I don’t think anything I’ve read since the passage of the gun control initiative I-1639 has been much of a surprise. A good many people think it is unconstitutional and many agencies aren’t going to enforce it. Some of the responses were measured — like waiting until that is decided by the courts — and others aren’t going to at all, relying on the plain protections in the state and U.S. Constitution.
I also wasn’t surprised to see additional gun legislation being proposed in this legislature, which will go even further. Perhaps the most alarming is allowing jurisdictions to make up their own rules, instead of one for the whole state, which will only serve to trap law-abiding folks who won’t know what those rules are. I’ve said this before, trapping those of us who are not criminals, making us criminals, and then taking our guns is a brilliant strategy.
But I expect they’ll pass some new and more restrictive laws and the criminals will submit immediately to them because that’s what criminals do, right?
A couple of things struck me this past week as the number of resisting agencies grows. First, I was always under the impression, because of the kind of government we are, a popular vote could not take away a constitutional right? There seems to be plenty of evidence to support this because our state Supreme Court overturns popular votes on occasion and uses the “violates the constitutional rights” excuse doing so.
In some cases, the perceived constitutional right isn’t clearly spelled out but finds its way into the constitution because judges say so.
In the case of guns, there is specific language granting us the right to “keep and bear arms” and not “infringed” on yet this argument seems to come up endlessly.
The First Amendment is often used to subject us to all manner of newly found rights not mentioned in the constitution — like serving coffee half naked in a coffee stand in Everett. Apparently that “expression” is arguably protected by that amendment while first amendment protections for firmly held religious beliefs, also clearly spelled out, aren’t.
The point is, the plain language in both the state and U.S. Constitution doesn’t really matter anymore to those who don’t care what it says. Judges have been corrupting its meaning for years and I have little confidence in our state Supreme Court’s ability to read the plainly written constitutional protections, and overturn I-1639.
So then what? I suspect we’ll see more initiatives making gun ownership even more difficult and doing nothing to actually reduce the crime they claim to.
The other question is the notion that law enforcement or local government for that matter-would be bound to do anything at all? In one story, an academic commented and seemed to suggest they are but he didn’t address other areas where they don’t enforce laws or why this might be different.
How many jurisdictions in this country have declared themselves a sanctuary for illegal aliens? Even criminal aliens like the man who killed Kate Steinly in San Francisco. These jurisdictions and in many cases their law enforcement executives have defied federal law and went so far as to deliberately undermine federal law enforcement in the process. And legal citizens have been harmed in the process.
Apparently, ignoring some laws, like illegal immigration, (and marijuana before it was legal) are OK if they are politically acceptable to their officials, like say in Seattle. They are a sanctuary city and are ignoring laws they don’t like, but I’ll bet they’ll be jumping at the opportunity to restrict law abiding gun owners’ rights.
As reported in The Chronicle recently during a county meeting over becoming a sanctuary for gun rights, the county attorney gave an argument that suggests the county has no choice but to follow the law. While I suspect that’s generally true, I also have to wonder how Seattle and places like them, get away with ignoring the laws? I presume they have attorneys too?
I-1639 has created a conundrum for law enforcement and sheriff’s in particular who are sworn to uphold the constitution and enforce the laws of the state. Actually violating someone’s constitutional right carries very serious punishments including prison.
Not enforcing an unfunded law, which on its face seems at odds with Section 1 Article 24 of our states declaration of rights?
Not so much.
•••
John McCroskey was Lewis County sheriff from 1995 to 2005. He lives outside Chehalis, and can be contacted at musingsonthemiddlefork@yahoo.com.
