Oregon Sheriff Announces Her Office Will Not Enforce State’s New Gun Control

Linn County Sheriff Michelle Duncan is making clear her office will not be enforcing Oregon’s new “high capacity” magazine ban.

The ban is part of Ballot Measure 114 (BM 114), which was heavily funded by out-of-state money.

BM 114 also requires Oregon residents to acquired a $65 permit in order to exercise their Second Amendment right to buy a firearm.

KATU quoted Sheriff Duncan commenting on BM 114, saying, “This is a terrible law for gunowners, crime victims, and public safety.”

She added, “I want to send a clear message to Linn County residents that the Linn County Sheriff’s Office is NOT going to be enforcing magazine capacity limits.”

Oregon Sheriff Announces Her Office Will Not Enforce State’s New Gun Control

Oh boy, here we go. Local sheriff telling the state to stuff it. This is in reference to the recent passing of one of the country's toughest gun control measures ever:
www.oregonlive.com...

As so many videos have shown, home invasions frequently occur with multiple attackers, and a home owner without a higher capacity magazine is going to have little chance of surviving the encounter. At least that is the premise many argue, and I happen to agree.

a reply to: TrueAmerican

BRAVO!!

a reply to: TrueAmerican

Honestly, enforcing any of this unconstitutional crap isn't real police work, it's more akin to hall monitoring.

I'm quite sure however that municipal cops WILL do the bidding of their masters without hesitation.

Sheriff's are, well, they're supposed to be anyway, the best way to respond and resolve Constitutional violations.

So the county recorder won't record your documents because they're not on THEIR list of approved documents? That's a violation of due process, so call the Sheriff and he or she will come down and arrest the clerk if needed. It won't go that far I'm sure, but the clerk will have to perform as required by law, NOT policy.

Sheriff's hold a considerable amount of constitutional power. If they really did their job, and if people were more informed about those job aspects, a lot of our "street level" problems simply wouldn't exist.

a reply to: TrueAmerican

I swear Hogg needs to find a job doing something productive; professional victim isn't a good look for him.

In regards to the law, glad that the sheriff won't support it. I imagine the challenges that will come up with this and likely being overturned in the SC. Then again, they'll just keep doing it anyway, as apparently, folks are just ignoring SC rulings regularly.

i applaud her stance but it will mean nothing. 1 can do nothing alone. grand standing wont help, now the idiots will come for her during her election cycle and they'll put one who will enforce those laws in her place. and around the circle we go.. I pray for either an asteroid, nukes or zombies..

a reply to: bubbabilly

Whatcha wanna bet that other local sheriffs will take the example and rebel as well? It just takes one...

I have not seen that theory successfully applied in real life... It in fact takes a hell of a lot more than 1.. unless you could maybe give an example I missed? I love learning. And what are we betting? Donate to charity... shaved head... what we do'n

a reply to: TrueAmerican

I've read up some on this one. It is written on purpose to ban guns without banning guns. It's disgusting. They're also trying to make it impossible to challenge up to SCOTUS and if you do, the SCOTUS won't take it.

Do those removing constitutional protections deserve constitutional protections? Just asking…

originally posted by: Ahabstar
Do those removing constitutional protections deserve constitutional protections? Just asking…

Of course they do, because lawmakers are allowed to have their own distorted version of it. The founders served up the purest orange juice, but today we drink the putrid mess left over after 235 years of infringing.

originally posted by: Ahabstar
Do those removing constitutional protections deserve constitutional protections? Just asking…

those are called traitors and deserve a swift death. They forswore their rights when they committed treason.

originally posted by: TrueAmerican
a reply to: bubbabilly

Whatcha wanna bet that other local sheriffs will take the example and rebel as well? It just takes one...

And a yup... Now more county sheriffs are doing the same:

Since the post was made, at least two more Oregon sheriffs have also vowed not to uphold the measure.

Union County Sheriff Cody Bowen posted to social media applauding and jumping on board with Duncan's statement.

"As Union County Sheriff I agree 100% with Sheriff Duncan! This is an infringement on our constitutional rights and will not be enforced by my office," his post reads. "This measure will only harm law abiding gun owners and result in wasted time with additional redundant background checks."

Malheur County Sheriff Brian Wolfe said in an interview that he also does not intend to enforce magazine capacity limits.

"That is just the way it's going to be. We have already made that decision," he said. "The supreme law of the land is a constitution of the United States, and I believe that this measure is totally contrary to the Constitution."

komonews.com...

Budda bing... budda boom.

originally posted by: bubbabilly
i applaud her stance but it will mean nothing. 1 can do nothing alone. grand standing wont help, now the idiots will come for her during her election cycle and they'll put one who will enforce those laws in her place. and around the circle we go.. I pray for either an asteroid, nukes or zombies..

Zombies, pretty please... at least I have a chance to survive those, at least until Negan.

a reply to: bubbabilly

Well it only started with one for the sanctuary cities:

Austin Poised to Become First True "Sanctuary City" In Texas
AUG. 31, 2016

Constable Sally Hernandez, has promised to get U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement, or ICE, out of the county jail. More specifically, she says she won’t hold inmates for ICE when the federal agency seeks to remove them from the country.

www.texastribune.org...[/]

EVERY enterprise begins with one first step/action/person/idea etc.

a reply to: TrueAmerican

My county sheriff said he supports gun owners and wants as many CCP legally obtained as possible. When i renewed mine last time he was there processing the permits. I voted for him and he easily wins re elections.

a reply to: Dutchowl

“…the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.”

If the sheriff comprehended the words above, he would understand that requiring a ccp IS AN INFRINGEMENT. I wouldn’t place my trust in these people. They’re the enforcement arm of the government. Very few possess the ability to think freely and critically. Most are nothing more than order followers and will do as they’re told.

Past time the sheriffs started exercising the powers that they have.

Hopefully this approach spreads.