Washington State county sheriff refuses to enforce new gun laws


#1

Originally published at: https://boingboing.net/2018/11/20/washington-state-county-sherif.html


#2

Hard to say, but he is in violation of the law

RCW 36.28.011

Duty to make complaint.

In addition to the duties contained in RCW 36.28.010, it shall be the duty of all sheriffs to make complaint of all violations of the criminal law, which shall come to their knowledge, within their respective jurisdictions.

RCW 36.28.150

Liability for fault or misconduct.

Whenever any sheriff neglects to make due return of any writ or other process delivered to him or her to be executed, or is guilty of any default or misconduct in relation thereto, he or she shall be liable to fine or attachment, or both, at the discretion of the court, subject to appeal, such fine, however, not to exceed two hundred dollars; and also to an action for damages to the party aggrieved.


#3

A Sheriff is an elected official. Vote him out.


#4

Does anyone know what’s supposed to happen when an officer of the law refuses to enforce the law of the land?

BoingBoing: I hope the cops and military have the balls to not follow any unconstitutional orders.

Also BoingBoing: He’s in violation of the law for not following orders. Get rid of him and find someone who will follow orders.

¯\(ツ)


#5

What happens when someone who shouldn’t be allowed to own a gun with the new law commits a crime? Can the sheriff or county be held liable at that point?


#6

There you go. FTFY


#7

Police exercise discretion all the time. Is this sherriff refusing to enforce a gun law different than other sheriffs refusing to enforce immigration or drug laws?


#8

Immigration laws are a matter for Federal agencies. A beat cop has no more business checking your immigration status then they do auditing your taxes.

A sheriff on the other hand is tasked with enforcing the laws of their own state and county.


#9

The second amendment does not say that guns can’t be well regulated. It sort of implies the opposite, really.


#10

The flip side of a sanctuary city. This was inevitable.


#11

It’s almost as if these positions are consistent in their desire for people to be safe from assholes with guns, whether they be police or military assholes with guns or random civilian assholes with guns…


#12

I also added a bit about not prosecuting drug laws. Is it the same thing when a sheriff or prosecutor says they won’t prosecute simple possession?

Edit: Also - I found this that does say local law enforcement officers can make immigration-related arrests. You can argue if they have a duty to do so according to the oath they swear, but they definitely have that authority.


#13

Again, there’s a huge difference. “Sanctuary cities” simply leave the enforcement of Federal immigration law to the Federal agencies created for that purpose. This guy is refusing to enforce state law.


#14

Okay, fair point. Didn’t RTFA. But know that argument will come up – everywhere and all the time – when and if the Dems manage any kind of federal gun control.


#15

However it does state that the right of the people to keep and bear Arms shall not be infringed.


#16

Making someone wait until they are 21 to buy a gun is not an unconstitutional infringement on their rights. Before 1971 the voting age in many states was 21.


#17

Republic voters were against the gun control measure 3 to 1 and may well support the sheriff.


#18

C’mon, haven’t you been paying attention? To hear the NRA tell it, anything that keeps anyone from walking in off the street and walking out with a semiautomatic rifle and 1000 rounds of ammo is an infringement.


#19

Sounds to me like this sheriff might be, ah, Culpable for the potential consequences of any such willful violations.

Edit: not meant as a reply to Walter


#20

Sure, cops always face the consequences of their actions.