Clark County on 1639

[slavenoid]

Statement on I-1639

Initiative 1639, which was passed by a vote of the people, makes significant changes to the firearm laws of the State of Washington.  The initiative is being challenged in court.  The Clark County Sheriff’s Office will evaluate the statutory requirements of initiative 1639 and will adopt policy consistent with state law and any subsequent judicial rulings.  The Clark County Sheriff's Office will adhere to the law as passed by a vote of the people unless a court rules that it is unconstitutional.

[Jason]

We're a county full of sheep and the Sheriff is one of them!

[3dvapor]

remember this when the next election comes around and use your checkbook to get rid of these guys.  I wish we had an organization to where we could focus our money and time to help turn this state several politicians at a time.

[Knocker of rocks]

Remember the outrage on this board when the police refuse to enforce laws on drugs, immigration status without probable cause and homelessness, among other examples. If the police were in the wrong then for not following state law, why are they wrong now for following state law?

[Lucky1]

Remember the outrage on this board when the police refuse to enforce laws on drugs, immigration status without probable cause and homelessness, among other examples. If the police were in the wrong then for not following state law, why are they wrong now for following state law?

When the people vote in a unconstitutional law. I believe that it is unconstitutional to inforce it.

[Knocker of rocks]

Remember the outrage on this board when the police refuse to enforce laws on drugs, immigration status without probable cause and homelessness, among other examples. If the police were in the wrong then for not following state law, why are they wrong now for following state law?

When the people vote in a unconstitutional law. I believe that it is unconstitutional to inforce it.

Who said it was unconstitutional?  Court challenges to that effect are nowhere to be seen. Now that it has been law for a month there has been time to get this to court.

[HntnFsh]

Remember the outrage on this board when the police refuse to enforce laws on drugs, immigration status without probable cause and homelessness, among other examples. If the police were in the wrong then for not following state law, why are they wrong now for following state law?

When the people vote in a unconstitutional law. I believe that it is unconstitutional to inforce it.

Who said it was unconstitutional?  Court challenges to that effect are nowhere to be seen. Now that it has been law for a month there has been time to get this to court.

I don't think there has been time t get it to court. I may be wrong but doesn't somebody have to be charged with an I1639 crime before it can be challenged?

[Knocker of rocks]

I don't think there has been time t get it to court. I may be wrong but doesn't somebody have to be charged with an I1639 crime before it can be challenged?

I think that is the most common avenue, but I think there are other ways too, including the feds. I am really shocked nothing has been done yet. One thing that strikes me is that the initiative deals with too many subjects, the same problem that Tim Eyeman’s initiatives fail at. This could also be explained away by I-1693 hiring better (or even any) lawyers to help write the initiative. Unlike Eyeman, the backers of I 1639 wanted their initiative to pass legal scrutiny,  where as Eyeman has a vested interest in his iniatives failing in court and he can run the same thing out year after year and pad his pockets.

[Lucky1]

Remember the outrage on this board when the police refuse to enforce laws on drugs, immigration status without probable cause and homelessness, among other examples. If the police were in the wrong then for not following state law, why are they wrong now for following state law?

When the people vote in a unconstitutional law. I believe that it is unconstitutional to inforce it.

Who said it was unconstitutional?  Court challenges to that effect are nowhere to be seen. Now that it has been law for a month there has been time to get this to court.

I don't think there has been time t get it to court. I may be wrong but doesn't somebody have to be charged with an I1639 crime before it can be challenged?

I believe it is being challenged in the courts. I will try to find a link.
The part of the law that has already kicked in violates the rights of 18 to 21 year old people to purchase firearms. I think that is in litigation.
I believe the ballot initiative itself did not meet the requirements of the laws that regulate the initiative process, but a liberal judge let it go on the ballot anyway. If it had been a initiative that Tim Eyman had brought to try to put the brakes on our tax and spend legislative body, I believe it would have been thrown out. 
 

[700xcr]

Remember the outrage on this board when the police refuse to enforce laws on drugs, immigration status without probable cause and homelessness, among other examples. If the police were in the wrong then for not following state law, why are they wrong now for following state law?

Like Spokane County Sheriff said How can they enforce it? Like the gun storage?
https://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/fourth_amendment

[slavenoid]

If an FFL was selling 10/22s to 18 year olds wouldn't it be up to the local Police or Sheriff's office to enforce the laws and make an arrest? If it's a state law it wouldn't seem like a federal agency would get involved. So in theory a Sheriff and the prosecutor would have ultimate power in not enforcing 1639 right? Well maybe until they get burried in lawsuits from the attorney general.

[Lucky1]

http://mynorthwest.com/1186859/nra-second-amendment-foundation-suing-wa-over-i-1639/?


https://www.seattletimes.com/seattle-news/politics/gun-rights-advocates-file-lawsuit-to-block-i-1639-the-gun-regulations-measure-approved-by-washington-voters/

[Knocker of rocks]

That was 2 1/2 months ago.  I wonder how they are progressing?

[Lucky1]

I am amazed at how long things can drag out in court.

If you have a judge with a agenda they seem to be able to speed things along, or slow them down.

[Mongo Hunter]

Statement on I-1639

The Clark County Sheriff's Office will adhere to the law as passed by a vote of the people unless a court rules that it is unconstitutional.

It is unconstitutional you TWIT! do you wait for the court to approve you to wipe your butt too?