Police chief won't enforce new gun laws

mAlice

professional daydreamer
Police chief in eastern Washington says his officers won't enforce new gun laws

On a Facebook page called "Republic Police WA", Chief Loren Culp wrote "The second amendment says the right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. As long as I am Chief of Police, no Republic Police Officer will infringe on citizens right to keep and Bear Arms [sic], PERIOD!"

In a phone interview with KXLY, Culp said "We took an oath to uphold and defend the constitution of the United States and the constitution of the State of Washington, and [I-1639] completely flies in the face of both the U.S. and state constitution."

https://www.kxly.com/news/police-ch...hZSw9Xx14KO5C8ZuACnHn7al2eTvUKtHTQXr8KmvDjqO4
 

Bonehead

Well-Known Member
We sure could use more of this type of law enforcement in this country. Common sense not PC BS.
 

limblips

Well-Known Member
PREMO Member
The sappytrans lefties will rant and rave about him not enforcing the laws while they celebrate sanctuary cities, illegal immigration and no voter iD.
 

This_person

Well-Known Member
The sappytrans lefties will rant and rave about him not enforcing the laws while they celebrate sanctuary cities, illegal immigration and no voter iD.

So, let's turn that around; are we ok with lack of rule of law for this but not sanctuary cities?
 

glhs837

Power with Control
Nope, he doesnt get to choose. Suck it up and work the change the law if you dont like it, Sheriff. If I disagree with law enforcement not enforcing immigration law, then it's a bit hypocritical to then cheer one deciding not to enforce other laws, I think.
 

black dog

Free America
All law enforcement have discretion with what laws they enforce.
Nobody complaints when they get a warning ticket instead of a must appear for 12 miles over the speed limit..
 

This_person

Well-Known Member
I didn't say I support him, I said the left will whine about rule of law. You proved my point.
:lol: I am all for nullification of unconstitutional law. That can be the sherriff or the jury or whomever. I don't find immigration law unconstitutional.
 

LightRoasted

If I may ...
If I may ...

Nope, he doesnt get to choose. Suck it up and work the change the law if you dont like it, Sheriff. If I disagree with law enforcement not enforcing immigration law, then it's a bit hypocritical to then cheer one deciding not to enforce other laws, I think.

Yes he does get to choose. “A Law repugnant to the Constitution is void.” Because the Constitution is “a superior paramount law, unchangeable by ordinary means, . . . a legislative act contrary to the constitution is not law.” More power to him, as well as to others that might/should follow in his footsteps. If a person swears to "uphold and defend the US Constitution", is this not but one way in which to do it?
 

Gilligan

#*! boat!
PREMO Member
Nope, he doesnt get to choose. Suck it up and work the change the law if you dont like it, Sheriff. If I disagree with law enforcement not enforcing immigration law, then it's a bit hypocritical to then cheer one deciding not to enforce other laws, I think.

What immigration laws are defined, or excluded from being valid, by the Constitution?
 

limblips

Well-Known Member
PREMO Member
:lol: I am all for nullification of unconstitutional law. That can be the sherriff or the jury or whomever. I don't find immigration law unconstitutional.

Sheriffs, LEOs, pols, military swear to support the law not to decide which ones they want to support. I too support getting rid of outdated or wrong laws but they were duly passed in accordance with our form of government so until they are rescinded they should be enforced. Case in point, I support legalization of marijuana but until it is legal the existing laws should be enforced. Laws cannot be ignored because some disagree with them. That is anarchy. I am reminded of the mayor of Balmer's statement to the effect: "they are only destroying property let them have their way."
 

Gilligan

#*! boat!
PREMO Member
Sheriffs, LEOs, pols, military swear to support the law not to decide which ones they want to support.

So, in your opinion then, it is entirely up to the average citizen to take up arms and resist government tyranny. Your opinion is well supported by the writings of the founders...very well supported. :yay:
 

This_person

Well-Known Member
Sheriffs, LEOs, pols, military swear to support the law not to decide which ones they want to support. I too support getting rid of outdated or wrong laws but they were duly passed in accordance with our form of government so until they are rescinded they should be enforced. Case in point, I support legalization of marijuana but until it is legal the existing laws should be enforced. Laws cannot be ignored because some disagree with them. That is anarchy. I am reminded of the mayor of Balmer's statement to the effect: "they are only destroying property let them have their way."

I swore to defend and protect the constitution, and was not required to follow unlawful orders.

Second amendment rights are actually limits on government. That makes gun control laws unconstitutional.
 

LightRoasted

If I may ...
If I may ...

Sheriffs, LEOs, pols, military swear to support the law not to decide which ones they want to support. I too support getting rid of outdated or wrong laws but they were duly passed in accordance with our form of government so until they are rescinded they should be enforced. Case in point, I support legalization of marijuana but until it is legal the existing laws should be enforced. Laws cannot be ignored because some disagree with them. That is anarchy. I am reminded of the mayor of Balmer's statement to the effect: "they are only destroying property let them have their way."

"I, [name], do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which I am about to enter. So help me God."

The oath is taken to support, and defend, the 'Supreme Law of the Land". The passing of a repugnant law is antithetical to a good and just system. By you saying any law passed that is unconstitutional must be enforced regardless, forces a person to violate their oath in the act of enforcing it and is inconsistent with the meaning of a Constitutional Republic. Anarchy is the result of allowing unconstitutional laws to be enforced because everybody will see the unfairness, the unjustness, revolt against the system and stop following all laws.
 

GURPS

INGSOC
PREMO Member
Laws cannot be ignored because some disagree with them. That is anarchy.

https://people.howstuffworks.com/10-archaic-laws5.htm

A Gainesville, Ga, ordinance makes it illegal to consume fried chicken any way other than by hand.

In Alabama, for example, it's a criminal "offense against public health and morals" to engage in a whole host of activities on Sunday, including playing cards. Shooting, hunting, gaming and racing are also prohibited and carry a fine of $10 to $100. Worse, you could be imprisoned or sentenced to hard labor for no more than three months for any of these "immoral" acts

Maine residents dig their lobsters, black bears and brisk winter mornings. They are not too keen on shysters who sell cars on Sunday.

Under Title 17, Section 3203 of the state code, the sale of cars and other motor vehicles on Sunday is strictly prohibited. Violation of the law is a crime, punishable by up to six months in jail and a $1,000 fine, along with auto dealer license revocation.
 

SamSpade

Well-Known Member
If nothing else, this draws attention to the law breaking of "sanctuary cities".

The left will ignore it, because they are UNABLE to see it.

But the issue is where it needs to be.
 

limblips

Well-Known Member
PREMO Member
When a law is thought to be unconstitutional then it needs to be challenged in the courts, not just ignored by those paid to uphold the law. And for the record, I am a multi-gun owner both self-protection and sporting. And before someone asks if I would give up my guns if they passed a law that says I have to, the answer is no. I am not sworn to uphold the law. I would make a personal choice.
 

black dog

Free America
When a law is thought to be unconstitutional then it needs to be challenged in the courts, not just ignored by those paid to uphold the law. And for the record, I am a multi-gun owner both self-protection and sporting. And before someone asks if I would give up my guns if they passed a law that says I have to, the answer is no. I am not sworn to uphold the law. I would make a personal choice.

Laws are ignored everyday by law enforcement, why is this law any different to ignore?
If every cop enforced every law they would never get farther than a few miles from the station or barracks.
 
Top