Sheriffs Keeping Their Oaths

No right is unlimited.

Nope. That’s your interpretation. It’s not what I said.

You didn’t say “no right is unlimited”?

Is this you admitting that it would be constitutional?

Scalia said it. I cited him. And he’s not wrong.

No, I simply responded to your statement that it “would be easy.” But what do you mean by that? Do you mean that if the 1934 law were modified (or rescinded) to reverse the ban on automatic weapons that it would be Constitutional? Of course it would. Then it would be in compliance with the Miller Ruling.

Asking you what your point is, is not making things personal. Its called having a discussion.

You are siding against the Sheriffs in support of an unconstitutional law. That’s as good as calling for more gun control measures.

Following the discussion is up to you. I can’t force it upon you.

Nonsense.

I’m citing that sheriffs don’t have the power to do what they are doing-that doesn’t mean I agree or disagree with your version of “shall not be infringed.” There are varying degrees of “shall not be infringed” among those who support the sheriffs, so it’s hard to keep up.

Stating I don’t believe the sheriffs have the power to do what they are doing does not mean I inherently support more gun control. It means they don’t have the power to use their office to enforce their personal beliefs. Their oaths do not put them above the law.

What are you discussing now? You are all over the place.

The Sheriff’s absolutely have the power to do what they are doing. They swore an oath administered by the Government (which gave them the power) to defend the Constitution. That is what they are doing whether you agree with them or not. The will of the people does not override the Constitution, except to amend the Constitution. And that process has not been followed, so the Constitution stands as written and amended to date.

The 1934 law has been upheld in case after case for almost 100 years. I am suggesting that congress could revise the NFA to include “assault weapons” and it would still be constitutional…

Good for them. Protect the 2nd amendment.

The supreme court will decide if these new laws are constitutional. In the meantime, they have the right to defend against the indefensible with respect to the constitution.

Where is this “right” granted?

When they swear the oath to uphold the constitution to protect and defend the constitution. If they have concerns these laws are unconstitutional are they not able to conscientiously object to enforcing the law until proven constitutional?

Or am I wrong on that…

Their oath also includes a swearing to uphold the laws of the state of Washington…

And this is where the real enforcement will occur…

https://www.seattletimes.com/seattle-news/politics/inslee-ferguson-warn-gun-dealers-to-comply-with-new-firearms-law-or-face-legal-jeopardy/

1 Like

Semantics…laws of the state or the US constitution? I side on Constitution…but you may be right,