I’ve continued to follow the debate surrounding I-1639 with a lot of interest. I’m actually one of those weird people who enjoy watching the nuts and bolts of our legal systems at work.
To start, it’s a fiery topic, so I’ll just be really clear: I’m actually pretty ambivalent about I-1639. I am a gun owner myself and Concealed Weapons Permit holder. I remember the days of pushing a double stroller on the Willapa Hills Trail — and I don’t like being a slow-moving target in a fairly remote place — so there are absolutely times where I personally enjoy my right to safely carry firearms.
When I-1639 actually passed, I read all the information that was coming out at the time. My personal response was to look into biometric safes. Small, individual safes made for a single handgun seemed relatively inexpensive with both wall and under-mounted (think under a bedside table) hardware options.
What I’m saying is: It seems like the problems with I-1639 can be easily overcome. Still there is this consistent narrative presented that it’s a pro- or anti- issue, and I feel like larger media outlets are still driving the hype for clicks.
Individuals and media both have interpreted more measured statements by law enforcement as completely anti-I-1639 statements, reporting it as law enforcement officials “refusing” to enforce the new law. While there are some law enforcement officials who have more forcefully spoken out specifically against I-1639, the more moderate responses seemed to have been lumped in with the few extreme.
The Washington Association of Sheriffs and Police Chiefs defines itself as “the only association of its kind in the nation combining representatives from local, state, tribal, and federal law enforcement into a single body, working toward a common goal. WASPC’s function is to provide specific materials and services to all law enforcement agencies in the state, members and non-members alike.”
Essentially a law enforcement advocacy agency — not so different from more familiar things like the National Rifle Association or other groups who engage industry leaders and lobby political figures.
Do I have a problem with WASPC? No. But I think it’s important when having conversations about law enforcement to understand who the real voices at the table are and what they’re actually saying. WASPC is often overlooked as a powerful entity in this state.
When I wrote about Lewis County’s changes to their own marked/unmarked vehicle ordinances, the changes had come just shortly after WASPC had advised their members about how to protect their agencies from legal implications of potentially unlawful use of unmarked vehicles by local agencies. The timeline was pretty apparent.
So, in this instance, I went back and looked at the dates of some of the first public statements on I-1639.
Lewis County Sheriff Rob Snaza’s first public Facebook statement on I-1639 — a measured, very balanced approach to the ambiguities law enforcement is facing in light of new law — happened in the last weeks of November 2018.
Sure enough, there had been several newsletter communications to WASPC member agencies regarding I-1639. And, on Nov. 21, 2018, the WASPC newsletter included specific recommended statement language to agencies on I-1639.
“Many of you have read this week about the media coverage of the Chief in Republic indicating he will not enforce laws pertaining to I-1639. At WASPC we do not tell our members what to do, but Chief Thomas, Sheriff John Snaza, and I would offer the following points if you choose to use them ... ”
Many of the elements in the recommended statement were reflected in Sheriff Rob Snaza’s statement just days later, among other law enforcement leader’s.
This past week, we saw another wave of law enforcement statements on I-1639 in the news. And, sure enough, a WASPC newsletter on the topic was issued on Jan. 18, two weeks ago.
I don’t necessarily disagree with WASPC and their thoughts or approach, but again, I feel like it’s important that citizens understand that a coordinated, advocacy group is contributing heavily to this conversation. WASPC’s involvement has been completely glossed over by reporters on the topic, but it’s a common thread that, I believe, is connected to this entire statewide conversation.
Again, while many agencies have taken the WASPC statement and used it as a statement of refusal to enforce the new law, Sheriff Snaza remained balanced, saying he would still refer potential violations to the Prosecutor’s Office for decisions on charges — because it is not law enforcement’s job to make decisions to charge or not charge someone with a crime.
•••
Brittany Voie is a columnist for The Chronicle. She lives south of Chehalis with her husband and two young sons. She welcomes correspondence from the community at voiedevelopment@comcast.net.
