State Gun Control Legislation

Quote from roughnready : Law enforcement does not get to get to decide which laws it wants to enforce or make. That is why we have lawmakers. In the Middle Ages and during feudal times, it was very common for a lord of the manor or local sheriff to be both lawmaker and law enforcer. Thankfully, we've progressed past that as a society. Police who do not uphold the law are usually removed from duty.

Actually, it is the duty of any law enforcement officer to refuse to enforce any law that is unconstitutional.

I realize you don't think any gun laws are unconstitutional. KKK politicians like Robert Byrd didn't think forced segregation and other racist laws were unconstitutional either.

Quote from TRNT : IMO violence against our government is unwarranted as long as we have free elections.

That only makes sense if you believe in the absolute power of the majority to do anything.

Quote from Elmer : Actually, it is the duty of any law enforcement officer to refuse to enforce any law that is unconstitutional. I realize you don't think any gun laws are unconstitutional. KKK politicians like Robert Byrd didn't think forced segregation and other racist laws were unconstitutional either.

And every military officer too. And I suspect that many officers through enlisted (not the political flag officers, of course) will refuse as well.

Quote from ConservativeNYer : That only makes sense if you believe in the absolute power of the majority to do anything.

this is not about "anything." this is about the majority decide that while certain guns are legal, certain other guns are not. and some want to commit violence against the gov.

Quote from Elmer : Actually, it is the duty of any law enforcement officer to refuse to enforce any law that is unconstitutional.

In the United States, there is something called a separation of powers, which includes a lawmaking branch of government that makes the laws and a judiciary to review the constitutionality of laws. Local police officers and sheriffs were never given a veto power over our civilian government per the U.S. Constiution, fortunately. And as mentioned, there were periods in history, especially during fuedal times, when the local sheriffs were judge, jury, and executioner. A gun and a set of handcuffs is not nearly the same as legal training, popular election, or appointment to a judgeship.

Quote from JackHandey : http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BS3H6Cakwpw

Sweet lord. Government where everyone makes the rules has a name. It's called anarchy.

Quote from roughnready : Sweet lord. Government where everyone makes the rules has a name. It's called anarchy.

Government that breaks its social contract with the people and engages in denying fundamental rights has a name, it's called tyranny.

Now, by all means demonstrate where anyone suggested going without any government or any rules of law? That is after all the definition of anarchy. Those that would oppose such law simply oppose a government that neither reflects the will of the people, nor does it stay within the constitution that defines the scope of influence said government may have. Some forget that the government serves at the will and convenience of the people, not the other way around.

The inherent problem with enacting such a law, is if the people end up essentially at war with those in law enforcement, anarchy could very well result, pending government handling things in a way the people find acceptable and law enforcement not encroaching on the rights of the people.

I tend to think in general that local law enforcement will not want to touch this with a ten foot pole, and state troopers will have to be the ones to enforce it. Right up until those subjected to this law create a database of where state troopers live, Then even they will not want to enforce it.

Quote from nobama : From NRA ILA: Senate Bill 5737 [wa.gov], just introduced by state Senators Ed Murray (D-43) and Jeanne Kohl-Welles (D-36), would ban the sale of commonly owned semi-automatic firearms. This bill would ban the manufacture, transfer, possession, purchase and sale of firearms arbitrarily defined as “assault weapons”, semi-automatic firearms commonly owned by law-abiding citizens for self-defense, based on mainly cosmetic features. SB 5737 would also ban the possession of any semiautomatic firearm along with a magazine that holds more than ten rounds. A violation of these, and other provisions listed in the bill, is a class C felony. Owners of these firearms could keep them IF they subjected themselves to annual in-home inspections by law enforcement and complied with stringent and impractical storage and transportation requirements.

Hooray States' rights.

http://www.leg.wa.gov/LAWSANDAGEN...ution.aspx

Quote : 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.

Quote from roughnready : Local police officers and sheriffs were never given a veto power over our civilian government per the U.S. Constiution, fortunately.

Actually they were, and it was quite explicit [wikipedia.org]:

Quote : The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

Considering the Constitution was meant to limit the powers of the Federal government, the inclusion of the 10th would give that veto power to the respective States.

Now where in the Constitution does it give the Feds power to force the States into enforcing Federal law?

Quote from JackHandey : Government that breaks its social contract with the people and engages in denying fundamental rights has a name, it's called tyranny.

What if police decided that they no longer wanted to enforce the Fourth Amendment? (Some argue that this is already partially the case.) They could enter your home at will. They could seize your property. What if the police did not want to enforce laws against the unlawful killing of another person? They could shoot you on the site without threat of repercussion. Before tossing around concepts about "breaking the social contract" and "tyrrany," you should really consider the significance of these terms. The threshold for a breakdown of the social contract does not mean having to comply with a law you don't like or not liking the result of an election. There is much more at stake here than to be so arbitrary about invoking these words.

Quote : Now, by all means demonstrate where anyone suggested going without any government or any rules of law? That is after all the definition of anarchy.

One definition of anarchy is "mob rule." By letting police officers, fire fighters, and whomever else has taken an oath supplant judge, jury, and democratically-elected officials is de facto mob rule, in my opinion. Heck, I've taken several oaths. (I'm not a law enforcement officer either.) Does that mean I get to decide what's constitutional? We can all actually take a SlickDeal oath to uphold the Constitution right now.

Quote : Some forget that the government serves at the will and convenience of the people, not the other way around.

Exactly. That's why we vote. We are not a police state. We do not let sheriffs and police officers govern us.

Quote from paperboy05 : Actually they were, and it was quite explicit [wikipedia.org]: Considering the Constitution was meant to limit the powers of the Federal government, the inclusion of the 10th would give that veto power to the respective States.

This empowers state government. It does not refer to state and local police.

Quote from roughnready : This empowers state government. It does not refer to state and local police.

Who do you think they work for if not the state government?

Quote from roughnready : What if police decided that they no longer wanted to enforce the Fourth Amendment? (Some argue that this is already partially the case.) They could enter your home at will. They could seize your property. What if the police did not want to enforce laws against the unlawful killing of another person? They could shoot you on the site without threat of repercussion. Before tossing around concepts about "breaking the social contract" and "tyrrany," you should really consider the significance of these terms. The threshold for a breakdown of the social contract does not mean having to comply with a law you don't like or not liking the result of an election. There is much more at stake here than to be so arbitrary about invoking these words.

The fourth is a codified limit to their authority, not a law for them to enforce. Yes, they could engage in killing the populace, without internal consequences... but, I assure you the social consequences for that would not bode well for them.

You are correct that there is much at stake here, though. The relationship between the government and the people is reaching a point of significant change in one direction or another. It will either mean that the constitution will become even more meaningless than it is currently, or it will become stronger than it has been in decades.

Quote : One definition of anarchy is "mob rule." By letting police officers, fire fighters, and whomever else has taken an oath supplant judge, jury, and democratically-elected officials is de facto mob rule, in my opinion. Heck, I've taken several oaths. (I'm not a law enforcement officer either.) Does that mean I get to decide what's constitutional? We can all actually take a SlickDeal oath to uphold the Constitution right now.

The difference is, I believe the problem would occur after an attempt to enforce such a law, and you believe it comes with refusal to enforce it. You have to come to your own conclusions as to what you believe is constitutional, and your reactions to it (and deal with whatever the consequences are).

Quote : Exactly. That's why we vote. We are not a police state. We do not let sheriffs and police officers govern us.

Police officers are more than governmental thugs (or at least should be). They are tasked with ensuring that peace/order are maintained, and that they follow constitutional laws and orders from those above them. Just following orders does not excuse actions, when one should know the orders themselves were never legal to begin with.

Quote from roughnready : What if police decided that they no longer wanted to enforce the Fourth Amendment? (Some argue that this is already partially the case.) They could enter your home at will. They could seize your property. What if the police did not want to enforce laws against the unlawful killing of another person? They could shoot you on the site without threat of repercussion.

Lack of enforcement is not equivalent to explicit engagement.

If the Feds pass a law in which slavery is again legal, do you put fault in local/State forces that refuse to enforce the law?

Quote from nobama : From NRA ILA: Senate Bill 5737 [wa.gov], just introduced by state Senators Ed Murray (D-43) and Jeanne Kohl-Welles (D-36), would ban the sale of commonly owned semi-automatic firearms. This bill would ban the manufacture, transfer, possession, purchase and sale of firearms arbitrarily defined as “assault weapons”, semi-automatic firearms commonly owned by law-abiding citizens for self-defense, based on mainly cosmetic features. SB 5737 would also ban the possession of any semiautomatic firearm along with a magazine that holds more than ten rounds. A violation of these, and other provisions listed in the bill, is a class C felony. Owners of these firearms could keep them IF they subjected themselves to annual in-home inspections by law enforcement and complied with stringent and impractical storage and transportation requirements.

If it does pass, it won't pass referendum.