Washington Ferguson is crying, what a jerk.

[arakboss]

Ferguson I 1639 Ltr to Law Enforcement (2)

The very last sentence on page 2 of fergy's letter, reinforces what pro2a county sheriffs are trying to do. Serve the will of the people who elected them not the will of a few anti counties.

 

[nwslopoke]

Ferguson I 1639 Ltr to Law Enforcement (2)

Seems to me I-1639 was deemed legal because he deemed it so. Same with Maura Healey, the AG in Ma. Making gun laws up over night and the cowards to scared to oppose illegal actions. Now LA city council is demanding contractors register ties with the NRA. How is compromising working out?

 

[arakboss]

Last I checked, Police are allowed to use discretion as are the other parts of our judicial system. Letter of the law, and spirit of the law. So bottom line is some elected schwantz does not have the authority to demand LEOs do anything. Feel free to correct me if this is in error...been a long time since my criminal justice class.

I am not sure if WA works like this but here is what CA law has to say about it: It is the duty of sheriffs, as well as the district attorney to enforce state laws. The Alameda county sheriff has a statutory duty to enforce the laws of the state and maintain public order and safety. Los Angeles Free Press, Inc. v. City of Los Angeles, 88 Cal.Rptr. 605, 611 (1970). The Attorney General is mandated by the California constitution to "see that the laws of the State are uniformly and adequately enforced," and to oversee the offices of the district attorneys and sheriffs towards this ends. Cal. Const., Article V, §13. That local law enforcement may enter into cooperative agreements with Federal enforcement agencies in no way abrogates their obligation to enforce state law.

source: The Role of State Law Enforcement

 

[LibertyNews]

Sideshow Bob, maybe intentionally, is missing at least 2 points.
The courts have ruled that the police cannot be held accountable for not showing up and protecting you. So how does he plan to hold the Sheriff liable?
And if this were true, that would mean he and his ilk are then liable for the lives lost when law abiding citizens are denied their right to self defense.

Can't have things both ways Bob.

 

[Goosebrown]

The founding fathers never expected the government to last this long. Maybe it's time for a constitutional Congress.

No because we will lose everything. This country is filled with takers who want it all to come free. A constitutional convention would be a disaster

 

[WAW44]

At the end of the day it's discretionary on the part of the LEO. On both sides of this, this is grandstanding. LEOs "look the other way" all the time unless the violation is smacking them right in the face. On the other hand they can find probable cause and enforce something at the slightest whim if they want . What will they refuse to enforce here, background checks, the under 21 provision , the safe storage provision? They will still run background checks, because it's federal, and may just look the other way if the purchaser passes but happens to be under 21. The safe storage stuff is mostly after the fact, after something bad already went down, so that's a no brainer. Pre-incident safe storage violation is super vague, so that's easy to ignore . What else? This is a lot of hot air on both sides, but nothing will probably come of this .

I am not sure if WA works like this but here is what CA law has to say about it: It is the duty of sheriffs, as well as the district attorney to enforce state laws. The Alameda county sheriff has a statutory duty to enforce the laws of the state and maintain public order and safety. Los Angeles Free Press, Inc. v. City of Los Angeles, 88 Cal.Rptr. 605, 611 (1970). The Attorney General is mandated by the California constitution to "see that the laws of the State are uniformly and adequately enforced," and to oversee the offices of the district attorneys and sheriffs towards this ends. Cal. Const., Article V, §13. That local law enforcement may enter into cooperative agreements with Federal enforcement agencies in no way abrogates their obligation to enforce state law.

source: The Role of State Law Enforcement

 

[Jonnyuma]

I read an article in The Goldendale Sentinal yesterday (okay, I scanned it... it was pinned to the corkboard above the whizzer at the Goldendale Chevron station) that Ferguson's mouthpiece issued a statement that if Klickitat county sheriff Bob Songer refused to enforce 1639 that the AG's office "...would be happy to prosecute him.". Her word... "happy".

Unbelievable rhetoric. Stand behind your sheriff, Steve @Cerberus Group... he's one of the good guys. He's made his statement and his stance (as well as the other Sheriffs) is well known. Unless he's WANTING a court case and to make headlines, his best course would be to use his authority to fight the law in court and steer clear making statements about refusing to enforce that law... just quietly don't enforce it.

BTW... that's the same spot where I read that his challenger last November said that he wanted to abolish the Sheriff's Posse because he thought it sounded racist. Aren't you glad you sent that guy packing... ?

 

[osprey]

Yes the safe storage one is laughable. The gun is already behind a locked door in my house or vehicle. Yet if a criminal breaks in and steals it and does something bad with it I am suddenly liable? What's next? I suppose they will mandate it has to be stored with a trigger lock in a locked box in a locked safe in a locked house.

 

[arakboss]

I think some of these Sheriff's are paying lip service to the 2A:
For instance, Franklin County Sheriff Jim Raymond called the law unconstitutional and said he wouldn't enforce it. But he also said he supported the 10-day waiting period and the expanded background checks.
"Certainly we're going to follow all of those type of things," Raymond said.

I hope the rest stand firm!

 

[Boss]

Yes the safe storage one is laughable. The gun is already behind a locked door in my house or vehicle. Yet if a criminal breaks in and steals it and does something bad with it I am suddenly liable? What's next? I suppose they will mandate it has to be stored with a trigger lock in a locked box in a locked safe in a locked house.

Boss

 

[Cerberus Group]

I read an article in The Goldendale Sentinal yesterday (okay, I scanned it... it was pinned to the corkboard above the whizzer at the Goldendale Chevron station) that Ferguson's mouthpiece issued a statement that if Klickitat county sheriff Bob Songer refused to enforce 1639 that the AG's office "...would be happy to prosecute him.". Her word... "happy".

Unbelievable rhetoric. Stand behind your sheriff, Steve @Cerberus Group... he's one of the good guys. He's made his statement and his stance (as well as the other Sheriffs) is well known. Unless he's WANTING a court case and to make headlines, his best course would be to use his authority to fight the law in court and steer clear making statements about refusing to enforce that law... just quietly don't enforce it.

BTW... that's the same spot where I read that his challenger last November said that he wanted to abolish the Sheriff's Posse because he thought it sounded racist. Aren't you glad you sent that guy packing... ?

I have known Bob for many years, and like me...the time has come to be silent no more. In theory the courts and Congress could abolish the 2nd and things will not change for me. I will go about my biz as usual.

I and we here are not the problem and refuse to keep giving in to the lowest denominator.

Is time to quit with the "Cold dead hands" rhetoric, and just live it.

As animals go about their daily lives, they like to be left alone. But when messed with, they will fight back. In some cases that which was messed with was of lesser size and strength, yet still fought.

I will not move from this state, I will not register anything, or turn in anything. I will continue to train and train other like minded people.

There's a lot of firearms schools/trainers that will not be very vocal about such things especially on a public platform such as this...I am not one of those.

I tend to be outspoken like Clint Smith...check out some of his videos.

if you think it proper, go out and get what you need before it may not be available. There's some very knowledgeable people on here who can help make a list. There was a thread not long ago about items to get before laws were enacted...do a search and check it out. Am on the road or I would post a link.

 

[surevaliance]

Yes the safe storage one is laughable. The gun is already behind a locked door in my house or vehicle. Yet if a criminal breaks in and steals it and does something bad with it I am suddenly liable? What's next? I suppose they will mandate it has to be stored with a trigger lock in a locked box in a locked safe in a locked house.

And now let's talk I-1639 and "truck guns"...

 

[bentoncity]

Another thing that would help would a law outlawing paid signature gathering -- if an initiative has enough support, volunteers will abound. If it can't get volunteers, it shouldn't be on the ballot. Paid signature gathering is another way that big money interests push around the average joe.

I also had the same idea. I started a re-write as it were, using 1639 as a format. (see attached document) In essence, banning most any outside influence related to ANY initiatives. The wall I ran into while re-writing all this was I had blocked some outside organizations, like the NRA, GOA or whomever from contributing to a pro initiative I/we were trying to support.

I deemed it a necessity to block any/all avenues that outside opposing organizations might take to get their grubby fingers in the pie but inadvertently hampered my own efforts to some degree.

Feel free to make some changes, amend, add, subtract or whatever in helping to create a document that could be sent to your local legislator. If they won't pick it up, then we need to put an initiative together, file it and go gather signatures. And grab some $$ to pay the filing fees..etc. I'm open to creating a document in a manner that we can use in our favor but am in need of help and contributions in the way of writing/creating/drafting said bill.

Towards that end, I see a two things that demand a change.

• No outside money or organizations on initiatives
• Change the recall laws

Dan

 

[Cerberus Group]

And now let's talk I-1639 and "truck guns"...
View attachment 548068

Truck gun

 

[mortar maggot]

He is a POS, wants the sheriffs to follow unconstitutional laws, but he ignores the Constitution at will on the 2nd. He also ignores all of the legal but laws on immigration and drugs that he does not like.

Sadly Seattle and King Co. will likely elect him as our next governor

 

[KKG]

This Country and the Pacific Northwest has been going down hill for many years and it doesn't appear to be slowing down any. IIRC when the '68GCA was passed, the AG at the time, filed a lawsuit with the Federal Court to stop it. Lots of people were really unhappy about it.

 

[EPS]

Lol sorry Little Bobby keep crying lol ups guy just came to the door with 10 more mags and a Holosun heheH

 

[awshoot]

I also had the same idea. I started a re-write as it were, using 1639 as a format. (see attached document) ...
Dan

That's really good. I like it.

Some comments

Page 3: that's "UBI" (uniform business identifier: Frequently asked questions: Business licensing )

Page 4, i - iv need some cleanup but the funding guidelines seem appropriate to me. What is not addressed however, would be advertising on behalf of an initiative without being a direct contributor. Paul Allen, Bill Gates, etc. etc. would be completely unhindered in that respect, but the problem would be that imposing such restrictions would almost certainly violate the 1A. I'm afraid we'd be stuck with the drumbeat of ads and billboards no matter what.

I would like to see another section on paid or otherwise compensated signature gathering which 1) makes such activity a felony for both the person gathering the signatures and the organizations and their honchos who pay for the activity with a penalty that includes mandatory prison time of at least a year, plus fines; and 2) immediately invalidates any initiative that uses paid gatherers for that voting cycle.

 

[Cigarlvr313]

I also had the same idea. I started a re-write as it were, using 1639 as a format. (see attached document) In essence, banning most any outside influence related to ANY initiatives.

Thank you Dan........how can I help?

 

[ob1]

Expect Oregon's counterpart, Ellen Rosenblum, to walk in lock-step with the "turd".