. Misc. Subjects
[Required Oath of Office ]

" I, ___________________________, do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States and the Constitution of the State of California against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the Constitution of the United States and the Constitution of the State of California; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties upon which I am about to enter.

"And I do further swear (or affirm) that I do not advocate, nor am I a member of any party or organization, political or other- wise, that now advocates the overthrow of the Government of the United States or of the State of California by force or violence or other unlawful means; that within the five years immediately preceding the taking of this oath (or affirmation) I have not been a member of any party or organization, political or other-wise, that advocated the overthrow of the Government of the United States or of the State of California by force or violence or other unlawful means. I will not advocate nor become (name of office) a member of any party or organization, political or otherwise, that advocates the overthrow of the Government of the United States or of the State of California by force or violence or other unlawful means."

During the Vietnam War 90% of the soldiers, sailors and Marines who were UA, AWOL or deserters were apprehended by local law enforcement not by the FBI, U.S. Marshals or the military police.

During the 50's and up to the late 60's when you were pulled over by the cops and looked like you were of military age the cops asked for your drivers license and your draft card.

If you didn't produce a draft card or military ID with a liberty pass you were arrested and either the nearest Military Provost Marshal was contacted or the FBI.

 

Sherriffs get to decide what is constitutional?


What country do you live in?

 

Try reading for comprehension next time. The article clearly stated the sheriffs would not enforce the law until legal challenges to it were resolved. Most likely they will be struck down by state or federal challenges.

 

It is the current law in the state. No court has declared that it should not be enforced pending trial.

How can you not know this?

 

I know law enforcement does not enforce each and every law routinely. I know that they can see the legal issues with this law and do not want law suits for enforcing this one against their departments. Beginning to wonder what you know about anything.

 

Wow. You want sherriffs to personally strike down any law they disagree with.


Holy cow

 

You seem terminology challenged. Judges strike down laws, law enforcement determines when enforcement happens. When did you pick up the cow religion?

 

Thank you. The law is the current law of the land. Only a judge can rule on constitutionality.

Not some hick sherriff

 

Judges rule on Constitutionality now? I thought Justices did that. Correct me if I am wrong, but according to your view, if a legislative body passes a law which says no one may report the news, law enforcement must arrest all journalists.

 

District court judges do it all the time. Are you kidding?

Get a restraining order if you want to prevent enforcement of a law. It is done all the time.

Are you new to America?

 

Just remember ignorant citizens should not be able to pass laws by referendum. Maybe IQ tests should be required for voter registration.

 

Retraining orders have nothing to do with blocking the enforcement of a law, an injunction is used for that purpose.

Are you new to the terminology of laws?

 

It's pretty easy to be able to decide what is Constitutional.

All you need is the dictionary that was used at the time -> http://webstersdictionary1828.com/

And remembering what the first Chief Justice of the SCOTUS John Jay said, use this...-> https://oll.libertyfund.org/titles/vattel-the-law-of-nations-lf-ed

Any questions ?