‘I’m Not Going to Enforce That’: Sheriffs Disobey New Anti-Gun Laws—Refuse to Di

[wolfbait]

‘I’m Not Going to Enforce That’: Sheriffs Disobey New Anti-Gun Laws—Refuse to Disarm Citizens

https://freedomoutpost.com/im-not-going-to-enforce-that-sheriffs-disobey-new-anti-gun-laws-refuse-to-disarm-citizens/

[Stein]

Interesting topic, the state pulls the sanctuary city card without fully thinking that someone else may try the same thing on another issue.  What a slippery slope we find ourselves on when leave the rule of law.

[bornhunter]

 

‘I’m Not Going to Enforce That’: Sheriffs Disobey New Anti-Gun Laws—Refuse to Disarm Citizens

https://freedomoutpost.com/im-not-going-to-enforce-that-sheriffs-disobey-new-anti-gun-laws-refuse-to-disarm-citizens/

[csaaphill]

Interesting topic, the state pulls the sanctuary city card without fully thinking that someone else may try the same thing on another issue.  What a slippery slope we find ourselves on when leave the rule of law.

\
 

[csaaphill]

‘I’m Not Going to Enforce That’: Sheriffs Disobey New Anti-Gun Laws—Refuse to Disarm Citizens

https://freedomoutpost.com/im-not-going-to-enforce-that-sheriffs-disobey-new-anti-gun-laws-refuse-to-disarm-citizens/

Only way to stay free is if LEO actually uphold their Oath. 
(Not all), but some Sheriffs know their duty lies with us, not Govt Sadly most don't.

[KFhunter]

The courts have long upheld that cops don't have to enforce laws, to do other wise removes discretion, which means no more verbal warnings for tickets for example.

The sanctuary city laws exploded the use of discretion, Sheriff's are following in that wake. 


It is interesting!

[boneaddict]

im glad someone is pushing back, just not sure its enough

[Special T]

When I see a sheriff  step between a trooper and a citizen to protect thier rights I'll get excited. Since I dont see this happening I wont get to excited.

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G930A using Tapatalk

[bigtex]

What this really means is deputies of the involved counties won't arrest people for 1639 violations. Can people still be charged? Absolutely. It's the prosecutor who decides what and when to charge people, not individual officers.

Perfect example: Officers arrest a guy for possessing a stolen firearm, the thief says he took it from Jim Bob's house. Officers go to Jim Bob's house and during their contact the officers determine he did not comply with storage or theft notification requirements. Jim Bob is not arrested because his boss (the sheriff) told his deputies to not enforce the law. The report regarding the entire case (arresting a guy for the stolen gun and Jim Bob's admission) is forwarded to the prosecutor's office. The prosecutor does not work for the sheriff. The prosecutor charges the perp with theft of a firearm and charges Jim Bob with violating 1639 requirements.

In fact the above example is exactly what the Franklin County Sheriff told reporters about what will occur in his county: “My position is I don’t want to physically, or my deputies, go out arresting anybody for any of these types of crimes,” said Sheriff Raymond. “There’s a better avenue which is to document it and forward it (to the prosecutor.)”

https://keprtv.com/news/local/franklin-county-sheriff-will-not-enforce-i-1639-commissioners-pass-resolution-in-support

Now with all that being said, all of the sheriff's involved that have come out with statements saying they will not enforce the law come from heavily conservative areas. Chances are the prosecutor is also heavily conservative (but there are instances where a conservative sheriff and liberal prosecutor are elected) so who knows if those reports sent to the prosecutor will go anywhere.

[Special T]

What this really means is deputies of the involved counties won't arrest people for 1639 violations. Can people still be charged? Absolutely. It's the prosecutor who decides what and when to charge people, not individual officers.

Perfect example: Officers arrest a guy for possessing a stolen firearm, the thief says he took it from Jim Bob's house. Officers go to Jim Bob's house and during their contact the officers determine he did not comply with storage or theft notification requirements. Jim Bob is not arrested because his boss (the sheriff) told his deputies to not enforce the law. The report regarding the entire case (arresting a guy for the stolen gun and Jim Bob's admission) is forwarded to the prosecutor's office. The prosecutor does not work for the sheriff. The prosecutor charges the perp with theft of a firearm and charges Jim Bob with violating 1639 requirements.

In fact the above example is exactly what the Franklin County Sheriff told reporters about what will occur in his county: “My position is I don’t want to physically, or my deputies, go out arresting anybody for any of these types of crimes,” said Sheriff Raymond. “There’s a better avenue which is to document it and forward it (to the prosecutor.)”

https://keprtv.com/news/local/franklin-county-sheriff-will-not-enforce-i-1639-commissioners-pass-resolution-in-support

Now with all that being said, all of the sheriff's involved that have come out with statements saying they will not enforce the law come from heavily conservative areas. Chances are the prosecutor is also heavily conservative (but there are instances where a conservative sheriff and liberal prosecutor are elected) so who knows if those reports sent to the prosecutor will go anywhere.

So in the very slim chance the Procecutor does not charge Jim Bob, would that mean the State could charge Him? (I would assume the answer is yes)

[bigtex]

What this really means is deputies of the involved counties won't arrest people for 1639 violations. Can people still be charged? Absolutely. It's the prosecutor who decides what and when to charge people, not individual officers.

Perfect example: Officers arrest a guy for possessing a stolen firearm, the thief says he took it from Jim Bob's house. Officers go to Jim Bob's house and during their contact the officers determine he did not comply with storage or theft notification requirements. Jim Bob is not arrested because his boss (the sheriff) told his deputies to not enforce the law. The report regarding the entire case (arresting a guy for the stolen gun and Jim Bob's admission) is forwarded to the prosecutor's office. The prosecutor does not work for the sheriff. The prosecutor charges the perp with theft of a firearm and charges Jim Bob with violating 1639 requirements.

In fact the above example is exactly what the Franklin County Sheriff told reporters about what will occur in his county: “My position is I don’t want to physically, or my deputies, go out arresting anybody for any of these types of crimes,” said Sheriff Raymond. “There’s a better avenue which is to document it and forward it (to the prosecutor.)”

https://keprtv.com/news/local/franklin-county-sheriff-will-not-enforce-i-1639-commissioners-pass-resolution-in-support

Now with all that being said, all of the sheriff's involved that have come out with statements saying they will not enforce the law come from heavily conservative areas. Chances are the prosecutor is also heavily conservative (but there are instances where a conservative sheriff and liberal prosecutor are elected) so who knows if those reports sent to the prosecutor will go anywhere.

So in the very slim chance the Procecutor does not charge Jim Bob, would that mean the State could charge Him? (I would assume the answer is yes)

The prosecutor prosecutes on behalf of the state in all cases. So if the county prosecutor charged Jim Bob it would be State of WA vs Jim Bob.

The AG can only get involved in criminal prosecutions if they are asked to do so by the prosecutor's office (such as a big case in a small county with no experienced prosecutors), the request of the governor, or the request of the legislature. That being said, if this were to occur the law requires the AG to work concurrently with the county prosecutor. The AG's Office actually does more civil casework than it does criminal casework. When it's involved with criminal casework it's taking on large scale corporations, etc. for significant crimes, not exactly going after Jim Bob.

Now what you may see happen is RCW 43.10.090 being used which is essentially a law that goes after prosecutors for failing to prosecute certain crimes:

Upon the written request of the governor, the attorney general shall investigate violations of the criminal laws within this state.

If, after such investigation, the attorney general believes that the criminal laws are improperly enforced in any county, and that the prosecuting attorney of the county has failed or neglected to institute and prosecute violations of such criminal laws, either generally or with regard to a specific offense or class of offenses, the attorney general shall direct the prosecuting attorney to take such action in connection with any prosecution as the attorney general determines to be necessary and proper.

If any prosecuting attorney, after the receipt of such instructions from the attorney general, fails or neglects to comply therewith within a reasonable time, the attorney general may initiate and prosecute such criminal actions as he or she shall determine. In connection therewith, the attorney general shall have the same powers as would otherwise be vested in the prosecuting attorney.

From the time the attorney general has initiated or taken over a criminal prosecution, the prosecuting attorney shall not have power or authority to take any legal steps relating to such prosecution, except as authorized or directed by the attorney general.

[Special T]

What this really means is deputies of the involved counties won't arrest people for 1639 violations. Can people still be charged? Absolutely. It's the prosecutor who decides what and when to charge people, not individual officers.

Perfect example: Officers arrest a guy for possessing a stolen firearm, the thief says he took it from Jim Bob's house. Officers go to Jim Bob's house and during their contact the officers determine he did not comply with storage or theft notification requirements. Jim Bob is not arrested because his boss (the sheriff) told his deputies to not enforce the law. The report regarding the entire case (arresting a guy for the stolen gun and Jim Bob's admission) is forwarded to the prosecutor's office. The prosecutor does not work for the sheriff. The prosecutor charges the perp with theft of a firearm and charges Jim Bob with violating 1639 requirements.

In fact the above example is exactly what the Franklin County Sheriff told reporters about what will occur in his county: “My position is I don’t want to physically, or my deputies, go out arresting anybody for any of these types of crimes,” said Sheriff Raymond. “There’s a better avenue which is to document it and forward it (to the prosecutor.)”

https://keprtv.com/news/local/franklin-county-sheriff-will-not-enforce-i-1639-commissioners-pass-resolution-in-support

Now with all that being said, all of the sheriff's involved that have come out with statements saying they will not enforce the law come from heavily conservative areas. Chances are the prosecutor is also heavily conservative (but there are instances where a conservative sheriff and liberal prosecutor are elected) so who knows if those reports sent to the prosecutor will go anywhere.

So in the very slim chance the Procecutor does not charge Jim Bob, would that mean the State could charge Him? (I would assume the answer is yes)

The prosecutor prosecutes on behalf of the state in all cases. So if the county prosecutor charged Jim Bob it would be State of WA vs Jim Bob.

The AG can only get involved in criminal prosecutions if they are asked to do so by the prosecutor's office (such as a big case in a small county with no experienced prosecutors), the request of the governor, or the request of the legislature. That being said, if this were to occur the law requires the AG to work concurrently with the county prosecutor. The AG's Office actually does more civil casework than it does criminal casework. When it's involved with criminal casework it's taking on large scale corporations, etc. for significant crimes, not exactly going after Jim Bob.

Now what you may see happen is RCW 43.10.090 being used which is essentially a law that goes after prosecutors for failing to prosecute certain crimes:

Upon the written request of the governor, the attorney general shall investigate violations of the criminal laws within this state.

If, after such investigation, the attorney general believes that the criminal laws are improperly enforced in any county, and that the prosecuting attorney of the county has failed or neglected to institute and prosecute violations of such criminal laws, either generally or with regard to a specific offense or class of offenses, the attorney general shall direct the prosecuting attorney to take such action in connection with any prosecution as the attorney general determines to be necessary and proper.

If any prosecuting attorney, after the receipt of such instructions from the attorney general, fails or neglects to comply therewith within a reasonable time, the attorney general may initiate and prosecute such criminal actions as he or she shall determine. In connection therewith, the attorney general shall have the same powers as would otherwise be vested in the prosecuting attorney.

From the time the attorney general has initiated or taken over a criminal prosecution, the prosecuting attorney shall not have power or authority to take any legal steps relating to such prosecution, except as authorized or directed by the attorney general.

So more than likely we would see some kind of massive plead deal and minor infraction like what happend to the guy that shot the Wolf in ?Whitman? county.. I get the feeling this is just virture signaling, however it may be just an indicator that IF they are forced to do something its just a slap on the wrist... Can you point us to any notable example of how this has played out in  past Examples?

[Lucky1]

I believe this is being considered in Cowlitz County.

[Stein]

I would love to be the guy asking questions at the first presidential debate. 

[bigtex]

What this really means is deputies of the involved counties won't arrest people for 1639 violations. Can people still be charged? Absolutely. It's the prosecutor who decides what and when to charge people, not individual officers.

Perfect example: Officers arrest a guy for possessing a stolen firearm, the thief says he took it from Jim Bob's house. Officers go to Jim Bob's house and during their contact the officers determine he did not comply with storage or theft notification requirements. Jim Bob is not arrested because his boss (the sheriff) told his deputies to not enforce the law. The report regarding the entire case (arresting a guy for the stolen gun and Jim Bob's admission) is forwarded to the prosecutor's office. The prosecutor does not work for the sheriff. The prosecutor charges the perp with theft of a firearm and charges Jim Bob with violating 1639 requirements.

In fact the above example is exactly what the Franklin County Sheriff told reporters about what will occur in his county: “My position is I don’t want to physically, or my deputies, go out arresting anybody for any of these types of crimes,” said Sheriff Raymond. “There’s a better avenue which is to document it and forward it (to the prosecutor.)”

https://keprtv.com/news/local/franklin-county-sheriff-will-not-enforce-i-1639-commissioners-pass-resolution-in-support

Now with all that being said, all of the sheriff's involved that have come out with statements saying they will not enforce the law come from heavily conservative areas. Chances are the prosecutor is also heavily conservative (but there are instances where a conservative sheriff and liberal prosecutor are elected) so who knows if those reports sent to the prosecutor will go anywhere.

So in the very slim chance the Procecutor does not charge Jim Bob, would that mean the State could charge Him? (I would assume the answer is yes)

The prosecutor prosecutes on behalf of the state in all cases. So if the county prosecutor charged Jim Bob it would be State of WA vs Jim Bob.

The AG can only get involved in criminal prosecutions if they are asked to do so by the prosecutor's office (such as a big case in a small county with no experienced prosecutors), the request of the governor, or the request of the legislature. That being said, if this were to occur the law requires the AG to work concurrently with the county prosecutor. The AG's Office actually does more civil casework than it does criminal casework. When it's involved with criminal casework it's taking on large scale corporations, etc. for significant crimes, not exactly going after Jim Bob.

Now what you may see happen is RCW 43.10.090 being used which is essentially a law that goes after prosecutors for failing to prosecute certain crimes:

Upon the written request of the governor, the attorney general shall investigate violations of the criminal laws within this state.

If, after such investigation, the attorney general believes that the criminal laws are improperly enforced in any county, and that the prosecuting attorney of the county has failed or neglected to institute and prosecute violations of such criminal laws, either generally or with regard to a specific offense or class of offenses, the attorney general shall direct the prosecuting attorney to take such action in connection with any prosecution as the attorney general determines to be necessary and proper.

If any prosecuting attorney, after the receipt of such instructions from the attorney general, fails or neglects to comply therewith within a reasonable time, the attorney general may initiate and prosecute such criminal actions as he or she shall determine. In connection therewith, the attorney general shall have the same powers as would otherwise be vested in the prosecuting attorney.

From the time the attorney general has initiated or taken over a criminal prosecution, the prosecuting attorney shall not have power or authority to take any legal steps relating to such prosecution, except as authorized or directed by the attorney general.

So more than likely we would see some kind of massive plead deal and minor infraction like what happend to the guy that shot the Wolf in ?Whitman? county.. I get the feeling this is just virture signaling, however it may be just an indicator that IF they are forced to do something its just a slap on the wrist... Can you point us to any notable example of how this has played out in  past Examples?

Something similar to that. The minimum fine for a misdemeanor 1639 violation is $0. Obviously prosecutors don't prosecute every crime that comes across their desk whether its due to lack of staff or whatever. But if in a few years the AG looks and sees that 100 reports of 1639 violations were forwarded to a prosecutor and none of them were prosecuted then yes you might see the AG getting involved for the county for failing to prosecute crimes. This oversight law was created specifically for this reason.

As far as previous examples, I don't know if the law has ever had to be used.