No products in the cart.

News

Critical Question: ‘What If Sheriffs Don’t Enforce Gun Laws?’

Is a showdown looming between state and local governments on gun control?

Amid what appears to be an insurrection of county sheriffs and county governing boards in several states against restrictive gun laws, Pacific Standard magazine has finally asked the proverbial “$64 question,” what happens next?

The headline is certainly an eye-catcher:  “What Happens if Sheriffs Refuse to Enforce State Gun-Control Laws?”

Part of the answer may be found in Washington State, where anti-gun Gov. Jay Inslee and Attorney General Bob Ferguson—both supporters of gun control Initiative 1639 that passed last fall, raising the age of purchase for a semi-auto rifle to 21—recently sent letters to county sheriffs and gun dealers, demanding that they obey the law and the “will of the people.”

Apparently Democrats Inslee and Ferguson never read the late Ayn Rand, who once observed, “Individual rights are not subject to a public vote; a majority has no right to vote away the rights of a minority; the political function of rights is precisely to protect minorities from oppression by majorities (and the smallest minority on earth is the individual).”

In New Mexico, Gov. Michelle Lujan Grisham may be in an uncomfortable spot because a majority of sheriffs in her state think a new gun law is “feel good” legislation that is unenforceable. But it is more serious than that, as “25 of New Mexico’s 33 counties (have) approved so-called ‘Second Amendment sanctuary ordinances’,” in protest of gun control measures backed by Democrat state lawmakers, the story said.

The article noted that last fall, eight of ten counties that had a Second Amendment preservation ordinance on the November ballot passed their measures.

So, the answer to the magazine’s headline question may be far less important than what doesn’t happen: Law abiding gun owners are not treated like criminals or second-class citizens. And they might be motivated to activism, to make certain that nothing continues to happen, by replacing lawmakers who support gun control legislation with representatives more like them, who are more inclined toward firearms freedom.

Attribution:LIBERTY PARK PRESS

9

nancy.larned

Liberty Tree Membership Drive

4 comments

  1. As things are going in Washington right now, it will probably just stave off the inevitable. Here’s the rub, standing up for 1 Unconstitutional law is not enough. Just standing up for Unconstitutional Gun Laws, is not enough (Red Flags being at top of list). They must recognize and understand that things like “Civil Forfeiture” must be included for legitimacy. They must also recognize that they will be supported if they do in fact, follow the Constitution as written.

    Absent of that, the next best action would be to stand back and allow “Critical Mass.” “Things have a way of working themselves out.” Benton County WA Sheriff’s Deputy on a different matter. He was correct.

  2. “Amid what appears to be an insurrection of county sheriffs and county governing boards in several states against restrictive gun laws…”

    Actually, they are Oath bound to not enforce any gun law because that is a power that was RETAINED by the people to decide for themselves, and forbidden (2nd Amendment) to those who serve at any level within our governments – state and federal.

    http://webstersdictionary1828.com/Dictionary
    INFRINGE, verb transitive infrinj’. [Latin infringo; in and frango, to break. See Break.]
    1. To break, as contracts; to violate, either positively by contravention, or negatively by non-fulfillment or neglect of performance. A prince or a private person infringes an agreement or covenant by neglecting to perform its conditions, as well as by doing what is stipulated not to be done.
    2. To break; to violate; to transgress; to neglect to fulfill or obey; as, to infringe a law.
    3. To destroy or hinder; as, to infringe efficacy. [Little used.]

    http://webstersdictionary1828.com/Dictionary
    PRE’AMBLE, noun [Latin proe, before, and ambulo, to go.]
    1. Something previous; introduction to a discourse or writing.
    2. The introductory part of a statute, which states the reasons and intent of the law.
    PRE’AMBLE, verb transitive To preface; to introduce with previous remarks.

    Preamble to the Bill of Rights: Congress Of The United States begun and held at the City of New York, on Wednesday the Fourth of March, one thousand seven hundred and eighty nine.
    THE Conventions of a number of the States having at the time of their adopting the Constitution, expressed a desire, in order to prevent misconstruction or abuse of its powers, that further declaratory and restrictive clauses should be added: And as extending the ground of public confidence in the Government, will best insure the beneficent ends of its institution.”

    Those Officers kept their Oaths, I believe that is a rare and dangerous act of courage, honor, morality today!

  3. All gun legislation is unconstitutional. Any weapon the government has is my right to have. It’s our God given right to defend ourselves from all evil…. government included. Imagine our revolution had the enemy been armed with todays weapons and the citizen a pitch fork. Be ckear headed to the end game. We Americans are a freedom torch. Inslee et al can shovel their coal in hell.

  4. Thanks you Dave Workman. I particularly love the quote: “Individual rights are not subject to a public vote; a majority has no right to vote away the rights of a minority; the political function of rights is precisely to protect minorities from oppression by majorities (and the smallest minority on earth is the individual).” It brings to mind the thought about two wolves and a sheep voting on what to have for dinner.

Leave a Reply