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

The following counties in WA state will not be enforcing the new gun control law I-1639, at least until some of its vaguities are resolved in upcoming lawsuits.

Lewis County, Spokane County, Grays Harbor County, Adams County, Benton County, Franklin County, Klickitat County, Stevens County, Pacific County, Yakima County and last but not least (and probably not last), my own County of Kittitas (props to Sheriff Dana, whom I didn't vote for, but I shall now!).

I-1639 passed with 60% of the popular vote statewide, however the bulk of those votes originated from the deeply progressive Seattle-metro area, and it only passed in 12 of Washington's 37 Counties. At least 11 (so far) of the other 25 are refusing to enforce it.

Some Sheriffs are merely calling it confusing and in need of clarifications, however several have actually stated that it violates The Constitution and they can't enforce it because of the Oath they took with their office.

Sheriff Bob Songer of Klickitat County was one of the first to declare his refusal to comply, stating that he was willing to use his 130 volunteer 'posse' to prevent other agencies from attempting to enforce I-1639 within his jurisdiction. While his statement was probably the most strongly worded, many of the soon-to-follow statements by other Sheriff's state their intention to 'stand with the other Law Enforcement Agencies that are refusing this law.'

At least one news outlet, The Statesman Examiner, has labeled this movement a 'rebellion.'

What do you think will happen to these Sheriffs?
Is this a precursor to armed conflict?
What do you think this means for the future of gun control?

https://www.king5.com/article/news/...-wont-seek-out-i-1639-violators/281-620730318
https://www.krem.com/article/news/l...evel/293-b462a2b3-2fbe-4f1a-a234-300735a0c3fd
http://www.chronline.com/crime/gray...cle_83ec9b94-2649-11e9-95e4-f39761173fcd.html
https://www.khq.com/news/adams-coun...cle_61533daa-24fe-11e9-a632-c7ad5ac24ab7.html
https://www.statesmanexaminer.com/content/benton-county-sheriff-jerry-hatcher-joins-i-1639-rebellion
https://www.thetruthaboutguns.com/2...nger-i-wont-enforce-washington-states-i-1639/
https://www.kxly.com/news/stevens-c...officials-speaks-out-against-i-1639/997986022
https://www.kxro.com/pacific-county-sheriff-joins-opposition-to-i-1639/
https://fox41yakima.com/yakima-county-sheriffs-will-not-enforce-i-1639/
https://www.dailyrecordnews.com/new...cle_45ff01a1-df3d-50b3-a351-4bed738596b6.html

 

18 views, 0 replies... well, 1 reply now.

No one wants to talk about this???

 

Not much to say but good for them.

The Sheriff in Spokane didn't actually say he wouldn't enforce it he said: " ...there is nothing for us to enforce,". He called it "unconstitutional on the state and federal level".

Thanks for the post. I always figure even if a post doesn't get many comments if it is getting views it is for a good cause.

Rich

 

Interesting. I didn't catch that part by the Spokane Sheriff. I assume he means 'theres nothing to enforce' because 'its unconstitutional'...

 

My take on his statement was the way the law is worded there is really nothing a Sheriff can do. Something like a person under 21 buying a gun. What is a sheriff supposed to do? Have a deputy standing by at every gun shop. Enforcement for a law like that falls on the gun shop and the state. As I understood the new law it also addresses keeping guns secure at home. Again not something a sheriff can really enforce without going door to door. Enhanced background checks were mentioned. If that means through a gun dealer then again not the sheriff's job. If it falls on the sheriff it is not something he can do much about unless the state wants to fund the counties to pay for it. Something like that takes manpower and money. I just see lots of problems as Sheriff Knezovich seems to indicate he does too. Not really anything for him to enforce.

 

Good point

 

Add Ferry, Thurston, Cowlitz and Wahkiakum counties to the list.

 

Sheriffs don't get to decide what is constitutional.

I guess the will of the people means nothing

 

It looks to me like the will of the people in their jurisdictions, where the law was unpopular, means quite a lot to these Sheriff's. You would fault them for not enforcing laws supported by distant communities on their own communities that don't want them?

 

So you support activist sherriff deciding what is constitutional or not against the vote of the people.

Noted

 

I support localizing authority and government. Would you fault these Sheriffs for not enforcing laws supported by distant communities on their own communities that don't want them?

 

So sheriffs get to decide what the people want? How about a sherriff that will not support anything from trump because his county did not vote for him?

 

Sure. They are elected by their County, after all. Can you give me an example of 'something from Trump' that a Sheriff might choose to not enforce?

Also, you neglected to answer my question: Would you fault these Sheriffs for not enforcing laws supported by distant communities on their own communities that don't want them?

 

Trump wants to build a wall in your state. You arrest any construction worker who lays a single brick

 

Yes I would fault these sherriff for not enforcing state law. They are not in their own country and sherriffs are not kings

 

We're at 55 in Colorado. Keep pushing them.

 

I could see a Sheriff taking that stance. I could also see a neighboring county just building a wall there instead...​

 

Well it will have a big gap in it. This is great. There is a whole bunch of things sherriffs can do now since they have their own independent kingdoms.

 

Would you fault them for not enforcing federal law, like with Marijuana?

 

So Kings are elected now?

 

And you honestly think a sheriff does not have to enforce any federal or state law if he does not want to?

Honestly?

 

Its not about whether a Sheriff wants to, its about whether a Sheriff was elected to. I believe (and many state Constitutions guarantee) that the Sheriff is the Supreme Law Enforcement Authority within their jurisdiction, and since they are elected by the population within their jurisdiction, it would be undemocratic for them to enforce any laws that the population that elected them opposed.

Would you fault them for not enforcing unpopular federal laws, like with Marijuana?

 

Wht would be the point of state laws if a sheriff can decide the people in his county dont want them?

 

Let em come over the pass and try.

 

That's a good question. As a supporter of localizing government and democratically delegated authority, I can't really answer it for you.

Perhaps as a guideline?

IMO the only restrictions regarding what a Sheriff may or may not enforce are the State and US Constitutions. For example, I don't think a Sheriff has the authority to allow folks to keep slaves or commit murder.