Oregon County Considers Law to Prevent Enforcement of State Assault Weapons Ban

courtesy katu.com

First it was Effingham County, Illinois declaring that they won’t be enforcing any unconstitutional gun control laws the famously hoplophobic Illinois legislature may enact. Now a county in Oregon is trying to to join the Second Amendment sanctuary movement.

Some residents of an Oregon county are asking voters to support a proposed ballot measure that would bar local officials from enforcing any gun control law and uphold gun rights outlined in the Constitution.

The proposed Second Amendment Preservation Ordinance was filed with the Deschutes County clerk last week. It would empower the county sheriff to review federal, state and local laws and determine whether they violate the U.S. or Oregon constitutions.

Similar to Effingham’s relationship to Chicago, the picture postcard central Oregon county includes the town of Bend. Deschutes County is about 150 miles away from the state’s population center of Portland and light years removed in attitude and politics.

The county’s residents aren’t happy about Initiative Petition 43, which would put an “assault weapon” ban and magazine capacity limit up to a vote of the people.

Deschutes County Sheriff Shane Nelson publicly opposed the proposal this month, saying Oregon already has laws on background checks and age restrictions. He noted that among those prohibited from buying a gun are convicted felons, those convicted of misdemeanor crimes involving violence, and those found to be mentally ill.

“I support and defend the Second Amendment and oppose IP 43,” Nelson wrote on the sheriff’s office Facebook page.

He said he believes every law-abiding citizen who wants to legally own a firearm should do so.

Like Effingham County’s sheriff, Shane Nelson hasn’t gotten behind the Deschutes effort yet, no doubt because it could put him in a difficult legal position in refusing to enforce a state law.

Nelson said that while he supports “the spirit of the ordinance,” he doesn’t support enacting it.

Deschutes County tends to be conservative, with most rural voters having voted for Donald Trump in the 2016 election. However, Democratic candidate Hillary Clinton led voting in Bend, the county seat that has drawn many Californians and is a craft-brewing and outdoor recreation mecca.

 

 

comments

  1. avatar ACP_arms says:

    Portland may be 150 miles away, but Eugene is closer.

  2. avatar binder says:

    How are referendums that restrict people ever a good idea?

    Now they do have their place when it comes to restricting the state, but used the other way is a bad idea.

  3. avatar Other Tom in Oregon says:

    Calling 43 an AWB is absolutely incorrect. It is in effect a semi auto ban that if taken literally will ban semi auto pistols as well. We’ll be left with revolvers and lever guns if it passes.

    1. avatar Shire-man says:

      That’s okay though because nobody ever got shot in the old west.

  4. avatar stateisevil says:

    What’s the language of the referendum? Boobus will vote up or down based on that. If it asks “do you want new sales of assault weapons and high capacity magazines to be banned to the general public?” it will certainly pass. If it asks, ” do you want semi automatic rifles and standard capacity magazines to be banned?” I doubt it would pass. The average Amerikan voter is an uneducated, ninnying statist.

    1. avatar binder says:

      Well yes. It is not hard to get people to sign petitions banning Dihydrogen oxide. Especially when you tell them it dissolves more substances than any other liquid.

    2. avatar Other Tom in Oregon says:

      Our AG is currently working out that language, once they have that it can be challenged. My money is on “Common sense gun legislation for the children – fuck the NRA”

      1. avatar Rattlerjake says:

        We don’t need gun legislation! If you had one brain cell left then you would know that NOT ONE gun law currently in effect has EVER stopped a single murder, or gun crime by those intent on committing those crimes; and neither will any “NEW” gun laws!!!! What is necessary is for us to go back to proper punishment, including the death penalty, for those engaged in violent crimes. Convicted rapists, pedophiles, and murderers need to be hanged within 60 days of their conviction!

        We also need to establish whether mind altering drugs are causing this and prosecute the CEOs of pharmaceutical companies and STOP the use of those drugs. We also need the return of “INSANE” institutions, where individuals who show and OBVIOUS mental illness can be kept – away from the rest of us!

      2. avatar WILL AUSTIN says:

        Why haven’t you, an NRA hater, realized something about the NRA? It only has 5 million official members. For a national organization, in a nation of over 325 million people, that’s pretty weak. And all the money that they have, isn’t really all that much. It’s not like a NRA member stands outside of every voting place, passing out $100 bills and saying “Vote for only NRA approved candidates”.

        It doesn’t matter how much money is given to a politician, if that politician doesn’t do what THEIR CONSTITUENTS WANT them to do. If they don’t, they’ll lose those constituents, FAST.

        Did it ever occur to you, that the politicians, who the NRA supports, do what THEIR CONSTITUENTS WANT them to do?

        Did it ever occur to you, that THEIR CONSTITUENTS WANT them to vote FOR the things, that the NRA favors?

        That’s how the American government works.

        The NRA has been around for 146 years. No organization can last that long, without having the support of a lot of people.

        Btw – I’m not now, nor ever have I been, and probably will never be, a NRA member. They’re doing just fine without my money.

  5. avatar Baldwin says:

    Maybe it’s just me, but do we really want to require law enforcement to determine the constitutionality of enacted laws? We complain about courts legislating from the bench. Isn’t it the same if Sheriffs and Chiefs of Police “judge” from the jail? It might be a fine point for some, but I see an ordinance “requiring law enforcement review” of enacted laws as way too much power in the hands of one individual. Where is the requirement to seek an injunction or bring suit in court for a lawful adjudication of the issue? It is the responsibility of the courts to make those determinations…not that they are doing such a shit-hot job of it, but I hope you see what I mean.

    1. avatar TX_Lawyer says:

      An executive officer who is charged with upholding the Constitution has the same duty as a judge to not enforce an unconstitutional law.

      If the rest of the polity thinks the executive officer is wrong, they can remove him. That’s what checks and balances are all about.

      1. avatar neiowa says:

        The same is true of a citizen/group of citizens.

        If you can’t understand the Bill of Rights be a serf.

        1. avatar Baldwin says:

          I assure you, I’m not a serf!

        2. avatar Rattlerjake says:

          We don’t need more laws and we don’t need to dole out more authority – especially considering that the Constitution already covers arms! What we need is a law that prevents anyone who does NOT support our Constitution from holding any office of authority; that means ALL leftists need to be removed from office. We have a Constitution that dictates exactly what our country stands for, yet we allow individuals who openly hate that Constitution to make lawful decisions that violate it! That’s the same as the prisoners running the prison! How can an individual who blatantly opposes the Constitution, be trusted to uphold Constitutional law?

    2. avatar uncommon_sense says:

      Baldwin,

      Two points:

      (1) Constitutions are the Supreme Law of the Land. When legislatures pass laws that violate their respective constitutions, those laws are null and void as if they never existed. Chief law enforcement officers must therefore evaluate the constitutionality of all laws and must NOT enforce laws which violate their respective constitutions.

      (2) Chief law enforcement officers also have a solemn duty to uphold justice, human dignity, and the sanctity of human life. Even if a respective constitution is silent on a given law, chief law enforcement officers must NOT enforce laws which are unjust and violate the dignity and sanctity of human life.

      Our nation would be a much better place if chief law enforcement officers religiously honored these two monumentally important principles.

      1. avatar Baldwin says:

        I agree with what you say.

      2. avatar Rattlerjake says:

        But, as was seen in Parkland, FL, that doesn’t always happen. We also need legislation in place to no only prevent “leftists” from holding any office of authority (since they openly and blatantly disregard and violate the Constitution), but we also need a way to IMMEDIATELY remove any individual, whether elected or hired, who shows that disregard or violates the Constitution, from their position. If we put the prisoners in cells instead of letting them run the prison we wouldn’t have these problems!

    3. avatar Hannibal says:

      There are huge pitfalls in letting every lawman in the country decide what is Constitutional and what is not.

      That said, the federal government cannot force states and municipalities to enforce its laws, so they can decide for themselves on that. States and counties vary.

      1. avatar Rattlerjake says:

        You’re WRONG! When it comes to the Constitution, the government has all the right and authority to enforce it with the states and municipalities! When each state ratified the Constitution to become a state and part of the USA, they agreed to follow and uphold the Constitution (that is why it is contained in each of the state Constitutions). Any law they create must thereby adhere to the Constitution (“States Rights” does NOT give a state the right to create any law they desire). With that said, the states have all the right and authority to refuse to adhere to any federal law that violates the Constitution (just as municipalities and individuals have the right to refuse to adhere to unconstitutional state/city laws), such as Cannabis prohibition, just as they did with alcohol prohibition. The major problem we have in this nation is the fact that ALL laws are being written based on MONEY not on Constitutionality. Gun laws have nothing to do with actual prohibition, and everything to do with individuals “PAYING” for their rights – there is a price for a background check, a price for licensing gun dealers, a price for weapons permits and CCW permits, a price for ATF permission to own certain weapons, a price for taxation of weapons/parts/ammo, and a huge price for those who violate these unconstitutional prohibitions. There shouldn’t be a single law enacted until it is scrutinized by the Supreme Court and established to be Constitutional! Sadly, 99% of the laws today are for nothing but control of the citizenry and as an income stream for governments.

    4. Hey, if Los Angeles can say “We will not enforce federal law”, why not every other city or county? What’s good for the goose is good for…….

  6. avatar Removed_californian says:

    Does this mean we get to bring our dremels for the road trip?

  7. avatar M1Lou says:

    Too bad California’s have ruined Oregon. Bend was not a lefty mecca until about 15 years ago when everyone started moving in. Of course people have been complainIng about people moving to Oregon and drastically change it for as long as I’ve been around.(4 decades or so)

  8. avatar No one of consequence says:

    This just highlights the problems with a peaceful division into US-Red and US-Blue that’s been mooted.more and more recently.

    The divisions aren’t only among, but also within, states. Any such breakup is going to be extremely messy and disruptive for many people, not just those on the “borderlands.”

  9. avatar JasonM says:

    “assault rifle” band

    I wonder how that would work. Something like this maybe?

  10. avatar Gordon in MO says:

    Beware! The overlords will not allow such disobedience by peasants. Who do they think they are anyway….citizens?

    The jackbooted black shirts will soon arrive and start kicking down doors at midnight.

  11. avatar Adam says:

    “Nelson said that while he supports “the spirit of the ordinance,” he doesn’t support enacting it.”

    That says it all right there. These people love talking about freedom and how they support it but when the chips are down these guys are nowhere to be seen. they’ll support keeping their power, pension plans, and free healthcare over protecting our freedom any day of the week.

    It’s time we vote them all out and get some real patriots in office.

  12. avatar Joe R. says:

    I think it should be dealt with like Marijuana.

    MANY BROKE (D)1<K, AND POS rino MFn Reps out there took HUUUUUGE GRAFT PAYMENTS to create a carve out to protect Marijuana legalized states from prosecutions from the U.S. Department of Justice AS PART OF THE RECENT MFn ‘OMNIBUS BILL’. https://docs.house.gov/billsthisweek/20141208/CPRT-113-HPRT-RU00-HR83sa.xml

    ALL OF THOSE MF'rs NEED TO GO, AND THEY NEED TO HAVE THEIR PENSIONS TAKEN AWAY.

    AND THE ABILITY TO DO IT WILL BE PROTECTED BY SANCTUARY GUN-REFUGES THAT EXPORT THEIR PROTECTED "PRODUCT" TO CURE MEDICAL AILMENTS LIKE "Fv<KING STUPID EVIL POS (D)"; AND "Fv<KING communism" AND "Fv<KING liberalism"; and "Fv<KING in-it-for-themselves U.S. REPRESENTATIVES AND OHOLE JUSTICE DEPARTMENT HOLDOUTS" .

    F EM ALL

  13. avatar RCC says:

    I spent two weeks in Bend last year. About 8 gunshops and I visited all of them plus one of the regular gun shows at the county fair ground. Plus Nosler has been making bullets there since 1958.

    If I had not also meet a lot of transplanted California anti gun types I couldn’t imagine this getting up in that part of the world.

    We get similar here in Australia my favourite being the people who bought cheap land at back of local Army range then complain about noise.

  14. avatar Edward says:

    As a resident of Oregon and honorably discharged veteran – If this anti firearms law passes:

    1) I will not register my lawfully purchased firearms with Oregon. Oregon and the federal law all ready have laws that I have complied by when I purchased my firearms.
    2) I will not surrender my firearms to whoever comes to get them. If this means using force I will do so freely – as a last resort.

    2nd amendment clearly states, ” The right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed ”

    Back during the making of the constitution, our forefathers knew that repeating fire arms, cannons, mortars, bombs all existed – and not just single shot pistols and muskets. Furthermore, there was no regulation on shot/caliber size or any amount of arms one could have.

    People Kill People. Not Guns of any type. Nowadays, criminals use all sorts of items to commit atrocious acts of violence.

    Vehicles, knives, fists, etc … – all of which can kill and have killed. Shall we regulate or restrict the sales and ownership of these items as well?

    And what about personal feeling of many of our forefathers on the right to bear arms???

    Thomas Jefferson said:

    “The strongest reason for the people to retain the right to keep and bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in government.” – which may include the tyrannical governments armies or police who will not have restrictions on assault weapons and other weapons of high capacity carnage.

    And what of Alexander Hamilton, James Madison, Abraham Lincoln, Ben Franklin, all understood of the importance of the right to bear arms to protect ones liberties.

    Freedom is bought at a price. I am willing to offer myself in the name of freedom – if necessary.

Write a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

button to share on facebook
button to tweet
button to share via email