Response positive for sheriff who won't enforce any new gun laws

 @Kris LovikVery true, but some people see this as the beginning of disarming fellow Americans, now if you were halfway intelligent you would understand this.

 @Kris Lovik You really need to read a couple law books before making such silly statements.

 

Executive orders are not law and don't carry the weight of law except on federal employees and on the rest of the public only in times of Marshall law. If it were otherwise we would be living in a dictatorship not a democracy and we would have no need at all for a legislative body. Every president would be able to rule by executive order bypassing the constitution and the congress, then subsequent presidents could just unorder all the previous and issue his own orders resulting in perpetual chaos.

 

Under our constitution all federal laws must be voted on and passed by the Congress. So the sheriff is right. He is under no obligation to follow an executive order because he is not a Federal Employee, he is in fact employed and elected by his own county which last i heard, is not under Marshall Law. Now if the congress does see fit to pass such a bill into law, at that time the sheriff would be bound to respect them but not before, that being done he still would not be required to enforce federal law as that is the perview of federal law enforcement not local law officers.

 

This has already been clarified by the Arizona immigration issue a few years back When the supreme court prohibited lacal law enforcement from enforcing federal immigration laws, or did you forget about that little ruling?

 

Now doesn't it seem silly that you would start a petition to remove a serriff for not enforcing a "federal law" which is not even a law and even if it were it has already been determined he has no power to enforce anyway?

 

@Kris Lovik You are a freekin moron, the 2nd amendment is a right given to us. President Obutma can't take it away from us and neither can you with your stupid petition trying to get sheriff mueller removed from office for not enforcing a law. It doesn't work in Arizona and it won't work in Oregon either. Pull your head out of your ass you anti gun nut and go cry to your democrap lover but buddies. They can have my gun when they pry my cold dead fingers from it.

 @Robert Reid the mass shootings will continue to get more and more heinous. the next one will likely take place in a kindergarten or even preschool, and there will be many more victims than in newtown.  and if that doesn't work, they'll move up(or down?) to a hospital nursery.  they will not stop until we are all disarmed and helpless.

 @david_42 Another clueless liberal.

You have to understand that these laws are putting a handicap on law abiding citizens.  These laws are not going to effect criminals.  Do you honestly think a criminal or mentally unstable person is going to go into their Dr. office and ask if they're mentally competent to have a gun to shoot up a school or theater? NO! There is still going to be gun violence by mentally unstable people and criminals. They don't obey the law, hence the reason why they've been in jail.  As for the mentally unstable people, in all the incidents there has been some unstability and the guns were obtained illegally.  LEO would be inviolation of the law because their guns hold high capacity ammo and their service pistols have more then 10 rounds in them.  They would actually be able to be charged with a federal offense.  I applaud Sheriff Mueller for taking a stand against unconstitutional and irrational laws.

 @david_42 YOU are a moron. he is doing nothing but obeying the law. THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT CAN NOT TELL THE STATES WHAT TO DO. the 2ND amendment clearly states gun ownership SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED UPON. the federal government is in violation of law. Obama should be impeached IMMEDIATELY.

 @david_42 Which law did he choose to ignore?  None so far.

 @WebFootSTi I would also like to state that no police officer was actually killed in that shootout too.

@Oglethorpe First of all, there were no officers killed in the North Hollywood shootout.  But there was a lot of property damage.  The Sheriff didn't say that he was against assault rifle banning.  He simply said that he's not going to enforce a law that is unconstitutional.  The President is hurting the law abiding citizens and taking the right to have a weapon and to have a high capacity magazine (more then 10 rounds) in any gun.  That means that in a cops gun he can't have more then 10 rounds.  These criminals and lunatics as you call them feel that they can operate above the law and these criminals and lunatics are still going to get high powered assault weapons and high capacity magazines.  If this law is passed you're putting the public at a disadvantage to protecting themselves.  Also, at the time of the North Hollywood shooting NO POLICE DEPARTMENT HAD THE HIGH POWERED WEAPONS THE BANK ROBBERS HAD, WITH THE EXCEPTION OF SWAT!!!! The LAPD Patrol Units had their .9mm baretta and dept issued shotguns.  This was the first time that the LAPD had ever come up against 2 guys with this much fire power and that much BODY ARMOR !!!!!  The Nassau County Police Dept in Oct 2012 buried a 29 year old ESU Police Officer because a 2 time felon out on parole shot the Officer in the chest and killed him in the line of duty.  That criminal didn't register for that gun IT WAS AN ILLEGAL WEAPON !!!!!

 @Oglethorpe "The robbers had more assualt weaponry and fire power than the entire LA PD"

I believe you're alluding to the rather high profile bank robbery and subsequent shootout with LA PD known as the 'North Hollywood" shootout.  The only rather interesting thing about using it as an example is... the AK and AR-15 that the perps used, we legal versions of their fully automatic illegal counterpart.  They acquired the weapons then ILLEGALLY CUSTOMIZED THEM to operate in full auto mode -- and yes, that in itself, is illegal.  Some criminals just don't respect the law. The officers that eventually managed to hit the perps used AR-15s to do the job -- yes, semi-auto weapons but operated with skill and training can do the job just fine.

 

An informed opinion is a wonderful thing that many with opposing views can respect and honor. An uninformed view is kind of like, well, an opinion -- and you know the popular phrase outlining what those are like..

 @Oglethorpe Actually sir, you are the moron. You have such a feeble grasp on anything resembling a fact that its laughable.

 

 @Oglethorpe Also let's pretend that one does duct-tape a bunch of 30-rd magazines together.  The .223 caliber weights at least 40 grains to 90 grains depending on the grain in the bullet.  Let's just say 55 grain is used which is the most common .223 caliber fired.  Hypothetically I want to fire 180 rounds without much effort to flip it around constantly which requires 6 magazines at 4 oz each as well.  A full loaded magazine weighs about 15 oz x 6 which is 2.55 kilograms which translate to roughly 5.6 lbs.  Do you realize how heavy that is especially with a stock AR-15 weighing about 7-8 lbs?  Pretty damn heavy.

@Oglethorpe Sorry buddy, you need to re-think your thoughts.  You are comparing the situation up against people robbing a bank vs the LAPD.  So, if we ban guns, hell, lets go nuts and ban all guns for this scenario.  You really think people who are going to knowingly break the law by robbing a bank, you think they are going to obey the law and not use guns?  Criminals are criminals.  If guns are outlawed or not, criminals will still get their hands on them.  I agree something should be done to stop the senseless shootings, but disarming private America is not the answer.

 @Oglethorpe FWIW (and in a beautiful display of irony) it's "buffoon."

 @Oglethorpe Without having to reload?  Are you implying that a standard AR-15 magazine has more than 30 rounds?  The only way to go even higher is to buy an AR-15 100-rd drum or duct tape a bunch of 30-rd magazines together so they're always flipping it.  The last shooting against cops used by an actual assault rifle (fully automatic rifle) was the North Hollywood shootout as you stated.  Do you understand what is an "Assault Weapon"?  You can buy yourself a stock AR-15 with no modifications made to the weapon and it is a semi-automatic rifle that shoots .223 unless you specify to shoot a different caliber.  Now take that weapon I described, add a bayonet mount and a pistol grip to the rifle and you are now using an "Assault Weapon".  Nothing has changed to the mechanism of the gun though.  When you cite the example of the LAPD, you are referring to the North Hollywood shootout in 1997 as I stated which there were no officers killed in that shooting.  One of the men were shot and killed by the LAPD while the other killed himself with his own weapon.  The weapons used in that shooting were illegally modified to fire on automatic mode which are already regulated under the National Firearms Act of 1934.  You know what was the biggest massacre here in the United States actually was with automatic weapons being used?  It certainly wasn't on the side of civilians but rather the United States government in the Waco siege.

 @Dammes Please name one tool that has become outdated and is no longer used .

@Dammes

Oregon is run by the socialist republic of Portland where 80% of you liberal traitors of Oregon live. Good luck with your 911, pepper spray, and gun laws when they try to take our guns, the criminals will take your homes when anarchy rules Portland, because we will be too busy to worry about those who betrayed our Constitution."

 

" No free man shall ever be de-barred the use of arms. The strongest reason for the people to retain their right to keep and bear arms is as a last resort to protect themselves against tyranny in government." -- Thomas Jefferson

 

@Dammes  " . . . other more efficient forms of self-defense."  Excuse me?  I have taken three different styles of karate.  I could be a tenth dan black belt and it would avail me nothing unless the intruder was within reach of my hands and feet.

 

You mentioned pepper spray.  Depending on the exact circumstances, use of pepper spray might not be advisable due to one simple fact:  if you use it against someone, you might be affected as well.

 

As for calling 911, that won't stop an intruder from attacking you.  Do you expect the intruder to politely wait for the police or leave simply because you called 911?  Why don't you ask the woman who shot an intruder five - yes, FIVE - times before the intruder left how well making a phone call protected her.

 @Dammes Actually, you are providing the perfect example why progressive ideology will eventually wither and die like a choked out weed.

Cell phone?, pepper spray? LOL those won't even help against a tiny .22 derringer.

or even a small pocket knife.

Now imagine how your cell phone is going to be any use against tyranny.

Do you feel stupid yet?

 @Dammes Efficient??? ROFLMMFAO.  The reason guns remain popular IS their efficiency.

 

I'd love to know how a cell phone protects you from 9" knife.  YouTube your own death maybe?  Hold it in front of you?

 

Please tell me your answer isn't "Call the police";  You might want to go look at the average response times of Oregon or the US for 911 calls.  It's a pretty good "Oh crap." moment for most people, and the cherry on top is the police have ZERO obligation to protect the public.

 

When seconds count, the police are only minutes away..." In Atlanta last year it took, on average, 11 minutes and 12 seconds from the time a high-priority 911 call was received until an Atlanta police officer showed up at the scene. The response times reported by the El Paso (Texas) Police Department were only one second quicker than Atlanta’s, with an average of 11 minutes and 11 seconds....Criminal justice professor Robbie Friedmann of Georgia State University said that Atlanta’s response time is “not unreasonable” when compared with the other cities.

He added that it takes longer than the public likely thinks to respond to 911 calls."

 

I am having a hard time imagining using a cell phone to defend myself for up to 11 minutes while being stabbed repeatedly.

 

There is an app for it though, we call it a 'firearm'.

 

 

 @blotto How about the reverse which is vastly more likely....That the county sues the progressive idiots in DC who put citizens at danger by infringing on their 2A rights?

 @blotto What law is this that you are citing the sheriff is refusing to enforce?  None so far.  His letter was only to address any unconstitutional "law" that may come from either the President via Executive Order or decree because it bypasses the federal process of making law or an unconstitutional law that extremely infringes on the rights of Americans such as calling for confiscation of legally owned weapons.

@Kris Lovik ---- To quote Karadion above ... " His letter was only to address any unconstitutional "law" that may come from either the President via Executive Order or decree because it bypasses the federal process of making law or an unconstitutional law that extremely infringes on the rights of Americans such as calling for confiscation of legally owned weapons."  Maybe you should re-read and try to digest the content of Tim Mueller's letter before you try to "educate" him.  I think he is very well informed, by the way, and not in need of an "education" or enlightenment from you.

 @Kris Lovik He took and oath to defend the constitution.

He is keeping his oath.

And being a Sheriff, any act he does in the duties of his office have a political flavor.

 

That being said, once the teeth of the 2A are removed by progressives, or once it is completely done away with as is the goal of most of the big name gun grabbers, who or what is going to protect your 1A? Because that's what the 2A is for.

@Kris Lovik If you are a sincere person, just look at history and modern-day countries where gun restrictions were and are in place.  The result: massive atrocities by criminals.  Modern day examples? Look at Brazil, where the population are in constant harrassment by small time thugs.  On the street, at the light, car drivers are forced to hand over money and jewelry to people who just walk up and put a gun through the car windows.  Mexico? Worse. Columbia, El Salvador...the list goes on.  People are just sitting ducks, while the "Militia" does absolutely nothing. 

 

And your constitutional interpretation? B - U - N - K.

 @Kris Lovik said: "So while we have the right to bear arms, it is not unlimited, and so these proposals made by our POTUS are not unconstitutional."

 

His proposals to ban 'assault weapons" is likely unconstitutional according to U.S. v. Miller (1939).  And since high capacity magazines would likely (by extension) be included in that opinion, his proposal to ban them would also be unconstitutional.

 

U.S. v. Miller states (edited for brevity): "...And further, that ordinarily when called for service these men were expected to appear bearing arms supplied by themselves and of the kind in common use at the time."

 

I think anyone, including the president, would have a hard time arguing that an AR15 isn't a commonly used weapon in the world today.  Thus, an attempt to ban them would be a violation of the 2nd Amendment, as defined by u.s. v. Miller.

 

Interestingly enough, many people don't know about this SCOTUS decision.  Or prefer to ignore it.

 

Steve

 @Kris Lovik It's not an opinion or a political view  It's the constitution.  You know the piece of paper our country was founded on.  Try reading it some time.

 @Kris Lovik Too bad that they are "proposals".  Those proposals are not the equivalent of law.  None of the Executive Orders do anything serious nor do they make any modification to current laws of this country.  I suggest that you look at the list of the 23 executive orders that the President released yesterday.  The letter that the sheriff of Linn County was released prior to the release of the executive orders for public consumption.  Especially all the President has done is asked the Congress to make new laws and send them to him for signing.  That has yet to happen nor will there ever be a resurrection of the Assault Weapons Ban of 1994, a cosmetic ban, that would have absolutely zero effect on Lanza or Holmes.  For example, a stock AR-15 during the effect of the AWB was freely sold to the public was not illegal in itself to sell.  However if a person had simply added a bayonet and a pistol grip to it, it would have made it an "assault" weapon which did not change the mechanism of the gun at all.  Fully automatic AR-15's are already regulated by the NFA under Title II.  Also you can't legally own an automatic weapon that was made after 1986 because of the Firearm Owners Protection Act either.