‘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.

[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?

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.

As usual you are a wealth of knowledge.  Thank You...

[KFhunter]

Why would deputies enter a house in the first place given this scenario?  Much less inspect for safe storage violations?
If this scenario did play out in a 1639 free zone the report wouldn't include evidence of a 1639 violation.


So how would the prosecutor even know?

[bigtex]

Why would deputies enter a house in the first place given this scenario?  Much less inspect for safe storage violations?
If this scenario did play out in a 1639 free zone the report wouldn't include evidence of a 1639 violation.


So how would the prosecutor even know?

Who said anything about entering the house?

If you recover a stolen gun you probably want to talk to the guy who had his gun stolen.

Hey Jim Bob is this your gun? Ya. Did you know it was stolen? Ya it was stolen a year ago. How come you didn't report it? I don't know...That's a 1639 violation

[KFhunter]

Why would deputies enter a house in the first place given this scenario?  Much less inspect for safe storage violations?
If this scenario did play out in a 1639 free zone the report wouldn't include evidence of a 1639 violation.


So how would the prosecutor even know?

Who said anything about entering the house?

If you recover a stolen gun you probably want to talk to the guy who had his gun stolen.

Hey Jim Bob is this your gun? Ya. Did you know it was stolen? Ya it was stolen a year ago. How come you didn't report it? I don't know...That's a 1639 violation

Then it would be thrown out if the deputies didn't ask if it was stored in accordance with 1639 and verify that.

give me a sec to reread the text...brb

 Subsection (1) of this section does not apply if:
11
(a) The firearm was in secure gun storage, or secured with a
trigger lock or similar device that is designed to prevent the
unauthorized use or discharge of the firearm;


that would take an in home inspection, or the firearm owner to tell the cops his stolen gun had a cable lock on it.  How you prove that?  Easy to cut off.

"officer I didn't realize it was stolen, but it did have a cable lock on it"

[bigtex]

Why would deputies enter a house in the first place given this scenario?  Much less inspect for safe storage violations?
If this scenario did play out in a 1639 free zone the report wouldn't include evidence of a 1639 violation.


So how would the prosecutor even know?

Who said anything about entering the house?

If you recover a stolen gun you probably want to talk to the guy who had his gun stolen.

Hey Jim Bob is this your gun? Ya. Did you know it was stolen? Ya it was stolen a year ago. How come you didn't report it? I don't know...That's a 1639 violation

Then it would be thrown out if the deputies didn't ask if it was stored in accordance with 1639 and verify that.

give me a sec to reread the text...brb

Not true. The storage requirements don't require a gun to be stored in a safe, with a lock, etc. However if you don't store it in a safe or a lock and someone breaks into your house then you must report it missing/stolen within 5 days of noticing it being gone.

(3) Subsection (1) (gun storage requirements) of this section does not apply if:

(a) The firearm was in secure gun storage, or secured with a trigger lock or similar device that is designed to prevent the
 unauthorized use or discharge of the firearm;

or

(d) The prohibited person's access to the firearm was obtained as a result of an unlawful entry, provided that the unauthorized access or theft of the firearm is reported to a local law enforcement agency in the jurisdiction in which the unauthorized access or theft occurred within five days of the time the victim of the unlawful entry knew or reasonably should have known that the firearm had been taken.

[KFhunter]

So if Jim Bob didn't know the gun was stolen, but it did have a cable lock on it, he's good

If the cops aren't enforcing 1639 why would the prosecutor even get that information in the first place?

[bigtex]

So if Jim Bob didn't know the gun was stolen, but it did have a cable lock on it, he's good

If the cops aren't enforcing 1639 why would the prosecutor even get that information in the first place?

Correct.

Because a good, thorough officer would put that in the report as it's part of the whole theft/possession of a stolen gun case. If you have officers starting to not include information in reports then that sets you down a whole different path. And in today's world of police body cameras it's even worse to do it now. Camera footage shows guy essentially admitting to a 1639 violation but it's not even mentioned in the report? Bad day

[KFhunter]

I'm still not sure why the officers would search the whole house for 1639 compliance if they aren't enforcing that law, that confuses me greatly. 

They could take a statement at the kitchen table, in the doorway, in the driveway, at the cop shop, at a coffee shop...anywhere.   


1639 would give them impetus to conduct a search of the house, but if it isn't enforced why then would they do so?


Now if they had a weapon but no perp..that's a different scenario.  If a warrant was served, that would be different too. 

[bigtex]

I'm still not sure why the officers would search the whole house for 1639 compliance if they aren't enforcing that law, that confuses me greatly. 

They could take a statement at the kitchen table, in the doorway, in the driveway, at the cop shop, at a coffee shop...anywhere.   


1639 would give them impetus to conduct a search of the house, but if it isn't enforced why then would they do so?

Where did I say search? You're right they would take a statement anywhere, no search needed.

If the guy admits to 1) Having his gun stolen via a break-in 2) Knowing his gun was stolen and 3) Not reporting it within 5 days of him noticing it was gone he committed a 1639 violation. Simple as that. No search needed.

[KFhunter]

ya, but no one asked Jim Bob if he had a cable lock.   Tossed.

[bigtex]

ya, but no one asked Jim Bob if he had a cable lock.   Tossed.

It doesn't need to have a cable lock!!!!!

You can have 30 fully loaded shotguns on your kitchen counter with no locks on them. If someone breaks-in and steals them and you notify LE within 5 days you can't be charged with a crime!

[KFhunter]

correct

If someone stole Jim Bob's gun with a cable lock on it

OR

If someone stole Jim Bob's gun that was in a safe

OR

Jim Bob reported the theft within 5 days of the break in


Jim Bob is clear. 


So if the cops aren't enforcing 1639 and don't ask all of these questions then there can be no evidence of a 1639 violation, why then would the prosecutor even know of a violation?

[bigtex]

correct

If someone stole Jim Bob's gun with a cable lock on it

OR

If someone stole Jim Bob's gun that was in a safe

OR

Jim Bob reported the theft within 5 days of the break in


Jim Bob is clear.

Correct.

Essentially lock them, and if they are not locked and stolen then you better make sure you report it.

I think many people think it would be common sense if you know your gun is stolen to report it, but I've had several cases where people didn't want to "go thru the trouble" of reporting them stolen.

[KFhunter]

Agree

It's easy to do and could save your bacon, even many years later when who knows what laws we'll have!

[bigtex]

So if the cops aren't enforcing 1639 and don't ask all of these questions then there can be no evidence of a 1639 violation, why then would the prosecutor even know of a violation?

Because it would be part of the theft/burglary investigation.

Did the guy break down a door to get to the gun? How many doors? Were the doors locked? Deadbolt? Locked window? Open window? Did he steal the safe? It all goes to hammering the thief.

It's not a simple "is this your gun?" Yup guy broke in and stole it. "Okay cool see ya later"

[KFhunter]

Thanks for the conversation Bigtex