Republic, Washington Declares Itself Sanctuary City For Law Abiding Gun Owners

We’ve already seen plenty of jurisdictions, primarily in Illinois, declare themselves sanctuaries against abusive state and federal gun control regulations, though a lot of that was in terms of potential gun laws, as started by Effingham County. Now in Deep Blue Washington

WASHINGTON POLICE CHIEF SAYS NO TO STATE’S NEW GUN LAWS

A Washington state police chief used a department Facebook account to declare his department’s intention to not enforce the state’s new gun laws.

Last Tuesday, over 60 percent of Washington voters approved a sweeping new gun control initiative that raises the age limit for semiautomatic rifle purchases, imposes a 10-day waiting period, and enhances background checks. The National Rifle Association, among other groups, was highly critical of the law.

The Republic Police Facebook post, written by Republic Police Chief Loren Culp and posted the day after the initiative was passed, stated that “no Republic Police Officer will infringe on a citizens right to keep and Bear Arms, PERIOD!” (snip)

Two days later, Culp posted a recommended “2nd Amendment Sanctuary City Ordinance” that would “prevent federal and state infringement on the right to keep and bear arms.”

It’s worth reading the entire Facebook post which is recommending a city ordinance, which starts out

An ORDINANCE of the City of Republic, which shall be known and may be cited as the “2nd Amendment Sanctuary City Ordinance.” To prevent federal and state infringement on the right to keep and bear arms; nullifying all federal and state acts in violation of the 2nd Amendment to the Constitution of the United States and Article 1 Section 24 of the Washington State Constitution.

WHEREAS, the City of Republic believes that:

A. The 2nd Amendment to the Constitution of the United States reads as follows, “A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.”

B. Article 1 section 24 of the Washington State Constitution reads as follows, “The right of the individual citizen to bear arms in defense of himself, or the state, shall not be impaired, but nothing in this section shall be construed as authorizing individuals or corporations to organize, maintain or employ an armed body of men.”

C. All federal and State acts, laws, orders, rules or regulations regarding firearms, firearm accessories, and ammunition are a violation of the 2nd Amendment to the U.S. Constitution and Article 1 Section 24 of the Washington State Constitution.

IMO, it goes perhaps a bit too far: there are some governing laws that make sense. I have no problem with requiring someone be at least 18 to purchase, nor properly run Red Flag laws. Limiting automatic weapons. Background checks (I’m betting the Chief is good with those, too). It might have been helpful had the Chief included the phrase “law abiding citizens.”

He also goes on to advocate for neighboring communities to do the same.

Some will say “what’s the difference between this and a sanctuary jurisdiction for illegal aliens?” The gun sanctuaries are supporting the 2nd Amendment rights of law abiding citizens. Sanctuary jurisdictions protect people who are unlawfully present in the United States, and are often involved in other criminal activity.

Save $10 on purchases of $49.99 & up on our Fruit Bouquets at 1800flowers.com. Promo Code: FRUIT49
If you liked my post, feel free to subscribe to my rss feeds.

Both comments and trackbacks are currently closed

7 Responses to “Republic, Washington Declares Itself Sanctuary City For Law Abiding Gun Owners”

  1. Jethro says:

    C. All federal and State acts, laws, orders, rules or regulations regarding firearms, firearm accessories, and ammunition are a violation of the 2nd Amendment to the U.S. Constitution

    No limits at all? That’s an extremist view, don’t you think?

  2. Mangoldielocks says:

    I have no problems with Washington’s gun laws and do not believe they restrict anyones second amendment rights. I understand the slippery slope argument but I see nothing here that would abridge anyones 2nd amendment rights.

    Yes I am a conservative but I don’t happen to see anything wrong with these three things. If this goes to the supreme court and it will I see even a rational right leaning supreme court upholding this.

    However one Caveat I do believe that the enhanced background might infringe upon reasonable right to privacy and this alone could be cause for striking down this Washington state law. It will be interesting going forward. We have Sanctuary cities and now Sanctuary Gun owner cities.

    I wonder what the left will think of SANCTUARY GUN OWNING CITIES after vehemently defending their own Sanctuary city beliefs.

  3. g... says:

    You support someone being 18 to buy firearms? Based on what? Because there are so many sub 18 year olds committing gun violence? BS. I started shooting at the ripe age of 12. Haven’t killed anyone nor have I ever had the inclination to kill anyone. Barbarism begins at home. Shall not infringe.
    Give these liberals an inch and before you know it, you will need to be 30 to buy a gun for whatever bs reason. Did I say shall not infringe? Inlay some logic to your opinions.

    • Mangoldielocks says:

      If you were responding to my comment did I not say that this would be challenged in the supreme court? Secondly I have no problem with their laws. I did not say that I agree with them.

      STATES RIGHTS my friend.

      Secondly do you not believe in states rights? To me a state has the right to make laws for its own citizens that do not infringe upon their constitutional rights. I do not believe this infringes on their rights. The right certainly does not like it but what the voters of Washington state determine is right for their own citizens should have no bearing on the rights of people in IOWA for example. Many states have legalized Marijuana most have not. Thats why even if the Roe V Wade is struck down 99 percent of the batshit crazed feminists would have no problems because they all live in liberal states where each state can make abortion legal because that state is highly in favor of such things.

      The less we have of federal intrusion the better off we are. States rights should determine what types of guns and magazines you can own. That does not infringe upon your right to bear a weapon or weapons.

  4. Tailgunner says:

    Jethro – Where do you see “no limits” in that? All it is saying is they will only enforce the 2nd Amendment as it is written in the Constitution of The United States. There were “no limits” 100 years ago and we had minimal problems. We need to fix the people, not the laws. Raise your kids right and ban gun free zones and you’ll have no problems.

  5. Jethro says:

    A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

    There were “no limits” 100 years ago and we had minimal problems. We need to fix the people…

    How do we ‘fix’ Americans to make them more like Europeans, Aussies, Japanese etc… those people who don’t routinely commit wholesale murder of their countrymen? We keep hearing that the problem is ‘mental health care’ in the US, but hear precious few concrete solutions other than locking up folks we claim to be crazy. Conservatives do not believe that limits on personal firepower will reduce the murders.

    What objective criteria would be used to lock up the Las Vegas murderer, Stephen Paddock (he murdered 58 and injured several hundred more)? He appeared to suffer from increasing bouts of depression and mixing alcohol with anxiolytic drugs. He was on record buying 55 firearms the year before the murder spree. He was a wealthy, white, 2nd Amendment fetishist, with conspiratorial anti-government beliefs -e.g., FEMA’s actions after Hurricane Katrina were “a dry run for law enforcement and military to start kickin’ down doors and … confiscating guns” – “Somebody has to wake up the American public and get them to arm themselves. Sometimes sacrifices have to be made.” He was upset regarding federal actions at Waco and Ruby Ridge.

    Should the FBI investigate any person purchasing 55 firearms in a year? Thousands of rounds of ammunition? Obtaining prescriptions for excessive amounts of psychotropic drugs? Would you lock him up for believing ridiculous conspiracy theories?

    How could America have pre-empted Stephen Paddock’s murder spree?

  6. formwiz says:

    Americans are the fix to Europeans, Aussies, Japanese, etc.

    We are no one’s subjects although Lefties like Jeffery want to change that.

    Are we aware 63 of 67 mass murderers in the last 30 years had mental issues?

    And another thing,

    Mass shootings in America
    By decade:
    1900s:0
    1910s:2
    1920s:2
    1930s:9
    1940s:8
    1950s:1
    1960s:6
    1970s:13
    1980s:32
    1990s:42
    2000s:28
    2010- present 54 so far

    Most mass shootings are in public places against unknown bystanders.

    If we notice, mass shootings began to skyrocket in the 60s. Now what happened in the 60s?

    2 things, the Feds began regulating firearms and the Lefties closed down the mental institutions.

    PS Interesting Jeffery brings up the Vegas shooter since the Feds have yet to release everything they know to the public. Funny how the case, like the Lefties’ mad bomber, just dropped off the radar.

Bad Behavior has blocked 8211 access attempts in the last 7 days.