The law requires that the parents send their kids to school. The school requires that the parents present a certificate that proves that the kid was vaccinated at enrolement...enforcement is not that big of a problem.

In regard to "not enforcing" the new gun law, you cannot, not enforce, something that is not in effect until July. The fact that law enforcement types say they will not enforce it, is just rhetoric until July comes around.

@dahermit Maybe. But they are also saying they have the discretion to choose which laws to enforce, and that they will not enforce this one. And it's not just in Yakima, but in many places across the entire state. They see it as unfair that "liberal" Seattle can tell them what to do just because there are more voters there.

Moreover, the age restrictions went into effect January 1st.

"Section 13 of the measure, which establishes age requirements, took effect on January 1, 2019. The rest of the measure's provisions were set to take effect on July 1, 2019."

Local gun shops have said publicly (and in the article I posted above) that they are ignoring those requirements, and law enforcement is currently not enforcing them.

"If people don't like the law, they will just ignore it." When I skimmed over the article, it seemed that the motive for not enforcing the law was not one of "not liking" the law, but that they considered it unconstitutional and expected the courts to rule so shortly.

@dahermit Sure. But unfortunately it isn't up to them to make that determination. From the state attorney general:

"Numerous sheriffs and police chiefs have stated that they will not implement or enforce the initiative.... Like all laws passed by the people of Washington and their representatives, Initiative 1639 is presumed constitutional. No court has ruled that this initiative is unconstitutional. 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. If you personally disagree with Initiative 1639, seek to change it. Or file a lawsuit challenging it. But do not substitute your personal views over that of the people. As public officers, our duty is to abide by the will of the people we serve, and implement and enforce the laws they adopt. I encourage you to do so.[4] ”

@greyeyed123 Should Rosa Parks have filed a lawsuit to change the laws regarding to discrimination on public transportation?
As public officers their "duty" was to break-up lunch counter sit-ins, and attempts to register to vote?
It appears that the question can be more complicated than you seem to think.
"Unjust law" is not that different from an "unconstitutional" law.
[monticello.org]

@dahermit Are police officers ignoring a law because they think it is unconstitutional, or because they think it is immoral (or contrary to their values)? Those on the right try to conflate the two. They also champion the will of the people, until the will of the people votes against them. Then they say it must be unconstitutional.

Moreover, the Supreme Court, which determines constitutionality, has already said the right to bear arms is not unlimited. District of Columbia vs. Heller:

"Like most rights, the Second Amendment right is not unlimited. It is not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose. For example, concealed weapons prohibitions … possessions of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing condition and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms."

Even rabid NRA proponents would not advocate private nukes. Ok, maybe they would. And they'd probably cite the Second Amendment as why it is constitutional.

@greyeyed123 "Are police officers ignoring a law because they think it is unconstitutional, or because they think it is immoral (or contrary to their values)? " Inasmuch as one would have to have access to someone else's though process, that question is unanswerable. Nevertheless, they (in the link) seem to have answered that question as, they deem it "unconstitutional".

@dahermit Which would be very odd, since they don't get to decide other issues of constitutionality, and have never asserted the ability to previously. Why would they make an exception for this one issue that is highly polarizing and pushed politically by the NRA and other conservative groups in conservative areas of the state where conservative police officers live? That doesn't seem to require telepathic powers. And they know the constitution does not give them the power to decide constitutionality, which is a contradiction in their dubious position.

@greyeyed123 You must have missed this part: "Inasmuch as one would have to have access to someone else's though process, that question is unanswerable."

@dahermit Let me try another tack. What is the constitutional basis for denying people the right to own personal nukes?

@greyeyed123 A logical fallacy, "an appeal to extremes". The original post had to do with age limits on the buyers of certain guns.
[logicallyfallacious.com]

@dahermit It would be an appeal to extremes if the argument against personal nukes would not be the same argument as against any kind of semiautomatic weapons. Unfortunately the basis for all arguments against any gun control also works against any personal nuke limits.

If I am incorrect, feel free to elaborate. What arguments against personal nukes are different than arguments against semiautomatic weapons? (Some feel that semiautomatic weapons legally in the hands of high school seniors is extreme. Others think the age should be lowered below 18. Still others would--and have--suggested there be no age limit at all, as the Second Amendment says there should be no infringement of the right to bear arms. Still others argue we have to have an armed populace to check the possibility of a tyrannical government. But the government has nukes. Why can we not have nukes to keep the possibility of a tyrannical government in check? Or even deter foreign agents of attacking us with nukes?)

"What about my right to inflict possible pandemics on those around me? Shouldn't that be protected as a form of free speech?" I sense that you post was factitious, however I think that you may mean, "free choice", not free speech and there is nothing in the Constitution about that, that I know of.

"And what about privacy? It's pretty intrusive to tell me which viruses and bacteria I and my children can choose to cultivate in our own bodies!" If you are referring to the 4th Amendment, "...secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches...", requiring a vaccination is not a "search".

If I got it wrong, please correct me with the appropriate Constitutional citation.

@dahermit Good points. FYI, I did mean free speech, as under more recent, wide interpretations which also recognize campaign contributions and corporate advertising as such.

However, I do not recognize the Constitution as being a legal document, as it was never properly ratified as per procedures laid out in the Articles of Confederation, which I regard as still being in force as the Law of the Land.

@The-Krzyz "However, I do not recognize the Constitution as being a legal document, as it was never properly ratified as per procedures laid out in the Articles of Confederation, which I regard as still being in force as the Law of the Land." Good luck with that one.

@dahermit Saves a lot of time in my legal practice ...

I never got the chicken pox as a child. I got it when I was 24, and was very sick. Apparently it can be fatal in adults (with complications, but also rarely fatal).

I love Cody’s Lab. Did you see the one where he floats an anvil in mercury?