Second Amendment

Sheriffs Say They Won't Enforce New Washington Law Raising Gun Purchase Age to 21

The new law says that someone buying a semi-automatic rifle has to be at least 21, pass a stricter background check, take a safety training course, and complete a 10-day waiting period.


Washington state has raised its minimum age for purchasing a semi-automatic rifle to 21, along with other new rules governing gun ownership. The age restriction went into effect in January, with the other changes taking effect July 1. But some in state law enforcement have vowed not to enforce the measure, arguing that it violates the Second Amendment.

Under the new law, someone buying a semi-automatic rifle has to be at least 21 years old, pass a stricter background check, take a safety training course, and complete a 10-day waiting period. The law does not impose a retroactive ban on people under 21 owning such guns, but it does increase the restrictions on where they can possess them. Washingtonians under 21 can only have a gun in their homes, in a fixed place of business, or on real property under their control.

And people of all ages are supposed to comply with strict new storage requirements. "A person who stores or leaves a firearm in a location where the person knows, or reasonably should know, that a prohibited person may gain access to the firearm" is now "guilty of community endangerment due to unsafe storage of a firearm" if "a prohibited person" accesses the gun and uses it. This requirement has been met with heavy backlash, with critics pointing out the potentially dangerous consequences of making weapons more inaccessible in a life-threatening situation.

While the new law stipulates that nothing in it "mandates how or where a firearm must be stored," it also says that the only way to surely avoid unsafe-storage penalties is through either "secure gun storage" or "a trigger lock or similar device that is designed to prevent the unauthorized use or discharge of the firearm." Secure gun storage is defined as a "locked box, gun safe, or other secure locked storage space designed to prevent unauthorized use or discharge of a firearm."

Gun sellers say they saw a spike in sales before the new law went into effect. Tiffany Teasdale, owner of Lynwood Gun, told the Seattle-based radio host Jason Rantz that her store sold over 400 guns in 3 days.

"People start doing what we call panic buying," Teasdale said. "They will normally buy 1–2 firearms a year and all of the sudden they are buying 15 in a month."

Sheriffs across the state have denounced the law, saying it is harmful to the people they are sworn to protect by making it harder for them to defend themselves. Some go further, declaring that they will not enforce it.

Bob Songer, a sheriff in Klickitat County, told KTTH: "I understand there's an argument that a sheriff has to follow the rule of law, and I would say generally that's true, unless I feel as an elected sheriff, I have the authority and right to protect the rights of the citizens of Klickitat county that I serve."

The Spokesman Review reports that Stevens County Sheriff Brad Manke and his deputies "won't be issuing citations or making custodial arrests for most suspected violations, short of an obviously mentally ill person under 21 displaying a semi-automatic rifle in a dangerous manner."

"When my 19-year-old daughter can't carry a .22 rifle off our property but we can send her off to war—I don't agree with that at all," Manke told the Chinook Observer.

In February, Washington Attorney General Bob Ferguson stated that sheriffs who do not enforce the law will be held liable if a prohibited person obtains a gun because of the lawmen's inaction.

"In the event a police chief or sheriff refuses to perform the background check required by Initiative 1639, they could be held liable if there is a sale or transfer of a firearm to a dangerous individual prohibited from possessing a firearm and that individual uses that firearm to do harm," Ferguson said.

Sheriffs are not the only ones objecting to the new law. "If the age that you can fight and die for our country is 18 years old, then you should be allowed to purchase your own gun at 18," says Olivia Johnston, a junior at Gonzaga University. "This new law prohibits the right to defend yourself with a gun."

In September of last year, California Gov. Jerry Brown signed similar legislation raising the minimum age for rifle and shotgun purchases to 21. The Second Amendment rights groups Calguns Foundation and Firearms Policy Coalition are now suing California over that law. John Dillon, an attorney representing the groups, told the Los Angeles Times that when people turn 18 they are legally considered adults and should be able to benefit from the same rights other adults have. "Law-abiding adults are entitled to fully exercise all of their fundamental rights, including their 2nd Amendment right to keep and bear arms for all lawful purposes, not just hunting or sport," Dillon said.

On the federal level, President Donald Trump said last year that he would give "serious thought" to raising the minimum age for all gun sales to 21.

NEXT: 14-Year-Old Posts Picture of Airsoft Gun on Snapchat, School Suspends Him for 3 Weeks

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. Let’s just raise the minimum age for purchasing a firearm to, say, seventy-five. If a nineteen-year-old citizen can’t purchase a firearm, then why should one who is twenty-five, or fifty-five, be able to do so?

    1. Surprised to see such an anti-freedom post here. If you want to get hypothetical, why not ban firearms for all government employees? Why should they have guns, while law abiding adults cannot?

      The necessary evil of government exists to protect us from others who’d harm us, and the government needs guns to do it. But there’s no evil in people protecting themselves, except for the anti-gun people who think the availability of guns is the evil.

      1. I apologize. The post was meant as sarcasm 🙂

          1. “homo>” Idiot remark.

            1. Then there is Tony, who is a homo who is only capable of idiot remarks.

        1. Never apologize. It just encourages them.

      2. you missed his forty eight point sarcasm font, didn’t you?

    2. No, let’s raise the voting age to 65. Then we’d get more reasonable government.

      1. Socialist insecurity?


      1. They’re elected by their communities, they do have some leeway.

      2. Gun rights exist for when the government no longer respects an individuals rights. They are standing up for the constitution that is more important than laws passed by congress that ignores the constitution. Our founders would have started shooting long ago.

    4. Why not indeed. The Jeffery Epstein case shows that the looter kleptocracy can use local Sharia-like age of consent laws to attack and rob the rich. So why not raise the age of consent to, say 25, and assign snoops to shadow everyone who’s rich except Bernie. Surely that’s no sillier than laws that define passing a joint as “sale” of a “narcotic.”

  2. I assume these Sheriffs are also declining to enforce drug prohibition moving forward too, given that it also “is harmful to the people they are sworn to protect”. If only.

    1. +1

    2. Civil asset forfeiture also “is harmful to the people they are sworn to protect”. Interesting. SWAT raids?

      1. Civil Asset forfeiture falls under the 5th Amendment.
        Amendment V
        No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a grand jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the militia, when in actual service in time of war or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.

        Any private property taken under Civil Asset forfeiture shall have government give the owner just compensation. If police take a vehicle, they owe the owner just compensation. The police didnt want to do this, so it’s getting shut down in more and more jurisdictions, finally.

        1. Yeah, the owners of those bumpfire mechanisms where compensated, yeah?

          1. you mean, the ones that have NEVER ONCE been PROVEN to have been used in a crime?

          2. All gun control laws are unconstitutional, including the Trump Administration ban on bump stocks.

        2. Mabel Willebrandt nullified the 5th Amendment in U.S. v. Sullivan, 1927, wherein you are required to report illegal income on your individual income tax return pursuant to the 16th Amendment and C. Manifesto plank 2. Asset forfeiture under tax laws were the mechanism that collapsed the fractional-reserve economy beginning September 1929, when Willebrtandt published her tell-all syndicated column promptly republished as a book. The same mechanism caused the 1987 & 2008 crashes and the flash crashes.

    3. The police in Spokane made an announcement a FE wyears ago that they would no longer be responding to calls from citizens suspicious of pot related smells from their neighbors. Which includes calls related to people privately growing cannabis.

      So that’s a step forward.

  3. I assume that many who support raising the gun buyer age to 21 claim that 18-20 year olds are just not smart and responsible enough to be trusted.

    And I also assume that many of these same people support lowering the voting age to 16, because young people are smart and responsible.

    Did I miss something?

    1. You are giving these gun grabbers credit for having some reason for gun control besides wanting to take guns away any way that they can.

      18 year olds can fight and die for the USA but are not responsible enough to drink alcohol, smoke, and own guns. Fuck that.

      Don’t let these Lefty gun grabbers off the hook. They want our guns!

    2. Yes. Normal people can disagree about whether voting for your Team is bad for other people. Getting your head blown to bits is generally seen as bad by everyone except Last of the Shitlords who thinks it’s a fun afternoon activity.

      1. Good thing responsible gun owners (who make up 99.99999999999999999% of gun owners) only blow the heads off of criminals.

        1. Is it cops you’re praising or vigilantes engaged in summary execution?

          1. Yes, but its spelled ‘self defense’. Though I’m sure you want people cowering in their homes defenseless, hoping that their attackers will sow mercy.

          2. My God how DO you balance being such a mouth breathing ignoramus with being such an insufferable asshole? You really are a fucking idiotic cunt.

      2. Presidents routinely order military action that blow off tens of thousands of heads (or more). Even your chocolate Jesus didn’t seem to care much for restraining himself in that regard.

    3. No. The Venn diagram of these particular types of idiots has a huge overlap.

    4. You are probably correct. There are many of us, however, who support the former but not the latter.

  4. All gun control laws federally and in every state are unconstitutional violations of the 2nd Amendment.

    Glad to see some law enforcement are abiding by the restrictions of the Constitution. Too bad most law enforcement doesn’t do that with unconstitutional drug prohibitions.

    1. The LAW is the LAW and it is law enforcement’s responsibility – I mean it is literally the name of their profession – to ENFORCE THE LAW.

      I guess you, as a so-called Libertarian, think law enforcement should pick and choose which laws are enforced. Is that what Libertarianism is now?

      1. Poor Crusty doesn’t know how things are supposed to work. He doesn’t like Rule of Law, so he tries to insert it and he cannot even do that correctly.

        The Executive Branch interprets the laws applicable to them and executes the Rule of Law.

        Sheriffs have an even more special relationship with the People. In most jurisdictions, Sheriffs are elected. This gives Sheriffs incentives to be answerable to the citizens that elected the Sheriff.

        1. Sheriffs, like all other elected officials, are not only above the Rule of Law because they’re elected, they can also specify which laws should be applied, and to whom those laws should apply to, solely because they’re elected?

          1. You citation fell off Crusty.

            Your stupid trick failed but you doubled down.

            1. Drats! I’ve been bested yet again!

              1. You should used to it by now.

                  1. What kind of Crusty sock are you?

                    We know Crusty never wears condoms.

        2. Hence all the pot grown in Humboldt county, CA.

          1. Yup. You cannot tell me all those Sheriffs in that County and surrounding counties don’t know where the grow spots are and what is what.

            It was selective enforcement, extortion, or outright corruption by those Sheriffs.

            1. Call it being accountable to their constituents.

              1. I bet if the media compared unarmed civilian shootings by police, they were perpetrated mostly by city police officers and state police than by Sheriff’s deputies.

        3. Now do sanctuary cities (wrt immigration). Or is it just that you like this interpretation of law better than that one?

          I’m all for localities protecting individual liberty EVERY time that statists at higher levels of government pass laws that trample our liberties.

          1. Cities are mostly run by Mayors, Chiefs of Police and City Councils.

            Man, you people are bad at this.

            1. Ah, so its different *when they do it* then?

              1. Yes it is. It’s especially different when one act of defiance is based on a fairly straightforward reading of the bill of rights, and the other is based on defying federal law on something of which is an enumerated power of the federal govt. also based on a straightforward reading of the constitution.

                See the difference?

          2. Leo, stupid, the Rule of Law applies in rural areas NOT in cities.

            You are so fucking dumb.

            1. That and immigration is NOT a right.

              There is a protected right for the People to keep and bear Arms.

              Crusty is riding the government run choo-choo today wearing nothing but a condom.

              1. The condom stuff is killing today.

                1. Of course it’s killing today. Your semen dies in a sack mister!

              2. Do you believe in any individual rights not explicitly named in your beloved Constitution?

                1. We get it Leo YOU believe people have a right to go anywhere they want.

                  No country nor does the US Constitution protects such a “right”. In fact, the US Constitution gives the federal government enumerated powers to regulate migration and naturalization and provide for the common defense against invaders.

        4. Except that you are perfectly fine with violating the rule of law when its a violation you approve of.

          Otherwise its ‘anarchy’ and anyone who advocates police should be morally responsible for the laws they enforce and maybe should deploy some discretion are ‘anarchists’.

          1. I know reading is hard for ya.

            Having Rule of Law and then choosing to not follow that law can be because you refuse to follow laws or because you are accepting of potential consequences.

            The Constitution is supreme to any Washington state laws that are violating the 2A. Any Sheriff not enforcing an unconstitutional law created by WA state Legislature is actually following their oath of office.

        5. A Libertarian candidate running in the sheriff’s race definitely levers policy in the right direction. In Austin, shortly after the LP got Roe v Wade on the books, Sheriff Raymond Frank, “The Sheriff that Shoots Straight”, was preferred by patrons of the Soap Creek Saloon. He wasn’t LP, but he sure got the message and helped us get home safely.

      2. Is this true with immigration laws also?

      3. Every single law enforcement agency makes choices every single day about how to deploy its limited resources in order to “enforce the law”. Every dollar spent going after a murder suspect is one less dollar that’s available to enforce laws against jaywalking.

        So yeah, forget about whether they “should” be selective about which laws to enforce – it’s a real-world necessity to pick and choose which laws are enforced.

        1. But muh RULE ???? OF ???? LAW ????.

          1. doh. clapping hands emoji didn’t make it through.

          2. Someday you people might actually learn what Rule of Law actually means.

            1. Sorry. reply to Crusty.

            2. The rule of law is a myth, but maybe you’d care to explain how selective enforcement of laws fits the rule of law. The rule of law means that no one is above the law, so not those who make the laws nor those who enforce the law. By the way, I prefer law enforcement choosing to ignore bad laws over them enforcing bad laws uniformly any day.

              1. but maybe you’d care to explain how selective enforcement of laws fits the rule of law.

                lol you’re so stupid. Let me give you some examples, stupid:

                The Portland mayor = bad.

                Sanctuary cities = bad.

                Rural Washington sheriff = good.

                I hope that helps.

                1. Crusty is really upset today.

                  His normal range of charm je ne sais quoi is absent.

              2. The Rule of Law
                /ˌro͞ol əv ˈlô/
                the restriction of the arbitrary exercise of power by subordinating it to well-defined and established laws.

                The Sheriff’s are following the US Constitution (2nd Amendment) which trumps Washington state gun grabber laws. The Constitution is the well-defined and established law.

                Rule of Man is the absence of Rule of Law, where rules change from ruler to ruler or everyone gets to decide what the rules are. This is of course different than knowing what Rule of Law is and then accepting the consequences of not following clearly established law.

                  1. Good Crusty, you finally have learned what Libertarianism is an how Libertarians are okay with Rule of Law form a tiny and limited government.

                    You want Anarchy, where Anarchists are NOT okay with Rule of Law because they dont want government with the power to create laws or a Constitution.

      4. “I guess you, as a so-called Libertarian, think law enforcement should pick and choose which laws are enforced. Is that what Libertarianism is now?”

        No, I think 99.999% of LEOs should just quit and go away.

        1. In downtown Spokane, we have an area called ‘the Barmuda Triangle’, which is based on a small area that houses several very popular bars that skew towards a twenty something demographic. On the weekends, this area is packed after 9 PM. The SPD has about a dozen officers stoned there during that time until after the bars close. Mostly to just have a visible presence. Some people don’t like this, but I have to admit that it is a huge deterrent against fights breaking out. Which is the idea. And other than fights, the cops mostly leave everyone alone, outside of the occasional DUI.

          That may rub some people here the wrong way, but not having those cops there would not be an improvement, and would likely result in far more injuries, and arrests after the fact.

      5. law enforcement should pick and choose which laws are enforced

        Every law enforcement officer has to use discretion over which laws are enforced; there are priorities. Imagine every cop going after jaywalkers, or people going 1 mph over the limit. Because LEO’s have so much power and discretion it is even more important that they be held accountable when they f up.

      6. I don’t see you upset over sanctuary cities for illegal immigrants.

      7. except that ALL law enacted that is consistent with the US and State Constitutions are laws, and all acts enacted that are NOT consistant with those Constitutions are not law at all. These sheriffs KNOW the Constitutions they are elected to enforce and uphold, unlike most other elected officials. These shariffs are simply refusing to enforce a law that is plainly in direct violation of the Constiatutions of both the US and Washington State. As they swore to do.

        And that supid clown Ferguson, AtG, is blowing smoke through the hole in the top of his head. HE is in violation of his oath of office, and should be charged with felny perjury for that wilful wrong. He wants to see all in Washington disarmed. I know several hundred will wll never comply with such orders.

      8. “The LAW is the LAW and it is law enforcement’s responsibility – I mean it is literally the name of their profession – to ENFORCE THE LAW.”

        The LAW is the LAW is circular reasoning. If a law violates our fundamental rights, the rights enumerated in the Constitution, then they’re invalid and enforcing them would be both unconstitutional and illegal.

        Like literacy tests and poll taxes for voting or segregation and Anti-miscegenation laws.

      9. The major reason the rule of law is necessary for liberty is because it RESTRICTS government to that which is lawful. If government further restricts itself by refusing to enforce certain unjust laws, then it furthers liberty. It is right for a government agency to refuse to initiate force.

      10. This is just the result of other cops not enforcing laws THEY don’t like, like ICE holds and drug enforcement. Once officials and LEOs feel that they get to chose which laws to enforce, it is inevitable that “both sides” will use this.

      11. If this is true then they must also enforce all the drug laws since the Supremacy clause overides state laws. Drugs like pot are still illegal under federal law regardless of state law. The basic problem is you forget Sheriffs and police are local officials who must live with the people they protect. It is very easy to pass a law when everyone around you agrees. My issue with this law is the provision that to purchase a rifle you must pass a more stringent background check and wait longer to possess it when the data proves that 80% of all gun deaths are from handguns. This is nothing more than an attempt to discourage rifle purchases by making it very difficult.

    2. I am assuming that you do recognize some “exceptions” to your position that all gun laws are unconstitutional. Such as the following:

      1) Those who have been deemed a danger to themselves or others, through mental disability, by a court of law.

      2) Those who, having been convicted of a serious violent crime, who are still subject to conditions of probation or parole.

      (I will admit, of course, that even these laws, in practice, in the real world, sometimes skirt protected rights.)

      1. I don’t recognize any “exceptions” because there are none allowed under the 2nd Amendment. By “exception” you mean government mandated laws to control gun ownership. Laws don’t trump the Constitution, so no law is constitutional that tries to infringe on the right to keep and bear Arms (all Armaments).

        As to people in prison, on parole, or on probation, they are still criminal “slaves” to the state criminal justice system as allowed by the 15th Amendment. Once their punishment is complete, all their rights should be automatically restored, including the right to keep and bear Arms.

        1. I DO agree that all rights should be restored once one has repaid their “debt” to society. By the way, I was just inquiring for my own curiosity, not challenging your opinion.

          1. Glad to hear that there are others who see the 2nd Amendment is an absolute right.

            Another interesting thing about Americans having an absolute right to Arms, is that keeping and bearing Arms does not infringe on anyone else’s rights. Ever.

            Even an absolute freedom of speech can get people into trouble if they reveal military secrets, for example. Your speech can directly lead to people being killed. Simple possession of a gun has no effect on the rights of others.

            1. It is NOT absolute. But those criteria I mention should account for about 99% of actual, constitutionally-based restrictions. I can understand a judge not wanting an armed jury or audience, but that could be left up to the judge, it doesn’t need to be codified. And, your right to carry ends at my front door, or the door of my business, should I care to see it that way (though, more than likely. I wouldn’t utilize that option.)

              1. The 2nd Amendment is not a right that can be used to deny other people’s rights.

                I cannot force businesses to accept me having a gun. Another reason accommodation laws are ridiculous since denying “rights” violates accommodation laws and keeping and bearing a gun is a right. Furthermore, the Constitution protections are not supposed to pressed onto private people. The Constitution restricts government and their ability to make a right illegal.

                If you consider that as not an absolute right to keep and bear Arms, then you might want to rethink what an absolute right to keep and bear Arms is.

                1. I posed the query to better understand the details of your stance. I don’t have a problem with it.

    3. No. They aren’t.

      All federal gun laws are a violation of the 2nd. But only the states have standing to sue on 2nd amendment grounds.

      Some state laws and most federal are a violation of the 14th.

      But obviously that isn’t how case law has evolved.

      1. The 14th Amendment created an basic obligation for all US states to not violate the federal rights of US Citizens. It is a federally protected right to keep and bear Arms. All states must not violate that right.

        Additionally, most states started with very strong gun right protections in their respective state constitutions. Lefty states never bothered to change their state constitutions to allow for most gun control laws. Its all mot anyway because the 14A protects every US Citizen from states violating federally protected rights.

        1. I tried to find something like the 2A in the California Constitution. (What a shit-show that document is… A million pages of bullshit.) I could only find one mention of guns or firearms, and it was some vague reference to some other vague law. I suspect they have eradicated the 2A in their constitution. Would appreciate someone else sifting through it to see if I just missed it.

      2. Additionally, the Bill of Rights only mentions “Congress” as a restriction for the 1st Amendment. The other 9 original Amendments don’t mention Congress at all.

        In my opinion, this allowed for states to have limited restrictions of absolute free speech for Defamation laws because only Congress was restricted by the 1st Amendment.

        All this is moot too since the passage of the 14th Amendment gave all US Citizens in every US State guaranteed protection of every federally protected right. The 1st Amendment now applies to the states.

        1. Not really.

          The federal constitution is a compact between the states. The states didn’t want their militias subverted by the feds. Hence the 2nd.

          The locals have “always” had minor restrictions on guns. The constitution wasn’t about undoing that. It wasn’t about giving individuals the right to form their own militias.

          Fast forward and states were selectively disarming freed blacks to make them more vulnerable. The 14th bans this.

          So I would argue that it is not unconstitutional for states to pass silly laws about the color of rifles. It is unconstitutional to pass silly laws aimed at disarming poor people.

          The counter argument would be a first amendment right to pink rifles as free expression. With no rational basis for the state to ban pink rifles.

          1. The US Constitution enumerates the power for Congress to federalize the militia and regulate them.

            The 2A is not just about state militias.

    4. So all guns are permitted? Is it only guns, or do other arms count? The constitution doesn’t say guns. How big can the artillery be before it becomes a public safety issue to regulate it?

      Could it be that you think simple things because you are a simple person?

      Or a Russian who wants Americans to shoot more of each other than they already do?

      1. Yes all guns. Yes other arms. There isn’t a size that it can be regulated.

        Thank you come again.

      2. He did wish us all Happy Independence Day on July 3.

      3. Haha this one dimensional mouth breathing half retarded rube is calling someone simple. You really are a fucking intellectual gimp and that you aggressively try to assert your education and intellect in defense of your one dimensional world view makes you all the more ridicule worthy. Keep trying you ridiculous Okie douche. Maybe someday someone will liberate you from the dirt farm like you so desperately desire.

  5. My parents and grandparents are buried in Goldendale, in Klikitat county. I was born in Bickleton. The state used to choose the first letter on license plates by order of population of the county. Klikitat license plates started with ‘Z.’
    There is no serious reason to apply the concerns of King county to a rather more rural area. If you decide that local law enforcement can ignore a immigration laws, then they seem to have the right to ignore these laws as well. There is absolutely nothing new about selective enforcement.
    Klikitat county is used to being ignored. Keep it up.

    1. Enjoy your plastic bags and once-use cups. That’s what freedom is made of!

  6. Thanks to the Democrats for starting the “we don’t have to enforce the law” policy. I learned in grade school that “if you don’t like the law, then change it.” Democrats didn’t like the immigration laws (even though they’re the ones who wrote it (e.g., Ted Kennedy’s changes), but they’re the ones choosing to not enforce it, AND choosing to not change it by working with Trump and the GOP to change it. Instead, they walked out of negotiations.
    I won’t be surprised the Democrats decide to not enforce tax law, but just for rich Democrats. If you can convince Democrat prosecutors to not prosecute, say Jesse Smollett, then you can convince Democrat prosecutors to not prosecute big campaign donor tax evaders.

  7. Sheriffs are not the only ones objecting to the new law. “If the age that you can fight and die for our country is 18 years old, then you should be allowed to purchase your own gun at 18,” says Olivia Johnston, a junior at Gonzaga University. “This new law prohibits the right to defend yourself with a gun.”

    Olivia Johnston is, as the cool kids are saying, baberiffic, and although she is probably a Republican, I applaud everything this smoke and her smoke Republican friends stand for.

    MAGA indeed.

    1. So you’re a fucking creepy online stalker then, that’s cool.

      1. Not just online either.

        He’s done time.

    2. I can understand the sentiment, but I don’t think the analogy is that strong when it is considered in detail. If you enlist in the army, you aren’t given a rifle and unlimited rounds and told “go do whatever you think is best to protect yourself and your country.” You are subjected to extremely close military discipline, especially during the extremely small amount of time you train to shoot the rifle. The overall time spend in the military without carrying a loaded weapon far exceeds the amount of time carrying one unless one is deployed. Furthermore, the military is very selective, and before you ever get to touch a weapon while serving in the military you have to go through a background check and waiting period. So, the fact that certain qualified 18 year olds are allowed to handle weapons under strict military discipline does not lead me to conclude that allowing any idiot 18 year old to buy a semi-auto rifle is a good idea. (Leaving aside the legal question of whether it is constitutional).

  8. I like the intentional conflation of “I am not going to arrest someone for violating this stupid law” with “we will Prosecute sheriffs who refuse to perform a background check”.

    Total non sequitur.

    By the way. This stupid law doesn’t violate the 2nd amendment. The 2nd was meant to prevent the feds from disarming the states. It wasn’t meant to prevent the states from disarming themselves.

    It might violate the 14th. But this doesn’t seem to be racially motivated. The effect might be, however.

    1. The 14th Amendment guarantees all US States must not violate the federally protected rights of US Citizens. This includes the 2A right to keep and bear Arms.

      Only the 1st Amendment restricts Congress, while the remaining 9 original Amendments don’t mention Congress at all.

      1. That begs the question of the 2nd being an individual right to self protection as opposed to a protection for the states against the feds.

        Yes heller says it is an individual right. They are wrong. :).

        1. Of course, gun rights are group rights just like the rest of ’em! (But you can’t have a group of 1.) After all, 5A says groups cannot be forced to testify against themselves. It’s right there in the Declaration, all groups are created equal and endowed by the gods with the right to lives, liberty, and the pursuits of happiness!

        2. Heller says it’s an individual right. Dred Scot said it was an individual right. (One of the reasons Taney gave for blacks not being able to be citizens is that they’d have the right to be armed.) Tenche Coxe said it was an individual right. The Senators discussing the 14th amendment said it was an individual right.

          I literally have not been able to find ANYBODY who claimed it was a “collective” right prior to the early to mid 20th century, when the federal government started getting interested in gun control, and an excuse was needed for why it wasn’t unconstitutional.

          And, as Heller points out, the exact same phrase, “right of the people” is used several places in the Bill of Rights, and is everywhere interpreted as referring to individual rights.

    2. The 2nd was meant to prevent the feds from disarming the states. It wasn’t meant to prevent the states from disarming themselves.

      The right of the people shall not be infringed.

      1. The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed by the feds. Because that would give the feds an indirect way to disarm the state militias.

        The 14th amendment was not about black militias.

        1. It was incorporated by the 14th regardless, “privileges and immunities”.

        2. Also, “…shall not be infringed” does not include exceptions for state or local governments. “…supreme law of the land.” all of the land.

  9. The age restriction for all constitutional rights should be the same. You know, equal protection and all that jazz. So if a twelve year old can exercise rights to sex changes, that same person should be able to keep and bear arms. Likewise, a woman, or person presenting as a woman, has a right to kill a baby as young as she can conceive it. At that same age, she and others should be able to keep and bear arms. According to the ever reliable Wikipedia, that would be just under five years old.
    In the same vein, if this law is constitutional, then similar restrictions on all other constitutional rights are appropriate. So all of our posts should be quarantined for 10 days, and we should all have paid for training and permits to exercise free speech. By the way, how many of you have your fourth amendment permits to prevent random searches? How many?

    1. Great Point Longtobefree!

      How in the fuck do these TOP MEN say with a straight face that 12-year olds are mature enough to “decide” what sex/gender they are but smoking, drinking, and owning guns are above their maturity?

      I often bring up European drinking habits as an example of teenagers being responsible overall with drinking. I attribute it to families deciding and drinking with a meal as a family.

      American kids hide alcohol consumption and then when they are free, they binge drink. I attribute this to poor education system that never addresses responsible drinking and the young adult culture of irresponsible drinking once free from parents.

  10. And all Kim Davis asked was to take her name off the same-sex marriage paperwork.

    These sheriffs are even worse threats to the Rule of Law ™ because I don’t think they’ll even let their deputies enforce this common-sense gun legislation. /sarc

  11. Wait wait wait. Doesn’t the sheriff only perform the background check when a potential buyer engages in a transaction at/with an dealer?
    Doesn’t, the the dealer has to break the law first, and request the underage background check from the sheriff. So local Smallville sheriff might make it known that he will process underage applications, but the dealer is still breaking the law and likely risking prosecution from state level authorities. Analogous to when the Feds bust up California MJ growers. Red-county virtue signalling by Buford T. Windbag? Or am I misunderstanding something.

    1. The NICS ‘background check’ goes through the Federal government, not the local police.

      Any local background check – the dealer would just not request the check. No need to ask for a check on an underage person.

      1. Thanks for pointing that out.

        I think my question still stands though, so what if the local Sheriff won’t perform the check?

        The local dealer is still breaking a state law if he sells to a 19 year old without that local background check, right?

        How will the Sheriff protect the local dealer from State level prosecution?

        1. With guns

  12. But some in state law enforcement have vowed not to enforce the measure, arguing that it violates the Second Amendment.

    Its too bad they still feel inclined to enforce other unconstitutional laws.

  13. But, in the end, it doesn’t matter if *sheriffs* will enforce these laws or not.

    The majority of the population is in municipalities – with their own police forces. Sheriffs are for us hicks, living in little hick towns that aren’t large enough to afford their own police force. The Chiefs of Police of all the cities will enforce these laws enthusiastically.

  14. …I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which I am about to enter. So help me God.

    The oath is essentially meaningless.

    1. True. Because any one taking that oath and enforcing unconstitutional gun control laws is violating the oath.

      1. The oath is contradictory in that sense. If the law is considered unconstitutional it should not be enforced, yet the sheriff swears to “faithfully discharge the duties of the office” that include upholding the unconstitutional law. Catch 22.

        1. The supremacy clause Article VI (6) section 2 of the United States Constitution, clearly states the Constitution supersedes all other law. Any law which violates the Constitution is invalid. The Sheriff, as do all law enforcement officers, swears an oath to the United States Constitution and then to state and local laws, if the state and local laws are in conflict with the Constitution, then they are illegal, invalid and cannot be enforced.

  15. “If the age that you can fight and die for our country is 18 years old, then you should be allowed to purchase your own gun at 18,” says Olivia Johnston, a junior at Gonzaga University. “This new law prohibits the right to defend yourself with a gun.”- I’ve seen a few 18 yr. old girls in full gear toting m249’s and such. Seen many more with deer rifles.
    In all fairness to the Sheriffs, lets not add to the list of people they may have to shoot.

  16. “On the federal level, President Donald Trump said last year that he would give “serious thought” to raising the minimum age for all gun sales to 21.”

    Donald Trump and “serious thought”?


    1. His thoughts are far more serious than ibis predecessor, the communist Barack Obama.

      1. Do we get to rub “George Washington had airplanes” in Trump’s face for as long as you cunts went on and on about “57 states?

        1. Obama had a lot of gems. Enough time in office and enough speeches, it’s bound to happen to everyone. Trump certainly isn’t exempt. Still a million times better than Obama, or The Hag.

          And Trump has easily 50 more IQ points than you Tony, so I wouldn’t be talking big shit if I were you.

  17. So, what’s the difference between the sheriff not enforcing a law he believes to be unconstitutional, and a someone declining to vote for a guilty verdict because he believes the law to be wrong?

    Granted, the sheriff gets a salary to do the job, but part of the job must be to exercise his judgement. The juror has essentially been conscripted. But neither one checks his heart or his brain at the door, in fact, here in the People’s Republic of Taxachussetts, the jury summons contains some tripe about the value of having people from many walks of life bringing their experiences and diverse (ick!) viewpoints and how that is a good thing.

    Doesn’t this all call, almost mandate, that the sheriff exercise his judgement when he sees a law that is unconstitutional?

  18. Increasingly, the government is becomming the “enemy domestic”

    1. So get off your fat ass and do something about. Go shoot up the statehouse. See how much of a hero you’ll be seen as.

      1. That’s what the colonists did.

      2. I was thinking more of another Red Scare and reintroducing anti communist investigations to root out all the progressive subversives like you Tony.

  19. I have to disagree with the nonsense logic that equates “fighting in wars” at 18 to being justified to open carry if under 21. Open carry doesn’t need such tortured rationale, as it’s already covered by the 2A. Now, if we still had an active conscription program (not counting selective service), it would be a different matter.

  20. “People start doing what we call panic buying,” Teasdale said. “They will normally buy 1–2 firearms a year and all of the sudden they are buying 15 in a month.”

    Gullible pussies.

    1. Smart people.

  21. I am making a good salary online from home.I­’­ve made $97,999 so for last 5 months working online and I’m a full time student. I’m using an online business opportun­i­t­y I h­e­a­r­d a­b­o­u­t a­n­d I­’­v­e m­a­d­e s­u­c­h g­r­e­a­t m­o­n­e­y­.I am genuinely thankful to and my administrator, I­t­’s’ r­e­ally user friendly and I’m just so happy that I f­o­u­n­d o­u­t a­b­o­u­t i­t …….
    Visit site:: >>>>

  22. I am making a good salary online from home.I­’­ve made $97,999 so for last 5 months working online and I’m a full time student. I’m using an online business opportun­i­t­y I h­e­a­r­d a­b­o­u­t a­n­d I­’­v­e m­a­d­e s­u­c­h g­r­e­a­t m­o­n­e­y­.I am genuinely thankful to and my administrator, I­t­’s’ r­e­ally user friendly and I’m just so happy that I f­o­u­n­d o­u­t a­b­o­u­t i­t …….
    Visit site:: >>>>

  23. I love stories like this because it clearly illustrates the basic problem with progressives’ dream of banning and confiscating all firearms. The notion law enforcement will automatically enforce every draconian gun laws is proving to be fantasy. You have populations in one part of the state dictating to the entire state even though they do not agree. It has happened in WA, OR, CO, NM, NY and CA. If you cannot enforce these laws in deep blue states, thinking you will be successful in Red states is insane.

  24. Gun ownership is a right; a Constitutionally protected right. If they can change the age for gun ownership, then they can change the age of voting to say 50, so no one under 50 could vote. It’s nonsense! The Constitution states and the Supreme Court has ruled that Gun Ownership is an individual, Constitutionally protected right. The legislators are violating those peoples’ civil rights under color of authority with their unconstitutional law. They should be held accountable and liable by the courts. If these legislators had to pay a penalty for their nonsense, these nonsensical laws would stop being passed or even brought up.

  25. […] In Washington, sheriffs are refusing to enforce the state’s new gun laws. […]

  26. Ever notice how the anti-gun crowd gets so adamant about the responsibility of police to enforce gun laws but just as adamant they not enforce immigration or drug laws? Seems the only reality is they want only the laws they like enforced. More important this only proves how ineffective and worthless such laws are in the end. When the governed say “no”, there is little for the government to do other than punish them. However when those saying “no” enforcement is impossible.

  27. […] challenged in places like Washington State, where pro-gun groups are suing and some sheriffs are vowing not to enforce a newly enacted law that raises the age to purchase a semi-automatic rifle from 18 to 21. Stories […]

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.