All-purpose gun legislation thread


Last fall, voters in Washington state approved a package of firearms restrictions, generally called I-1639. It raises the minimum age for buying semi-automatic rifles, tightens background checks and makes it a crime to fail to store a gun safely, if the gun ends up in the wrong hands.

The restrictions have raised the ire of some county sheriffs.

“My plan is not to enforce it,” says Klickitat County Sheriff Bob Songer.

Songer is one of about a dozen sheriffs, mostly in rural parts of the state, who have come out against the law. Some say they will apply certain measures — for instance, the background checks — but will ignore others. One sheriff said he is not going to arrest a 20-year-old farmer who happens to have a semi-automatic rifle with him on his tractor.

Man, those must be some ferocious farm gophers in Washington.


There is quite a difference between a farmer with a rifle on their tractor and what the actual laws are from what I can tell.


They have cougars and coyotes in Washington state.
Some cougar killed a guy and mauled another a few months ago.


They are rodents of unusual size.


Montana apparently has some deadly wild warthogs. I saw a YT video of one killing a guy and his dog several times. Luckily he had a flamethrower.


These sheriffs have no business ignoring laws they don’t like. WA isn’t the only place that has cougars, and we don’t all run around packing guns. I can find a video of a bear that likes to take a bath in a pond around here too, a pond in someone’s backyard… doesn’t mean our sheriff should thumb their nose at a new law.


I’m sure if we looked into it, that all law enforcement (police and DAs) also have a lot of selective enforcement policies (or ‘prioritization’). They just don’t usually talk about it like this in public as law nullification.


I think they actually do have that business, right?

I mean, they aren’t state troopers. They are local law enforcement. I don’t think they are actually legally obligated to enforce state laws, right?

Presumably if they do a bad job, then their local population can elect different people as sheriff?


Cops always have discretion in enforcing the law, which is usually a good thing.
Otherwise you end up with people dead over trying to sell a loose cigarette.

Blanket statements that they wont enforce a law are kind of stupid though.
It’s a political move by a politician, not a law enforcement decision.


You realize the sheriffs have a really bad rap right, about harassing groups of people they don’t think belong even when federal and state laws tell them otherwise so yeah… not going to back this idea up. I’ve seen that abused in the past, heavily.


I’m jus making a facial statement about how it works.


I’ve got an idea of how they work. There is a sheriff’s department a few miles from my house; they often patrol the rivers, when they have money, several of the highways, state patrol is on the freeway and not the highways, and they cover the areas that are outside city limits, unincorporated areas.

Their structure can vary a little by state, and the fact people vote for them does not change their ability to harass… these are rural areas in the northwest, areas notorious for harassing.


Yeah, i know. I’ve dealt with my share of douchebag local cops. A buddy of mine was constantly harassed by this one local cop when we were kids.

But at the same time, I’m just saying, they aren’t obligated to be good cops.


Well I am not asking them to be good at their jobs, but at the very least they shouldn’t be able to just ignore state law, like go out of their and say they won’t enforce it. If they say something like that, the state should be able to go after them.

If they said they won’t let those niggers vote even if the state says I have to are you going to just shrug and say I sure hope he gets voted out. At some point, you should be able to do more than hope the locals care.

And no, that’s not a hypothetical… this shit actually happened. This is the same group behind these problems decades ago.


For decades, many police ignored states’ laws making sodomy illegal. They could’ve raided gay bars and hookup joints, but many police departments didn’t.

Are we saying that’s a bad thing?


But that’s not really how it works.
They can choose on their own how to enforce those laws, just as state and local police are not obligated to enforce federal statutes.

The state has its own police force, so they can always choose to enforce those laws themselves.


We have laws on the books right now in a local city, Phoenix, that says black men aren’t allowed to walk there after-dark. I am not giving the police any credit, not a single cent, for not enforcing that law. They damn well know it won’t hold in court. It’s also not a state law.


It probably won’t hold up in court, so go ahead and conduct constant arrests and issues fines for every trivial law broken? Jaywalking? Speeding? Mandatory tickets for every single speeder?

I get your frustration, but you seem to be throwing the baby out with the bathwater on this.


Sheriffs have a history, a known history of being the enforcers of racism in the rural areas of this country. There is no freaking way you’re going to convince me to trust rural sheriffs over the state. In order to do that, you, me and everyone else would have to pretend that history didn’t happen.


I’m not trying to convince you of that, but okay. You win.

Arrest everyone. No exceptions…