I covered the beginning of this story a little over a week ago.  Washington Ballot Initiate I-1639 was a massive sweeping restriction in gun rights across the state.  It is so restrictive that the Constitutionality of the law is being challenged in the courts.

A number of sheriffs in rural Washington counties have decided that they are not going to enforce I-1639 until the courts come to a decision on the law.

This has put the state attorney general at odds with those sheriffs.

Washington’s attorney general says he’ll defend gun law some sheriffs call unconstitutional

Police chiefs who refuse to enforce Washington state’s new gun restrictions could be liable if that refusal results in someone buying a gun and committing a crime, state Attorney General Bob Ferguson says.

The Seattle Times reported that sheriffs from 13 of the state’s 39 counties have signaled they won’t enforce the law. The Chinook Observer put that number at 20.

In an open letter on Tuesday, Ferguson called out police chiefs and sheriffs who are refusing to enforce the law: “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.”

The letter also said, “Local law enforcement officials are entitled to their opinions about the constitutionality of any law, but those personal views do not absolve us of our duty to enforce Washington laws and protect the public.”

All I can say is fuck the Washington state AG.

Washington Governor Jay Inslee’s executive order EO-17-01 makes Washington state a sanctuary state, in full violation of Federal immigration laws.

So what we have here is the Washington AG simultaneously saying:

  1. WA sheriffs must enforce a potentially unconstitutional gun control law, because it’s the law, and if they don’t and someone gets hurt, they (the sheriffs) will be liable.
  2. WA sheriffs cannot enforce Federal immigration law and if some illegal hurts a WA citizen, none of the people who passed the Sanctuary State law will be held liable.

That is some incredible brass plated partisan hypocrisy.

My feeling is that if the AG does carry out this threat and holds a rural sheriff liable for a gun crime because of their failure to enforce I-1639, than the next time some illegal rapes, assaults, or kills a WA resident, the sheriffs raid the Governor’s residence with a SWAT team and drag the Governor out in handcuffs.

But I digress, this isn’t about the piece of shit Governor or AG, this is about violent anti-gun activists.


Around dinner time on Feb. 1, Jaydin Ledford’s ultra-left leaning commentaries took a twisted turn. He went on the offensive and quickly landed himself on law enforcement’s radar, and ultimately behind bars.

“I love how all my nightmares come true,” a self-indulgent Ledford, 23, posted early in the day.

On that day and stretching until Feb. 4, the self-proclaimed Marxist (who also claims to “speak for the trees”) teed up a series of deleterious threats aimed squarely at Washington State sheriffs.

“I-1639 is law,” read one of screeds composed by Ledford, whose Facebook profile photo features a headshot snap of a burly Karl Marx wearing a pair of Ray-Ban Wayfarers.

“sheriffs that are non compliant will be shot. by me.”

At least one of Ledford’s posts called out Spokane Sheriff Ozzie Knezovich.

“Ozzie Knezovich is gonna get a bullet in his skull,” it read.

When Knezovich learned about the posts from Ledford (who hadn’t been named yet) and that he allegedly “wanted to put a bullet in my brain” he explained that the tactic of “bullying” won’t work and that the threat was actually one of many for the past few years.

He also found Ledford’s messaging to be quite “ironic.”

“This is an individual who wants to ban guns — except he wants to kill people,” the puzzled sheriff said.

It’s not ironic.  This nut job is a full fledged Marxist Communist.  His entire outlook on life is that he, as a member of the Revolution, is special and everyone else are proles.  You can’t have a gun because you are a prole, the sheriffs must enforce the laws that disarm the proles, but he as a Marxist leader has the right to guns and to kill the sheriffs who don’t enforce the laws he likes.

Look at how many of the anti-gun elite have their own armed guards or how many of the environmentalist Green New Deal supporters spend half their travel time on private planes.

This is straight out of Animal Farm and has been this way since the beginning of the Communist Revolution.

Comrades!’ he cried. ‘You do not imagine, I hope, that we pigs are doing this in a spirit of selfishness and privilege? Many of us actually dislike milk and apples. I dislike them myself. Our sole object in taking these things is to preserve our health. Milk and apples (this has been proved by Science, comrades) contain substances absolutely necessary to the well-being of a pig. We pigs are brainworkers. The whole management and organisation of this farm depend on us. Day and night we are watching over your welfare. It is for your sake that we drink the milk and eat those apples.

Ledford needs his milk and apples guns to manage the welfare of the proles who can’t be trusted with guns because they are too violent.

Once again, we have to point out, it’s not the gun rights activists but the anti-gun activists who are the violent nut jobs.


Spread the love

By J. Kb

4 thoughts on “Why are anti-gun activists so violent – Washington edition”
  1. Police chiefs who refuse to enforce Washington state’s new gun restrictions could be liable if that refusal results in someone buying a gun and committing a crime, state Attorney General Bob Ferguson says.

    You touched on it, but I just want to reiterate that this cuts both ways. It’s not a stretch to say that the AG, responsible for enforcing the law by charging and punishing offenders, is equally responsible for every murder and rape that happens after he opts to not charge, or pleas felonies down to misdemeanors.

    If you’re going to hold law enforcement liable for selective enforcement, that opens the door for them to do the same to you…

    … except that “not enforcing unenforceable laws” is not a crime. “Aiding and abetting” and “corruption” are, with penalties. Keep that in mind, Mr. AG.

  2. I guess the twerp forgot that the US Constitution is the Supreme Law of the Land. If Washington passes something calls a law that contradicts the Constitution, it’s merely waste paper, and sheriffs are not merely permitted but in fact by their oath required to ignore it.

Login or register to comment.