This is bullshit. There’s nothing stopping 18 year olds in WA from getting firearms even after the passage of 1639.
You’re just spreading misinformation.
5 Likes
The Royal Navy’s police were formerly called the Regulating Branch, because they ‘regulated’ the navy by enforcing discipline.
I read something which explained that well-regulated’ meant training and discipline in eighteenth century English, and went on to say that the intent of the Second Amendment was to ensure that militia members could keep their rifles at home, so that they would have no excuses for failing to practise loading and firing them regularly. It was an obligation presented as a right.
1 Like
In case you’re only reading the headline… Culp is not a sheriff – the article says he is Chief of Police in Republic, WA. In a WA code city, that is an appointed position, not elected, and the incumbent can be fired for cause. There’s not a means for recall by voters (and it sounds like that town wouldn’t do it anyway). His law enforcement credentials are subject to State action, and losing that would remove his legal authority to do his job.
1 Like
It does have the militia as a preface, but not a requirement for the right. You need a well armed pool to pull from. But I am not trying to argue about what the 2nd Amendment says, or even say that these laws are unconstitutional or not.
My point is: when it comes to interpreting laws and orders and figuring out if they should be obeyed or not, how is one approaching it? What ones finds unlawful/unconstitutional/unjust is going to vary between people. What one person finds as jackbooted thugs upholding the will of the fascist regime, another will see as police upholding the law. Which is it and why?
If one is promoting the non-enforcement of other laws that limit rights, shouldn’t one have the honestly to at least say: “I don’t know if I agree with this sheriff or not, but I at least appreciate him questioning authority.”
I may have missed a comment, but I haven’t seen anyone commenting on whether the law should or shouldn’t be enforced and why - only that this guy isn’t following the law - which is bad - find someone who will follow orders/the law/do his job. Which in the times of fascism and authoritarianism rising I find elicit a nervous giggle.
OK, assuming that is true, I appreciate your consistency in thought and can find no qualms with it. But many, if not most, who frequent here would find certain laws they do not want to see enforced by LEO.
So everyone found with weed on them should be arrested per the law?
In Washington State, that is not the law. Matter of fact, in many states, that isn’t the law, since even in states where it isn’t legalized, pot has increasingly been decriminalized; a fine or confiscation’s the worst that will happen.
1 Like
Dude, yes, of course some states are legalizing it. Many have not. Like here in Missouri. We did pass a constitutional amendment to allow medical marijuana, but should the cops here bust everyone with a roach i their car who don’t have a medical weed card?
Ironically, I could probably gain pain relief through using medical marijuana, but because I like guns I can’t use it. Oh well. Sucks to be me
¯\__(ツ)_/¯
Did you perform some sort of poll or is this you saying something without evidence in order to illustrate your feelings on the matter?
In truth, there are many laws I do not want to see enforced by the police but that doesn’t mean I want to the police to shirk their responsibilities. Both can be true. I can insist that the police do the job they are charged to do and I can feel that we would be better off if some laws were ignored.
This may be a state by state thing, but I do believe that most states allow for “citation in lieu of arrest” for low level offenses such as a class B misdemeanor (which is what possession of under 2 oz is in my state). So the idea that they should be arrested per the law is a bit off the mark. Police can do their duty and still not arrest you for simply possession.
I get that you are trying to paint people saying that police need to stay in their lane with some perceived hypocrisy owing to the fact that many here don’t like people having their lives destroyed due to some out of date prohibition. I really get that this is your goal here but it just doesn’t track. See, both positions have a commonality you may be missing. In the case where the sheriff refuses to enforce gun laws, he is placing the community at risk and playing at being a judge rather than an investigator and complainant as is his duty. Similarly, the war on drugs has and continues to cause great harm to the community. The people here are simply being consistent in their disdain for uses of authority which harm the community which is the reason you see the paradox in response to similar but different situations.
In truth, there is no paradox and the responses here have been consistent when viewed from the perspective of harm reduction.
1 Like
True! But we’re specifically talking about Washington State, and an officer of the law who isn’t doing his job there, not Missouri. In a larger sense, someone who maintains the law definitely has discretion as to how they oversee it – lord knows Sheriff Joe had his own ideas of how to handle things in Arizona, and lots of Arizonans loved it – but if there’s laws they aren’t enforcing, it’s up to the people to decide how they feel about that. As I say, much of Washington is rural and Republican, so I’m sure they’ll be okay with it.
1 Like
I’m talking about the bigger picture. Something that can be applied across the US: promotion of the non-enforcement of laws that limit rights.
I will briefly break my rule of avoiding gun threads to say this. The Founding Fathers recognized that the Constitution is a living document and that even the clearest laws required some interpretation. That’s the function of the Courts and ultimately the Supreme Court of the United States. The law and the courts are traditionally extremely conservative in the original non-partisan sense of the word, but over time it’s that interpretation which is in gradual flux.
3 Likes
I suggest you take the time to read the bill before making statements to the contrary. I’ll save you a Google:
https://www.sos.wa.gov/_assets/elections/initiatives/finaltext_1531.pdf (note the URL says ‘1531’, but the PDF itself is for 1639. I don’t run IT in WA State, I don’t know why they do these things)
“Sec. 13. RCW 9.41.240 and 1994 sp.s. c 7 s 423 are each amended
to read as follows: (1) A person under twenty-one years of age may not purchase a pistol or semiautomatic assault rifle, and except as otherwise provided in this chapter, no person may sell or transfer a semiautomatic assault rifle to a person under twenty-one years of age”
Note that earlier in the bill they RE-define any semiautomatic rifle (which, except for single-shot blunderbusses, is ‘all of them’) to be a ‘semiautomatic assault rifle’.
Nope - unscientific observation from the plentiful posts on BB.
I confess I don’t know all the weed laws across the US. I do know some of them are citations vs arrest. Still, with out a doubt, cops use drug as a reason to trample civil liberties. Just yesterday there was a post about a NYC cop planting weed in a car full of teenagers. So the presence of weed - while some times ignored by cops - other times are an excuse to bring the hammer down. Weed possession is often used as a weapon. I’d be just fine with cops ignoring all weed possession. Maybe not if you have bricks of the stuff.
I see we are also using “unscientific observation” to reach a conclusion. I appreciate you acknowledging my point. I think your counter point is reasonable, but allow me to counter it.
While I think there is evidence for SOME increase of risk by not enforcing these laws, what is that actual increase? The law is limiting 18-20 year old from buying a certain type of weapon. While I am sure we can find evidence of an 18-20 year old using a semi-automatic rifle for crime - just like we can find evidence of people who are weed possessors also guilty of other crimes - the actual percentages of either is quite low. If the actual increase is negligible, we can’t actually say it is “placing the community at risk”.
I think we can still say his non-enforcement is keeping rights from being further restricted.
That is true, but the same thing asked with other laws.
I don’t think we need to actually be able to assign some number to it for the concern to be a legitimate one. Aside from the fact that we are talking about people, who have not reached the age of majority, owning a firearm in direct violation of the law and all the associated risks that comes with any firearm ownership, there also is the increased risk to the community by employing a scofflaw sheriff.
I don’t think we can. Your statement only tracks if we start saying that gun sellers have the right to sell guns to anyone they want without regard to the law. This is obviously not the case therefore it’s not logical to say anyone’s rights are being restricted in any way.
Not at all. Not for the increased risk from firearms and not for the increased risk due to scofflaw police.
1 Like
Those monsters.
4 Likes
If only there was some way to challenge a law you disagree with, rather than just refuse to enforce it.
It’s already against federal law for a person under 21 to buy a pistol, per your link. And the reasoning is sound to me. What’s crazy is that 18 year olds can join the military, not the other way around.
Further, federal law prohibits the sale of pistols to
individuals under the age of twenty-one and at least a dozen states
further restrict the ownership or possession of firearms by
individuals under the age of twenty-one. This makes sense, as
studies show that eighteen to twenty year olds commit a
disproportionate number of firearm homicides in the United States
and research indicates that the brain does not fully mature until a
later age.
That’s a pretty weird hill to die on for anti-gun-regulation folks, considering that this the rest of the restrictions in this bill seem pretty fucking tepid, not to mention rational and easy to comply with for a Responsible Gun Owner.
1 Like
No, he still is subject to following state and federal laws. He’s in the job of LAW enforcement, and he should do his job instead of political grandstanding.
4 Likes
Not old enough to drink or rent a car. Tough shit.
4 Likes
His job is not to reinterpret the Constitution of the United States to meet his own ideological preferences. Courts have upheld the constitutionality of many, many laws regulating the production, sale and ownership of firearms.
3 Likes
Regrettably, neither of those things are enshrined in the Bill Of Rights. I personally think those restrictions are b*llshit too, but we don’t have a founding document reaffirming your natural right to them.
