Sheriffs Keeping Their Oaths

[mobulis]

@WuWei

A hoplophobe.

Sorry but a person having different views on guns than you is not a hoplophobe.

[Samm]

@BlueTex

@Samm

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 Do you mean that if the 1934 law were modified (or rescinded) to reverse the ban on automatic weapons that it would be Constitutional?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.

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…

It has not been upheld, it has remained unchallenged. There is is huge difference.

[Samm]

@BlueTex

@Konssurvative1

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?

By their oath. They have sworn to protect the Constitution.

[Samm]

@BlueTex

@Konssurvative1

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…

The Constitution takes precedent over law.

[SimplyTrying]

@party-free

Which part of the 2nd states how old one must be to own a gun? Or can infants and wield a firearm?

Only infants that have a need to join the “militia” and be protected from persecution by the government. In 2019.

[BlueTex]

@Samm

It has not been upheld, it has remained unchallenged. There is is huge difference.

Really? What about Montana Shooting Sports Ass’n v. Holder which was denied cert in January 2014? Was that a challenge to the NFA?

[BlueTex]

@Samm

The Constitution takes precedent over law.

Here is an example of what happens when one believes this kind of nonsense…

Ruling: Kansas gun law no defense to federal firearm charges

[WuWei]

You extrapolated his examples to rationalize your wants.

And he is wrong, he didn’t explain why. “Longstanding” is not a reason.

[WuWei]

And I’m citing that the SCOTUS doesn’t have the power to do what it’s doing.

[WuWei]

Abuse of the commerce clause. Without even looking at it.

[WuWei]

@SimplyTrying

In 2019.

There we go.

[BlueTex]

@WuWei

Abuse of the commerce clause. Without even looking at it.

LMAO… Play stupid games, win stupid prizes…

[WuWei]

Am I wrong?

[party-free]

No, I’m just trying to discuss the power of the sheriffs. Been trying to do so for a bit now.

[party-free]

Their oath does not wield more power than the constitution, or the law itself.

[BlueTex]

@WuWei

Am I wrong?

Yes…

[party-free]

The correct recourse for these sheriffs is to file suit. In the mean time, what the people voted upon is law, whether the sheriffs personally agree or not, and their job is to uphold it.

[party-free]

@Konssurvative1

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…

Sounds a lot like the Kim Davis excuse.

They are law enforcement officers, not law interpreters.

Until which point the laws of WA are struck down, it’s their job to uphold, whether they agree or not.

[party-free]

Well, the problem here is that there are varying opinions on what exactly is “constitutional.” There is a field of thought, even among this thread, that there can literally be NO infringement of the right to bear, even among those convicted of crimes. “Shall not be infringed.” Others side with Scalia (aka-the courts) when they said that the right can be taken away with due process. “Shall not be infringed.”

There are varying degrees of which court findings are acceptable and which are not.

Which is why we have the judiciary in the first place.

[WuWei]

Shall not be infringed.