• We are now running on a new, and hopefully much-improved, server. In addition we are also on new forum software. Any move entails a lot of technical details and I suspect we will encounter a few issues as the new server goes live. Please be patient with us. It will be worth it! :) Please help by posting all issues here.
  • If you are having trouble seeing the forum then you may need to clear your browser's DNS cache. Click here for instructions on how to do that
  • Please review the Forum Rules frequently as we are constantly trying to improve the forum for our members and visitors.

WA AG pens open ltr to WA sheriffs then publicized his actions.

solus

Regular Member
Joined
Aug 22, 2013
Messages
6,913
Location
here nc
AG Quote
Like all laws passed by the people of Washington and their representatives, Initiative 1639 is presumed constitutional. No court has ruled that this initiative is unconstitutional.
I will defend Initiative 1639 against any legal challenge. My office defeated the legal challenge to the previous gun safety initiative passed by the people, and I am confident we will defeat any constitutional challenge to Initiative 1639 as well. Local law enforcement officials are entitled to their opinions about the constitutionality of any law, but those personal views do not absolve us of our duty to enforce Washington laws and protect the public.

I am deeply concerned that the failure of local law enforcement to perform Initiative 1639’s background check requirement will jeopardize public safety in our state by allowing the sale of semiautomatic assault rifles to dangerous individuals not lawfully allowed to own a gun.

In short, the taxpayers of your city or county assume the financial risk of your decision to impose your personal views over the law.
Unquote

Shock & awe is alive and well...
 

hammer6

Regular Member
Joined
Oct 11, 2008
Messages
1,247
Location
Florida
AG Quote
Like all laws passed by the people of Washington and their representatives, Initiative 1639 is presumed constitutional. No court has ruled that this initiative is unconstitutional.
I will defend Initiative 1639 against any legal challenge. My office defeated the legal challenge to the previous gun safety initiative passed by the people, and I am confident we will defeat any constitutional challenge to Initiative 1639 as well. Local law enforcement officials are entitled to their opinions about the constitutionality of any law, but those personal views do not absolve us of our duty to enforce Washington laws and protect the public.

I am deeply concerned that the failure of local law enforcement to perform Initiative 1639’s background check requirement will jeopardize public safety in our state by allowing the sale of semiautomatic assault rifles to dangerous individuals not lawfully allowed to own a gun.

In short, the taxpayers of your city or county assume the financial risk of your decision to impose your personal views over the law.
Unquote

Shock & awe is alive and well...

Any law that is repugnant to the constitution is null and void.
 

Ghost1958

Regular Member
Joined
Nov 5, 2015
Messages
246
Location
Kentucky
Any law that is repugnant to the constitution is null and void.
And citizens have the right, actually duty, to resist unconstitutional law.
The LE that are refusing to enforce plainly unconstitutional law are simply upholding their oath to protect the constitution.
 

color of law

Accomplished Advocate
Joined
Oct 7, 2007
Messages
4,060
Location
Cincinnati, Ohio, USA
Per the Attorney General:
Under Article 1, Section 1 of the Washington State Constitution, “All political power is inherent in the people, and governments derive their just powers from the consent of the governed, and are established to protect and maintain individual rights.” As public officers, our duty is to abide by the will of the people we serve, and implement and enforce the laws they adopt. I encourage you to do so.
This AG is about one of the dumpiest attorneys ever OR he is a con artiest. He well knows that Initiative 1639 is an initiated state statute, not an initiated constitutional amendment. The passed statute is in direct conflict with the Washington Constitution, Article I Section 24.
SECTION 24 RIGHT TO BEAR ARMS. The right of the individual citizen to bear arms in defense of himself, or the state, shall not be impaired, but nothing in this section shall be construed as authorizing individuals or corporations to organize, maintain or employ an armed body of men.
A background check is an impairment.
 
Top