Sheriff Bob Songer: I Won’t Enforce Washington State’s I-1639

washington state i-1639 gun control

courtesy WWLP.com

Meanwhile, in Washington State, another sheriff has announced he will not enforce I-1639 in its entirety:

Klickitat County Sheriff Bob Songer says he’s not enforcing the state’s new initiative that places stiff requirements on the sale and ownership of semi-automatic rifles such as AR-15s, calling it unconstitutional.

“I think it’s a bad law and I think it violates people’s rights,” he said. “This law will do nothing to stop crime or do anything to make our communities safer. But what it will do is make criminals out of our honest citizens.”

– Phil Ferolito for the Seattle Times, Drawing a Line: Klickitat County Sheriff Says He Won’t Enforce Washington’s New Gun Law

Think this could never happen in your home state? Guess again.

comments

  1. avatar SAFEupstateFML says:

    Well this sounds familiar on a few levels, good on the sheriff bullshit to the lawmakers and race you to the court challenge.

    1. avatar Mike H in WA says:

      I-1639 was an initiative passed by the people, not lawmakers…

      …well, the people of King County (Seattle), at least. The overwhelming majority of the counties rejected it, but King has about 1/4 of the state’s population.

      1. avatar SAFEupstateFML says:

        Not to be an ass but we had similar population issues. Now our politicians being the more greasy snakes passing the bill at midnight with a lot of the legislature missing yes but end results are similar we just have a better claim to getting screwed (yay us)

  2. avatar Swarf says:

    This is my home state, and one I thought was pretty safe from this kind of bullshit.

    Then came I-594, which most everybody ignores most of, except for the part that banned private sales.

    Now there are bills up in the legislature that ban mags over 10 rounds and other ugly stuff. Worse than CA.

    I have no idea how the worm turned so quickly here, but I fear it’s going to take years and some Supreme Court action to get it straightened out.

    1. avatar Mike H in WA says:

      Less than 10 years ago, we were actually one of the most gun friendly states… who knew…

      1. avatar Sgt Bill says:

        Time to split the State….even if not permitted by law if all the Sheriff’s, County Commissioners, etc. say “we are not enforcing Seattle laws” then effectively you have two states. Adams Co. Sheriff just announced he isn’t going to follow either.

        1. avatar Helitack32f1 says:

          The problem is not the idiot liberals in King county or Seattle anywhere else and splitting the state will not accomplish anything beyond delaying the inevitable. The problem is conservatives, Republicans, independents, gun owners and even the two or three democrats that believe in the constitution and the rule of law that all sit on their thumbs at home when it comes time to vote. Apparently, freedoms and the rule of law aren’t worth grabbing the freakin envelope, filling in some lines and sticking it in the mail. Seriously, voting could not be any easier in this stupid state, yet the people that believe as we do still cannot be moved to vote. If just 10% more of the people on our side would get out there and vote, we could get constitutional representatives into office, stop bad laws and pass the good ones!

          Splitting the state will just result in Spokane being the center for government and it too will soon come to rule by liberal ideals unless people pull-up their heads out of their donkeys and just freakin vote!

    2. avatar DDay says:

      Look at Oregon. Just as seattle screws the entire state of WA, Portland screws everyone in OR, Cook county screws everyone in IL, NYC screws the entire upstate NY, etc.

      What screwed WA was the influx of tech liberals from microsoft, amazon, etc.

    3. avatar Spectre_USA says:

      We had the same sort of thing in Cali when I was stationed near Sacramento. Northern and Souther Cali were different planets, gun-rights wise.

      Now that I am in Washington State, and have been for close to 20 years, it has really changed a lot.

      East versus West hereabouts, with the dividing line not far east of Seattle…

    4. avatar CarlosT says:

      I always feared this. The combination of blue state/gun friendly was never stable and when it broke it was going to slide down fast. There were only a couple things preventing this. For a while the Republicans had a narrow margin in the state Senate and gun control groups couldn’t afford ballot initiatives because they were broke. Bloomberg solved the second issue for them, and Democrats control the Washington state legislature now, so the dam has well and truly broken. There’s no point in discussing the state courts because they’re useless.

      At this point, I’m pondering how to engineer a move elsewhere. Somewhere that isn’t lost yet. I don’t know how I can pull it off, but I don’t see the situation here improving.

      1. avatar Jackass Jim says:

        You can run, but you cannot hide.

        Stand and fight.

        1. avatar Chris T in KY says:

          Unless you are willing to defend your rights based on the rules that liberals use, you might as well just give up.

          Too many gun owners are afraid of being called mean. Or nasty. Or racist. When in fact it is racist mean white liberals Who are trying to take your civil rights away. But unfortunately no gun owner wants to say that. I think a lot of gun owners are just weak.

          It’s not uncomfortable for me to say white Liberal Democrats are comfortable with a woman being raped. But are very uncomfortable when a woman shoots a rapist.

          The liberals who control Seattle would rather have rural people in Washington state be killed by a wild animal such as a mountain lion or bear instead of shooting that animal and saving the life of a child or a father or mother.

          Liberals do not value human life. And I don’t think they ever have. But they do value the life of a mountain lion since California put it on a protected list. And now the population has exploded and mountain lions are attacking people.

        2. avatar Ing says:

          I am, and have been. Finances will probably prevent me from doing anything else, as I’m too poor to move.

          Problem is, with the billionaire-backed progressive fascist machinery already in place, there are only three possible outcomes for someone like me if I stay.

          – The California scenario: This isn’t actually fighting. It’s just knuckling under, clinging to the illusion that if you complain loudly enough and exercise the “rights” the progs let you keep, they’ll eventually let you stand up again. They won’t.

          Actual resistance?

          – The England/Australia scenario: Quietly refuse to comply. If I don’t get arrested, then eventually I’ll die of old age and my family will have to decide whether to break the law or give up the illegal items I held onto.

          – The “lone nutjob” scenario: The nail that sticks up gets hammered down. Make a big enough problem of myself, and I’ll end up like Randy Weaver or the Branch Davidians. Or just some anonymous moron in prison.

          The progressive system is expressly designed to grind down and destroy people like you and me.

          I don’t want to end up like that poor idiot standing all by himself in front of the communist tanks in Tienanmen Square. If I can, I’d much rather strengthen the ranks in a state that still has a place for people like me.

      2. avatar End Child Unemployment says:

        I’m in WA, and have family in OR. Many pro-right-to-defend-yourself people I hear talk about the slide towards increasing firearms restrictions as if it’s inevitable. Surely not everyone who moves to the state is 100% resistant to changing their mind? Most of the anti-gun people I hear talk seem to be 80-90% motivated by mass shootings. Almost none of them know that:
        1) in the US, mass shooting victims account for less than 1% of murder victims
        2) The trendline for mass shooting death rates is about the same in CA, NY, NJ, and MA (states that had AWB and mag caps on or before 1994 federal law, and kept them after 2004 sunset) as the the trend in the rest of the US. In other words, it doesn’t appear those restrictions even accomplish much of reducing that less than 1% of murders that they were after.
        3) Because of how infrequent mass shootings are, it’s actually very difficult to get reliable data on them. Criminologist Grant Duwe found that most newspaper reporting on the trend underreported mass shooting casualties in the 80’s by 70%, 50% in the 90’s, 20″ in the 00’s. Of course, if you report a lower starting number, it makes the trend look much worse.

  3. avatar MMurcek says:

    Same people who thought it was so cool that some sheriffs would not cooperate with ICE feel very different about this. Goose, meet sauce…

    1. avatar Jonathan-Houston says:

      Two different issues. One is an elected sherriff declining to enforce a state law which he finds unconstitutional and contrary to his oath of office. The others are mostly city police chiefs, but some sheriffs, too, violating their oaths and ignoring the constitution’s equal protection of the laws mandate so they can pack the voter rolls with hordes of 3rd world types.

      1. avatar Mike H in WA says:

        They’re also Violating the Constitution’s Supremacy Clause. Here in WA, it’s doubly so because federally, marijuana is still illegal… but many who supported that are now decrying these sheriff’s not enforcing I-1639.

    2. avatar Gov. William J Le Petomane says:

      There’s some similarities but some differences as well. This sheriff is not swearing to release violent felon foreign nationals into the population because he thinks the Constitution doesn’t grant the power to set immigration policy to the federal government (which it does). He’s swearing to uphold the Second Amendment which plainly states that the right to keep and bear arms ‘shall not be infringed’. There’s a bit of nuance there.

    3. avatar Gadsden says:

      Being a criminal illegal alien isn’t a fundamental right that’s outlined in the bill of rights.

  4. avatar HP says:

    Same thing happened here in New York after the SAFE Act passed. This is always encouraging to see.

    1. avatar Victoriaillinois says:

      Same thing in Illinois. The whole state is a Sanctuary State.

      1. avatar Chicago Steve says:

        You forget about Cook County, and Lake County tries not to make waves.

  5. avatar MDH says:

    The Sheriff took the following oath of office: “I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the Constitution of the United States.”

    To do otherwise would, and should be be a disqualifying violation of his oath of office.

    1. avatar Random_Commenter says:

      It is my understanding that politicians take the same oath, but I could be wrong.

      I know that Federal employees (not contractors) and servicemembers do, too.

      Too bad the collective “we” cannot charge and prosecute our politicians when they write unconstitutional laws to strip us of our rights. Red Flag laws, 3D printing, “ghost” guns, etc.

      1. avatar strych9 says:

        “We” wouldn’t have to do anything if “we” were better educated and “we” cherished our freedom more than “we” cherish some stupid fucking TV show or romcom.

      2. avatar ColoradoKid says:

        “I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion, and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which I am about to enter. So help me God.”

        Any politician who fails to abide by this oath should be impeached and removed from office. The key word is “should”, I don’t remember that ever happening.

    2. avatar Robroyb says:

      Thank God for one man standing up to start the fight. He feels he is defending the Constitution, so he feels justified that he is abiding by his Oath though not following law would differ.

      He will lose his job initially, but hopefully this will be the catalyst to take the fight on to the next level. We have to start standing up to these unconstitutional laws in the courthouse.

      1. avatar MB says:

        Sheriff is an elected official, not appointed by some politician or bureaucrat. Sheriffs work at the pleasure of the voters. as long as his constituents are pleased, he will be employed. BTW , Sheriffs are usually the most powerful LEO in the state, having jurisdiction in multiple cities and towns, and not beholding to appointment by a governor unlike head of State Police

        1. avatar Robroyb says:

          Good words to hear. I hadn’t thought of it that way.

        2. avatar Geoff "Bring the EDIT button back, will ya, TTAG?" PR says:

          So you’re fine if the King county sheriff starts confiscating weapons?

        3. avatar LarryinTX says:

          He has that authority. I don’t expect he would see the end of his current term.

  6. avatar No one of consequence says:

    Great; but the bad law still needs to come off the books.

  7. avatar Green Mtn. Boy says:

    As a constitutional sheriff he shouldn’t enforce any part of it.

  8. avatar Specialist38 says:

    Godspeed.

  9. avatar Jay in Florida says:

    It’s not only a Sherrifs sworn duty to uphold a constitutional law. It’s also his right to ignore a law he doesn’t believe in. It’s every citizens duty to tell the state to take a flying leap all the way to a jail cell. At least I would. I am ready for 3 hots and a cot some day. Especially the way things are going with the Rhinos here in Floriduh.

    1. avatar possum says:

      Three hots and a cot ain’t so Whoopi, I’d rather be dead,

  10. avatar MB says:

    Any law that is in violation of the Constitution is not a law, Sheriff Bob Songer understands that.

  11. avatar former water walker says:

    Good on him. As mentioned this same BS is coming to ILLinois. Plenty of Sheriff’s will not enforce the stasi tactics…

  12. avatar strych9 says:

    These kind of stories always give me mixed feelings.

    On the one hand it’s kinda nice to see people giving a finger to the grabbers. Or… maybe the establishment in general. I guess that depends on how much punk music I’ve listened to in the few days leading up to the story.

    On the other hand I hate these stories with a passion because they’re a symptom of an underlying problem that is extremely corrosive. When the government passes nonsensical laws they undermine any authority they have and cast doubt on the legitimacy of anything and everything government does. While “Irish Democracy” sounds cool at first it will eventually lead to a country that’s completely ungovernable.

    So part of me doesn’t like the corrosive effect of bullshit laws and the uneven application of the law in general. Part of me figures that if this so offends the Sheriff he should resign in protest to draw attention to the root problem of idiots in government exceeding their authority in some of the dumbest ways imaginable.

    And then… I shrug and say “Whatever” to the whole thing because the truth is that in the next 20-30 years this country is totally fucked no matter what this Sheriff does and no matter how the SCOTUS finds on 2A issues and no matter who gets elected to whatever office at whatever level. We’ve got way bigger issues that we’re not even attempting to address and we’re not going to. The rest is academic or entertainment depending on how you look at it.

    1. avatar uncommon_sense says:

      strych9,

      I understand everything that you said and I have had similar thoughts at times. Allow me to share some wisdom with you.

      Let’s start with the easiest part first. That Sheriff should NOT resign. No matter how awful the political realm may be, we must send good people to make it better. Good people refusing to participate out of righteous indignation simply ensures ever more awful results.

      Second, we need to push for the proper role of government. And the proper role is two-fold:
      (1) Organizing and executing our national defense.
      (2) Serving JUSTICE which means punishing evil-doers.

      Organizing and executing our national defense is obvious and needs no explanation. Serving justice and punishing evil-doers means holding evil-doers accountable for the actual harm that they cause to others. Thus, an evil-doer is someone who actually harms another person, where the harm could be damaging someone’s reputation, damaging someone’s property, stealing, assault, battery, rape, murder, and possibly a few other actions. And justice not only demands that we hold evil-doers accountable, it also demands that we do NOT trample on the rights of people, period.

      The main problem that we have with government is two-fold:
      (1) Government defines myriad actions as “crimes” that are not actually crimes since those actions do not harm anyone. An example would be laws that forbid someone from carrying a handgun for righteous self-defense. The mere act of carrying a handgun for righteous self-defense harms no one and is therefore not an actual crime. Another example is Red-Flag laws which trample on people’s rights without due process — which is NOT justice.
      (2) Government sets about providing for people’s needs through entitlement programs even though that is an individual responsibility and (in limited circumstances) a charitable responsibility. (Even in those limited circumstances where someone, such as an orphan, has an obvious and critical charitable need, charity should be voluntary, not mandatory through government enforcement.) This enables all manner of incompetence, inefficiency, and abuse.

      So, our push should be to push good people to run for office and to push government to do its rightful job — which is primarily to organize and execute our national defense and to execute justice which demands punishing evil-doers without trampling on our rights.

      1. avatar strych9 says:

        I just wonder which way the arc of history ultimately bends and sometimes I suspect that it’s not in our favor.

        Then again adopting a defeatist attitude insures that it doesn’t bend in our favor. Partly because of the fact that the other side doesn’t want it to and partly because a whole hell of a lot of people we think are on our side really don’t want it to either.

        1. avatar Ing says:

          That’s the real catch, right there: Virtually no one is on our side, even among the people who claim to be.

          Almost everyone loves them some big government…when their people are in charge of it.

  13. avatar GS650G says:

    Laws can be selectively enforced as well as ignored. Keep thar in mind at all times.

  14. avatar John Galt says:

    Welcome to disparite enforcement.

    More correctly, this sheriff will probably enforce the law selectively.

    This creates two tier justice and gives law enforcement the “tools” to selectively enforce against whoever they choose.

    It gives police the ability to fish for violations if they don’t have another that works. I am constantly told how constitution loving the average cop is and they won’t take guns from otherwise law abiding persons carrying concealed. I call BULLSHIT to this concept.

    1. avatar uncommon_sense says:

      John Galt,

      See my reply above to Strych9.

      Sheriffs should always serve JUSTICE, which means enforcing laws that serve justice and not enforcing laws which violate our unalienable rights and/or our constitutional charters.

      In other words Sheriffs should always do what is right, whether or not politicians redefine right actions to be “wrong” or wrong actions to be “right”.

      1. avatar LarryinTX says:

        All well and good, but his point of the dangers of selective enforcement is also a valid one, and can bite you without warning. If you’re banging that sheriff’s wife or daughter, maybe he could just prosecute just *one* such crime.

  15. avatar Mike H in WA says:

    There are now eight county sheriffs who have said they will not enforce I-1639, and another two who said they won’t “pursue”.

    That is 1/4 of the counties in WA, and several more are sure to follow.

  16. avatar Brasstard says:

    If he truly believed in the constitution he would not enforce any gun laws not limited to but including the NFA,GCA, Hughes amendment,Brady act.

    1. avatar uncommon_sense says:

      Brasstard,

      It goes beyond that. Not only should his office refuse to enforce any of those unconstitutional violations of our unalienable rights, his office should intervene and prevent other entities from enforcing those violations of our unalienable rights. In other words his office should participate in defending people who are the victims of other law enforcement personnel enforcing those unconstitutional laws.

      1. avatar bud says:

        I would reckon that is the shape of things to come, soon.

  17. avatar Kyle says:

    He’s far from alone, he’s just the only one coming right out and saying it.

    After the end of the ill-fated assault weapons ban of 1994, Gun laws may have all the teeth in the world, but they are not going to be followed or obeyed. Not on the State, Federal, or local level. The evidence is in in every single state.

    The laws are ignored.

    It is quite honestly legal maleficence for the various governments to even pass them. You should never pass a law you KNOW will be neither enforced nor obeyed.

  18. avatar NORDNEG says:

    Another good sheriff, why is it always the sheriffs that back the U S Constitution,,? I’ve missed hearing about any city police railing against abuse of the Constitution, that’s probably due to the fact that the city police are under the thumb of the mayors & governors, did I just answer my own question? Maybe…

    1. avatar CarlosT says:

      Yes, you have. Officials elected to serve communities that value their rights on the one hand and bureaucrats appointed by politicians elected by people who oppose those rights on the other.

  19. avatar bud says:

    Thank you for honoring the constitution. This is exactly why in the original United States law enforcement was elected and funded by the population. The other vital civil function of USA societies was the militia, which has been done away with for now by the subversive domestics, but will return when people decide to get off the porch.

  20. avatar SurfGW says:

    The Sherrif has now become a criminal by refusing to enforce a law he is required to enforce and defying the legal will of the people of his State.
    The Sheriffs is not the Supreme Court to determine Constitutionality.
    Someone needs to relieve him ASAP before it becomes acceptable for other Sheriffs to do the same.

    1. avatar CarlosT says:

      Ignoring laws you disagree with is already acceptable. It’s done in the immigration arena all the time. This sherrif is also not the first official to say he won’t enforce these laws. This genie is already out of the bottle.

    2. avatar Defens says:

      Politicians pass unconstitutional law all the time. Do you also propose that they should be removed from office? If not, why not?

    3. avatar Dyspeptic Gunsmith says:

      And this is different from LEO’s refusing to report illegal aliens to the INS how? This is different from “sanctuary cities” how?

      The left made their bed, they set the precedent. Now they can live with the results.

    4. avatar luigi says:

      Article 24 of the Washington state constitution guarantees the “The right of the individual citizen to bear arms in defense of himself, or the state…”. If anything, Sheriff Songer is doing his duty and upholding the law.

  21. avatar Wally1 says:

    What is interesting is that WA AG Bob Ferguson is not pursuing any type of sanction or legal action against these Sheriffs. Why? Ferguson is a raving anti gun advocate but he is not stupid enough to force this issue to the WA supreme court. On the face of it I-1639 is unconstitutional.

    To those who beleive the Sheriff’s are not doing thier job, consider this: AG Ferguson and Governor Inslee are educated men and they know what the constitution allows and what it does not. They not only ignored the law, they and other government officials who supported I-1639 used thier positions to knowingly violated the constitution, they are engaged in a criminal conspiracy to violate citizens rights. It’s really that simple.

    Revolution is not an event, it is a process.

    1. avatar SurfGW says:

      Until there is a Supreme Court ruling years down the road, the assumption is that the will of the people of Washington State is Constitutional.

  22. avatar Defens says:

    In Washington, the anti-gunners have been pushing to rescind State preemption on gun laws. For decades, us POTG have seen state preemption as a good thing, because it prevented liberal urban shitholes like Seattle from passing highly restrictive laws that would affect anyone residing in or passing through.

    Now, of course, Seattle and the surrounding metro area have the votes and the billionaire backers to ram through any anti-gun legislation they want. If they can’t do it through the legislature, Gates, Hanauer, Bloomberg and the like just buy their way to victory through the initiative process.

    I’m not sure this is the answer, but I’m kind of thinking that we SHOULD let the anti-gunners have their way. Get rid of state preemption. Let Seattle slide down the toilet, and let every other county in the state pass their own laws as the town of Republic did, to reverse the effect of any anti-gun state laws. The AG, Bob Ferguson, loves him some sanctuary status – well, let him choke on that, when every county but King and Pierce thumb their noses at his beloved anti gun laws.

    We should also rethink and possibly get rid of the initiative process, if that was possible. Most of the positive laws passed through this process ($30 car tabs, as one example) are quickly modified by the legislature anyway, and the direct-vote process is far too easily corrupted by the evil billionaires, who have the means to steamroll the process.

  23. avatar Hal Lewis says:

    What do you mean by “On the face of it”. This law, like ALL laws, was passed by elected officials. IF you vote that means whatever law is passed you condone. VOTERS did this by voting in a morally corrupt system. AND YOU ALL KNOW THE SYSTEM IS CORRUPT. The sanction of the victims. Constitionality has nothing to do with it. If you roll the dice stop whining about the outcome. Democracy means “MIGHT makes it RIGHT”. Our side is right because we outnumber you. Ignorance of this fact does not make any difference. The outcome is the same whether you agree with me or not. Gun control means people control.

    1. avatar strych9 says:

      “Democracy means “MIGHT makes it RIGHT”. Our side is right because we outnumber you. Ignorance of this fact does not make any difference.”

      True. Everything you say here is true. The only problem is that it doesn’t apply because we don’t live in a Democracy. We live in a Constitutional Republic.

    2. avatar Defens says:

      Incorrect. Similar legislation did not make it through the Washington legislature. This was passes by direct vote of citizens on an initiative, with a lot of help from billionaires and a liberal court system, which approved an illegally-prepared initiativ document.

  24. avatar Hal Lewis says:

    So because one side ignores the laws they choose that means everyone can? If the other side jumped off a bridge you would too ? Stop repeating others peoples words and THINK before forming an opinion. Get your heads out of other peoples rear ends and reason not recite.

  25. avatar Hal Lewis says:

    The answer to ALL of this countries problems is to repeal laws NOT add more to protect certain groups rights. Braindead human feces representative are elected by the same kind of voters.

  26. avatar BRUCE A BOGLE says:

    “Think this could never happen in your home state? Guess again.”

    Apparently you’ve never been to New Jersey.

    1. avatar Hal Lewis says:

      How can the Constitution be modified? BY VOTE. Does not matter what you name the process. Change comes only when enough people want the change. Quantity. NOT facts. NOT truth. NOT morality. NOT mutual self-respect. Once again, repetition of others words not identification of facts.

  27. avatar Erotic Vulture says:

    I live in Washington and just saw a story on the news about a new law to ban dwarf tossing. I think it’s time to move.

  28. avatar possum says:

    I say POTG should give Sheriff Songer a hearty Hip Hip Hoorah ! ! ! ….Go gettem Sheriff 👍

  29. avatar David Walters says:

    “Think this could never happen in your home state? Guess again.”

    Nonsense. I live in Texas. Never gonna happen here, period.

    1. avatar Defens says:

      Until the plague of liberals in Austin spreads like a virus. Twenty years ago both Washington and Oregon were very gun friendly, Washington was shall issue since the early 70’s. Suppressors were in-banned only a few years ago, and the whole state is still open carry with no permit required.

  30. avatar luigi says:

    good for him

  31. avatar KMaiden says:

    Support 100%!!!

  32. avatar Hal Lewis says:

    Who is John Galt ??? When the head of the an organization of Chiefs of Police states before congress (not capitalized on purpose) “WE can not allow the violation of a few peoples (non-police) rights to interfere with the safety of our police officers.”, you know you live in a police state. Selective enforcement of ANY law will always lead to a police state no matter what it’s called. The way the laws are today the side of police cruisers should read “To Punish and Enslave”. Most police are not bad people. But that does not mean they have not abused their power in some way. Whether by refusal to enforce or excessive force being used. Fact: Police are employees. NO employee has the RIGHT to refuse to do the job they were hired for. If you don’t like it, QUIT. Ain’t no ball and chain on your ankle.

  33. avatar Dan says:

    While it’s nice to see sheriff’s and DA’s that say NO to unconstitutional laws the problem is eventually they will be replaced….usually by a lefty who WILL enforce the law. That is what has happened in Nevada.
    In 2016 a law was passed banning the personal transfer of firearms….all such transfers must go through a licensed FFL. It was defeated in EVERY COUNTY except Clark County ( Las Vegas) where it passed….with a state wide 59 vote advantage (WELL within the typical demonrat margin of cheat). Then Gov Sandoval and State AG Laxalt stated the law was flawed and unconstitutional and therefore they would not enforce it. Fast forward to January 2019….we now have commie demonrat Sisolak in the Governors mansion and
    Commie demonrat Ford ( a RAVING racist) in the AG’s office. BOTH of course from that cesspool Vegas.
    The VERY DAY THEY TOOK OFFICE they openly stated they intended to enforce the transfer ban AND to seek a TOTAL BAN on “assault weapons”. So having honest people in office does NOT SOLVE THE PROBLEM because eventually they get replaced.

  34. avatar Ruth Whitney says:

    This is called democracy. The sheriff doesn’t make the laws, he enforces them, and not only the ones he likes. The Initiative passed by 60% of voters. Australia had a mass shooting and took care of the problem. They enacted strict gun laws and haven’t had another mass shooting since.

    1. avatar Dani Seacastle says:

      Australia has had at least TEN mass shootings since then, and plenty of other mass murders by other means (vehicle, stabbing, arson, etc.).

Write a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

button to share on facebook
button to tweet
button to share via email