County sheriffs resisting new gun law

Local county sheriffs are weighing in on Washington’s controversial Initiative-1639 which is related to guns and is being challenged in the courts.

I-1639, which took effect on Jan. 1, raises the age limit for buying semi-automatic rifles from 18 to 21. Beginning July 1, it requires purchasers to pass an enhanced background check, show proof of firearms training, and wait 10 days before getting the gun.

The new law also makes gun owners guilty of “community endangerment” if their gun is not properly stored and is accessible by a child or by anyone who then uses the gun in a crime.

Initiative 1639 passed in Washington state with 60 percent of the vote.

Some sheriffs in the state have made statements refusing to enforce the law, asserting that it violates the Second Amendment of the U.S. Constitution. The National Rifle Association filed a lawsuit challenging the law.

“I am instructing my deputies not to enforce Initiative 1639 in Grant County while the constitutional validity remains in argument at the federal courts level,” said Grant County Sheriff Tom Jones. “I swore an oath to defend our citizens and their constitutionally protected rights. I do not believe the popular vote overrules that. If the courts later rule the validity of this new law, at that time I will partner closely with our prosecutor’s office to ensure the best plan moving forward. Grant County has a very large voter base of citizens that are pro Second Amendment. They, we, have a right to have this challenge and appeals process play out before moving forward.”

Sixty-eight percent of Grant County voters voted against the initiative.

Lincoln County Sheriff Wade Magers also came out against the law.

“Not only is 1639 unconstitutional there is NOTHING for law enforcement to enforce,” Magers said on the sheriff’s office Facebook page. “The law revolves around the purchase and sales of semi-automatic rifles. … In addition the law requires safe storage, which is not defined. … The Sheriff has no role in the sales of semi-automatic rifles, therefore I have nothing to enforce. In addition we will not be going into people’s houses to determine what safe storage means. ... I am instructing my deputies not to enforce Initiative 1639 in Lincoln County while the constitutional validity remains in argument at the courts level, as there is nothing to enforce as a Sheriff or Deputy as written!”

Mager said that 75 percent of Lincoln County voters voted against the initiative.

Okanogan County Sheriff Anthony D. Hawley, in a letter addressed to law enforcement personnel, said “this Initiative, as currently written, appears to be unenforceable due to the unclear language and lacking appropriate definitions.”

Hawley directed deputies to simply “conduct the appropriate investigations and document their findings,” until the court challenges on the initiative play out, and the law is more clearly defined.

Sixty-four percent of Okanogan County voters voted against the initiative. Douglas County Sheriff Kevin Morris released a statement saying, “As the Sheriff of Douglas County, my highest priority is protecting our community and safeguarding the rights of all residents I was elected to represent. The Douglas County Sheriff’s Office has a proud tradition of common sense policing, a perspective we will continue to apply in our operations as it relates to I-1639. … Initiative 1639 is currently being challenged through the formal legal process. While the Courts work to determine the legality of the law, the Douglas County Sheriff’s Office will continue their work as they always have.”

Sixty-three percent of Douglas county voters voted against the initiative.

The Washington State Sheriffs Association released a statement on their website. “The Washington State Sheriffs Association publicly opposed Initiative 1639 prior to the election,” the statement reads. “As the elected Sheriffs of our respective counties, we expressed our concern that the initiative placed greater restrictions on law-abiding citizens while creating unreasonable expectations regarding how such restrictions would be enforced. These concerns continue to exist today.”

The statement also expresses concerns about 2nd amendment rights, and waiting to see what the courts say.

“We reaffirm our strong support for the Rule of Law and for the Courts to be the separate but equal branch of our government that interpret that law,” the statement says. “We encourage all residents of our state to join us in balancing our opinions and beliefs on this issue with our commitment to our Oath of Office and to the Rule of Law, and ask that you work alongside us to resolve our differences within the framework of the Constitution.”

“Attorney General Ferguson has been clear that he is committed to protecting the legal and constitutional rights of Washingtonians, and upholding the will of the state’s voters in passing Initiative 1639,” Washington State Attorney General Bob Ferguson’s Policy Director Kate Kelly stated. “Our office is confident that Initiative 1639 is constitutional, and we intend to defend it in court.”