We need more cops

[Cletus]

Take a civics class if you can't figure it out.

One of us needs a civics lesson. It isn't me.

It seems you don't understand what the Constitution is or what it does. I'll give you a hint... It does not grant rights. It protects rights by limiting the power of government.

You should read Article VI, Section 2. It is the basis the Chief's position, which incidentally, is the correct one.

This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any state to the Contrary notwithstanding.

The Chief took an oath to uphold to uphold that promise to the People. It is his duty.

[Cletus]

Washington Stae's own Constitution, Article 1, Section 24 states...

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.

It really isn't complicated. Even the state constitution of Washington supports the Chief's position.

[Common]

I'm not entirely sure which provisions of the law the Chief thinks his officers would, practically speaking, be in a position to either enforce or ignore. When it comes to age limits for gun sales or waiting periods, that would appear to be something that a gun dealer or gun shop owner might be accused of - but, short of someone conducting a "sting" operation on one of them, how would that even be likely to come to law enforcement's attention?

I suppose the "safe storage" provision of the law might provide an add-on charge to police in some situations, or create an avenue for prosecution in those cases where a minor child has obtained an unsecured gun and done some damage with it. In either situation, however, it would be the prosecutor's call on charging - not that of the Chief or one of his officers.

As for "displaying" a firearm, all jurisdictions already have statutory prohibitions against brandishing. And when it comes to enhanced penalties for using a firearm in the commission of a crime - or even possessing one in that situation - I have absolutely no problem with that; I've been advocating for that very thing for years.

The Devil, as they say, may very well be in the details here. On the surface, most provisions of this particular law don't appear to be all that radical, but I'd have to read the entire thing to be able to make an informed judgment about that. There may well be something in it that would justify the Chief's public opposition - or he may be grandstanding.

The same laws Police Depts use to not enforce immigration laws they are sworn to uphold. Like Turn over city and county illegal immigrants when being released to ice.

[Common]

I have to agree with Cletus, the chief is sworn to enforce the law, he is not the law and he doesnt make the law. Police Officers cant arrest you for something that they dont like if its not a law.

However, having said that the Police Chiefs that have been ordered not by law to break the law on illegal immigration is the same situation. Like turning city and county and state released known illegal immigrants to ice, that is their job also.

Sanctuary Cities, since when is it legal to harbor known criminals, thats been a law everywhere forever.

[Captain Obvious]

I have to agree with Cletus, the chief is sworn to enforce the law, he is not the law and he doesnt make the law. Police Officers cant arrest you for something that they dont like if its not a law.

However, having said that the Police Chiefs that have been ordered not by law to break the law on illegal immigration is the same situation. Like turning city and county and state released known illegal immigrants to ice, that is their job also.

Sanctuary Cities, since when is it legal to harbor known criminals, thats been a law everywhere forever.

Cletus is a water head.

If the Constitution is the law then why have laws? Why have courts and constitutional arguments?

A chief of police's opinion of the Constitution isn't a consitutionally valid decision and if you have law enforcement running around ignoring actual laws and enforcing their opinions then they, you are no better than Antifa or activist courts.

Seriously? If these police were liberal and enforced their interpretation of the Constitution to the benefit if the gun control crowd you would $#@! the bed

You are full of $#@!. We have laws and due process for a reason, to keep renegades from doing whatever they want

[Adelaide]

The Chief also took an oath to uphold the laws made in the State of Washington.

At any rate, he's not a judge or a Supreme Court justice. He does not have the legal education or experience to determine the validity of a law. It may seem obvious to most people that this won't pass the Supreme Court sniff test, but until that time he is legally and ethically bound to uphold the law as an officer. Law enforcement officers do not get to pick and choose which laws they enforce. It is not their job, nor within their scope, to determine if a law is constitutional. They lack the training and experience to make that decision.

Law enforcement encounters many situations on a regular basis in which they have to make judgment calls; this is not one of them. It is a law. For now, it is the law. They are obligated to do their job. They are free to say they don't agree with it, but they are not free to behave like constitutional scholars and decide which laws they'll follow today and which ones they will not. Way, way above their pay grade.

[The Xl]

Who pays their salary, feds or state? What is their scope, federal or state level?

You people $#@! the bed over "activist courts" but activist local police departments are cool if their on your team.

Funny how that works.

Laws that contradict the constitution have no legitimacy.

[The Xl]

The Chief also took an oath to uphold the laws made in the State of Washington.

At any rate, he's not a judge or a Supreme Court justice. He does not have the legal education or experience to determine the validity of a law. It may seem obvious to most people that this won't pass the Supreme Court sniff test, but until that time he is legally and ethically bound to uphold the law as an officer. Law enforcement officers do not get to pick and choose which laws they enforce. It is not their job, nor within their scope, to determine if a law is constitutional. They lack the training and experience to make that decision.

Law enforcement encounters many situations on a regular basis in which they have to make judgment calls; this is not one of them. It is a law. For now, it is the law. They are obligated to do their job. They are free to say they don't agree with it, but they are not free to behave like constitutional scholars and decide which laws they'll follow today and which ones they will not. Way, way above their pay grade.

It's really not above their pay grade though. It's fairly simple in many cases as to what's constitutional and what isn't. The only controversy here are politicians that show no regard for the constitution when legislating.

[Captain Obvious]

Thank you.

People amaze me sometimes, how they throw all logic out the window over dog whistle political issues.

We have laws and due process for a reason.

Cletus, Common, both of you really need to take a civics class, you are making fools out of yourselves. Cletus I expect it from him but I'm disappointed in you Common, that you being a former cop can't understand constitutional due process.

[Adelaide]

It's really not above their pay grade though. It's fairly simple in many cases as to what's constitutional and what isn't. The only controversy here are politicians that show no regard for the constitution when legislating.

And yet we have a Supreme Court that is meant to make that decision. It really is above the pay grade of law enforcement officers to decide which laws they think feel constitutional today.