Washington state: at least 20 county sheriffs refuse to enforce new gun laws

[mysteryowl]

Source: Guardian

At least 20 county sheriffs in Washington state – more than half of the state’s total – are now publicly refusing to police new gun laws. Several county governments have also passed local resolutions officially opposing enforcement of the laws.

The moves may pose a significant threat to Washington’s ambitious agenda on firearms reform, and some activists say it is beginning to resemble a full-scale “constitutionalist” revolt against gun control.

Their positions – outlined in written statements, local media reports, and Facebook posts – occupy varying points on a spectrum of resistance.

Resistance to the law also reflects a deep divide between rural and urban Washingtonians.






Read more: https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2019/feb/22/washington-state-county-sheriffs-refuse-to-enforce-gun-laws

---

What now?

[Luciferous]

1. If they can't do their jobs then they should no longer have those jobs.

[olegramps]

49. Republicans only obey the law if they choose to do so. They have a special previlege. You don't.

[MicaelS]

55. Riiiight.

They MUST enforce the gun laws, but it's perfectly fine to NOT enforce immigration laws, or pot laws, or any other laws people view as unjust.

[Cosmocat]

62. unfortunately they are elected

And, this likely would only increase their reelection chances in their counties ...

[duhneece]

80. That's our problem

Our fundamentalist, Republican County eats that shit up. They aren’t fazed or dissuaded by costly lawsuits

[DetlefK]

2. What now? Well, 20 people have just said that they refuse to obey the law.

What do we do with people who refuse to obey the law?

[mysteryowl]

3. Okay. So, the state AG arrests them?

[paleotn]

20. State police arrest them, if they break the law

I’m from the south. Arresting sheriffs isn’t uncommon.

[FailureToCommunicate]

4. And not just anybody...swarn officers of the law.

[mysteryowl]

5. It is like a coup

[jberryhill]

7. No

They’ve said they are not going to enforce certain federal laws.

What should be done with the state law enforcement agencies that don’t enforce federal marijuana laws, in your opinion?

Or is that “different” somehow.

[Atticus]

10. What they are refusing to enforce, according to the article is "I1639", a state-passed

"ballot measure". I'm not sure exactly what this means.

If you know, did this simply encourage enforcement of federal law or was it a method of passing a state law?

[jberryhill]

12. Oh, I thought this was the same bunch of "constitutional sheriffs"

...who pre-emptively expressed similar sentiments in the wake of the Parkland shooting.

I guess I was shooting from the hip.

[Atticus]

13. No problem. The article isn't very clear as to just what the "ballot measure" accomplished. nt

[Cold War Spook]

11. Unless it is covered by the Constitution,

state agencies are not obliged to enforce a federal law. They can't however hinder federal officers from doing their jobs.

[Maggiemayhem]

14. They are refusing to enforce a state ballot measure

That the voters of Washington State approved.

[samnsara]

23. most are saying they refuse to enforce it while its being contested

[pangaia]

54. Depends if they are republicans or democrats.

[bonniebgood]

63. Do what Ronald Regan did with the airline pilots. Fire them ALL.

[bluecollar2]

73. Air Traffic Controllers..

And it's a bad idea..

I'd suggest waiting and seeing.

[Angleae]

104. You can't fire an elected official.

County sheriffs tend to be elected officials.

[Kaleva]

82. Refusing to enforce a law is not the same as refusing to obey a law.

[MicaelS]

86. Riiiight.

They MUST enforce the gun laws, but it's perfectly fine to NOT enforce immigration laws, or pot laws, or any other laws people view as unjust.

[jberryhill]

6. Not to mention federal marijuana laws

You can’t have a “lock ‘em up” mentality if a locality refuses to enforce certain federal laws, while accepting it as perfectly fine for entire states not to enforce other federal laws.

Otherwise, please explain the principle by which it is okay for local officials to decline enforcement of, say, immigration and marijuana laws, but not gun laws.

If the “principle” is merely “people should be locked up for non-enforcement of laws I like, but not for laws I don’t like” then you are going to have to deal with the fact that not everyone agrees with your arbitrary list.

[Blues Heron]

22. We have a gun problem

A weed problem - not so much. When was the last time someone went postal with a skunky blunt? Meanwhile every day people are losing their lives to other peoples guns.

Weed -not deadly.
Guns- very deadly.

[Blues Heron]

28. Cool story bro

or should I say Ivan

[mentalslavery]

33. RRIIIIGGGHHHTTTT!

[bearsfootball516]

38. Ivan did not last long.

[jberryhill]

27. If you live in a state where it is not legal...

...then please explain how marijuana finds its way to your house, and who makes that happen.

[Blues Heron]

31. ever heard of homegrown?

Jah will provide!

[jberryhill]

35. Oh, yeah, sure

In my entire life, I've certainly known a lot of people who smoke weed.

I know exactly one who grew one plant, one time, in his closet.

Pretending that "homegrown" is a major, or even significant, portion of marijuana consumed in this country is simply a refusal to address the question.

If everyone is growing weed at home, then what are all those dealers up to?

This happened a few days ago at a beach I visit frequently, speaking of "jah" and his homophobic hangers-on...

That's a beach along the south coast of Grand Cayman island. Grand Cayman has a population of under 30,000 people, and 400 pounds was seized on "yet another boat with weed and guns from Jamaica". You think that 30,000 people go through 400 pounds of weed in a week?

Homegrown... yeah, right.

The point is you either want law enforcement to pick and choose the laws that get enforced or you don't.

I am fully in favor of legalizing marijuana. I think those laws are ridiculous. But going off about "waaaaahhh, those guys don't enforce the laws I like, and enforce the laws I don't like" is just juvenile.

Here's your Rastafari bullshit.....

It boggles the mind how many people think it is "cool" to promote a virulently homophobic religion.

[jcgoldie]

51. Nice to meet you jberryhill..

Now you know two.

[jberryhill]

53. Lol

I'll be over this evening.

[Duppers]

85. I had 6 illegal plants at one time. 😊

But that was 40+yrs ago. My hubby put a stop to my little "farming" project.

[MontanaFarmer]

40. My Understanding

is that this refers to a new state law, passed by initiative, not existing or new federal laws.

[keithbvadu2]

8. Rule of law? - Not so much?

Rule of law? - Not so much?

[rainin]

9. Throw the book at one of them. The rest will get the message.

[lark]

17. Yep, that is what I think is called for as well.

Lock up one of the bastids for refusing to do their job, and remove him from his job. PUt out an announcement that in 30 days anyone refusing to enforce the state law would be removed for failure to perform their duties, and follow through if needed with the rest of the assholes.

[HAB911]

15. In Florida the governor could suspend them

how about Washington?


https://www.npr.org/2019/01/11/684610273/florida-gov-ron-desantis-removes-broward-county-sheriff-from-elected-office

[Recursion]

16. DU was a lot more enthusiastic about sheriffs who refused to enforce marijuana laws (nt)

[Ferrets are Cool]

24. When is the last time pot killed someone?

And yes, it's relevant.

[jberryhill]

26. When was the last time gun dealers engaged in a shootout over turf?

A lot of those gun deaths are people who are shooting one another for a reason.

[oldsoftie]

41. The law is the law though. We're not supposed to pick and choose only the ones we like.

[meadowlander]

94. You can't judge the legitimacy of conscience objection outside of the context

of what that objection is about. Where the law you're objecting too is actually immoral, it is justified. Where it isn't, it isn't.

Objecting to draconian drug laws that destroy families needlessly - legit.

Objecting to gun safety laws - catch yourself on.

See also: county clerks that refuse to marry LGBTQ couples; bakers who refuse to bake cakes for LGBTQ couples; pharmacists who refuse to sell birth control, etc.

[samnsara]

18. and this effing sux...the state AG has said if a crime is committed in our county...

...and our Sherriff ( GENE DANA!) allowed the weapon to be purchased-owned illegally yet didnt do anything about it..then our County can be sued by the victim and we have to pay for it!

[bluecollar2]

78. No problem...

Take it out of the sheriff's budget...

[Honeycombe8]

19. Odd. Law enforcement is usually in favor of gun control...

because often those guns are used against THEM.

[DetroitLegalBeagle]

32. Not really

Attitudes towards it among the rank and file officers is as varied as it is with the rest of the public, with the geography playing a role. Rural police are usually very much against gun control. Big city police are usually for it. But there are exceptions, for example the Chief of Police for Detroit is fairly pro gun and encourages people to get their carry licenses and to arm teachers.

[link:https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2016/jul/19/gun-control-police-open-carry-law|]

[link:https://www.metrotimes.com/news-hits/archives/2018/02/26/detroit-police-chief-james-craig-advocates-for-arming-teachers|]

[yaesu]

59. This is true, I have seen law inforcement organizations come out against any regulations that

soften gun control, especially handguns, and in states with republican super majorities.

[Honeycombe8]

67. It depends on the regulations.

They are generally in favor of banning assault weapons, and in strict background checks and things like that. They don't want to be outgunned, or for criminals to get their hands on guns easily.

[Mc Mike]

21. Arpaio style 'sovereign sheriffs'.

Scofflaws in charge of law enforcement.

[Wounded Bear]

29. I think they are backing this to a large extent...

[Mc Mike]

30. 'Law and Order' Repugs.

[LongtimeAZDem]

91. Actually, Arpaio, scumbag that he was, was big on enforcing existing laws, while

Pima County Sheriff Dupink refused to enforce the provisions of the anti-immigrant SB1070.

Support for such actions really comes down to whose ox is being gored.

[Mc Mike]

105. I see you're in AZ, Longtime. Closer to the action.

But I was talking about him ignoring the court order to stop targeting 'immigrants' in traffic patrols.

The court told him what the law was, and lawfully ordered him to stop breaking the law. He ignored the law and the court. Coz he's a nazi freak.

[LongtimeAZDem]

106. Ah, I gotcha. I agree 100%

[melm00se]

34. In the rush to implement gun control legislation

Washington state passed I-1639 which, by many reports, has some serious technical flaws.

The biggest is the definition of a "semiautomatic assault rifle"

"Semiautomatic assault rifle" means any rifle which utilizes a portion of the energy of a firing cartridge to extract the fired cartridge case and chamber the next round, and which requires a separate pull of the trigger to fire each cartridge.

This definition makes every semiautomatic rifle a "Semiautomatic assault rifle" not only what would traditionally meet the definition (AR and AK platforms) but also some of the most common traditional firearms including some that have been manufactured for over a century.

There are situations where enforcing the law, as written, is not the correct action. In this case, I am sure that these sheriffs are of the opinion that any arrest will result in a jury nullification and/or overturned upon appeal (both of which are a waste of these localities finite law enforcement resources).

But hey who cares right? As long as it is another step on the road towards removing all firearms from civilian hands. Right? Right?

[oldsoftie]

42. That description makes the law ridiculous; even outlawing simple deer rifles.

[mark67]

36. For better or for worse...

the states have to work it out. This sort of behavior can almost be expected under a Democratic President. But Trump has been in that position for over 2 years.

[Hulk]

37. A deep divide between rural and urban ACROSS America

Misinformed, right wing radio stuffed rural amurica are only partly to blame for their ignorance. They get no balance in info. It's all vannity, limpballs and evangelical crap on radio, and fox propaganda pn the tube. They have shit stuffed between their ears 24/7.

[BBG]

39. Semi-valid reason for not enforcing.

The portion of the law that went into effect that they are refusing to enforce is the sales prohibition of assault rifles to under 21 youth. The reason being given by some is that the portion of the same law defining an assault rifle doesn’t go into effect until July 1.
I’m not a lawyer but it sounds like there might be legitimacy to their argument against enforcing it till then.

[leftynyc]

43. Fire them

Cops that wont follow the law are worthless.

[Kaleva]

83. They are elected officials. Can't fire them.

[leftynyc]

84. There must be a way to get rid of them

Their constituents need to find it.

[Kaleva]

87. Most likely a majority of their constituents support them.

[hack89]

92. And if their constituents agree with them? Nt

[leftynyc]

95. They should be ashamed

to hold their law enforcement in that light. Let's get all law enforcement to only arrest when it concerns laws they like.

[hack89]

96. Discretion has always been used by law enforcement

happens all the time - drug laws and immigration come immediately to mind.

[madville]

102. There is a way, it's called an election

But what if this is what the majority of the people in their counties want? Being pro-gun in most rural counties is going to be an asset come election time, not a liability.

[Evergreen Emerald]

44. WA AG reaction

Sheriffs who don’t enforce Washington’s new gun law could be liable, AG Bob Ferguson says

County sheriffs who say they won’t enforce Washington’s new, stricter gun laws could be held liable if they refuse to perform enhanced background checks and someone who shouldn’t buy a gun is able to buy one and uses it in a crime, Washington Attorney General Bob Ferguson said on Tuesday.

In an open letter to law enforcement, Ferguson wrote that he was confident the wide-ranging law was constitutional and would withstand court challenges, but that he was concerned about threats — mostly from county sheriffs — to not enforce the new law.
snip

“These enhanced background checks keep guns out of the hands of dangerous individuals who lawfully cannot own firearms because of a mental illness or criminal record,” Ferguson wrote. “As far as I know, no Washington sheriff or police chief has refused to perform these enhanced background checks for handguns. Why refuse to perform them for semiautomatic assault rifles?”

More at: https://www.seattletimes.com/seattle-news/politics/sheriffs-who-dont-enforce-washingtons-new-gun-law-could-be-liable-ag-bob-ferguson-says/

[jalan48]

45. I support the ban on assault weapons but pragmatically, how will this be enforced?

They live in the same small towns as they police. They eat at the same restaurants and go to the same small town high school sporting events. If their friends and neighbors overwhelmingly oppose these laws what are they to do? Who, in their communities, will take the job and enforce this law?

[Blues Heron]

46. That's a big if

Plenty of their neighbors want this/voted for it. All these daily massacres are waking people up that we have a huge gun problem in this country. Same as fentanyl/opiates. The days of cheap and easy access to guns in this country are, quite franky, over.

[jalan48]

48. I guess I would need to see the voting breakdown in these areas. I'll try and find something online.

My experience having lived in a rural area in the Northwest is that when it comes to guns, bans are always opposed.

[2naSalit]

47. lived in WA for a year and what I found with regard to the Sheriffs is that they

are as dirty as the dirtiest cops in any city in history. I called for assistance the day I was moving from one end of the state to the other and the sheriffs tried to beat me up at the place where I called for help. When I was able to get to my empty house I called to complain and the same assholes showed up at my door with a shitty attitude.

When I left that state, I vowed never to return, even if I had to get across the Pacific, I wouldn't set foot in that police state again. I will never spend another $ that might end up in that state.

[The Liberal Lion]

50. My take:

If they can choose what laws they are going to enforce without consequence then every citizen now has the right to choose which laws they will follow and which they will not without consequence. What's good for the goose is good for the gander.

I will tell you, however, from my point of view I view the federal government as illegitimate. trump is a traitor, the GOP knew this going into it, and did nothing to stop him, but rather in his illegitimacy they do everything they can to help this traitor impose his will on the citizenry. As a result I already consider the union as being DISSOLVED.

America, in my view point, is a failed country (by it's own standards)

[csziggy]

52. The excerpt does not explain what the sheriffs are objecting to

From the article linked in the OP:

I1639 was passed overwhelmingly by urban voters west of the Cascades, in areas like Seattle and its suburbs, but was rejected in smaller rural counties, especially in the state’s east and south.

The law mostly targets semi-automatic rifles. Purchasers of these weapons must now be over 21, undergo an enhanced background check, have completed a safety course, and need to wait 9 days to take possession of their weapon. Also, gun owners who fail to store their weapons safely risk felony “community endangerment” charges.

So, for the most dangerous weapons now legal the requirements are more stringent. I guess those sheriffs won't mind if one of their unbalanced citizens goes out and shoots a few dozen of the children in their jurisdictions.

[jalan48]

60. As I posted above, the rural sheriff's live in the small communities they have to police.

If the majority of those living in the community oppose these types of gun laws, what is the answer?

[csziggy]

69. The majority of the US does not like many laws Congress passes

But that does not allow us to ignore them or for our local elected officials to refuse to enforce them.

If people object to a law their remedy is to take their case to the courts, not to influence their local sheriff to not enforce it. To simply refuse enforcement is not how our process works.

[jalan48]

70. This is not a national law, it's a state law. My question is how can/does the state enforce it?

[csziggy]

71. The office of sheriff is establlished in the Washington state constitution

AMENDMENT 57

Art. 11 Section 5 COUNTY GOVERNMENT. The legislature, by general and uniform laws, shall provide for the election in the several counties of boards of county commissioners, sheriffs, county clerks, treasurers, prosecuting attorneys and other county, township or precinct and district officers, as public convenience may require, and shall prescribe their duties, and fix their terms of office: Provided, That the legislature may, by general laws, classify the counties by population and provide for the election in certain classes of counties certain officers who shall exercise the powers and perform the duties of two or more officers. It shall regulate the compensation of all such officers, in proportion to their duties, and for that purpose may classify the counties by population: Provided, That it may delegate to the legislative authority of the counties the right to prescribe the salaries of its own members and the salaries of other county officers. And it shall provide for the strict accountability of such officers for all fees which may be collected by them and for all public moneys which may be paid to them, or officially come into their possession.
Art. 11 Section 8 SALARIES AND LIMITATIONS AFFECTING. The salary of any county, city, town, or municipal officers shall not be increased except as provided in section 1 of Article XXX or diminished after his election, or during his term of office; nor shall the term of any such officer be extended beyond the period for which he is elected or appointed. [1971 Senate Joint Resolution No. 38, p 1829. Approved November 7, 1972.]

Prior amendment of Art. 11 Section 5, see Amendment 12.
http://leg.wa.gov/LawsAndAgencyRules/Pages/constitution.aspx

And they can be removed from their office by the legislature, if I am reading this correctly:

SECTION 3 REMOVAL FROM OFFICE. All officers not liable to impeachment shall be subject to removal for misconduct or malfeasance in office, in such manner as may be provided by law.

[jalan48]

72. I understand, but from a practical standpoint who will enforce the law in these small rural towns?

[csziggy]

74. Hopefully someone who will support the state and federal constitutions

And not follow some sovereign citizen shit.

[jalan48]

76. I think it's unenforceable. Without a national law the state will be chasing it's tail.

Sheriff's, if threatened, will simply say they talked to the citizens and found no guns.

[PatrickforO]

56. Civil war.

Strict gun reform at the national level may well bring on civil war.

Much more so than impeaching Trump, reversing the giant tax cut for billionaires and corporations, refusing to build the stupid racist border wall, expanding Medicare to cover all Americans - the consequences to each of these things would be significant but political.

ALL this law does is raise the age to buy a semi-automatic weapon from 18 to 21, and requires safe storage of guns so they can't get in the wrong hands.

THAT IS ALL IT DOES.

I think ultimately we will have to roll in the fucking tanks and roll over these dirtbag militia clowns. WE HAVE A WELL REGULATED MILITIA already. It is called the National Guard, and the Reserves. We don't need a bunch of rubes toting around machine guns.

[LongtimeAZDem]

58. If you honestly believe that, consider this:

Last edited Fri Feb 22, 2019, 12:26 PM - Edit history (1)

[PatrickforO]

89. I'm thinking mostly about those jerks that came out in support of Cliven Bundy and took over that

federal land. They set up machine guns at crossroads and were strutting around asking residents for their 'papers.'

They do that shit again and yeah, we need to roll in the tanks. Because WHEN did it become OK in any way, shape or form for these freaks to come out of the woodwork toting their AK 47s and whatnot and terrorizing innocent civilians. No, our National Guard took OATHS to protect this country against enemies, domestic and foreign, and they better bloody well answer the call if called. Even against some hillbilly 'militia' groups.

I'm not as virulently for gun control as many on this site, not at all. I've always believed that if the playing field was level so people could actually work hard and get ahead - and we had healthcare, strong Social Security, good safety nets, and debt-free college, and no so damned much wealth inequality, and more social equality, there wouldn't be as many mass shootings.

Because to your point, we will never be able to confiscate the automatic and semi-automatic weapons or register all the guns or exert all that much control over them at all.

That doesn't mean roll over or give up, either. But this law in WA? It's as innocuous as you can get and look what's happening? Since WHEN is it OK for a sheriff to not enforce a law they don't like, especially one enacted through a plebiscite?

[LongtimeAZDem]

90. I love your third paragraph, and agree completely. and

I think all of the Bundy supporters, including at least three current Arizona legislators, should be locked up for treason.

The problem with your point about the oaths taken by the National guard is that a great many of them believe that anyone infringing on the right to bear arms IS a domestic enemy. In the event that the "tanks start rolling", as you postulates, the militia groups would probably not be the targets.

As to the Washington Sheriffs, I agree, but it's not a new tactic, and, as people ave pointed out, it's one that we here tend to cheer for when it's a law we don't agree with.

[PatrickforO]

100. Well...that's true. We are not completely free from hypocrisy, are we?

I'm certainly not, though I try to be.

Sigh.

I hope you're wrong about the national guard, reserves, military in general and federal national security people, though. Yes, lots of them are quite conservative, but they really have sworn that oath - I mean, think about Mueller. That guy is probably as conservative as someone can get, but look what he's doing with the Trump investigation. I guess that's what I'm hoping is that the so-called 'deep state' people - the ones who have sworn these oaths - remember how to be Americans when the crunch comes.

I'm encouraged because it looks like the leaders in the national security apparatus, as well as most of the Dems in Congress are mindful of their responsibilities. The Repubs not so much. They have that whole Karl Rove philosophy which totally sucks.

[Calista241]

61. It won't bring civil war, but enough people will die that the rest of the people will freak out

and change the laws to prevent it. There's an estimated 270 million guns in this country. Maybe 50 million of them are semi-automatic rifles. And it's not like firearms have a shelf life. Properly maintained, a firearm will be as functional in 200 years as it is today.

IMO, this is a losing battle for Dems in the long run. Guns are crazy popular in movies, video games, and sports; and trying to remove them from society will only cost us votes and progress in the rest of our agenda. Every second spent talking about guns means we're not working on equality, our environment, science, and protecting ourselves from another Donald Trump.

[PatrickforO]

88. Yes, that is my point - a losing battle in the long run.

I've always been of the opinion that if we can get healthcare, stronger social security, affordable and debt-free college, and a variety of social justice policy changes, then so many people won't malfunction and do mass shootings.

But those bearded militia assholes - like the ones that materialized to support the welfare-rancher Cliven Bundy and took over that federal land - set up machine guns and crossroads and stuff. Nope. Roll in the tanks on them. They want to play militia - we should send in the REAL militia.

[LongtimeAZDem]

57. Many applauded when Arizona Sheriff Dupink refused to enforce anti-immigrant laws

[yaesu]

64. I remember when the Federal ban came into effect, which lasted about 10 years

it was a simple deal of just ending all imports of any kind, new or surplus and sales of new AW in the US. You could still buy and sell between individuals where that was aloud & of coarse use the weapons you had. I believe CA has an assault weapons ban of some kind, many states have magazine restrictions. banning the use or confiscation is a whole different ballgame and will probably not hold up in the highest court. The WA state law is really no different than age limits on handgun purchases in other states.

[El Mimbreno]

65. Similar in New Mexico

Bills in process to require background checks for all gun transfers, including sales or gifts to relatives. Numerous sheriffs opposed and a group is trying to get Grant County to declare itself a "2nd Amendment sanctuary".

What the actual sick F is this?

[duhneece]

97. Otero County has a special meeting scheduled

...next week.

[El Mimbreno]

99. Same thing? best of luck

give 'em hell!!

[duhneece]

103. I gave them hell two weeks ago as we became an 'anti-sanctuary' county

I was polite as I asked about what it really meant, did it increase chances of a lawsuit (our county/sheriff lost a lawsuit 10 years ago for denying due process, profiling, and some other violations. I ended up giving our county commissioner a Nancy Pelosi 'fuck you' clap.

[procon]

66. Isn't this somewhat like the theory of nullification?

Some states have tried to use nullification to dodge federal lawsthey didn't want to enforce, but the courts quickly disabused them of that idea.

These sheriff's seem to be saying they are above the law and are no longer willing to abide their sworn duty to uphold the law. Their effort to nullify state law makes it impossible for them to hold office. Fire them; it's the only option.

[marlakay]

68. Few thoughts I lived rurally for ten years in WA

In mountains. Almost everyone was for guns even democrats. I was on a jury there so saw how police treat people.

Also there were only a few policemen that had a huge range of miles to cover so you knew if you called 911 and they were far away it could be long time before anyone got there. So attitude was we take care of ourselves.

Only a few democrats I met were progressive most were moderates.

Its like two states west and east WA.

So will be interesting to see what happens, the east side has always resented the west but they know the west has more people and votes.

[bluecollar2]

75. They will actually, enforce the laws if

The alleged violators are people of color.

[dlk]

77. Refusal to Obey or Enforce the Law is Grounds for Removal from Office

Whether by impeachment or whatever mechanism exists in the state constitution. If given an inch, they will take a mile.

[duhneece]

79. Our county will pass 'Second Amendment County '

Resolution. Last week they passed a resolution declaring our county NOT to be a Sanctuary County. Our Dem state is passing background check laws... not sure how this will all play out.

[Devil Child]

81. I'm ok with this

Just as I'm ok with nullification of federal marijuana laws and localities refusing to be enforcers for ICE. Olympia and Seattle can send their enforcers if they so choose.

[treestar]

93. Essentially the same as what Kim Davis did

Refusal to administer the law in favor of what they think best.

[workinclasszero]

98. It's a right wing coup

Period.

[Thomas Hurt]

101. LOL, constitutionalists far right, survivalist, racist whackjobs and grifters.

[friendly_iconoclast]

107. "NC sheriffs now oppose mandate to help ICE - but it's closer to becoming law"

https://www.newsobserver.com/news/politics-government/article228789969.html

Local agencies that work with ICE have come under increased scrutiny in recent months, as newly elected sheriffs in five of the state’s seven most populous counties stopped honoring the detainers.

Newly elected sheriffs in Wake and Mecklenburg Counties both ran on platforms that emphasized their opposition to 287(g), a controversial partnership with ICE that enables sheriff’s deputies to check the legal status of inmates in county jail.

HB 370 would not require sheriffs to participate in 287(g), which was pioneered in North Carolina as early as 2006.

But in both sheriffs’ rebuke of the federal agency, they also announced they would stop honoring ICE detainers. Newly elected sheriffs in three other counties —Buncombe, Forsyth and Durham — also made the move in recent months.

[Maxheader]

108. Seems like a reasonable law...children murdered by these weapons

is inexcusable...
20 county sheriffs need to go find another job...

A growing number of sheriffs, almost all in rural counties, have publicly stated that they will not, or believe they cannot, enforce the provisions of I1639, a ballot measure passed by popular vote last November which aims to restrict access to and use of assault weapons

.