\n
![\"\"](\"http:\/\/cosmicconvergence.org\/wp-content\/uploads\/2019\/01\/sheriff_0.jpg\")
<\/a><\/p>\nby Daisy Luther<\/h3>\n
Washington state recently introduced bills for some of the strictest gun laws in the country but they have some very important opponents: the sheriffs.<\/p>\n
Long thought to be the last line of defense between authoritarianism and freedom, sheriffs are in a unique position. As elected officials, basically nobody has authority over them \u2013 not the judges, not the Feds \u2013 no one except the people who may or may not choose to re-elect them.<\/p>\n
What are those new gun laws in Washington?<\/h2>\n
In November, Washington voters passed a ballot initiative,\u00a0I-1639. To purchase a semi-automatic rifle, buyers must\u00a0be over 21, undergo an enhanced background check, must have completed a safety course, and need to wait 9 days to take possession of their weapon. And that\u2019s not all. A gun owner who doesn\u2019t store his or her weapon \u201cproperly\u201d can be prosecuted.<\/p>\n
And that was just the beginning of the unconstitutional momentum.<\/p>\n
Feeling the wind at their backs after the ballot, gun campaigners and liberal legislators have now gone even further in the new legislative session. Bills introduced in the last week to Washington\u2019s Democrat-dominated legislature look to further restrict firearms. Some laws would ban high capacity magazines and plastic guns made with 3D printers. Others would mandate training for concealed carry permits, and remove guns and ammo during and after domestic violence incidents.<\/p>\n
Washington\u2019s attorney general, Bob Ferguson, who proposed several of the bills, said in an email: \u201cNow is the time to act. Washingtonians have made it clear that they support common-sense gun safety reforms.\u201d (source<\/a>)<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
Things are getting more and more difficult for gun owners in a state that has two very different demographics.<\/p>\n
Washington is a reflection of the rest of the US.<\/h2>\n
The state of Washington is similar to the United States in general. The vast majority of the population lives in a few large cities, distant from the rural and small-town folks in a lot more than just mileage. The left-leaning cities are in direct opposition to the more right-leaning rural communities, but the rural communities are under the thumb of the city voters due to numbers.<\/p>\n
Back when they voted on\u00a0I-1639,\u00a027 of the 39 counties were against the measure<\/a>, but because the twelve counties that voted FOR it were more populous, the initiative passed.<\/p>\n
Does this sound familiar? If it weren\u2019t for the electoral college in national elections, we\u2019d probably have Hillary Clinton as our president, and she\u2019s notoriously anti-gun. The situation of gun owners would look very different right now if that had happened.<\/p>\n
Now the state is divided because the counties that voted against the measure are refusing to be governed by unconstitutional laws to which they objected in the first place<\/p>\n
And they\u2019re supported by their sheriffs.<\/p>\n
Some Washington law enforcement\u00a0officers are refusing to enforce these laws.<\/h2>\n
Klickitat County Sheriff, Bob Songer, Republic\u00a0police chief Loren Culp, and Ferry County Sheriff\u00a0Ray Maycumber are among those who have publicly vowed not to enforce the new unconstitutional gun laws.<\/p>\n
In Ferry county in eastern Washington, more than 72% of voters rejected I-1639. In the county\u2019s only incorporated city, Republic, the police chief Loren Culp asked the council in November to declare the city a \u201csecond amendment sanctuary\u201d. That vote has been delayed until March, but in the meantime, like Songer, Culp says he will not enforce.<\/p>\n
The sheriff in Ferry county, Ray Maycumber, told the Guardian that he would not be enforcing the laws either, at least until the NRA\u2019s litigation is completed.<\/p>\n
\u201cThere\u2019s a window of time when I get to make the assessment\u201d, he said. Should the NRA not succeed, he said, he would \u201cconsider if I want to go on in the job\u201d.<\/p>\n
\u2026The refusal of law enforcement officers to enforce the new restrictions plays into a longer history of so-called \u201cconstitutional\u201d sheriffs\u00a0resisting the gradual tightening<\/a>\u00a0of gun laws. There are also hints, in the stance, of the doctrine of \u201ccounty supremacy\u201d, long nursed on the constitutionalist far right, which holds that county sheriffs are the highest constitutional authority in the country.\u00a0(source<\/a>)<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
Matt Marshall, the leader of the Washington Three Percent, is hoping to persuade other Washington counties to adopt local second amendment sanctuary ordinances. Next week, he meets with people in Lewis and Pierce counties to urge them to urge them to\u00a0adopt resolutions not to enforce unconstitutional gun laws.<\/p>\n
This isn\u2019t the first time that sheriffs have stood up against unreasonable laws.<\/h2>\n
As elected officials, sheriffs have an obligation to their constituents and to the Constitution of the United States of America.<\/p>\n
In 2013, El Dorado County Sheriff John D\u2019Agostini kicked the US Forestry Service out of his county.<\/p>\n
\nThe El Dorado County Sheriff says he\u2019s not happy with the U.S. Forest Service, so he\u2019s stripping them of their authority by keeping them from enforcing state law within the county.<\/p>\n
Sheriff John D\u2019Agostini is taking the unusual step of pulling the police powers from the federal agency because he says he has received \u201cnumerous, numerous complaints.\u201d<\/p>\n
In a letter obtained by CBS13, the sheriff informs the federal agency that its officers will no longer be able to enforce California state law anywhere in his county.<\/p>\n
\u201cI take the service that we provide to the citizens of El Dorado County and the visitors to El Dorado County very seriously, and the style and manner of service we provide,\u201d D\u2019Agostini said. \u201cThe U.S. Forest Service, after many attempts and given many opportunities, has failed to meet that standard.\u201d (source<\/a>)<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n
This kind of action is firmly supported by the\u00a010th Amendment to the Constitution, which reads<\/a>, \u201cThe 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.\u201d<\/p>\n
The power of county sheriffs was upheld in the Supreme Court.<\/h2>\n
In 1994, Graham County Arizona Sheriff Richard Mack and Ravalli County Montana\u00a0Sheriff Jay Printz successfully sued the Clinton Administration over the Brady Handgun Violence Prevention Act.<\/p>\n
Justice\u00a0Antonin Scalia, Chief Justice\u00a0William Rehnquist, and Justices\u00a0Sandra Day O\u2019Connor,\u00a0Anthony Kennedy, and\u00a0Clarence Thomas\u00a0found that the Brady Act\u2019s attempted commandeering of the sheriffs to perform background checks violated the tenth\u00a0amendment.<\/p>\n
\n\u201cThe Framers rejected the concept of a central government that would act upon and through the States, and instead designed a system in which the State and Federal Governments would exercise concurrent authority over the people. The Federal Government\u2019s power would be augmented immeasurably and impermissibly if it were able to impress into its service\u2013and at no cost to itself\u2013the police officers of the 50 States.<\/p>\n
\u2026Federal control of state officers would also have an effect upon the separation and equilibration of powers between the three branches of the Federal Government itself.\u201d (source<\/a>)<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n
The decision upheld the power of county sheriffs.<\/p>\n
County sheriffs are the last\u00a0legal<\/em>\u00a0line of defense.<\/h2>\n
Legally speaking, our county sheriffs are the last line of defense in the battle for gun rights.<\/p>\n
Federal agencies do not have state powers. Due to the Constitution\u2019s structure of dual sovereignty, the feds have no authority to enforce state laws. Furthermore, states cannot be compelled to enforce federal laws. (source<\/a>)<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
The next option is widespread civil disobedience, which we saw recently in New Jersey.<\/p>\n
Thanks to a December 5\u00a0ruling<\/a>\u00a0by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 3rd Circuit, New Jersey\u2019s\u00a0ban<\/a>\u00a0on gun magazines that hold more than 10 rounds took effect on December 10. By that date, all owners of heretofore legal \u201clarge capacity magazines\u201d (LCMs) were required to surrender them to police, render them inoperable, modify them so they cannot hold more than 10 rounds, or sell them to authorized owners. Those who failed to do so are\u00a0guilty<\/a>\u00a0of a fourth-degree felony,\u00a0punishable<\/a>\u00a0by a maximum fine of $10,000 and up to 18 months in prison.<\/p>\n
How many of New Jersey\u2019s\u00a01 million or so<\/a>\u00a0gun owners have complied with the ban by turning LCMs in to law enforcement agencies? Approximately zero\u2026 (source<\/a>)<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
Try as anti-gun legislators and activists might, there is a difficult battle ahead for anyone who tries to disarm the American people. Between Constitution-supporting elected officials and American civilians who will not comply, the\u00a0real<\/em>\u00a0Resistance seems to be ready\u2026and armed.<\/p>\n