Washington State Police Chief Vows Zero Enforcement of New Gun Laws

[Remarkableriots]

 

[Remarkableriots]

https://heavy.com/news/2018/11/loren-culp/

Quote

Loren Culp is a police chief in Republic, Washington who refuses to enforce the state’s new gun laws and called to make it a “2nd Amendment Sanctuary City.” Culp wrote on Facebook that he would not allow his officers to enforce a new law passed overwhelmingly by the state’s voters last week.

He should lose his job which is to enforce the laws not enforce just the ones he agrees with imo. 

[darkness35]

Oh boy, I wonder when someone's going to shoot up his department.

 

 

[mclumber1]

26 minutes ago, Remarkableriots said:

https://heavy.com/news/2018/11/loren-culp/

He should lose his job which is to enforce the laws not enforce just the ones he agrees with imo. 

 

The new law is unconstitutional.  Plus it will likely get thrown out because it violated Washington state law on initiatives.

[Keyser_Soze]

2 hours ago, mclumber1 said:

 

The new law is unconstitutional.  Plus it will likely get thrown out because it violated Washington state law on initiatives.

 

 

[Spawn_of_Apathy]

Honestly I have to play devil's advocate a bit. Do I agree with the contents of the new law? Yes. Does the law appear to violate the state constitution? It does, but I also do not know how their state allows their constitution to be amended. For all I know the way the law was passed did just that, which would mean the law doesn't violate the state constitution. 

 

Do I think the Police Chief has the right/authority to refuse to enforce the law? I dunno. If there was a law that those believed to be of hispanic or muslim decent are required to be detain by police until citizen status can be 100% verified, and a police chief came out saying they were not enforcing that law, I think most us here would applaud them. 

 

 

[PaladinSolo]

The law sounds reasonable, so in other words gun nuts will go all herp of my derp on it.

[Reputator]

14 hours ago, mclumber1 said:

 

The new law is unconstitutional.  Plus it will likely get thrown out because it violated Washington state law on initiatives.

 

How is it unconstitutional?

[mclumber1]

9 minutes ago, Reputator said:

 

How is it unconstitutional?

 

It violates the Second Amendment and the Fifth Amendment  by removing the ability for an otherwise law abiding adult to own a semi-automatic rifle. It contradicts the Heller decision with the initiative's safe storage provision. The initiative also contradicted state law when it included more than one subject in the initiative. 

 

[Reputator]

1 minute ago, mclumber1 said:

 

It violates the Second Amendment and the Fifth Amendment  by removing the ability for an otherwise law abiding adult to own a semi-automatic rifle.

 

 

I'm pretty sure we could outlaw anything but a .22 caliber handgun and still fulfill our obligation to the 2nd amendment, which is just fine by me.

[Spawn_of_Apathy]

Why hasn't hell been raised over the 21 year old age restriction for handgun purchases in Texas, if a simple age restriction is such a violation of the constitution?

[johnny]

26 minutes ago, mclumber1 said:

 

It violates the Second Amendment and the Fifth Amendment  by removing the ability for an otherwise law abiding adult to own a semi-automatic rifle. It contradicts the Heller decision with the initiative's safe storage provision. The initiative also contradicted state law when it included more than one subject in the initiative. 

 

I don’t see the problem 

[mclumber1]

1 hour ago, Reputator said:

 

I'm pretty sure we could outlaw anything but a .22 caliber handgun and still fulfill our obligation to the 2nd amendment, which is just fine by me.

 

You'd be wrong, considering the decisions by the Supreme Court in Heller and McDonald. Banning entire classes of firearms that are used for lawful purposes and are common would be unconstitutional.

[Spawn_of_Apathy]

1 minute ago, mclumber1 said:

 

You'd be wrong, considering the decisions by the Supreme Court in Heller and McDonald. Banning entire classes of firearms that are used for lawful purposes and are common would be unconstitutional.

Doesn't that just become circular logic? If their usage is made illegal, then banning them would not be unconstitutional, because there is no lawful use for them. 

[Mercury33]

I feel like they’ve been going about gun laws all wrong. Don’t outlaw any guns. You wanna collect them, go for it. Just start outlawing the ammo. Win/win. 🤷🏻‍♂️

[Reputator]

1 hour ago, Mercury33 said:

I feel like they’ve been going about gun laws all wrong. Don’t outlaw any guns. You wanna collect them, go for it. Just start outlawing the ammo. Win/win. 🤷🏻‍♂️

 

Nah, throw em a bone. Rubber bullets only.

[darkness35]

8 hours ago, mclumber1 said:

 

It violates the Second Amendment and the Fifth Amendment  by removing the ability for an otherwise law abiding adult to own a semi-automatic rifle. It contradicts the Heller decision with the initiative's safe storage provision. The initiative also contradicted state law when it included more than one subject in the initiative. 

 

iT vIOlATEs tHE sEConD aMEnDMENt aNd fIFTH aMenDment

 

 

Man, do I love this rhetoric.

[mclumber1]

16 minutes ago, darkness35 said:

iT vIOlATEs tHE sEConD aMEnDMENt aNd fIFTH aMenDment

 

 

Man, do I love this rhetoric.

 

We can have a back and forth if you'd like.  But your comment is adding much to the conversation.

[darkness35]

29 minutes ago, mclumber1 said:

 

We can have a back and forth if you'd like.  But your comment is adding much to the conversation.

What back and forth?   Oh, you mean the every an incident of a mass shooting, the public opinion calls for gun control, but NRA lobbied politicians/lawmakers choose to use that rhetoric, or dehumanization in statistics?

 

Please don't pull that moral high-ground conservative bullshit.

[Mercury33]

3 hours ago, darkness35 said:

What back and forth?   Oh, you mean the every an incident of a mass shooting, the public opinion calls for gun control, but NRA lobbied politicians/lawmakers choose to use that rhetoric, or dehumanization in statistics?

 

Please don't pull that moral high-ground conservative bullshit.

 

The irony

[mclumber1]

3 hours ago, darkness35 said:

What back and forth?   Oh, you mean the every an incident of a mass shooting, the public opinion calls for gun control, but NRA lobbied politicians/lawmakers choose to use that rhetoric, or dehumanization in statistics?

 

Please don't pull that moral high-ground conservative bullshit.

 

I'm not a conservative, buddy.

[darkness35]

3 minutes ago, mclumber1 said:

 

I'm not a conservative, buddy.

Dubious, but fine.

 

 

Since you believe that this new law is unconstitutional, then how do you propose to curb gun violence?  Restricting access to gun ownership apparently is illegal, so what other viable solutions do you have then?

 

[mclumber1]

6 minutes ago, darkness35 said:

Dubious, but fine.

 

 

Since you believe that this new law is unconstitutional, then how do you propose to curb gun violence?  Restricting access to gun ownership apparently is illegal, so what other viable solutions do you have then?

 

 

1. End the war on drugs and legalize behavior that doesn't harm others.

2. Enact single payer healthcare

3. Universal basic income

4. Give people who want to buy and sell guns a free and easy method  to determine if the buyer is allowed to own firearms (diy background checks)

5. Force law enforcement agencies and the courts to actually report offenses to the nics system, so prohibited people can't sneak through the background checks system.

[darkness35]

I don't see anything potentially wrong with these suggestions.  I'd like to ask this. Regarding 4 and 5, what would be the possible issue that would result these "infringing the second amendment?"

 

Other than that, I'll concede to admit that my initial reaction was unwarranted.

[mclumber1]

16 minutes ago, darkness35 said:

I don't see anything potentially wrong with these suggestions.  I'd like to ask this. Regarding 4 and 5, what would be the possible issue that would result these "infringing the second amendment?"

 

Other than that, I'll concede to admit that my initial reaction was unwarranted.

 

On number 4: One of big issues with current federal gun laws, in relation to private sales, is that I have no idea whether or not the person I might sell to is a prohibited person.  Since individuals do not have access to the NICS system, I cannot verify if Joe Schmoe is a prohibited person.  Because of this, the law is written so that it removes most legal liability from the seller.  Under current law, the seller "Must know, or have reason to believe" that the buyer is a prohibited person.  Of course, this is a difficult thing to prove in court.

 

With the "DIY" background check system, the buyer would go to an FBI web portal and conduct a background check on himself.  If the person passes, the site would generate a unique key that expires in 30 days.  The buyer can then find the gun he wants to buy form a private seller.  The seller gets the key from the buyer, punches it into the same FBI portal, and determines if the person is legit and passed the background check.

 

This does a few things.  First and foremost it puts legal liability on the seller.  Since they had the means to know if a person is prohibited, and the failed to perform the check (or they performed the check and sold the firearm anyways), they would have no excuse as to why they violated the law. 

 

It also gives the seller peace of mind.  I do not want to sell a firearm to someone who isn't allowed to have one.  

 

On number 5:  At least a few of the recent mass shooting would have been prevented if law enforcement agencies and the courts had properly relayed information on the shooters to the NICS database.

[Guest]

5 minutes ago, mclumber1 said:

 

On number 4: One of big issues with current federal gun laws, in relation to private sales, is that I have no idea whether or not the person I might sell to is a prohibited person.  Since individuals do not have access to the NICS system, I cannot verify if Joe Schmoe is a prohibited person.  Because of this, the law is written so that it removes most legal liability from the seller.  Under current law, the seller "Must know, or have reason to believe" that the buyer is a prohibited person.  Of course, this is a difficult thing to prove in court.

 

With the "DIY" background check system, the buyer would go to an FBI web portal and conduct a background check on himself.  If the person passes, the site would generate a unique key that expires in 30 days.  The buyer can then find the gun he wants to buy form a private seller.  The seller gets the key from the buyer, punches it into the same FBI portal, and determines if the person is legit and passed the background check.

 

This does a few things.  First and foremost it puts legal liability on the seller.  Since they had the means to know if a person is prohibited, and the failed to perform the check (or they performed the check and sold the firearm anyways), they would have no excuse as to why they violated the law. 

 

It also gives the seller peace of mind.  I do not want to sell a firearm to someone who isn't allowed to have one. 

 

What evidence is there that gun crime is being committed by prohibited persons who purchase guns in private sales from sellers that were intending lawful sales?

 

This seems like a solution to a problem unrelated to gun crime.

[mclumber1]

13 minutes ago, sblfilms said:

 

What evidence is there that gun crime is being committed by prohibited persons who purchase guns in private sales from sellers that were intending lawful sales?

 

This seems like a solution to a problem unrelated to gun crime.

 

So most gun control legislation then?

[darkness35]

22 minutes ago, mclumber1 said:

 

On number 4: One of big issues with current federal gun laws, in relation to private sales, is that I have no idea whether or not the person I might sell to is a prohibited person.  Since individuals do not have access to the NICS system, I cannot verify if Joe Schmoe is a prohibited person.  Because of this, the law is written so that it removes most legal liability from the seller.  Under current law, the seller "Must know, or have reason to believe" that the buyer is a prohibited person.  Of course, this is a difficult thing to prove in court.

 

With the "DIY" background check system, the buyer would go to an FBI web portal and conduct a background check on himself.  If the person passes, the site would generate a unique key that expires in 30 days.  The buyer can then find the gun he wants to buy form a private seller.  The seller gets the key from the buyer, punches it into the same FBI portal, and determines if the person is legit and passed the background check. 

 

This does a few things.  First and foremost it puts legal liability on the seller.  Since they had the means to know if a person is prohibited, and the failed to perform the check (or they performed the check and sold the firearm anyways), they would have no excuse as to why they violated the law. 

 

It also gives the seller peace of mind.  I do not want to sell a firearm to someone who isn't allowed to have one.  

 

What if the person who doesn't have any pre-existing conditions in which prevents from buying a gun?  So say if the potential person has a specific motive to commit murder/mass killing for a specific intent, but that doesn't show up on their background check?   What kind of information would specifically result someone from being barred in buying a gun?

 

Who would then be responsible in this case?  Would that still be the seller? 

 

22 minutes ago, mclumber1 said:

On number 5:  At least a few of the recent mass shooting would have been prevented if law enforcement agencies and the courts had properly relayed information on the shooters to the NICS database.

 

This I'm not getting.  Were the previous shooters in Vegas and in CA known to have criminal backgrounds or questionable information that allowed them to by guns without a problem?

[Guest]

8 minutes ago, mclumber1 said:

 

So most gun control legislation then?

Yes, because we are hamstrung by the second.

 

But you claimed here that this private seller business was a big issue and when challenged just ducked. Be honest and admit it’s not a big issue and you’re just trying to appear as though you hold a well though out and reasonable position.

[Slug]

7 hours ago, darkness35 said:

This I'm not getting.  Were the previous shooters in Vegas and in CA known to have criminal backgrounds or questionable information that allowed them to by guns without a problem?

Don't know about those, but going back a bit the guy who shot up that church in Texas last year would've been prohibited if the Air Force had updated the correct databases.  Also Dylan Roof, the SC church shooter, would've failed his background check if NICS had gotten updated properly.  The system needs an overhaul and there needs to be more stringent requirements on local law enforcement reporting to the federal database in a timely manner.

[Alpha1Cowboy]

21 hours ago, mclumber1 said:

 

You'd be wrong, considering the decisions by the Supreme Court in Heller and McDonald. Banning entire classes of firearms that are used for lawful purposes and are common would be unconstitutional.

Pretty much this.

 

We need to find more middle ground on the issue here.  I don't agree with the SC decision on Heller, but it is what it is.   

[PaladinSolo]

By the herp of my derp, I say!