Local non-compliance with restrictive state laws

[KyJim]

There's an article over at Reason about local non-compliance with restrictive state gun laws. It focuses on New Mexico as the latest example and mentions 24 localities have passed Second Amendment sanctuary ordinances to support local sheriffs who are declining to enforce laws requiring background checks on more types of transfers.

The article also refers to local non-compliance with restrictive gun laws of various types in other states:

Confrontations of this sort in other states—including Colorado, Washington, and even New York—resulted in the kneecapping of intrusive firearms restrictions. And comprehensive background check (CBC) laws in Colorado, Delaware, and Washington produced an increase in such checks only in Delaware, researchers from the University of California-Davis reported in a study published in 2017 in Injury Prevention.

"One plausible explanation for our findings is low compliance in our study states," the researchers wrote....

The writer of the Reason article notes that in states without gun/owner registration, compliance with many of these restrictive gun laws is mostly voluntary. This can't be lost on the anti-rights groups. The question is how do you see the anti-rights groups proceeding. Do they continue to encourage passage of laws widely disregarded and mainly ineffective? Or do they start pushing registration harder so that restrictive laws are more easily enforced in the future? We know what their endgame is.

 

[BBarn]

Non-compliance with laws always brings the possibility of punishment, whether it be local, State or Federal. Regardless of what the governing authorities did or said in the past, actions can change any time in the future as long as a law stands.

 

[USNRet93]

This 'may' become an issue in Colorado as the State government is poised to pass the state's Red Flag Law'..8 county sheriff's are stating they will not follow this law. I guess it's a big, 'wait and see'. It's estimated that use of this law is very limited, with only about 100 or so expected per year. I'm thinking if the issue comes up in one of these county's..the county administration will get involved and a 'compromise' will be found..for no other reason than to NOT have a sheriff be arrested by the state, but we'll see.

https://kdvr.com/2019/03/06/resolution-declares-weld-county-to-be-a-second-amendment-sanctuary/

 

[Doyle]

When it comes to LE's refusal to enforce a law, I see two different "levels""
1. I see it, but I'm not going to prosecute.
2. I didn't see anything.

I'm thinking it would be far easier for them to get away with the 2nd.

 

[44 AMP]

The writer of the Reason article notes that in states without gun/owner registration, compliance with many of these restrictive gun laws is mostly voluntary.

Pardon Captain Obvious, but compliance with EVERY law is always voluntary.

It's still voluntary in places that have gun/owner registration. ENFORCEMENT is easier in places with gun/owner registration (they have lists) but compliance is always a voluntary matter, about every law, all over the country. If it weren't, we wouldn't have criminals or need police.

I can't speak to the laws in the other states, but I can give some insight about why the UBC law in Washington is not being enforced by virtually every police agency in the state. It's because the law is a piece of crap.

And, I don't mean its a bad law because its a gun control law, or because its a background check law, (which, it is) but because it is so poorly written the one cannot tell what is, and is not a covered "transfer". The State police stated they would not enforce the law, until the state provides clarification on that matter, and its going on 4 years no, and the state still has not done so.

This is not a matter of state law enforcement agencies or Sheriffs stating they believe the law is unconstitutional, (which is what is happening with WA's most recent initiative passed gun control law) it's a matter of the cops saying "we can't tell what is, and isn't a crime under this law, so we aren't going to enforce it, until you tell us what is, and isn't a crime..."

The upside to this is no one gets arrested for violations of the unclear law.
The downside to this is no one gets arrested for violations of the unclear law.

This means no court case(s), which means no ruling on the law, one way, or the other. There are cases challenging the law, but without someone who has been "harmed" by the law, they move with glacial slowness, and in the meantime, the law remains of the books.

 

[Aguila Blanca]

The writer of the Reason article notes that in states without gun/owner registration, compliance with many of these restrictive gun laws is mostly voluntary. This can't be lost on the anti-rights groups. The question is how do you see the anti-rights groups proceeding. Do they continue to encourage passage of laws widely disregarded and mainly ineffective? Or do they start pushing registration harder so that restrictive laws are more easily enforced in the future? We know what their endgame is.

They continue to enact laws that create registries. Note that I wrote "continue," not "start," because some states are already on that road.

Just last night I received an e-mail from a friend in Connecticut. For those who don't know, Connecticut has a firearms registry. All sales of firearms in Connecticut must be pre-approved by the State Police. After the sale, the seller (including private sellers, not just FFLs) must complete a 4-part form. The seller keeps a copy, the buyer gets a copy, one copy goes to the state police and one copy goes to the police department in the buyer's municipality of residence.

But the purpose of last night's e-mail was to kvetch about Connecticut's proposed "ghost gun" law. I haven't followed the link and read the proposed law, but apparently it would require ALL firearms to have serial numbers, and would prohibit Connecticut residents from buying 80% receivers and making their own firearms. There seems to be some concern that the wording of the law would even require pre-1968 firearms (that never had a serial number) to have a serial number inscribed on the receiver.

Pennsylvania has a similar "database" of FFL sales. Some police departments in PA routinely check a CCW's firearm against this "database" (the courts in PA have ruled that it's not a "registry" because it doesn't include all firearms in the state) and then confiscate any gun that isn't shown, even though the firearm could be legally owned by several mechanisms other than purchase from an FFL in Pennsylvania.

Expect to see more of such shenanigans.

 

[cjwils]

44AMP said:

I can't speak to the laws in the other states, but I can give some insight about why the UBC law in Washington is not being enforced by virtually every police agency in the state. It's because the law is a piece of crap.

I am in Washington state, and here is some follow up discussion on that point. The law says any transfer (with very few exceptions) requires a background check. The law does not define the word transfer. Dictionaries define that word so broadly that every time I hand you a gun, that would be a transfer, and we committed a crime for every such hand off, unless we go through an FFL every time. Of course that cannot be enforced. This is an example of the many foolish laws that can be passed in states where initiative petitions are common. Just about any hogwash can be passed into law if a citizen files the right forms and gets enough other citizens to vote for it.

 

[FITASC]

Non-compliance with laws always brings the possibility of

well, in this country that has resulted in things like
Revolutionary War
Civil War
Equal Rights Act
Protests against wars
and we won't even go into the last few years and past elections and the non-complaince showed by certain politicos.......

“I hold it that a little rebellion now and then is a good thing, and as necessary in the political world as storms in the physical.”

― Thomas Jefferson

 

[KyJim]

Pardon Captain Obvious, but compliance with EVERY law is always voluntary.

Good point. I suppose the better way of saying it is that there no practical way to enforce it without the gun owners coming forward.

 

[5whiskey]

Let’s say you live in NM, with a local sheriff who is adamant he will not enforce firearm law X. Are there state agencies with jurisdiction to come in and step up enforcement? Just because the sheriff says he won’t do it, doesn’t mean he’s always the only game in town that can. Is the local prosecutor on board? That does strengthen it some. That is, until the state AG threatens to get all up in the prosecutors office’s business.

The point of this isn’t to pee on the sheriff for doing what he believes is right. It’s a word of caution to citizens who believe they are absolutely safe just because their sheriff said he super pinky swears he won’t enforce that law. He may be a man of his word, but that still doesn’t mean you’re promised to be safe.

 

[Bartholomew Roberts]

Yes, the first thing I thought when I saw those sheriffs on the news was “I guess now the state and federal investigators won’t drop in to say hello when they are doing firearms investigations in those counties.”

 

[Glenn E. Meyer]

Yes, the state agencies exist. The state troopers in ban states have been said to be very aggressive in arrests for ban violations even if the local law isn't. Get stopped on the road with a banned magazine by the state troopers and you are in for it.

So, I raised this elsewhere, if the revolting sheriff needs state or federal assistance after his or her rebel stance, will the state or federal folks be forthcoming? Need a grant or equipment. No more freebies.

Have the sheriffs lead a march of their county citizens to the state capital carrying the banned items and the county officers ready to resist a state agency arrest. Do a Rosa Parks demo or as some of them did in the resistance to the Fugitive Slave Laws. Hope for Kavanugh to save you, eventually.

It is nice political PR but unless you win at the voting both and the legislators undo the law - it's just a gesture. Of course, Kavanaugh might bring the SCOTUS to void the state bans (key Annie singing: The sun's going to come out tomorrow).

If there is a ban, I've said this before:

1. You can't compete, go to the range or hunt with the guns without risk. I compete with many local, state and Federal officers - not going to bring out a banned gun to that.

2. If you use it in self-defense - it may prejudice a jury - depending on membership and you can bet the prosecution will be on the look out for jury nullification types. Even if you beat the self-defense rap, you may face gun charges. Also, the civil suit might be influenced, if there is one.

3. You face disclosure from your ex (Red Flag laws are another threat), your big mouth neighbor who knows you had such, your kid blabbing to another or at school.

The bottom line is that unless the gestures lead to court or legislative voiding of the laws, you can sit on your banned items in your basement. True, that seems to be happening in ban states but the guns are useless except for some extreme civilization fail.

I spent last weekend with about 80 guys who would be felons in the ban states. If we had such a ban in TX as in NY, we could switch to Mini-14s and Ruger 9mm carbines. The tragedy is that the supposed gun friendly political party and president show no real interest in stopping such bans but they still want your check as 'defenders' of the 2nd. Amendment.

 

[Jim Watson]

I agree, the chilling effect. If I have a banned gun even in a "sanctuary", it will have very little use except for last ditch self defense, die or go to jail.

 

[Paul B.]

I saw an article either on 24 Hour Campfire or the Ruger Forum, Sorry, I forget which one where an Illinois legislator is pushing an amendment to their red flag laws that compels the Illinois State Police to handle all confiscation orders. Seems that there is also no provision in the change to the law for the return of the confiscated firearms once the order has been terminated.
Paul B.

 

[Jim Watson]

I forget which repressive state, but one passed a law to the effect that the police were not responsible for the condition of guns eventually returned.

 

[FITASC]

So, I raised this elsewhere, if the revolting sheriff needs state or federal assistance after his or her rebel stance, will the state or federal folks be forthcoming? Need a grant or equipment. No more freebies.

That's a two-way street. When the state folks come to the locals for help and assistance, and get nothing; well, payback is a bitch and bad karma

 

[USNRet93]

Of course, Kavanaugh might bring the SCOTUS to void the state bans (key Annie singing: The sun's going to come out tomorrow).

And Roberts may do the opposite..Just saying...Or be part of the majority that chooses to not even hear a 2nd amendment case.

https://thehill.com/opinion/judiciary/376284-the-supreme-court-and-its-big-second-amendment-problem

 

[Glenn E. Meyer]

I agree, sadly. The existing state laws and precedents of not dealing with them, may predict not taking a case. Does the NYC case indicate something else? We don't know.

The second risk is that a case will affirm the state bans with Roberts going along with the four antigun justices. That is quite likely.

We know that the Congress is lost for quite awhile and even with a GOP Congress, they won't act as it would take away a campaign fund raiser.

To go to the OP, the resistance of sheriffs is just theater unless it leads to legislative change.

 

[Bartholomew Roberts]

Or be part of the majority that chooses to not even hear a 2nd amendment case.

It only takes four Justices to grant certiorari (decide to hear a case - frequently shorted to “cert.”). Also, Justice Kavanaugh replaced Justice Kennedy on the court

 

[USNRet93]

We know that the Congress is lost for quite awhile and even with a GOP Congress, they won't act as it would take away a campaign fund raiser.

Remind me again, who did the bump stock ban? Not sure who’s ‘lost’ in this day and age.
In a lot of ways, I DOnthink Congress is ‘lost’, on both sides of the isle, both chambers.