Local sheriffs sound off on new federal gun proposals
PORTLAND, Ore. -- Following the Linn County sheriff’s much publicized letter to the White House, expressing his views on possible new federal gun laws, several other local sheriffs have followed suit.
Multnomah County Sheriff Dan Staton released a statement on Thursday, saying he did not plan to make changes in his office following new federal proposals tightening gun control laws.
“No change in the practices of this office will come without both a clear understanding of the measures proposed or enacted into law, or a chance to hear back from the citizens of Multnomah County regarding these proposals,” Staton wrote in the statement.
The sheriff did emphasize he has long supported rights to privacy of concealed-handgun holders and tougher screening of concealed handgun applicants.
Washington County Sheriff Pat Garrett also released a statement. He took a more aggressive response to the firearms proposals.
In bold type, Garrett wrote: “I will protect your Second Amendment rights under the United States Constitution – I will not enforce federal law that will infringe upon those rights.”
Garrett added that he does not believe the federal government will be successful in “passing law that restricts your Second Amendment rights.”
Similarly, Marion County Jason Myers also released a statement, saying he also was a strong supporter of gun rights.
“I have and will continue to uphold this oath, including supporting the Second Amendment rights of our citizen,” Myers wrote. “When tragedy or controversy strikes our nation, we naturally see citizens begin to advocate for their beliefs on these issues. I try to avoid hasty reactions to situations that impact the rights of all people.”
Baker County Sheriff Mitchell Southwick struck the same tone in his statement. He said he does not plan to enforce “any federal regulation enacted by Congress or by executive order of the president offending the constitutional rights of the citizens.”
I voted for Sheriff Pat Garrett, will do so again and send him a check when I see his name on my ballot again.
don't you tell these officers what to do. They tell you what the laws are. You don't preach the laws to them. That's  Obstruction.  There the law your not. If they feel that some one or some one is messing with our constitution it's there jobs not to follow by any law that's messing with any amendment including the 2nd. Either you agree or not.Â
@Taxedstwrker:
No, the discussion is about scary looking SEMI-automatic weapons and how many rounds they can hold before one has reload.
Â
For me, big concern is the slippery slope. The scary looking ones are banned, why not go after the normal looking ones? A nice hunting rifle with a good scope could be categorized as a sniper rifle. "What sane person need a sniper rifle?" and we slide down hill into the muck...
@WebFootSTi  I get it. I understand the threat that many are predicting to our gunrights. I also know that noone came to my door to take firearms (law abiding, non-phelon, responsible, works, hunts.....etc) as soon as 08 election was over. I did notice a bunch of morans went and tried to convince the rest of us sane folks that ammo would no longer be available. I also waited til ammo prices went back down to re supply. People can try to fool everyone else into their stupidity but I know up from down....Monday from Friday etc. Thank You for Reply Webfoot.
 @Taxedstwrker "Non-phelon?"
 @Reflect  @Taxedstwrker "F" is so last year. It is now about the "ph".
For decades in this country one could order almost any type of weapon through the mail. The M1 carbine, a semiautomatic rifle that accepts a 15 or 30 round magazine, was available as government surplus for as little as $20, with no background check, no paperwork - and our crime rate was a fraction of what it is now. Mass shootings were nearly unheard of. Why?Â
Â
Why? Â Because dangerous, new pharmaceutical drugs are in common use now. The fact is that every school shooter has been on antidepressants â SSRIs. A black box warning on the SSRI label warns that this drug can inspire violence and suicide. See SSRIstories.com and DrugAwareness.org for a discussion of case histories compiled by a psychologist who is an âexpert witnessâ in such cases that go to trial. Once you see the connection, you will find it obvious the drugs, not the weapons, have inspired these mass shootings.Â
Â
"Depression" is not an illness.  It is a sign that someone is carrying a heavy burden of legitimate sorrow. Our country prefers drugs to grieving. But sorrows never go away until they are honestly released. Numbing is not enough. Psychiatrists know that there is no clinical evidence of a "chemical imbalance". They cannot test for "chemical imbalance" - they merely guess - and they know that the SSRI drugs can be very, very dangerous.Â
Â
Guns are inanimate objects. Humans can be agitated by these SSRI drugs to the point that they pick up guns and use them. Mental health and wellbeing is not something that can be attained through drugs. We need to rethink our approach to troubled people in our country. And that takes more than a prescription or talk therapy. It takes wisdom and compassion - things they don't usually teach in college or med school. Â
Â
Great post, just one more side to what can affect human nature. Once again great view.
 @Patricia Robinett Amen Patricia. Thank you.
 @Patricia Robinett Thank you.  A voice of reason focused on the real issue.
 @Patricia Robinett ~  Truly one of the best (if not THE best) post I've seen yet on this subject..!   Just my opinion, but from what I've seen, a lot of these scrip drugs being peddled to us by the pharms are FAR more dangerous than any firearm could be...and made 1000 times worse by the fact that our gov't is backing them, eg: by allowing mass marketing of these drugs directly to the consumer via non-stop saturation of TV, radio, magazine, etc ads ..!   (Yes, I know that these are not available without prescription, but there are Drs out there who will prescribe darn near anything that somebody asks for...)
The Sherriff are stating their political beliefs. IF and ONLY IF Federal Law is changed the LAW WILL CHANGE. The State or County did not stop the Federal Government from enforcing Federal Law so far. It cracks me up that they would make such statements to Federal Government. When in a Public Position we are to not have any Political Power from our position. It is Immediate Termination. They sent a letter with official Letterhead Threatening US VP that they would not support a change in Federal Law. Why did this only reflect gun laws at Federal Level. They have not stopped Federal Law Enforcement from Enforcing any other Federal Law in Oregon. Just telling ATF etc to come clean house in Oregon and specific Counties if Law is changed.
Â
The current topic is ....Should Public be able to own AUTOMATIC ASSAULT RIFLES With large magaziines etc. (military combat weapon) ?
The topic is not if Oregon Residents may have guns or Concealed etc.
Â
 @Taxedstwrker If you are not an anti-gun mouthpiece this statement just proves you are a complete moron. You as a gun owner should be outraged over any and all restrictive legislation because guess what once it starts it won't stop. First its the scary looking military STYLE weapons then its the not so scary ones then ah hell just get rid of them all. Get a clue.
 @Taxedstwrker Seriously, do you read much?
The current topic has nothing to do with "AUTOMATIC ASSAULT RIFLES". Read the national firearms act, and every single related and legit news story over the last month then come back for a discussion.
Â
It amazes me that so many people here, the detractors of these Law enforcement professionals are so much more knowledgeable regarding the law, jurisdictional authority, and the constitution than them.
You detractors are all clowns.
 Taxedstwrker.  Your ignorance is outstanding.  The topic is NOT "Should Public be able to own AUTOMATIC ASSAULT RIFLES With large magaziines etc. (military combat weapon) ?"  The weapons in question are semi-automatic, and magazines with a capacity of more than ten.  Do you know what that means?  These are not military combat weapons.  You are wrong, and like most anti-gun mouth pieces, do not know what you are speaking about. Â
The sheriffs are not stating their political beliefs. Â They are stating their interpretation of the U.S. Constitution and the illegal orders that were signed on Wednesday. Â That is their job. Â They are not supposed to follow illegal directives.
It's amazing to me how the supposed "educated, advanced, liberals" are so stupid. Â Yet they spew misinformation and lies as if they are facts. Â You want to take away the rights of other Law Abiding American Citizens, and decide what their right s are, yet you want to protect your rights and don't want anyone else dictating to you. Â You do not get to have it both ways. Â Do not expect those of us, upon whom you are trying to infringe, to sit here quietly.
MMRoach, Very good use of you First Amendment Rights! When this idiot has any problems guess who they call first, the people he's attacking. KATU really should make some of these people on this comment board pass an I.Q. test.
@MMRoach First of all I am definitely not an Anti-Gun Mouthpiece. You may assume this. Plenty of weaponry surround me. I am stating that If Federal Law changes County and State LEO will not be able to stop Federal Enforcement. So are the County and State Police going to stand with guns drawn at FEDS when Feds have Search Warrant.....tell them this is MY COUNTY? I am just not going to get fooled by extremes of any politically motivated people. You also claim I must be an EDUCATED LIBERAL. What does that say about conservatives? I could assume you mean they are UNEDUCATED Repubtards. That would also be an ASSUMPTION on my part. You get a degree issued on Internet in reading a crystal ball to tell you about someone you do not know?Â
@Taxedstwrker "The current topic is ....Should Public be able to own AUTOMATIC ASSAULT RIFLES With large magaziines etc." ??? You might want to read more type less.
Unfortunately, one of the points that seems to be missing from this current debate is the actual text of the 2nd Amendment which says "A well regulated militia, being necessary for the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed."
For centuries, there are thousands of statutes and court cases and ordinances (federal, state & local) that have been made that ALREADY control and/or restrict how, where and when lawful citizens can carry firearms of any type. Of course, on the local level these laws can vary from county to county; what might be allowed in my county IS NOT going to fly in Multnomah County â believe me.Â
It sounds like Sheriff Mueller has become a strict Constitutionalist in his interpretation of that document and is not going to uphold any of the federal, state or local jurisdiction laws that have been passed regarding firearms. That is a very frightening prospect because nowhere in the 2nd Amendment is the word LAWFUL used.
Excellent. I know Sheriff Stanton has consistently protected our rights to privacy when it comes to releasing the names list of CWP carriers. Nice to see him step up on this issue. With all of these Sheriffs joining in are any of you naysayers starting to get it?
Good for them. Â No law enforcement officer should ever follow an unlawful command. Â They are showing that they are true law enforcement, not politicians. Â These are signs of great leaders. Â Making this noble stand in very liberal urban counties exemplifies courage, honor, and integrity. Â We should support them to the fullest. Â Those that think that they aren't doing their jobs, well you just don't get it. Â They are doing their jobs. Â Thank you Sheriffs.Â
@MMRoach They are actually making personal political statements. When sworn in to a public position you are not allowed to use public position for political gain. If the Federal Government Changes Assault Rifle Laws for public USE. The Feds will enforce. Did local Counties and State Law Enforcement stop Feds from Enforcing FEDERAL LAWS yet? If federal Govt changes law would it be an unlawful command to tell your Deputies to not Enforce a new law?
 @Taxedstwrker  @MMRoach Actually no the County sheriffs can decide not to enforce laws they believe infringe on our CIVIL RIGHTS, now they do enforce the federal drug laws as you do not have the right to cook meth or grow tons of weed. The also enforce laws that protect civil rights, they are actually standing up for the civil rights of the citizens ans should be applauded, we celebrate other defenders of civil rights like Rosa Parks and MLK why not celebrate some that are defending our rights today.
 @Taxedstwrker Let me put it in a way you can understand: You are wrong! Â
@Taxedstwrker Um, don't these officers take an oath to uphold the Constitution? I believe they do. A gun ban violates the Second Amendment.
and if any federal or state comes in and try to enforce those laws then these city and county police officers and ask them to leave if they don't leave then they can force them out and I urge Clackamas county and all city police agencies around the area to step up. we need your protection. if they can mess with one they can make such orders to take away our whole constitution and I and many of Americans don't want to see the whole constitution go. that's the same one you guy's swore to protect even swore to protect our state. Not only there messing with our rights there messing with all of yours to. We as a country and a state we cant afford to see no ones rights go away like that. So I ask for city and county agencies to help protect the citizens and our constitution were non of those amendments wont go no place. when you swore to protect the state that means you swore to protect us the citizens of this state including the united states constitution. Thank you for all of you officers do to keep us safe.Â
 @dark31 Multnomah county will bend right over for Der Furher,
I wonder what would happen if I told them at work that I didn't believe in this task at work, so I wasn't going to do it? hmmmm.
 @Shannon OLSEN If your direct employer gave you a legal order, you could do it, or quit. But if a Washington DC politician with no jurisdiction over your actions gave you a command, you could just say, FO.
 @Shannon OLSEN Might be a good idea to know who you work for before you decide what you will and will not do.
these officers swore to protect the constitution and protect our state. And when those executive orders went like the way they did that's unconstitutional law and that they don't they don't have to follow. Any law that passes through Congress then they will follow and up hold that. So there for There stand besides that second amendment because that's part of the constitution the swore to protect. if you don't like it then move out of state. Because the president did say there not taking no ones guns away from us responsible and law abiding citizen, hunters and sport and recreation. is not being taken away the only thing the Vice and president was taking is Assault weapons and high capacity  magazines nothing more then that. If you don't like these laws then I suggest to move to a different state that don't have a second amendmentÂ
then maybe they should be held responsible too when something happens with these guns involved. I bet they wouldn't be so outspoken then. It's easy when it's someone else's kids. This is not the good 'ole west. Shows ignorance and a lack of compassion. We have to register and insure cars, why not guns. If those kids had been killed with a car, the family would get something and the person(s) would be held liable. If somone bought the gun for him, they would be held liable too. Why be sheriff if you are not going to do your job. They didn't say you could only carry out the parts of the law you agreed with when you were sworn in.
 @Shannon OLSEN Your horrendous grammar also shows great ignorance. Here is a thought most gun hating liberals can't stand. STOP BLAMING THE TOOL AND START BLAMING THE CRIMINALS. You want the real cause of these acts look no further than the pharmaceutical industry, every school shooter was on some form of mind altering substance, lets start with fixing mental health care and see how many shootings we have then.
 @Shannon OLSEN Shannon, they are doing their jobs by upholding the constitution and protecting our rights. It's really that simple. :)
Washington County Sheriff Pat Garrett also released a statement but nobody knows what it is because the link in this story doesn't take you to the letter. You'll have to look it up yourself. Thanks again KATU.
Ah, the absurdity of people trying to tell other people what they should think borders on insanity in this state.  The sheriffs are doing the right thing here people.  Protecting the rights of their citizens.  Faulting them for that is well, just silly.
I seem to remember seeing a WW2 30-06 carbine one of my ancestors had that had a ? I don't know an 8 round clip on it . And it looked to me like it could kick some serious ass!
Apparently it didn't need a asthmatic stock and hand grip to get the job done. I don't really have an opinion on this one as I am not a lawman but it makes things worse if the press keeps making noises.
 @Nope Vlarry I think you're referring to the M1 Garand. It was a .30-06 8 round clip semi-auto gas powered full size combat rifle.  Yes, if you've ever fired any .30-06 rifle (very typical of bolt action style 'hunting' rifles) you'll know they pack a lot of 'stopping' power.  I don't believe it is technically correct to refer to it as a 'carbine' though.  The BAR (Browning Automatic Rifle - fully automatic) fired the same basic round.Â
By contrast, the smaller M1A1 carbine has a stock 15 round clip, and fires a long round-nosed pistol round (be default). Â While it was lightweight and could fire relatively fast and relatively trouble-free, it really didn't have the all out stopping power that the Garand did. At the same time, there is a common [VERY ILLEGAL] customization to the M1A1 that allows it to fire fully automatic. And, during WWII this tweak was employed to make the fully automatic version of the M1A1.
Â
Gen. George Patton credited the M1 Garand as one of four things that helped the US be victorious in WWII.
 @Nope Vlarry To be technically correct, please do substitute 'magazine' for 'clip' in the above - sorry, thanks.  / needs more coffee..
@ThePosterFormerlyKnownAsPhredE Actually these were refered to as "Bandoliers" in the M1 Garands.
@eyeonchina:
You mean all nine of the sheriffs so far? Most of whom have been elected and can be recalled, but not fired. Remember, you can only sign a recall petition for your sheriff in your county.
He is a public servant hired to do what hes told not what he wants. Â He needs to be fired along with the other two.
 @eyeonchina The Sheriff's oath of office is to uphold the US constitution and the state constitution. They are doing what they have sworn to do and, like it or not, protecting the 2nd amendment is part of what they are hired to do. Protecting the 2nd amendment gives you the ability to exercise all the other rights. Without the 2nd there wouldn't be a 1st.
Sheriff's, except in Multnomah County, are ELECTED by the voters in their county, not "hired". Deputies are hired, but are representatives of the Sheriff.Â
Without the second amendment the other amendments are merely "optional".   I am not a conspiracy nut, but neither am I naive enough to think that our government could never go sideways on us. When the government stops believing that we have inalienable rights then all bets are off. We will go from a nation that believes that we have God-given rights to one that believes that the government dolls them out. And what the government gives the government can take back.
Â
Not in this America and not on my watch.
http://anonrelations.net/anonymous-warns-insurrection-837/
I think one factor that hasn't been mentioned so far that I can see, is that more requirements dumped upon local LE agencies / State government, translate in to more work, even greater demand upon resources, and all in the pursuit of a fairly vague and fuzzy objective set out by the Feds. Â Basically, they would assume -- what every government employee knows and dislikes -- the omnipresent 'unfunded mandate'. Â Unfunded mandates translate into ever expanding job descriptions and more layers of bureaucracy and BS. Â In addition to having an understanding the Constitution (they have to apply it every single day and stand by those decisions), they also have to make sure the normal activities of a Sheriff's Dept. take place each day. Â So, the motivation behind this movement might be practical and pragmatic, as much as it is theoretical or based on principle. Â Either way, I think it is the correct position.
Do we all have the right to disobey laws or executive orders we feel is unonsitutional? Should all the soldiers in Afghanistan throw down their rifles saying its unconstitutional for us to be there? After all, congress never declared war against the Taliban. The shriffs are law enforcement officers, they swore an oath and they need to uphold their words. If not, they need to resign. It is the courts who decided what is constitutional.
 @beam-me-up You sir, apparently know little about any elected sheriff of any county in this United States of America. They are not bound to follow a federal law that violates The Constitution and 23 Kenyan Mandates that amount to nothing, Sir...
 @beam-me-up This country was born out of rebellion to perceived tyranny.  Some supported the rebellion, some didn't.  These sheriffs have every right to do the same.  If they feel our rights are being trampled by the courts then so be it.  We the people can either support them or stand against them.  If supporting these sheriffs make me a criminal, then so be it.  Don't liberals do this every time they protest, breaking laws left and right, calling it their freedom of speech?
 @beam-me-up No we don't. County Sheriffs DO - it is their job to protect the citizens from unconstitutional actions enacted by the Federal Government.  Read up on our Constitutional Republic -  you may be surprised at what you learn.
Â
@beam-me-up I guess so, so I guess we can ignore the laws of robbery since it is our constitutional right to persuit of happyness! what would make me happy is my neibors new car, so eh to heck with the laws, they are no longer enforcable, it's now optional, have fun everyone!
Oh and since the proposals are not unconstitutional, these people are just useing their athority to exspress and press their views, which is again against the law they swore to uphold, go figure, I say fire the lot of them and hire those who will fallow the laws of the land.
 @Kris LovikÂ
Â
The Sheriffs are not talking about "proposals" in the hypothetical, they are talking about actual infringements upon our Constitutional rights. These laws have not occurred yet, but if they do, the sheriffs have made it clear that they will not enforce them.Â
Â
If for some reason the Congress passed a law that abolished the Catholic church or forbade women from voting you'd be okay with that? You'll say that the Supreme Court would rule that as unconstitutional. Maybe they would and maybe they wouldn't, but that could take months or years to overturn that.
 @Kris Lovik So they should fire all of DC is that happening?
 @beam-me-up Apparently. The entire states of Washington and Colorado, for instance, don't agree with the Federal law making marijuana illegal. Many more don't agree within limitations. I contend we not only have a right to disagree, we have a responsibility.Â
 @TwinsFan  @beam-me-upÂ
Well put.
Â
And immigration is another issue that some places want to enforce and others choose to ignore.
beamyou up alright. Try to spell weller. LOL
 @beam-me-up If you read Sheriff Garrett's letter you'll see that he pointed out Judicial Review. He also pointed out that our government consists of three branches, and each are charged with following the Constitution.
Â
A blanket declaration that you won't follow is different than a reasoned statement which appeals to rationally viewing the issue and applying the fundemental principals that govern our nation.
 @JTesla  @beam-me-up And typically, in every oath to assume a public position (military and civilian), the first directive of that oath is -- guess what? -- 'to uphold the US Constitution, ..'.  That certainly was the case in my experience in Fed Govt.
That gives some idea of the relative importance or precedence of the concept in the wider view of things. Â Similarly, such a clause gives a worker/representative/soldier/etc. some leeway in not following orders/tasks when those are believed to not be consistent with the Constitution.