Except sanctuary cities are legal under Federal law. There is no duty of state or local authorities to enforce immigration law. A county sheriff has an affirmative duty to enforce the laws under their jurisdiction.
5 Likes
This law, regulating the sale of fire arms, does not violate constitutional rights in any way.
6 Likes
Since that part of the 2A is prefaced by that precondition, your stated interpretation of “well regulated” is more limiting than the contemporary definition. By your definition, only people who are part of a formal group with established training, equipment, and standards would be covered by the secondary clause of the sentence, and thus have the right to bear and keep arms.
It really isn’t complicated language. It’s only the legal and linguistic gymnastics that have made it confusing for some.
5 Likes
Having a hard time taking this seriously. Comparing federal employment protections such as the national minimum wage with restrictions on the sale of firearms doesn’t really track. We know what would happen if a state attempted to allow employers to violate the federal minimum wage laws just like we know what would happen if a sheriff arrested someone for the (legal in the state) use of marijuana. Let’s not pretend otherwise.
Sorry but no. It has been settled that local law enforcement is not required to arrest someone for doing something that is legal at the state level and not legal and the federal. They have no duty or jurisdiction in that regard. I don’t know what you read but I would love to find out what made you think otherwise so that you thought you should repeat it.
You are quoting me quoting verbatim the Washington State laws regarding the duty of a sheriff - not my “original statement”. If you feel the law is without nuance or should include special carve out then perhaps you might want to take it up with the Washington State legislator and the voters of that state. I’ll not address your suggestion that I should alter my arguments as you suggest owing to the fact that this was not one of my arguments but rather a transcription of the laws in place.
I would not applaud that at all. I would expect the LEO to be dismissed for failing to do their duty. Now if a prosecutor or a private citizen refused to enforce those laws, I would applaud them. But when it comes to LEOs we do not want any of them thinking that they have the right to ignore the law as written. It is not their function and encouraging such disregard for the law, their oath, and the equal application thereof is too slippery a slope to be putting your sled on.
2 Likes
If only there were a body of well regulated and well equipped people, who had access to weapons and who could be tasked with the security of a free State. Maybe they could be split between people tasked with the security of the capital-s State (i.e., the whole country) and people tasked with the security of the little-s state (i.e., a political subdivision of the whole country).
Maybe if there were I don’t know … something over 2 million such people, able to spend over $600 billion every year? Do you think that might meet the requirements of the second amendment and guarantee the security of the free state?
I guess we’ll never know.
4 Likes
So if a guy who’s supposed to enforce the law instead starts interpreting the law, does that mean judges can now go around pulling over speeders and ticketing jay-walkers?
3 Likes
These laws are in no possible way unconstitutional.
Like myself, people who know Washington State by its big cities would be greatly mistaken in thinking that it’s a pretty progressive place. Five seconds outside of Seattle-Tacoma and you’re in the redneck northwest.
5 Likes
In the criminal justice system, the people are represented by two separate but equally important groups: The police, who investigate crime, and the district attorneys, who prosecute the offenders. These are their stories. DUN DUN
3 Likes
Where? I can’t find diddly that says it is. There are narrow rulings on specific laws, but nothing as broad as what you say.
I did find that there are conflicting district court cases (can’t find it now, so feel free to call me a liar if it makes you feel better). While there is no fundamental reason state or local officers must enforce federal laws, there is still confusion due to many states using language that says or implies they do. From oaths such as upholding the law (which law?) local ordinances that say you must enforce federal law and so on. It’s a mess.
I’m inclined to agree with you, but it’s not settled law. Now if the state law says something is explicitly legal AND disavows the federal law, I did see reference that this type of carve out is better settled.
I’m trying to help you recognize that your argument, right or wrong, sets you up to sound like a hypocritical jerk. But please feel free to continue to ignore my suggestions.
Bad laws have a duty to not be followed.
1 Like
I’m sure I’m a hypocrite at least once a day. Probably more and I’ve been called much worse than a jerk. So I don’t think I’m setting myself up for anything. But I do know that hand wringing is pointless and that jurisdiction works very well in the U.S. even when the lawmakers do silly things that contradict common sense and accepted norms.
3 Likes
Ok, then my apologies. I thing the hand-wringing is pointless too for much the same reasons. I took your message as some fire breathing absolutest position that was a step above hand wringing. But I was wrong and you were just trying to make the point that there are mechanisms to handle this.
1 Like
Sheriffs have far more authority than most people are aware of. There needs be more education in this area or the masses and I applaud this Sheriff.
Do not applaud a man for disregarding his duties.
6 Likes
His job is to uphold the Constitution of these United States of America. He is doing just that. I applaud him
That’s the question. Normally, you are “saved harmless” from lawsuit as a public official if you were doing your job to the standards normally prevalent for such services. (That is, if you are making some “reasonable” effort to prevent murders, murder victims can’t sue you for not pro-actively catching the killer.)
BUT. If somebody is NOT doing his plain job, and this is easy to establish in court because he has unwisely proclaimed that he isn’t doing his job, he might just be considered liable for a death he was nowhere near at the time.
2 Likes
the law enforcement officers with powers most people underestimate or don’t even know about are game wardens. they may have the most power of any law enforcement in a county.
your second comment regarding the job and duties of a sheriff is not quite accurate. in texas the duties of a sheriff are described as follows–
"The sheriff acts as a conservator of the peace and the executive officer of the county and district courts, serve writs and processes of the courts, seizes property after judgment, enforce traffic laws on county roads and supervises the county jail and prisoners. In counties of fewer than 10,000 residents, he may also serve as ex officio tax assessor and collector.
A sheriff in Texas has the following duties:
- Serves as a licensed peace officer and is responsible for enforcing the criminal laws of the state
- Manages and operates the county jail
- Provides security for the courts
- Serves warrants and civil papers
- Regulates bail bondsmen in counties with no bail bond board"
at learn, quoting information from the purdue university bachelors and masters program in criminal justice. they say–
" The sheriff is employed by the county and is often an elected position. He or she acts in role similar to a police chief in a municipal department. Deputies serve under the sheriff in a role similar to that of uniformed police officers. The sheriff usually has jurisdiction over any unincorporated areas of his or her county. Duties of the sheriff might include:
- Investigating complaints
- Emergency response
- Patrolling
- Resolving disputes
- Arresting suspects
- Criminal investigation
- Executing warrants"
while sheriffs, like all law enforcement officers, are required to uphold the constitution this is generally described in terms of their obligations under the 4th, 5th , 6th, and 8th amendments to the constitution as adjudicated by the various state and federal courts. they don’t get veto power over a law because they “think” it violates some principle which might not have settled law behind it.
8 Likes
Well, keep clapping your hands all you like, but he’s not actually… doing his job. Ever heard of states’ rights? The actual job he was hired to do, when elected, was to upload the laws of the place he has jurisdiction over. And he’s failing to do that. He should be fired.
4 Likes
Maybe he’ll hold it up, in the sunlight, read a bit, and say, “Damn, it really does say ‘As part of a well-regulated militia.’ Huh?”
ETA: As has been pointed out, he’s a municipal police officer, not a sheriff.
3 Likes
With corporate interests winning big in the WA election (between No on 1631 and the repeal of 6269 - promoted heavily by Big Oil, and Yes on 1634 promoted heavily by Big Beverage) I’m glad sanity won out with this bill.
And of course the NRA is leading the charge to get this bill overturned - because fuck States’ Rights when it’s something these conservative special interests don’t like.
3 Likes
