Sheriff Knezovich: There is No Such Thing as an Assault Weapon

courtesy inlander.com

Spokane County Sheriff Ozzie Knezovich is out there fighting the good fight, but it seems that, in Washington State, he might as well stand on the shore and command the tide to stop.

“Here’s the harsh reality for everyone on I-1639: It’s not about school safety. It didn’t make your schools any safer,” he said.

Knezovich said he believes I-1639 only created a definition for assault rifles.

“There is no such thing as an assault weapon. There’s no such thing as an assault rifle. AR stands for the company that made the weapon,” he said. “What they did is created the definition of an assault rifle, which includes every semi-automatic rifle there is.”

“Step two will be to ban all assault weapons. When they do that, they will ban every semi-automatic rifle there is.”

“It seems like we as a nation are heading down a very slippery slope. Enforce your laws or change them. If you start picking and choosing laws, that could be very bad for this nation. That’s how tyrants are created,” he said.

– Megan Carroll for KREM, ‘There is No Such Thing as an Assault Weapon’

comments

  1. avatar Baldwin says:

    Truth.

    1. avatar Higgs says:

      One word of warning my friends. Webster’s added assault weapon as a word last year. Be prepared in your future arguments to deal with that change in the dictionary even though it is not a firearm classification.

      1. avatar Kenneth says:

        Plus, Webster’s, and most other dictionaries, have now added a second definition to “assault rifle”: ” also : a rifle that resembles a military assault rifle but is designed to allow only semiautomatic fire ” – https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/assault%20rifle
        Not wikipedia though… yet. They still have it correct, for the time being at least:
        “An assault rifle is a selective-fire rifle that uses an intermediate cartridge and a detachable magazine.[1][2][3][4][5] ”
        Probably only because they list five different sources for the definition, including Brittannica 2010, and Taylor’s “Fighting Rifles”.

      2. avatar BLAMMO says:

        Has anyone seen the latest statistics from the ATF / FBI on the use of “assault weapons” in the commission of crimes?

        No, huh?

      3. avatar Southern Cross says:

        The term “assault weapon” is deliberately vague so it can be redefined later. Today the meaning is for self-loading firearms of military appearance. But the term is already being used by Australian anti-gun groups to describe lever-action firearms (after watching too many Westerns).

        Next it will be used to describe bolt-action rifles, then scoped rifles, then target rifles. The goalposts will constantly shift to the new focus.

        1. avatar Geoff says:

          Eventually they will include single shot muzzle loading muskets which were the original “assault rifle” in 1776. The ones that we won our freedom with. Which may have to happen again.

        2. avatar Green Mtn. Boy says:

          Correct,the civilian disarmament proponents want Zero guns of any kind in the hands of we The People.

      4. avatar Cary says:

        What is so frustrating is that we all KNOW that assault is a verb and virtually ANYTHING can be used to assault someone. Bricks, hammers, bats/sticks, scissors, kitchen utensils, household furniture, pillows, vehicles, skillets, your bare hands and feet, chemicals/acids, lug wrenches, the list is almost endless. No one who is on the side of infringing our Constitutionally-guaranteed rights will have an open dialogue concerning the REASON, the root cause, that someone would want to maliciously harm or kill another human. Until we turn our attention that and the abysmal state of metal health care in this country, you can write endless laws that will just as ineffective as the thousands currently in place. We beat our chest and barrage these people with fact after fact, that CRIMINALS AND PSYCHOS DO NOT FOLLOW LAWS, but we know that liberals are not unintelligent. They KNOW the facts and statisitics. It is now and always will be about dismantling the 2A, and disarmament of the American public, routinely disguised as legislation for “public safety”.

  2. avatar Pg2 says:

    At least you have some public officials who are still willing to state the obvious. Wait till he sees what’s brewing south of his border; Oregon is pushing a law through this year that allows the state to enter the homes of all newborn children, without a warrant, for public safety of course.

      1. avatar Pg2 says:

        Oregon SB 526 “necessary for the immediate peservation of the public peace, health, and safety”-the bill sponsors collective statement.

        1. avatar ‘liljoe says:

          Looked up the bill, it’s about a patient’s rights when appealing certain insurance company appeals.

          You sure you got the right bill #?

        2. avatar ‘liljoe says:

          Whoops, my bad, that was 2017.

          Yours is about home health visits in a declared emergency. A declared emergency, not just for any old day of the week. At least that’s my read on the whole 3 lines I could find.

        3. avatar Pg2 says:

          Re read it joe, you’ve misinterpreted this as you seem to misread all things medically related.

        4. avatar Mad says:

          My home state ore may well be the trigger to start the coming civil war.

    1. avatar James M says:

      North Carolina already has. It is a welfare check. My wife is 4 months pregnant. And we have already been told they will come. Any refusal is a declaration of guilt. My ASS! Sad that a citizen in good standing has to submit to the tryrrany of this socialist country.

      1. avatar Pg2 says:

        Bullshit. NC does not have the state entering your house without a warrant or suspected neglect, abuse, codified in law.

      2. avatar Manse Jolly says:

        How does that work? First time I’ve ever heard of this I think.

      3. avatar Swilson says:

        No such law in NC.

        1. avatar Pg2 says:

          No, it’s a troll post trying to make the coming OR law seem part of normal business.

        2. avatar ‘liljoe says:

          Hey pg2, since you seem to have more information than what they posted on the state website please share or post a link.

          I wasn’t trying to attack you earlier, I was actually curious, but you do get defensive easily.

        3. avatar 'liljoe says:

          Thank you for the source material!

          For anyone wanting the truth, read the article, which doesn’t reference Sb 526, and then google Oregon SB 526 2019 (if you don’t put the year you get the law from 2 years ago which is entirely different). The SB 526 law for 2019 discusses entering someone’s home forcefully during a state of emergency for health reasons. There is no text for the law, just a summary. The article discusses having home health visits for all new parents.

          Don’t believe me, actually read the sources.

          Or you can take PG2’s word that my reading comprehensions sucks and that the government is getting ready to invade your home.

        4. avatar pg2 says:

          Says the guy who lies daily to make a living, and does so without conscience as he puts children in danger for his own personal profit. Good one joe.

        5. avatar California Richard says:

          I went to the state website and referenced the bill you cited (SB526 2019). The official, and ONLY, text cited by the orgon.gov requested that a state of emergency be declared so this bill (which doesn’t officially have the text posted for public scrutiny) can be jammed through the legislature before it gets eviscerated by public opposition….. there is, however, a LOT of comments from politicians, “public health experts”, and child development “experts” regarding this bill and it is chilling… pg2 is kind of a dick, but i gotta agree with pg2 on this one.

        6. avatar ‘liljoe says:

          He is a dick, thank you.

          The actual proposal is for them to study home health visits then present those findings. I misread the emergency part, I admit that. But nowhere in that does it talk about them forcing themselves into your home.

          “Directs Oregon Health Authority to study home visiting by licensed health care providers. Requires report to interim committee of Legislative Assembly related to health care. Sunsets January 2, 2020. Declares emergency, effective on passage.”

        7. avatar Pg2 says:

          Looks I touched a nerve with the forum population control specialist. joe, what do you think “Universal” means? Looks like OR is going to find out, and by the time OR and other states are performing mandatory “Universal” home visits for newborns, you’ll be cheerleading along as if it is essential for public health.

      4. avatar RMS1911 says:

        No we don’t.
        We shoot home invading bastards costumed public sector parasites or not.

    2. avatar LarryinTX says:

      And, of course, “Newborn” will eventually be defined as birth until age 40 or so.

    3. avatar Yarbles says:

      IF they enter my domicile without a duly executed warrant IT WILL BE UNDER HEAVY FIRE.

      “IF”
      King of Sparta to Phillip of Macedon when he threatened to invade

    4. avatar Ing says:

      PG2, you’re absolutely right on this one. It’s chilling to say the least — especially the “emergency” part, which would let them ram through whatever they want with no public scrutiny.

      The discussion on socialists/communists in a previous article missed the mark, in my opinion. Here in the US, we don’t have garden-variety socialists, for the most part. We have PROGRESSIVES, who are even worse (if that’s possible).

      Progressives don’t necessarily want to control the entire economy, and they don’t want to bring about the rule of the proletariat. They talk a good socialist game because it leads to the kind of unfettered power they crave.

      All they really want is for benevolent experts (i.e., themselves) to take charge of society. Because what they want is CONTROL. Progressives are even worse than communists, if that’s possible. They’ll torture you not because it’s necessary in pursuit of a central plan, but because they believe you NEED it. They think they’re helping you.

      There is no aspect of life progressives won’t invade — for your own good, of course.

  3. avatar possum says:

    I would suppose that a semi-automatic shotgun could be considered an assault weapon, I doubt they’d do that (FUDD power) but they could

    1. avatar Some guy says:

      Under the Hawaii proposals they are….

    2. avatar m. says:

      bolt, semi or selected wire – there are no mfng “assault” weapons, except the ones pulled out of a lawyer’s a**

  4. avatar Rick the Bear says:

    Well, “assault rifle “ _does_ have a definition, but I appreciate his boldness.

    1. avatar Scott says:

      Assault by definition is an action, a rifle does not assault anyone the person holding the rifle would be the one committing the assault. So technically the sheriff is right, no such animal exists.

      1. avatar Kenneth says:

        According to the world’s armies, it does. It’s a select fire rifle with a detachable magazine, chambered in an intermediate power level cartridge.
        https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Assault_rifle
        Note that this why the left has taken to redefining words and now mostly uses the term “assault weapon”, which is the most moronic word switch I can think of. But many still haven’t gotten the memo, and continue to call MSRs “full semi-auto”, or some other equally childish babble. They love their baby-talk. Probably because when one speaks in gibberish, then that one can later claim that he didn’t say what he said, but really only meant whatever it was he later decides he wants it to be. It’s just more avoidance of all responsibility for their own actions.

        1. avatar Chris Mallory says:

          And according to the law in several states it has a different definition. If you live in one of those states, get the law changed.

          Just like the government now calls relations between homosexuals a marriage.

          Or the ability of one citizen to force another citizen to serve him in a restaurant or rent him an apartment a “right”.

        2. avatar Ansel Hazen says:

          Wikipedia is a known source of leftist propaganda as well. Go try editing that page and see how fast it gets turned back. And your name banned from editing anything else.

        3. avatar Green Mtn. Boy says:

          Wikipedia as a source is as reliable,accurate as Alex Jones Info Wars is,I use neither as a source of anything.

        4. avatar Pg2 says:

          Anyone using Wikipedia for a serious reference is either an idiot or someone who is trying to lie about something.

        5. avatar Kenneth says:

          I actually like wikipedia, sometimes, depending upon what one is looking for. They are definitely yet another propaganda outlet, but they get some things correct, like “assault rifle”. They also have value in training the low information types to learn to distinguish between truth and falsehoods. People need to learn how to use their own reasoning powers to be able to tell when con men are lying to them. This means just looking to see what snopes, newsguard, wikipedia, or anybody else CLAIMS, is not good enough.
          They need to learn how to tell when liars are trying to manipulate them. Wikipedia can be a good teaching tool for that, since SOMETIMES(like “assault rifle”) they extensively document their sources, and then at other times(like when they’re lying) such documentation is either conspicuously absent or falsified. But the masses desperately need someone to show them the difference between claims and documentation, and the clues to look for that can tell one when sources have been falsified.
          The block to this is that most do not want to know. They just want to pick a leader and follow blindly. And when the blind blindly follow the blind, they all end up in the ditch.

        6. avatar Pg2 says:

          Kenneth, you contradict yourself in your post….you admit Wikipedia is a propaganda outlet, yet you also state is has value in helping ‘low information’ people distinguish between truth and falsehoods….do you even know what the word propaganda means?

        7. avatar Kenneth says:

          PS2: OFC I do. BUT… propaganda, like evil, has always been around, and always will be. Liars and con men have always existed, and, like evil, always will exist. Thus, since liars cannot be legislated away, or otherwise simply ‘gotten rid of’, I think it would behoove the people to learn to tell the difference between truth and lies. I think it is a necessary life skill. I said that wikipedia is a good teaching tool for the reason that they don’t ALWAYS lie(like the MSM), but only sometimes(thus good for learning to tell the differences).
          Are you disputing that?

        8. avatar Kenneth says:

          I meant: Pg2. Sorry about that. mistakes happen.

        9. avatar UpInArms says:

          Wikipedia was very good and useful when I was starting to grow my own tobacco. I don’t think I’d trust them for much beyond that.

        10. avatar Kenneth says:

          Pg2: perhaps this will explain my position better than I have done:
          https://onlinelearningtips.com/2012/04/why-you-shouldnt-use-wikipedia-for-research/
          “I advise students to always consider the source when researching information for their scholarly projects. Wikipedia can be helpful in guiding you as you gather ideas about a subject, but remember the information is unsubstantiated”
          and:
          “Wikipedia, as well as Google, Bing, Yahoo and other public search engines offer unprecedented searching power – but they can also be an intellectual mess”
          and:
          “be sure that you: Verify the information you find with at least two other sources
          [and] Cite the authoritative source in your paper and not Wikipedia”
          Does any of that make it clear why I can see no contradiction in my post? If not, I can go on and on..
          My main point is; A bad propaganda source can be good for teaching what propaganda is and why it should not be taken at face value. It can be a tool for showing the lies clearly. If you were to be able to, somehow, make wikipedia just ‘go away’, it would just come right back under another name. Can you not see how learning to see through the lies is the better alternative?

        11. avatar Kenneth says:

          Upinarms;
          You show excellent discernment. Little reason exists for wikipedia to resort to lies on that subject, so they don’t. Examine the sources at the bottom of the “tobacco” page and you will see many books, authors, and orgs listed.
          On the other hand examine the page “russian involvement in syria civil war” and you will note a hundred+ sources listed(efforting to overwhelm the ones who confuse quantity with quality) but all from the dinosaur media(NYTimes, BBC, reuters, AP, etc.), and mostly long since discredited as fantasy. Not a single source from other than the mass media.
          This is what I mean by wikipedia can be effectively used to teach the masses about propaganda. They make it real easy to see, just as the lamestream media now does. The problem is in finding students who wish to learn to think…

        12. avatar pg2 says:

          @Kenneth, I misunderstood you. I understand your point.

        13. avatar Kenneth says:

          pg2; De nada. Think nothing of it. It is HARD to get points across in any language, and worse in English, and worse still in print and not face to face. I’m quite used to the problem. Its why I endeavor to include sources and be as clear as I can possibly think how to be.
          In that vein, to help me be more clear in future, which one made the light bulb go off; my second posts, or the one quoting the guy from some online studies site?

    2. avatar Green Mtn. Boy says:

      “Assault weapon” is an invented term. In the lexicon, there is no such thing as an “assault weapon.” 1 The closest relative is the “assault rifle,” which is a machine gun or “select fire” rifle that shoots rifle cartridges. 2 In most cases, “assault weapons” are functionally identical though less powerful than hunting rifles, but they are cosmetically similar to military guns.
      Myth: Assault weapons are a serious problem in the U.S.
      Fact: In 1994, before the Federal “assault weapons ban,” you were eleven (11) times more likely to be beaten to death than to be killed by an “assault weapon.” 3
      Fact: In the first 7 years since the ban was lifted, murders declined 43%, violent crime 43%, rapes 27% and robberies 49%. 4
      Fact: Nationally, “assault weapons” were used in 1.4% of crimes involving firearms and 0.25% of all violent crime before the enactment of any national or state “assault weapons” ban. In many major urban areas (San Antonio, Mobile, Nashville, etc.) and some entire states (Maryland, New Jersey, etc.) the rate is less than 0.1%. 5
      Fact: Even weapons misclassified as “assault weapons” (common in the former Federal and California “assault weapons” confiscations) are used in less than 1% of all homicides. 6
      Fact: Police reports show that “assault weapons” are a non-problem:
      For California:
      •    Los Angeles: In 1998, of 538 documented gun incidents, only one (0.2%) involved an “assault weapon.”
      •    San Francisco: In 1998, only 2.2% of confiscated weapons were “assault weapons.”
      •    San Diego: Between 1988 and 1990, only 0.3% of confiscated weapons were “assault weapons.”
      •    “I surveyed the firearms used in violent crimes…assault-type firearms were the least of our worries.” 7
      For the rest of the nation:
      •    Between 1980 and 1994, only 2% of confiscated guns were “assault weapons.” 8
      •    Fewer than 2% of criminals that commit violent crimes used “assault weapons.” 9
      Fact: Only 1.4% of recovered crime weapons are models covered under the 1994 “assault weapons” ban. 10
      Fact: In Virginia, no surveyed inmates had carried an “assault weapon” during the commission of their last crime, despite 20% admitting that they had previously owned such weapons. 11
      Fact: Most “assault weapons” have no more firepower or killing capacity than the average hunting rifle and “play a small role in overall violent crime.” 12
      Fact: Even the government agrees. “… the weapons banned by this legislation [1994 Federal Assault Weapons ban – since repealed] were used only rarely in gun crimes.” 13
      Myth: Assault weapons are used in mass public shootings
      Fact: A decade long study, covering 84 mass public shootings, found that pistols were used 60% of the time. Rifles were used 27%. 14 But that is all types of rifles, and so-called “assault weapons” (such as the AR-15 or civilian versions of the AK-47) are a subset of these.
      Myth: Every 48 hours, an assault rifle is traced to crime in Maryland
      Fact: This claim by Cease Fire Maryland includes firearms never used in crimes. Some examples of firearms traced include:
      •    47 firearms found at a private residence of a person who passed-away from natural causes, and which were never used in any crime.
      •    Firearms temporarily taken from owners under court Emergency Evaluation Petitions (the firearms were not used in crimes, but the judge wanted them confiscated until other issues are resolved).
      Fact: This claim lacks perspective. During the same time period, there were 163,101 violent crimes reported in Maryland. Even if the Cease Fire Maryland data was correct, they have connected assault rifles to just 0.4% of violent crimes during the same period.
      Myth: One out of five police officers killed are killed with assault weapons 15
      Fact: This “study” included firearms not on the former Federal “assault weapons”list. By including various legal firearms 16 the report inflated the statistics nearly 100%.
      Fact: Only 1% of police officers murdered were killed using “assault weapons.” They were twice as likely to be killed with their own handgun. 17
      Fact: One 2006 federal government study found zero “assault weapons” were used to kill police officers. 18
      Fact: Police don’t think it is a major problem, with 91% saying an assault weapons ban would have either no effect or a negative effect on violent crime. 19. Myth: Assault weapons are favored by criminals
      Fact: Only 6% of criminals use anything that is classified (even incorrectly) as an “assault weapon,” 20 and fewer than 2.5% of criminal claimed to use these firearms when committing crimes. 21
      Fact: Criminals are over five times more likely to carry single shot handguns as they are to carry “assault weapons.” 22
      Fact: “Assault rifles have never been an issue in law enforcement. I have been on this job for 25 years and I haven’t seen a drug dealer carry one. They are not used in crimes, they are not used against police officers.” 23
      Fact: “Since police started keeping statistics, we now know that ‘assault weapons’ are/were used in an underwhelming 0.026 of 1% of crimes in New Jersey. This means that my officers are more likely to confront an escaped tiger from the local zoo than to confront an assault rifle in the hands of a drug-crazed killer on the streets.” 24
      Thoughts: “Assault weapons” are large and unwieldy. Even misclassified handguns tend to be bigger than practical for concealed carry. Criminals (who, incidentally, disregard concealed carry laws) are unlikely to carry “assault weapons” and instead carry handguns, which are more easily concealed.
      Myth: Assault weapons can be easily converted to machine guns
      Fact: Firearms that can be “readily converted” are already prohibited by law. 25
      Fact: None of the firearms on the list of banned weapons can be readily converted. 26
      Fact: Only 0.15% of over 4,000 weapons confiscated in Los Angeles in one year were converted, and only 0.3% had any evidence of an attempt to convert. 27
      Myth: Assault weapons are used in 16% of homicides
      Fact: This figure was concocted to promote an “assault weapons” bill in New York. Their classification scheme included most firearms sold in the U.S. since 1987 (centerfire rifles, shotguns holding more than six cartridges, and handguns holding more than 10 rounds). By misclassifying most firearms as “assault weapons,” they expanded the scope of a non-problem.
      Myth: The 1994 (former) Federal Assault Weapons Ban was effective
      Fact: Murder rates were 19.3% higher when the Federal assault weapons ban was in force. 28
      Fact: ” … we cannot clearly credit the ban with any of the nation’s recent drop in gun violence.” 29
      Fact: The ban covered only 1.39% of the models of firearms on the market, so the ban’s effectiveness is automatically limited.
      Fact: “The ban has failed to reduce the average number of victims per gun murder incident or multiple gunshot wound victims.” 30
      Fact: “The public safety benefits of the 1994 ban have not yet been demonstrated.” 31
      Fact: “The ban triggered speculative price increases and ramped-up production of the banned firearms … prior to the law’s implementation,” 32 and thus increased the total supply over the following decade.
      Fact: The Brady Campaign claims that “After the 1994 ban, there were 18% fewer ‘assault weapons’ traced to crime in the first eight months of 1995 than were traced in the same period in 1994.” However, they failed to note (and these are mentioned in the NIJ study) that:
      1.    “Assault weapons” traces were minimal before the ban (due to their infrequent use in crimes), so an 18% change enters the realm of statistical irrelevancy.
      2.    Fewer “assault weapons” were available to criminals because collectors bought-up the available supply before the ban.
      Myth: States need to ban assault weapons
      Fact: State assault weapons bans “did not significantly affect murder rates” in a study covering 1980-2009. 33
      Myth: Assault weapons have only one purpose, to kill large numbers of people
      Fact: Of the millions of these firearms currently in civilian hands, they are routinely used for:
      •    Small game hunting (especially hog hunting in thick southern brush)
      •    Sports competitions such as “three gun shoots”
      •    Self-defense, both at home and during civil disorder situations such as the Rodney King riots in L.A. and Hurricane Katrina
      Myth: Nobody needs an assault weapon
      Fact: Their light weight and durability make them suitable for many types of hunting and are especially favored for wild boar hunting.
      Fact: Their lighter recoil combined with light weight make them the preferred rifle with people of small stature or limited strength.
      Fact: Recall the 1992 Rodney King riots in the anti-gun city of Los Angeles. Every major news network carried footage of Korean store owners sitting on the roofs of their stores, armed with “assault weapons.” 34 Those were the stores that did not get burned to the ground, and those were the people that were not dragged into the street and beaten by rioters. “You can’t get around the image of people shooting at people to protect their stores and it working. This is damaging to the [gun control] movement.” 35
      Fact: There are many reasons people prefer to use these firearms:
      •    They are easy to operate
      •    They are very reliable in outdoor conditions (backpacking, hunting, etc.)
      •    They are accurate
      •    They are good for recreational and competitive target shooting
      •    They have value in many self-defense situations
      Fact: There are many sports in which these firearms are required:
      •    Many hunters use these firearms (especially for wild boar hunting in the south)
      •    Three-gun target matches
      •    Camp Perry competitions, especially the Service Rifle events
      •    DCM/CMP competitions
      •    Bodyguard simulations
      Fact: Ours is a Bill of Rights, not a Bill of Needs.

      1. avatar DrPain63 says:

        Well stated…Thank You

      2. avatar Frank Wilson says:

        Excellent research an rendition of the facts and lies. Could you please post some link(s) to the sources of your information. It would be most helpful to all of us.

        1. avatar Green Mtn. Boy says:

          Sorry,I ment to include it at the bottom of the post,much useful information on the site.

          http://www.gunfacts.info/gun-control-myths/assault-weapons/

      3. avatar m. says:

        great post sir, but the d-suckers don’t care about facts. taqiyya-bama’s dhimmi-rat goal = confiscation & extermination.

        1. avatar Green Mtn. Boy says:

          Correct, facts and truth hold no meaning or sway with the Marxist Left,such as taking the life of a newborn baby is not state sanctioned murder.

      4. avatar B says:

        Assault Rifle, yep. Battle Rifle, you bet. Assault Weapon?…Not! Coined up by the fake media years ago, which knows little about firearms. Then libtard politicians ran with the term to advance their anti-gun agenda. Do it enough and it eventually makes it into the dictionary, but doesn’t make it right.

  5. avatar Dave G. says:

    Amen Sheriff Knezovich!

  6. avatar former water walker says:

    Good on him…we need good men(and women) like the sheriff. Sadly lacking in ILLinoisistan.

  7. avatar Scooter says:

    It is always welcome to hear from any LEO without their head up their ass-umptions about all things pew. I know not all 5-0 are gun nuts, um… firearm enthusiasts, but the ones with some knowledge tend to fall on the right side of logic. #facts>feelings

  8. avatar daveinwyo says:

    Good for him! But don’t forget what what dems really want is CONTROL. Dem rep from californica, Sewerswill saftey=no guns for us.

  9. avatar Green Mtn. Boy says:

    “It seems like we as a nation are heading down a very slippery slope. Enforce your laws or change them. If you start picking and choosing laws, that could be very bad for this nation. That’s how tyrants are created,” he said.

    The Constitutional sheriff knows it is coming,how did Thomas Paine put it,he is echoing Paine.

    “I prefer peace. But if trouble must come, let it come in my time, so that my children can live in peace.”

    1. avatar Ansel Hazen says:

      If Tyranny Becomes Law, Resistance Is Duty.

      Heed The Call Up.

      1. avatar uncommon_sense says:

        Exactly.

        If a state mandated that a woman be gang-raped a dozen times as punishment for petty shoplifting, should we all support that law? Absolutely not.

        As I stated recently on another post: everyone (Sheriffs, prosecutors, and We the People) should be supporting JUSTICE. If enforcing a law is JUST, then we should all support enforcing that law. If enforcing a law is UNJUST, then we should all refuse to enforce that law.

        What we should NOT do is blindly enforce any and every law simply because an elected body (or worse an appointed body) created it.

    2. avatar Miner49er says:

      So in reading the constitution I can’t find the word sheriff anywhere. So what is the constitutional sheriff? The way I read it, a sheriffs powers originate from the state legislature passing a law that authorizes the powers of the office of the sheriff.

      1. avatar Green Mtn. Boy says:

        Though state constitutions and the 14 th. amendment.

        The elected sheriff is part of America’s democratic fabric. In 1776 Pennsylvania and New Jersey adopted the Office of Sheriff in their Constitution. The Ohio Constitution called for the election of the county sheriff in 1802, and then state-by-state, the democratic election of sheriff became not only a tradition, but in most states a constitutional requirement. In the United States today, of the 3083 sheriffs, approximately 98 percent are elected by the citizens of their counties or parishes.

        https://www.sheriffs.org/publications-resources/resources/office-of-sheriff

        Why one can’t find the Sheriff listed in the federal Constitution

        http://www.libertygunrights.com/SheriffNotListed3.pdf

        United States marshals, deputy marshals and such other officials of the Service as may be designated by the Director, in executing the laws of the United States within a State, may exercise the same powers which a sheriff of the State may exercise in executing the laws thereof.

        https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/28/564

        1. avatar Frank Wilson says:

          Thank you for the explanation and links

        2. avatar Green Mtn. Boy says:

          @ Frank Wilson

          Often today we forget that the several states through it’s people gave consent to the Federal government,of course the feral government has relegated state rights to a shell of there former place constitutionally.

        3. avatar Green Mtn. Boy says:

          @ Frank Wilson

          This below is a excellent treatise of where and how many of the early state constitutions came to be.

          http://www.davekopel.com/2A/LawRev/WhatStateConstitutionsTeach.htm

  10. avatar Bob999 says:

    With the socialists having a supermajority in Oregon, Oregon is lost. I move away from there 5 years ago, and best decision I have ever made. What you have is three areas – Portland, Eugene, and Salem – making all the decisions for Oregon. These areas are mostly California migrants who moved to Oregon to escape the problems of California who have decided to transform Oregon into a Northern district of California. Outside those three areas in Oregon are people who are fighting mad at what is happening who are helpless to benevolently stop this. When we talk about walls, should we consider walking off the left coast?

    1. avatar JohnB says:

      As with Wisconsin…Madison and Milwaukee can outnumber the rest of the state. And often do.

    2. avatar Carrucan says:

      I purchased land near Florence, OR years ago with the intent of retiring there in about 2030. I doubt I ever step foot in Oregon again. I’ll sell the land to a Californian for triple what I paid for it.

  11. avatar ATTAGReader says:

    As I have written here and elsewhere before, the northeast and left coast states need to be split such that the proggie areas are removed from the larger geography. This would create many states with conservative majorities who would elect like minded Senators, transforming the Senate permanently. Not sure how the House seats would play out, but it wouldn’t matter. If the Electoral College model were kept at the same time, it would be very difficult to put a proggie in as President. Anyone know how to start the petition and movement? Split NY CA IL WA OR FL and with 12 correctly elected Senators, it would be an entirely different country. Maybe add VA to the list after McCauliffe and Northam. Then it’s 14 Senators. VA was already split after the War Between the States so there is inexact precedent.

    1. avatar Ing says:

      It’s already underway in WA. https://libertystate.org/

      It makes sense in every possible way (which is why it’s not likely to succeed), but I’m doing what I can to help.

  12. avatar GunnyGene says:

    Question: Does WA State law give the Governor, via the State Police, authority to arrest and prosecute a Sheriff for not enforcing State law?

    1. avatar Mad says:

      No the sheriff can only be arrested for breaking legal constitutional laws.any new law that violates the Constitution can and should be ignored.i believe in a county the sheriff has the same or more power than the governor has

  13. avatar Rex says:

    Love sheriff Ozzie. Spokane has a voice of reason with him in charge.

  14. avatar Indiana Tom says:

    Everything now is an “assault weapon”. London England is a good example of this.

  15. avatar ROBERT Powell says:

    the state of washington with the current socialist in charge is on a downhill slide towards communist. the ONLY breath of fresh air is from the sheriff , they are still constitutionalists…the chief of police in the major citys and the mayors-city councils are predominantly socialist or communist. they want all guns removed..registered so they can come and get them.. and destroyed. the three states on the communist coast are all working to destroy the constitution, the bill of rights and the freedom of speech. the drug-culture is working with the communist left to push the real american voters out and let the socialist fools run the show.

  16. avatar Timothy Toroian says:

    When will he run for higher office?

  17. avatar NORDNEG says:

    Good job Sheriff,,,

  18. avatar David Calderwood says:

    I’ve been saying for years that AR-15’s aren’t assault weapons. I so wish I could use this article to support my claim — but I can’t use it because of the contradiction within the article.
    The title claims “There is No Such Thing as an Assault Weapon. Yet within the article he says — “Step two will be to ban all assault weapons. When they do that, they will ban every semi-automatic rifle there is.”
    While I understand what he means — the left is going to take this statement to be an admission there actually are “assault weapons and that the AR-15 is one of them!

    1. avatar GunnyGene says:

      See this Forbes article about the latest revision to the United States Munitions List. It removes semi-auto’s and related stuff from the list of “Significant Military Equipment”. Which means the anti’s will no longer be able to point to that as a reason ban “military style” firearms.

      https://www.forbes.com/sites/tedbromund/2019/01/30/no-firearm-exports-arent-being-decontrolled/#3eea30be6c0c

    2. avatar What about...? says:

      David, see my comment below. We are already there in WA State.

    3. avatar Lee fromWashington says:

      No contradiction. I-1639 in Washington state defined assault weapon as any semi-automatic rifle. Phase one took effect January 1, 2019 which bans anyone under age 21 from buying any model semi automatic rifle. Phase two begins July 1 unless it is overturned before then.

  19. avatar What about...? says:

    The passing of WA I-1639 in November 2018 defined ALL semiautomatic rifles in WA as “assault rifles” regardless of capacity, features or ability to accept a detachable magazines. That makes .22 LR semiautomatics with fixed tubular magazines and straight wood stocks “assault rifles” in WA State. The WA 2018 legislature is now working to pass laws that will BAN all newly defined semiautomatic rifles. They are also working to pass laws that will BAN all magazines above 10 rounds. There are multiple bills for each proposal. Committee just passed onto the floor one such bill that will ban magazines with more than 15 rounds. Some of these bills have no “grandfather” clause, as they BAN any and all possession. Other versions BAN any and all transfers to include “universal” background checked transfers of semiautomatics, as well as ban transfers of magazines. Do the WA State legislature that passes these laws meet the definition of tyrants and enemies of the US Constitution? Where is the line in the sand that will recognize them as treasonous tyrants, and who will deal with them accordingly? Apparently, this Sheriff is getting ready to do so. Will the State law enforcement officials who are in goose step with the WA legislatures call a WA red flag law on this Sheriff?

    1. avatar What about...? says:

      Correction, WA 2019 legislature is now concerning laws banning newly defined “semiautomatics” and detachable magazines.

    2. avatar GunnyGene says:

      I’m 74. I’ve been to war. I was hoping that I would not live to see a civil war in this country. But it’s beginning to look like I might.

      “Attack rapidly, ruthlessly, viciously, without rest, however tired and hungry you may be, the enemy will be more tired, more hungry. Keep punching.
      George S. Patton “

    3. avatar GS650G says:

      To own guns in WA is to be a criminal it seems.

  20. avatar GS650G says:

    Any object uses to assault another is by definition an assault weapon.
    Now if they got tougher on the assailants we’d make progress

  21. avatar Hannibal says:

    “There’s no such thing as an assault rifle.”

    Yes there is, in military terminology and the industry parlance. It’s just not what they’re saying it is.

  22. avatar strych9 says:

    The good Sheriff is generally factually correct.

    Unfortunately that doesn’t matter at this point. Freedom minded people hate to hear it, but it’s true.

    1. avatar Defens says:

      Very true. We tend to get bogged down in semantics, which USED to work, but that dog doesn’t hunt anymore. A proposed bill includes a definitions section. In that section you can define anything you want, and if the bill passes THAT is the new definition. You could call an AR15 a “crocodile” and then propose to ban all crocodiles – if the bill passes, that’s what you’re stuck with.

      Now – at the Constitutional level, ownership of “firearms in common use at the time” has been upheld at the US Supreme Court level. Presumably this cuts through all the BS about whether a firearm is in fact an “assault weapon”, “assault rifle”, or “crocodile.”

      The point is – arguing that “well my Kel-Tec Sub 2000 isn’t an assault rifle because it isn’t select fire” doesn’t wash, if the act that bans it defines is as such.

    2. avatar Chris T in KY says:

      Don’t give up so easily. This is how you lose your rights. They redefine a word and then outlaw that object. Don’t let them get away with it. The marlin 795 or the ruger 10/22 are not assault rifles. Tell them they are intellectually dishonest. Or at least uneducated on the facts. Tell them the media they use is factually incorrect. You don’t go around changing the meaning of words.

      The gun community is so worry about being impolite. Its not impolite to correct someone. But if your afraid to do it then that’s a different story.

      1. avatar strych9 says:

        How many times do I have to say this: facts don’t matter.

        You cannot EVER reason someone out of a position that they have gotten to by feelings. The way they got there was not by reason. They cannot be led away from that position by reason.

        The problem isn’t that there is no way to get to these people. The problem is that we won’t do it. This is why I keep talking about how advertising works. No one listens and that’s why we’re going to lose. Because everyone wants to get into factual discussions about firearms, philosophy and history when the people you’re trying to convince don’t give a fuck about what’s actually right they only care about what feels right.

        This is why AOC said it was better to be “morally correct than factually right”. Because when you play by those rules you manipulate the ever-living fuck out of people using the psychological principles behind advertising and they work. They work so well in fact that companies spend billions on using and improving them. Freedom minded people OTOH won’t touch this with a 10-foot poll because it’s not something we’re comfortable with.

        1. avatar NB says:

          You obviously don’t know anything about advertising. The Second Amendent rights groups are large base but small donation base by their nature. Our opponents are the opposite. In ad adverting war they woud have huge:
          1) advantages: with 10x to 15x the money
          2) leverages: dead kids and appeal to emotion; and
          3) multipliers: allies in the press, as in a) 95% of the press, which would make any and every NRA a fact checked lie even if 100% true in detail and spirit b) all of academia

        2. avatar Ing says:

          NB, what you’re missing is that we ARE in an advertising war and have been for a long time. The other side is already using all of those advantages against us.

          And our side keeps refusing to acknowledge the nature of the battle, as the enemy has repeatedly demonstrated to our detriment.

        3. avatar Pg2 says:

          Solid post strych9.

  23. avatar Mad says:

    The tyrants need their backs broken.that could be coming soon.the people hopefully will rise up and send them packing

  24. avatar possum says:

    . What if the Sheriff’s refuse to enforce that law, will the Feds be involved with enforcing it. Now that I think about it, it might not be so good. And damnit, assault weapon or assault shaker, “The Right to Keep and Bear Arms, Shall Not Be Infringed” . I believe the guys that wrote the Constitution just might have kicked some ass on these government take overs…. History has shown what happens after a government disarms it’s citizens…. I’d suggest to gunn owners not to put all your eggs in one basket. Out of my paranoia I had stashed some of my gunns in other places besides my residence. The fire that burnt my house got most of them, but not all of them, that fire could have very well been the storm trooper’s. Live to fight another day, and choose your battles

    1. avatar MLee says:

      I live in Spokane County. Ozzie Knezovich is my sheriff. The Feds on a very limited basis enforce state laws and under very limited circumstances do local authorities enforce federal law. It’s up to the specific federal law if it allows for local enforcement. Tribal law and such are where you get into the majority of cross jurisdictional issues. The sheriffs for instance wouldn’t arrest someone and charge them with possession of a full auto NFA item, they would charge the person under an RCW Washington code. If they wanted to slam dunk them, they’d forward it to the Feds for prosecution under federal law and most likely dismiss the state charge.

    2. avatar strych9 says:

      “…will the Feds be involved with enforcing it. “

      No. The feds don’t enforce state laws, they simply expect the states to enforce federal laws.

  25. avatar Aaron Walker says:

    (18TH CENTURY): “THE REDCOATS ARE COMING!!! THE REDCOATS ARE COMING!!!”
    (21TH CENTURY: “THE GLOBALISTS ARE COMING !!! THE GLOBALISTS ARE COMING !!!”

  26. avatar Aaron Walker says:

    Historical data:

    Again! The term “Assault Rifle ” is a misused WW2 German military designation for the 1st experimental rifle of its class, The Sturmgewehr STG 44. Also known as the “Storm Rifle of 1944…Or Assault Rifle” , because it was originally designed as a bridge to incorporate submachine gun, rifle, and squad support weapon with the capability to provide low recoil rounds, semi-auto and full automatic fire, and portability into one package…

    1. avatar Chris T in KY says:

      It would be nice if the gun community would give this history at any given opportunity when this “assault weapon” phrase is used. We individually must speak up. On a radio show or when writing a letter/ text to someone or media outlet.

      Tell them an “assault rifle” is a world war 2 infantry rifle from Germany. “And they’re are no ww2 rifles here”.

      “Besides if they’re was that gun would be valued at $60,000 or more at auction”.

      Everyone please speak up in public forums, chat rooms, etc.

  27. avatar CZJay says:

    Mexico has great gun control. Even the stereotypical white “anarchist” activists from America get to experience how much it works. Totally need to bring that gun control to Illinois and Washington.

    https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-6661167/1-American-killed-1-injured-gunmen-Acapulco.html

    1. avatar Chris T in KY says:

      The down fall of the pot heads is nearly all of them a globalists. They don’t believe in national borders.
      Taking our crazy ideas to another society can get you killed in some places. Perhaps the Mexican drug cartels didn’t like the possible competition from this interloper.

      Making pot legal will no change the “cut throat” attitude of the cartel businessman. You are lying to yourself if you believe this. Or perhaps your are just stupid.

  28. avatar NB says:

    It doesn’t matter what you and I state that an assault rifle or assault weapon is. We don’t control the dialogue. This is one thing we thought we won but which pour adversaries have moved on from.

    gun control advocates have already moved on anyway, taking their pals in the press with them, the new terms are “fully semi automatic,” “military style,” and “self loading.”

  29. avatar Jim Bullock says:

    All weapons are “assault weapons”; that’s the point.

    They don’t want you to have them, so you can’t assault back when someone assaults you. You live in fear, with only the security they grant you.

    They don’t trust you to have them, because they don’t trust you not to assault first. You are allowed no good judgment. Any choice you make is wrong because you made it.

    They don’t see the choice to preserve yourself, and how, as yours, because they want to order you tot heir will, not your own. You are a game piece in the world they are building.

    Everything the anti-people do, and how, is perfectly predictable once you get this.

  30. avatar Silence DoGood says:

    Every weapon made was made for assaulting.

    Therefore ALL WEAPONS are assault weapons.

  31. avatar Pg2 says:

    That’s accurate. The Gov already defines childhood until 26 when it comes to insurance. The goal is to make everyone a child of the state.

    1. avatar Pg2 says:

      That was a reply to a LarryTX post. This site is becoming unusable.

  32. avatar jbob says:

    Assault Weapon: An intentionally ambiguous term created by anti-gun politicians whose goal it is to intentionally confuse naive voters for the purposes of gaining support in order to eventually disarm the American public.

  33. avatar R. Bryan says:

    Short, easily remembered, and often repeated terms, are hallmarks of liberal propoganda. They demonize what they dont like with names like “assault rifle” and promote what they do like with positive sounding names like “universal background checks”. It doesn’t matter to them that both names are lies, as long as their control agenda is supported.

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