View Full Version : Washington police chief will not enforce new gun regs
While I get and appreciate his POV, I also worry about LE deciding which laws they will and will not enforce. He's on the side of right, but can also set a precedent. He he swore an oath to uphold and defend the Const but picking and choosing which laws to uphold makes me uncomfortable, even if I fully agree with his POV on this issue:
REPUBLIC, Wash. – A local police chief in Washington state says he won’t enforce newly passed gun regulations that he claims “infringe” on the Second Amendment.
Washington now has some of the strictest gun laws in the nation after new regulations were passed by nearly 60 percent of the state this month, KXLY reported.
Under initiative 1639, the age to purchase certain guns has gone up, enhanced background checks are now required to buy a semi-automatic rifle and criminal charges can be brought against any gun owner who violates the safe storage provision.
With all of this going on, one local law enforcement official says he won’t be the one enforcing these laws.
In the small town of Republic, Chief Loren Culp took to Facebook to tell the citizens of his city, who voted overwhelmingly against the initiative, that he has no plans to implement the new statute.
Cont:
https://www.lawenforcementtoday.com/washington-police-chief-will-not-enforce-newly-passed-gun-regulations/?fbclid=IwAR1bMYqzZezQqJAidRHrFY9UpqQ5fObxW6G70z4cEIfwtcHEEOOPvaQfylc
Let's not forget every semi automatic rifle will now be classified as a assault weapon
,even ruger 10/22.
Plus sign a medical waiver for access for you complete medical background.
Plus have background checks done once a year( al least ).
So yeah I think thing he is right. If he won't stand up for the constitution who will.
The POS people in Washington sure in the hell didnt.
Sent from my SM-G930V using Tapatalk
Let's not forget every semi automatic rifle will now be classified as a assault weapon
,even ruger 10/22.
Plus sign a medical waiver for access for you complete medical background.
Plus have background checks done once a year( al least ).
So yeah I think thing he is right. If he won't stand up for the constitution who will.
The POS people in Washington sure in the hell didnt.
Sent from my SM-G930V using Tapatalk
I had no idea Washington was that far gone.
I'm glad you see and hold LE to that high of a standard as we should be. But I don't think this is simply a guy with arrest authority saying "eh I don't like this law so I'm not going to enforce it". The way I see it, he's doing exactly what his oath says. His oath doesn't mean he blindly follows laws and orders.
I wonder how this will effect moving my NFA items- SBR, two suppressors- here. Or any AR. I think back in CA, if I brought my AR into the state I would, legally, have to do a backgorund check.
I had no idea Washington was that far gone.Unfortunately yes. Used to be pretty good even for a liberal state.
I594 UBC's
Red flag laws
Now I1639
Liberals have learned to use the initiative route to get things done.
I1639 was thrown out once for not meeting requirements. But Washington S.C. put it back into play.
Sent from my SM-G930V using Tapatalk
I wonder how this will effect moving my NFA items- SBR, two suppressors- here. Or any AR. I think back in CA, if I brought my AR into the state I would, legally, have to do a backgorund check.When are you moving?
I don't believe it should affect you.
Sent from my SM-G930V using Tapatalk
What kills me is that Washington gun owners are about 60% of the residents. Nowhere near 60% of any state's population smokes dope, but it keeps getting legalized.
That's what happens when you stay home to "vote your conscience".
Andy
It is a duty for law enforcement to not enforce laws they do not think are constitutional. I’m proud that this man is taking a stand, many don’t and keep going out Day after day enforcing laws they don’t believe in.
I don’t see any negatives to laws not being enforced. We have at a minimum twice as laws in this country than needed.
What he needs to do is build a coalition of other small town Chiefs that feel the same way, then they might have a voice.
Republic is a city in Ferry County, Washington, United States. The population was 1,073 at the 2010 census, a 12.5% increase over the 2000 Census. It is the county seat of Ferry County.
As it is, in some areas a Chief in that small a jurisdiction is somewhat viewed with skepticism.
There are all kinds if laws LEO dont enforce.
As long as there is no victim, i dont see an issue.
"Trust us" doesn't cut it anymore. At ANY level.
wildcard600
11-19-18, 16:26
I worry much less about shitty laws not being enforced than shitty laws being selectively enforced.
http://cdn0.thetruthaboutguns.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/12/David-Gregory-and-illegal-in-D.C.-30-round-AR-15-magazine-courtesy-theblaze.com_.jpeg
Diamondback
11-19-18, 16:46
IIRC, the only sheriff out of 39 who *didn't* denounce 1639 was King County. Other than that, IIRC WACOPS--our Chiefs' & Sheriffs' Association--was almost unanimous in their opposition.
It wasn't 60% of the populace, BTW, but 60% of the 40% that cast ballots, mostly Seattle Leftofascist Walking Garbage.
IIRC, the only sheriff out of 39 who *didn't* denounce 1639 was King County. Other than that, IIRC WACOPS--our Chiefs' & Sheriffs' Association--was almost unanimous in their opposition.
It wasn't 60% of the populace, BTW, but 60% of the 40% that cast ballots, mostly Seattle Leftofascist Walking Garbage.There might have 38 out of 39 to denounce, but how many refuse to enforce??
Sent from my SM-G930V using Tapatalk
Nowhere near 60% of any state's population smokes dope, but it keeps getting legalized.".
Andy
Are you sure about that, this is Washington.
At $1.3 Billion in sales for 1yr period, there more then a few that use it.
Sent from my SM-G930V using Tapatalk
Liberals have learned to use the initiative route to get things done.
That is correct. I have a problem with initiatives being on the ballot. The reason our Founders made us a constitutional republic is that they understood a direct democracy will turn us into a mob ruled country.
Diamondback
11-19-18, 18:37
There might have 38 out of 39 to denounce, but how many refuse to enforce??
Sent from my SM-G930V using Tapatalk
Thurston and Mason Counties have already backpedaled... surprised Pierce and Snohomish didn't lead the stampede.
ThirdWatcher
11-19-18, 18:47
While I get and appreciate his POV, I also worry about LE deciding which laws they will and will not enforce. He's on the side of right, but can also set a precedent. He he swore an oath to uphold and defend the Const but picking and choosing which laws to uphold makes me uncomfortable, even if I fully agree with his POV on this issue...
Every LEO has laws they choose not to enforce, it’s called discretion. It’s all part of the checks and balances. Who wants a bunch of robots out there? FWIW, I have never felt obligated to enforce any rule that violates my beliefs (and I detest hypocrisy, especially when practiced by LEO’s).
IIRC, the only sheriff out of 39 who *didn't* denounce 1639 was King County. Other than that, IIRC WACOPS--our Chiefs' & Sheriffs' Association--was almost unanimous in their opposition.
While what the Chiefs and Sheriffs say is nice, in all actuality it boils down to what the feet on the street are doing. If the Sheriff or Chief says 'zero tolerance arrest anyone in violation' (at the other extreme) it is still dependent on the actual street officers to do the arresting, unless the Chief or Sheriff is a one man band.
What you all should be looking for is County and District Attorneys who say they won't prosecute such cases.
ETA - not that your Chief's and Sherif'fs Asociation's opposition is bad, just the opposite.
Diamondback
11-19-18, 20:37
I'm actually toying with the idea of a Trojan Horse Initiative... load it up with twenty pages of feelgood bullshit, then repeal I1639 in toto, repeal our redundant NFA restrictions and replace by incorporating NFA in-toto, then make WA an Automatic Recognition state. Hey, it's all a single subject, it's all about guns... anybody up for trying to help build either the Trojan Horse or its payload if I crosspost what I've put together over on NWFA so far? :)
And just how would you do that??
Of course this would be the initiative that people do read.
We would have to have the NRA come out against it, so liberals would automatically vote for it.
Sent from my SM-G930V using Tapatalk
Diamondback
11-19-18, 22:08
And just how would you do that??
Of course this would be the initiative that people do read.
We would have to have the NRA come out against it, so liberals would automatically vote for it.
Sent from my SM-G930V using Tapatalk
Re NRA, I was thinking start by making sure Gottlieb at SAF is in on it and have him mobilize the troops to "denounce" it. The problem with the Bury In Bullshit is, the other team has all the Ambulance Chasing Walking Garbage... other than that, the main strategy woulda been make eyes glaze over about page ten from all the kumbayah "safety" and "training" BS. We'd need some new front group with a Feelgood Buzzword Bullshit name to sponsor it, though maybe with a little playing of cards right Bloomie could be conned. "After all, all those icky gun nuts know about Alliance for Gun Responsibility and you and Hanauer's other shows, we'd be something completely new and unexpected..."
Building the effective Trojan Horse, in a way that would survive the court challenges, would be the hardest part.
Moose-Knuckle
11-20-18, 04:40
IIRC all but two Sheriffs in CO came out and said they would not enforce the standard capacity mag ban thing that Magpul pulled up stakes over.
How many CLEO's refuse to enforce and or cooperate with immigration laws? Didn't the Portland, OR police chief tell her department to stand down as Antifa besieged the ICE office there and let them control traffic in a section of down town?
It's okay to have some pro-2nd CLEO's out there. Good on them!
While I get and appreciate his POV, I also worry about LE deciding which laws they will and will not enforce. He's on the side of right, but can also set a precedent. He he swore an oath to uphold and defend the Const but picking and choosing which laws to uphold makes me uncomfortable, even if I fully agree with his POV on this issue:
REPUBLIC, Wash. – A local police chief in Washington state says he won’t enforce newly passed gun regulations that he claims “infringe” on the Second Amendment.
Washington now has some of the strictest gun laws in the nation after new regulations were passed by nearly 60 percent of the state this month, KXLY reported.
Under initiative 1639, the age to purchase certain guns has gone up, enhanced background checks are now required to buy a semi-automatic rifle and criminal charges can be brought against any gun owner who violates the safe storage provision.
With all of this going on, one local law enforcement official says he won’t be the one enforcing these laws.
In the small town of Republic, Chief Loren Culp took to Facebook to tell the citizens of his city, who voted overwhelmingly against the initiative, that he has no plans to implement the new statute.
Cont:
https://www.lawenforcementtoday.com/washington-police-chief-will-not-enforce-newly-passed-gun-regulations/?fbclid=IwAR1bMYqzZezQqJAidRHrFY9UpqQ5fObxW6G70z4cEIfwtcHEEOOPvaQfylc
How is this any different then al of the Leo's the refuse to enforce the imagination laws of this country? Well, there is a difference. This law is going against a Constitutional right and the imagination law is just not being enforced.
What about all of the Federal agents that do not enforce the federal drug laws in CO and CA? All types of LEOs out there picking and choosing what they will enforce.
How is this any different then al of the Leo's the refuse to enforce the imagination laws of this country? Well, there is a difference. This law is going against a Constitutional right and the imagination law is just not being enforced.
What about all of the Federal agents that do not enforce the federal drug laws in CO and CA? All types of LEOs out there picking and choosing what they will enforce.
And I do find that bothersome also.
Willbrink,
It's the state of things. He's essentially saying he believes the 'law' is not legal, as it violates a higher law.
Officials refusing to enforce immigration law have no such justification. They do it because they disagree with it personally, or find it politically convenient to ignore, and know no one will call them on it.
Willbrink,
It's the state of things. He's essentially saying he believes the 'law' is not legal, as it violates a higher law.
Officials refusing to enforce immigration law have no such justification. They do it because they disagree with it personally, or find it politically convenient to ignore, and know no one will call them on it.
Obviously I back where he's coming from and appreciate that he's got the backbone to do it, but I'm still viewing it from the larger POV. But, an un Constitutional law is not a just law and I understand where he's coming from.
Obviously I back where he's coming from and appreciate that he's got the backbone to do it, but I'm still viewing it from the larger POV. But, an un Constitutional law is not a just law and I understand where he's coming from.
Ah ok. Your concern is with the concept of selective enforcement. Sort of 'what happens when the enforcers start deciding which laws to enforce.' Yeah man, things are screwed up. When officers are having to disobey state law to keep from violating the constitution, things are getting bad. Going to get worse before it gets better, I'm afraid.
Everything I'm trying to learn about why the left thinks the way they do suggests to me that they are, in fact, a completely separate nation that's been growing within the borders of the US. When I try and talk to them, they have such completely different ideas about what's desirable in life, they feel like aliens to me. They really aren't Americans at all, assuming "American" means having anything in common with the ideals of the founders of the US. They're much more like modern Brits or Germans and seem to prefer those ideals.
When I read Saul Alinsky's Rules for Radicals, that seems to be the subtext. In the foreword with his reference to Satan, he almost states that his hope is to gain control of the US and, failing that, to at least gain control of a portion of it to make a country by and for leftist radicals.
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.5 Copyright © 2024 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.