Someone should tell him about the concept of “Separation of Powers”.
1 Like
That may depend on the state laws. In this case, the state (Washington) has a specific law directing sheriffs that they have a duty to make complaint of all violations of the law and not just the ones they want to enforce.
However, in the cases where a LEO decides to not enforce a specific law, I feel that the LEO is in violation of their duty. It is not the place of law enforcement to make such a judgement call. We have courts and judges to make that determination.
You are confusing the right to keep and bear with the rights to sell, purchase, and transfer. The Washington law cannot prevent an underage person from crafting their own gun. It simply deals with the sale and distribution of firearms which is not at all protected by the 2nd amendment. Only the right to keep and bear is protected.
here is the actual law. You may notice how it references sellers and dealers and the obligations that they have under the law.
6 Likes
Time to fire the sherif and his deputy then.
At the same time, common sense says there have to be agreeable limits. The founding fathers weren’t really aware of how much modern weaponry would be advanced in this day and age. Do you really want to take that meaning literally and let your neighbor store an ICBM in his backyard?
hyperbole used for illustrative purposes
6 Likes
There are lots of gun regulations on the books already. Things like large capacity magazines and suppressors are subject to all kinds of regulations. Some cities ban handguns. Felons lose their gun rights. So it isn’t just common sense - there’s lots of established law on the issue.
The very strong interpretation of the second amendment is a fairly recent development. It’s only been for the past 50 years or so that the absolutist position has entered the mainstream.
2 Likes
Yes, well aware. I’m just pointing out the ridiculousness of absolutism and literal interpretation.
6 Likes
A person with standing would file a writ of mandamus against the sheriff. Law review article discussing writs of mandamus under Florida law: “The writ of mandamus is issued to command performance of a
preexisting, public ministerial duty.’”.
3 Likes
Does that include Federal marijuana laws? Sure, we can say one doesn’t kill people. But that’s just the same as saying we should only enforce laws that we like.
I don’t agree with the Sheriff. But be careful with your arguments.
2 Likes
Probably will head to court and if it makes it to district court, it’ll probably head to the Supreme Court. Sure they accept 1% of cases but, I can’t remember them ever not ruling on a 2nd amendment case.
This will in no way result in an otherwise-preventable tragedy.
Side note: Is this guy hoping to get sued into oblivion as soon as a mass murder is committed with an illegally obtained weapon that his willful non-enforcement allowed to happen?
5 Likes
By definition, wouldn’t unconstitutional orders be illegal?
1 Like
Per: Heller vs D.C. Limiting access to firearms is not unconstitutional.
11 Likes
Just a niggle, but both the Root and Seattle Times stories have him as the municipal police chief, not sheriff. That would not be an elective office. (Also: the link to The Root is actually to the Seattle Times story.)
Not a problem. One thing most of these mass shootings have in common is a cop trying to do his job gets killed. Hopefully Sheriff Rambo’s replacement will find a way to follow the law.
Of course it does… for federal police acting within their jurisdiction. However if your state allows it then it would fall outside the jurisdiction of local law enforcement. It’s not as if this is complicated, requires charts, and hasn’t already been settled.
I don’t argue or quibble over definition. You shouldn’t either. The point is that the law being discussed is legal and not unconstitutional. So we can take your constitutional argument off the table as not being germane to the discussion.
Indeed. If the absolute literalists keep this up and refuse to go along with rational gun regulation, there is still the nuclear option of banning all gun sales and the commercial production of ammunition. It’s perfectly legal and within the power of the government to take this option and unless the right starts behaving like adults on this issue, it may be the route we end up taking.
9 Likes
Send in the SWAT team. Give him a taste of his own medicine.
1 Like
Again, “well regulated” means something different in that context. A well regulated militia is one that is properly equipped and trained.
But anyway, my point is when discerning what is or isn’t constitutional or legal and should or shouldn’t be followed can flux. But should it? It is a bit hypocritical?
And yet if we had a sheriff not wanting to enforce say a Voter ID act, or something that targets immigrants, or something that curbs free speech - something that violates a person’s civil liberties, they would be applauded for standing up to unjust laws.
I am not going to get into what I personally find prudent, or if the law is fair or right, etc. My point is the actions taken - refusing to uphold a law one finds unconstitutional - is usually seen as a good thing… until it is for a right one finds either outdated, unnecessary, or contradicts ones’ views. Then the concept of standing up to unjust unconstitutional laws goes out the window. Not just out the window, but vehemently supporting the removal of these enforcers if they can’t do their jobs, because it isn’t a law or right they care about.
2 Likes
It isn’t really settled. There’s a lot of uncertainty with the way things are structured right now. I think all sides are afraid of pushing a case to the supreme court just because there’s always the chance they would lose.
Do you think a state could eliminate minimum wage regulations and get away with it?
Actually, no, it hasn’t been settled for local police. I was curious and did a bit of quick googling. The answer is … it’s complicated and has not been settled. Your original statement:
This does not include the nuances, conflicting law, or special carve outs that could apply. So, wouldn’t it be prudent to be careful with your arguments as I suggested? Absolutest arguments might not be wise.
1 Like
The headline is wrong. He’s not a county sheriff. He’s the chief of police in a tiny town.
2 Likes
