All-purpose gun legislation thread


The law doesn’t tell them to go arrest farmers, but then again, they’re not really interested in the law.

Restricts possession of semiautomatic assault rifles by adults at least 18 but not yet 21 to home, place of business, or property under their control except when exemptions in other sections apply (e.g. outdoor activities, competitions, etc).

Where in there does it tell them to go arrest 20 year old farmers on tractors.


Federal Marijuana laws and immigration laws. These are recent examples of laws that locals have chosen not to enforce that are perfectly constitutional, had they chose to enforce them. Telefrog’s examples of sodomy laws, in the past, are similar.

Be very careful with a position that says that local law enforcement must enforce all laws on the books, period.


Look at our prison system and tell me they’re not enforcing these laws. What they’re doing is enforcing it at their discretion, not going after their people. Maybe if they actually went after people in a uniform way it wouldn’t be so badly biased and people would have insisted they changed sooner.

We have records, actual proof, these laws were designed to go after specific populations and where were the cops saying no then… nope, this is just more proof that when you get discretion like that, they just pick and choose what they like and who they like.

Look at our incarceration rates, and tell me they’re not enforcing laws.


I dunno, but I don’t think this is true. This is from the Washington State AG’s web site, commenting on the duties of county Sheriffs.

In accordance with this constitutional mandate, the legislature has prescribed the general duties of the sheriff in RCW 36.28.010, which reads as follows:

        "The sheriff is the chief executive officer and conservator of the peace of the county.  In the execution of his office, he and his deputies:

        "(1) Shall arrest and commit to prison all persons who break the peace, or attempt to break it, and all persons guilty of public offenses;

        "(2) Shall defend the county against those who, by riot or otherwise, endanger the public peace or safety;

        "(3) Shall execute the process and orders of the courts of justice or judicial officers, when delivered for that purpose, according to law;

        "(4) Shall execute all warrants delivered for that purpose by other public officers, according to the provisions of particular statutes;

        "(5) Shall attend the sessions of the courts of record held within the county, and obey their lawful orders or directions;

        "(6) Shall make complaint of all violations of the criminal law which shall come to their knowledge within their jurisdiction;

        "(7)May call to their aid such persons or power of their county as they deem necessary to keep and preserve the peace of the county and quiet and suppress all affrays, riots, unlawful assemblies, and insurrections, and to apprehend or secure any person for felony or breach of the peace.


From the end of that letter by the AG:

We conclude, therefore, that the sheriff, as the chief law enforcement officer in the county, with jurisdiction coextensive with the county, including municipalities and townships, has the authority to investigate upon his own initiative all felony cases which occur within cities of the third class and towns of the fourth class in his county.

Note that part about “his own initiative”.

I see what you’re saying regarding those parts about he “shall execute …” , and I would read it the same way, but the later part about his own initiative, in the conclusion, suggests that the sheriff can kind of do whatever he wants.

Also, I believe this is held up by quite a lot of court precedent at this point, that absolves any law enforcement officer from any responsibility when it comes to actually enforcing the law, as silly as that seems.


Yes, but there they’re answering a different question: Does the sheriff have the authority to carry out these duties within municipal boundaries, i.e. in places where there is arguably another law enforcement organization with jurisdiction in that area. This argues that the sheriff can do so at his own discretion, which is to say without being invited to do so by city officials.

The sheriff is the police outside of municipal boundaries and is free to act as the police within them. I don’t think that is consistent with the idea that the sheriff has no legal obligations to uphold state law.

Edit: And I understand law enforcement discretion, but I will never under any circumstances enforce this law isn’t descretion, it is dereliction of duty.


But there’s plenty of legal precedent, going all the way to the SCOTUS, that police have no actual responsibility to uphold the law.

As an example:

We saw similar things in Broward, with cops not being held responsible during that school shooting.

Ultimately, folks working for the government have very little legal obligation to do the jobs they are tasked with doing, and this seems to apply to cops more than most. If they do a bad job, the primary recourse for the population is to vote them out of office.


I’m not arguing against that, though the miscommunication is probably mine.

When I read this:

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?

I see you saying it’s not their job to enforce state laws, and that is clearly a false statement, because the state says that is their job.

Whereas when you say they can’t be forced to do their job, that may well be true, but it’s not the same thing as saying it isn’t their job.


I think that’s fair, in that even the state troopers don’t have any legal responsibility either.

But I think beyond that, there’s the practical aspect of local enforcement being elected locally, and thus only held responsible by the local electorate.


Sheriffs are elected officials. They often do things or say things to make sure they continue to get elected. We had a nearby sheriff’s department pick up a guy fired from our police department for excessive force. I’m sure his constituents were happy to pick up an officer who hit a black parole-violator with a police car.


Tell it to this guy




Okay, it’s significant.

Is it right? Is it constitutional?

(I don’t know because I haven’t looked. I’m just poking at politics junkies.)


It’s just Universal Background Checks, so it’s certainly constitutional.


Yeah, but if we do reasonable background checks for gun purchases, then only bad guys will have guns in schools. Clearly this bill should be voted down immediately by the Senate.


Future Narrator: It was.



BS. In Ohio, most police training programs don’t require 700 hours in total training, let alone firearms training.


700 hours of firearms training is a very questionable number. Because that’s a LOT of fucking time. Let’s assume you are on the range two hours a day, which is a lot of range time. You’d have to do it every day for a fucking year to hit 700 hours. There is no fucking way.

Hell, the cost in ammunition would probably exceed your salary with that much range time.


I googled it but withdrew the comment after I realized ddtibbs specified OH. In general policy academy training is 880-960 hours and firearm training is 110.