Washington police chief proposes ‘2nd Amendment Sanctuary City’ law

[Aim1]

I think it's great that he doesn't want to enforce an unconstitutional law but I don't like calling it a "sanctuary" city for anti-2nd Amendment laws. I think the word "sanctuary" city has stuck to places that are anti-ICE cities and that's a bad thing.


Thoughts.....



http://mynorthwest.com/1188416/republic-2nd-amendment-sanctuary-city/?

Washington police chief proposes ‘2nd Amendment Sanctuary City’ law

BY HANNA SCOTT

NOVEMBER 16, 2018 AT 2:53 PM

Not only did the Chief decide he and his officer’s would not enforce the strict new gun laws, he took the issue to the city council last week in the form of a resolution, he later posted on Facebook proposing the jurisdiction become a “2nd Amendment Sanctuary City.”

 

[chicharrones]

So far, "sanctuary city" has referred to local governments opposing or resisting federal law?

This time it would be a local government opposing or resisting state law?

I wonder what the governor of Washington would do about this?

 

[giggitygiggity]

Well what's good for the goose is good for the gander. The left started the so-called "sanctuary city" nonsense to protect illegal immigrants. If the left wants sanctuary cities, that's fine, but we can have sanctuary cities for gun enthusiasts too. Not that there should even be a reason for sanctuary cities to protect a right that, in theory, is protected by the US 2A. The left loves to make up rules as they go like reducing the votes needed to confirm a Supreme Court justice when they to ramrod through Obummer's Supreme Court puppets... well they regretted that when Kavanaugh was narrowly confirmed. I hope the left comes to regret their sanctuary city nonsense too.

 

[CapnMac]

When I saw this article yesterday morning, my first thought was how many places are "undeclared" areas becasue local LE is aware enough of reality that certain issues get "more attention" as a matter of policy, even when unwritten.

While that makes sense to me--80% of the US is a non-violent place of law-abiding people--it also bothers me, as it creates a situation where a Reasonable Person cannot determine if a particular locale supports or denies their rights. Which clearly falls afoul of 4th, 5th, & 6th amendment rights. Even in my simplistic, layic understanding of those.

This is fundamentally my gripe with how the Texas Penal code copes with firearms carry. It asserts defenses against prosecution. While I applaud that it does, it fails in a distinct way. A Reasonable Person would, generally, prefer to go about their day in reasonable certainty of not being arrested. It's a fundamental right. Yet, in Texas, being 'legal' is no defense against arrest. And, after arrest, it is down to the whim and fancy of the County Prosecutor to decide if I ought be prosecuted.

 

[caribou]

Juenau Alaska is a Sanctuary City for the 2nd Amendment. LOL!!!

Damn near everything that is legal to do with a gun can be done in Alaska.

 

[9mmepiphany]

I think the word "sanctuary" city has stuck to places that are anti-ICE cities and that's a bad thing.


Thoughts.....

You perception of the word is interfering with the literal meaning of the word. Only your personal perception is giving it a negative connotation...sound familiar?

There is no need to attach a negative meaning to an innocent word

 

[WiTom]

I think I just read that the chief has now put in for early retirement. Maybe, just maybe, there was a hidden agenda there somewhere. Hope not but the timing seems suspect.

 

[Old Dog]

We've also got a couple county sheriffs up here who've stated that enforcing the gun control initiatives is not on their list of priorities... One was quite public last week.

 

[Labguy47]

They already have one it’s called Chicago and we see how that’s working out as the murder capital of the US. Why in the name of all that is good and just, won’t these people learn?

 

[ClickClickD'oh]

This is fundamentally my gripe with how the Texas Penal code copes with firearms carry. It asserts defenses against prosecution. While I applaud that it does, it fails in a distinct way. A Reasonable Person would, generally, prefer to go about their day in reasonable certainty of not being arrested. It's a fundamental right. Yet, in Texas, being 'legal' is no defense against arrest. And, after arrest, it is down to the whim and fancy of the County Prosecutor to decide if I ought be prosecuted.

Care to explain this bit, because it gave me curious dog head tilt.

 

[9mmepiphany]

They already have one it’s called Chicago and we see how that’s working out as the murder capital of the US.

I think you might have misunderstood the OP/article...or your satire is too subtle

Chicago is about the furthest thing from a 2nd Amendment sanctuary city

 

[OARNGESI]

Breaking the law is a crime weather you agree with it or not

 

[LRDGCO]

The symbolism of the town being called Republic is interesting. It is a case of the Sheriff standing with the Republic against those who would secede from the Union by refusing to recognize the Constitution.

As I recall, the ballot initiative was found illegal before it was placed on the ballot, so the opportunity for successful challenge is high on several grounds. This is a clear case where civil disobedience is called for.

 

[jdc1244]

The notion is as ignorant as it is ridiculous.

Any measure that is ‘anti-2nd Amendment’ wouldn’t be enforced anyway because the Supreme Court has invalidated such a measure.

Measures not invalidated by the Supreme Court are not ‘anti-2nd Amendment’ and should be enforced accordingly.

 

[caribou]

When I saw this article yesterday morning, my first thought was how many places are "undeclared" areas becasue local LE is aware enough of reality that certain issues get "more attention" as a matter of policy, even when unwritten.

While that makes sense to me--80% of the US is a non-violent place of law-abiding people--it also bothers me, as it creates a situation where a Reasonable Person cannot determine if a particular locale supports or denies their rights. Which clearly falls afoul of 4th, 5th, & 6th amendment rights. Even in my simplistic, layic understanding of those.

This is fundamentally my gripe with how the Texas Penal code copes with firearms carry. It asserts defenses against prosecution. While I applaud that it does, it fails in a distinct way. A Reasonable Person would, generally, prefer to go about their day in reasonable certainty of not being arrested. It's a fundamental right. Yet, in Texas, being 'legal' is no defense against arrest. And, after arrest, it is down to the whim and fancy of the County Prosecutor to decide if I ought be prosecuted.

Care to explain this bit, because it gave me curious dog head tilt.

This would be when the cop snaps on the cuffs and says to you, ''relax, Im doing my job, Im not here to determine if your guilty or innocent, thats for the courts........''

 

[Good Ol' Boy]

Breaking the law is a crime weather you agree with it or not

Not if the law is against the law.

 

[lemaymiami]

In the years when I was a young cop (and even when I was an older cop and finally a watch commander...) I always hated it when my chief -or any or any other chief started playing political games... That sort of foolishness really hurts new officers.

 

[edwardware]

I'm not interested in a Sanctuary City. I already have a Sanctuary Country, thank you.

I'm also fully aware that the 2nd Amendment was largely designed as a safety mechanism to permit the people to recover their country from the government. Narrowing it to smaller geographic area is counterproductive.

 

[Labguy47]

I think you might have misunderstood the OP/article...or your satire is too subtle

Chicago is about the furthest thing from a 2nd Amendment sanctuary city

I guess my sarcastic humor was unappreciated. The satire continues hither. I was trying to support one by showing how ridiculous the inverse has become.

 

[9mmepiphany]

I guess my sarcastic humor was unappreciated.

Sarcasm seldom works on the forum without a smilie.

 

[Labguy47]

Sarcasm seldom works on the forum without a smilie.

 

[CapnMac]

This would be when the cop snaps on the cuffs and says to you, ''relax, Im doing my job, Im not here to determine if your guilty or innocent, thats for the courts........''

Yes, that is a cogent summary.

To answer @ClickClickD'oh in tl;dr fashion,
There is a premise in Common Law that the laws of the/a land are knowable, and communicated to each of the citizens so that they will know them in a competent manner. Thus, any violation of those laws--in the main, acts of passion being a shade different--is a willful act, one of explicit meditation and mens rea. Which then allows jurisprudence to proceed from a premise of "ignorance is no excuse." The Founders, and the citizens felt so strongly about this that we enshrined concepts of due process, of speedy and defined trials on proper warrants, along with no cruel or unusual punishments into the Bill of Rights itself.

I have only read Jefferson, Madison, and Aadms, I cannot speak in their voice, but I have to feel that John Adams, a well practiced attorney before the bar, would be aghast that any portion of the American population might go about their day unsure if they were subject to arrest, detention, and deprivation of property and liberty, with only a vague assurance of a "defense against prosecution" for comfort. Further, that those same citizens would have no real guidelines as to whether one action or another would better or worsen the risk to their liberty.

Please note carefully, this is no disparagement of those stout souls engaged in law enforcement, but only of the framework in which their employment is defined, constrained, established. However, the political nature of all this binds up those ELO in the politics and political leaders in their individual locations.

So, the actions of Washington sheriffs is applaudable, by "us," in this case for agreeing with "us"--but how cruel for all the places that leadership shackles with other rules and policies. Unfortunately, that is the modern nature of the beast, we each have about 10,000 laws, regulations and ordinances to abide by, and abide we must (as noted above).

 

[9mmepiphany]

''relax, Im doing my job, Im not here to determine if your guilty or innocent, thats for the courts........''

We always said this, because that is the basis of our laws "Innocent until Proven Guilty"...ei incumbit probatio qui dicit, non qui negat

What folks often forget, or maybe they were never aware, is that this principle only applies in a trail court...not on the street. That is why the concept of Probable Cause exist

 

[ClickClickD'oh]

To answer @ClickClickD'oh in tl;dr fashion,

You didn't answer anything.

I'm trying to figure out why you think carrying a firearm in Texas is covered in the penal code as a Defense to Prosecution. There are Defenses to Prosecution in the Texas Penal Code section on weapons, but most of them deal with very narrow exception to things that are illegal... not to the general carry of firearms.

might go about their day unsure if they were subject to arrest, detention, and deprivation of property and liberty, with only a vague assurance of a "defense against prosecution" for comfort. Further, that those same citizens would have no real guidelines as to whether one action or another would better or worsen the risk to their liberty.

The Texas Penal Code is quite specific in regards to guidelines in regards to firearms carry.

So, again, curious dog head tilt.

What part of the Texas Penal Code relating to carrying firearms creates a confusing gray area with Defenses to Prosecution that would cause a normal person to be " unsure if they were subject to arrest, detention, and deprivation of property and liberty"?