More Oregon sheriffs say they won't enforce new gun laws
PRINEVILLE, Ore. (AP) — More Oregon sheriffs are joining the chorus saying they would refuse to enforce any new federal gun law they believe are unconstitutional.
Crook County Sheriff Jim Hensley said Tuesday he sent the same letter to Vice President Joe Biden that was sent Monday by Linn County Sheriff Tim Mueller.
Douglas County Sheriff John Hanlin reiterated that viewpoint in his own letter released after President Barack Obama announced his gun control plan.
Hensley's letter says politicians are attempting to exploit the deaths of innocent victims in the Connecticut school shooting by supporting laws that would harm law-abiding Americans.
Hensley told KTVZ he believes in the Second Amendment, and he says officials should consider other factors that may have a role in mass shootings, such as violent video games.
Hanlin, in his letter, said "the United States Supreme Court has ruled that when a sheriff chooses to enforce an unconstitutional directive, he is violating his constitutional oath. I will NOT violate my constitutional oath."
Thank God for a few good sheriffs who like our military, take their oath to defend the constitution. Shame on those who dont. Shame on them!
As a member of the armed forces I took the same oath to defend the constitution that sheriff Mueller did both when he was an MP in the Army and as a sheriff for Linn county. If I were given an unlawful order in the military (such as shooting unarmed civilians) it would be my duty to DISOBEY that order. During world war II president Roosevelt had all Japanese Americans rounded up into prison camps without due process of law. If such an order was given today it would be the sworn duty of all law enforcement to disobey and protect their citizens from said order. We have a right to keep and bare arms and it is the duty of government to defend the rights of its citizens. Thus any action by any power be it from private citizens or governments, foreign or domestic to disarm the American people should be directly resisted by the members of law enforcement who took an oath to defend those people and their rights. I implore all my fellow Oregonians to stand behind our sheriffs. May we restore and maintain our republic with peace and dignity.
Interesting facts about gun violence:    · Ft. Hood - Registered Democrat - Muslim.   · Columbine - Too young to vote - both families were Registered Democrats and progressive liberals. · Va. Tech - Wrote hate mail to Pres Bush and to his staff --Registered Democrat.  · Colorado Theater - Registered Democrat, staff worker on the      Obama campaign, Occupy Wall Street participant, progressive liberal. · Conn. School Shooter - Registered Democrat, hated Christians.  ALL of these shooters were progressive liberal Democrats.Â
 @last boyscout That is VERY interesting. Not surprising, but Interesting.
It is nice to know that there are those that are willing to stand up for the U. S. Constitution and the Bill of Rights!
I have nothing but praise for these Americans! They honer their oath of office and they should each be looked at as a hero!
Â
Lord knows that there are to many in America that are willing to discard our constitution and our freedoms to further their agendas.
Â
May God bless America!
Don't be a baby and cry and throw a tantrum. Just give us your guns. You can't play with guns anymore.Â
If you can't be a big boy and give up your toy then we're going to have to take your gun away and spank you.
Â
 @The Voice of Reason More like the voice of ignorance?
@The Voice of Reason BS.
@The Voice of Reason  You call yourself the voice of reason? This is a very strange and juvinile statement. Do you have anything intelligent to share with us? Â
 @The Voice of Reason Problem: Unarmed people trying to take weapons from armed people.  Good luck!
@brendan @The Voice of Reason First of all, no one is trying to take you effing guns away. Second, I have guns, too.
These Sheriffs knows criminals don't follow the Laws. There will always be guns for criminals.They know, and most victims know, more peoples lives will be put in danger. Just because you may live in a safe town or city, if that is possible. It don't mean every one does.
Â
If the government won't protect you, and the police can't unless a crime has already been committed. "you know when its to late"Â and the Supreme Court ruled you have to take responsibility for your own self-defense and that of your family. Then how is every potential victims of violence going to protect themselves and their family? oh I know! you scream at the perpetrator/intruder, please don't hurt my family. I promise I will not say any thing, beg plead. as if that would work LOL.
Â
 So far the government is trying to ban assault rifles, OK there really is no logical need for them. But they are also trying to ban handguns, at least here in Oregon they are. And handguns is the preferred weapon for self defense. Every one knows one ban leads to another and another and another.
Â
Obama is in some ways, choosing who lives and who does not. and I did state in some ways...
By saying if we can save even one child's life we should, He is right. But we can't trade one child's life for another. putting children's lives and their family's lives in danger in a lot more home invasions, is just as bad as putting school children lives in danger.
Follow the laws we have now, Oregon has good gun control laws, could use a little improvement. but do this before allowing more violent crimes.
As for the constitution read it, read the amendments, also read the police oath of office. last I checked the president was not above the constitution. he also took an oath to uphold the constitution
Violent video games? Is that really the best other reason for mass killings? I would go with "bad upbringing" or metal illness..Maybe you should raid the stores and remove all the violent video games since you seem to do whatever you want.Â
So in Linn and Crook county people just get to choose what laws they want to obey.  Great role model for the youth of Oregon
@jel I would say it is o good role model for the children it teaches them to stand up for what they believe in and how important it is to preserve the constitutional, something you sir obviously was not taught.
@jel I would say it is o good role model for the children it teaches them to stand up for what they believe in and how important it is to preserve the constitution something you sir obviously was not taught.
 @jel http://www.infoplease.com/us/supreme-court/cases/ar31.html  <--- Sheriff is within their rights.
 @jel "The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed." Looks like the law is already very clear. Nothing supersedes the Constitution.
just a minor point for you: they swear to uphold the law! period!
@Shane Freeman @jel Except a bundh of people who think it is more important for criminals and crazy people to have access to virtually unlimited firepower without limitation. Sahne, baby, the bad guys GET THEIR GUNS FROM THE "GOOD GUYS." About 7% of guns used in crimes are stolen. The rest are sold by gun traffickers, retailers, and just plain private citizens to people who are dangerous. Why in the world can you not see that? It is imperative to be able to know who is buying or trying to buy guns. With rights come responsibilities, and the knee-jerk-foam-at-the-mouth gun lobby gets only the first part.
 @Shane Freeman  @jel The Supreme Court's interpretation of the Constitution is all that matters and they've clearly stated the government has the right to regulate in this area, as they do with EVERY single other aspect of the Constitution.
Â
Frankly, the Linn County Sheriff's job is not to interprete the US Constitution, it's to enforce the law.
@ Kem Wills   HAVE YOU NOTICE THAT THE MEMBERS OF THE SUPREME COURT ARE NOT CHOSEN BY THE PEOPLE, BUT SELECTED BY THE SAME CRIMINALS IN OUR CONGRESS, SENATE AND WHITE HOUSE, WHO EVEN WHEN IT APEARS THE POPLE OF THIS REPUBLIC VOTES THEM IN AT FIRST SIGHT.
Once you dig under the surface, you will find out that, FOREGN LOBBY GROUPS ARE THE ONES THAT CHOSE THEMÂ and financialy support them with millions of dollars, to place them in office, americans had not been the ones that decide who wins an ellection, for decades, the last one was probably JOHN F. KENNEDY, and we already know that these criminals did not like what he was doing so they killed him, just because KENNEDY MADE A STAND AGAINST THE FEDERAL RESERVE WHICH IS A UNCUNSTITUCIONAL PRIVATE AGENCY THAT CHARGES BILLIONS OF DOLLARS OF INTEREST FOR JUST PRINTING MONEY AND LENDING THAT MONEY TO OUR GOVERMENT TO WASTE AS IT SEES FIT EVEN GIVE IT AWAY TO OUR ENEMIES, AND LATER MAKEING THE AMERICAN TAX PAYER RESPONSIBLE FOR THE WHOLE BURDEN TO PAY BACK THAT USURYS GODLESS INTEREST ON MONOPOLY MONEY WITH OUT VALUE, SISNCE IN ORDER FOR MONEY TO HAVE VALUE IT MUST BE BACK UP BY GOLD, AND THAT GOD THAT SERVED THE POROPSE HAS BEEN STOLEN AND TAKEN OUT OT THE COUNTRY.OUR GOVERMENT SHOULD BE TRYED FOR TREASON FOR ALL THE DAMAGE THEY HAVE DONE TO THE AMERICAN PEOPLE., THE ONES THEY WERE SUPOSED TO REPRESENT AND PROTECT.
@Kem Wills @Fed up Fed @Kem Uh, Kenny, the Supreme Court IS the Constitution. And you "can't find" any other laws, it is only because you have refused to look.
@Kem Wills Yup. You can keep a gun in the house to protect yourself. You can't march into a school and shirt 20 first graders. Oh. Wait. You can, if you keep having your way.
@Shane Freeman @browntown @jel We already have laws about this subject. Full auto weapons, grenades, etc. have been outlawed for years. The Thompson sub-machine gun, for example, was made illegal back in the thirties. It is already illegal for felons to own guns. It is already illegal for people with dangerous mental conditions to own guns. We already have some laws. We need to toughen the laws we have, toughen enforcement, and create some new laws.
 @Fed up Fed  @Kem  @Fed  @Kem If and *when* he violates the law, then go after him.  Knock yourself out.
 @Fed up Fed   @Kem  @Fed  @Kem http://www.salem-news.com/articles/december012008/court_ruling_medpot_12-1-08.php
Â
 @Kem Wills  @Fed up Fed  @Kem http://www.infoplease.com/us/supreme-court/cases/ar31.html
Â
 @Fed up Fed  @Kem NO ! not Freaky,
An opinion does not change the second amendment. Anyone can have an opinion, it does not make it LAW, as much as you would like for it to be, It don't
Â
And I don't even own a gun, haven't for years. I do believe very strongly in my rights. And I know Scalia wrote the opinion, there is a lot of opinions, but unfortunately for you Rights Haters, according to the supreme court the second amendment still stands.
& How exactly have IÂ lied, When I stated I can't find any other laws that supersedes this one, sorry it is the truth, can you find a law that is not an opinion, if so I would love to read it.
Â
 3. The handgun ban and the trigger-lock requirement (as applied to self-defense) VIOLATES the Second Amendment . The Districtâs total ban on handgun possession in the home amounts to a prohibition on an entire class of âarmsâ that Americans overwhelmingly choose for the lawful purpose of self-defense.
Â
 Second Amendment
A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the RIGHT of the PEOPLE to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.
when did they state that because DC v. Heller Jun 26, 2008 5-4 majority of the Supreme Court ruled that the Second Amendment confers an individual right to keep and bear arms, and that the D.C. provisions banning handguns and requiring firearms in the home disassembled or locked violate this right.
Â
and I can't find any others that supersedes this one, oh and this info is from supremecourt.gov
 @browntown  @jel Constitution is law, no matter what some unelected bunch of dress wearing rag tags say. "Shall not be infringed" is as clear as you can get without saying "cannot make laws about this subject".
Our country's founding fathers wrote the 2nd Amendment to the constitution in 1791"...the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."
Here is the list of the arms that existed in 1791
Guns in 1791 WOULD...
be made by a gunsmith....have rudimentary rifling....be single-shot weapons....be loaded through the muzzle....fire by means of a flintlock.
Guns in 1791 WOULD NOT...
have interchangeable parts. (Popularized in 1798)...
be revolvers. (Invented in 1835)...
be breachloaded. (Popularized in 1810)...
use smokeless powder. (Invented in 1885)...
use a percussion cap, necessary for modern cartridged bullets. (Invented in 1842)..
load bullets from a clip. (Invented in 1890)
Â
I don't believe those gentlemen who wrote the 2nd Amendment would consider assault rifles and high capacity gun clips "necessary to the security of a free state"
 @Dee The issue is not what you do or do not believe, it IS what the 2nd Amendment states and is LAW.
Â
As Mr. Margay has stated, "If you notice, the 2nd Amendment does not contain anything restricting the "arms" (as in "right to bear arms") to those that were in use at that time. Â Â I imagine that the men who wrote that Amendment were intelligent and forward-thinking enough to realize that weapons, like most other things, would no doubt undergo many, many changes in the years ahead.
I agree completely.
Well Stated.
@Dee  So now that our government and bad people have more sophisticated weapons to use on us law abiding citizens is it your veiwpoint that we, the people should still be using black powder rifles and flintlocks in order to be protected by the second amendment? I'm pretty sure that when the constitution was written we also didn't have certain words in our dictionaries but that doesn't mean our freedom of speech should not include those words. Your arguement is meaningless.
@Dee Then don't get your panties in a wad when they start telling you what can be on TV and what news can be shown to the public. Don't be worried when they shut off the internet or shut down cell towers. These aren't something our forefathers would have know to protect, which by your standards means fair game for government regulations.
 Dee. you can not assume what those men would consider their goal was to protect the people from government. they wanted the people to have what the government wanted and from the looks of your list they did.
Although I do not think citizens need assault rifles at this time, but once a law has been done it is almost impossible to undo it. And all it takes is one law to begin banning all guns. I do know the founders meant for the people to be able to protect themselves against a tyrannic government and the peoples right should not be infringed.
seriously do you know who the future presidents and congressmen will be, do you know if those future officials will not wage war on our children our grandchildren.
 @Dee The 1st Amendment was written back when speech meant shouting at a town hall or writing on paper. The forefathers never imagined recordings, the telephone, television, movies, the internet, so your point is invalid
 @DeeÂ
The idea was to enable the citizenry to match the force of an opposing military. It makes perfect sense for people today to be able to have firearms that can stand against a modern military.Â
They did not expect the citizenry to repel a force with pitchfork and axe.
 @Dee
"IÂ don't believe those gentlemen who wrote the 2nd Amendment would consider assault rifles and high capacity gun clips "necessary to the security of a free state" (from your post)
 Well, Dee, they might if they knew that the people that were trying to make the "free state" into a "NOT free state" had assault rifles and high-cap magazines...
If you notice, the 2nd Amendment does not contain anything restricting the "arms" (as in "right to bear arms") to those that were in use at that time. Â Â I imagine that the men who wrote that Amendment were intelligent and forward-thinking enough to realize that weapons, like most other things, would no doubt undergo many, many changes in the years ahead.
I am sorry but regardless of their personal beliefs, Sheriffs have a responsibility to uphold and enforce legally existing laws, not just laws they agree with. If they disagree with a law, they should do their part to change the law. I believe that most Sheriffs took an oath to uphold all the laws! Imagine a society where we get to follow and obey only the laws we agree with. While the Sherrifs are citing constitutional authority, there are many laws that may be wanting for constitutional authority but until the law is changed by the legislature or the supreme court, they should enforce the law - if they are not willing to do so, they should resign.
Kimberly, the oath that each Sheriff takes is prescribed by law and is modeled after the one taken by Federal officers, including the President. The oath is to 'preserve and protect the Constitution,' both that of the United States and that of the State. Obviously, lawmakers, being human, will sometimes pass a "law" that isn't constitutional.Â
What to do? Well, according to the Supreme Court, such a law is invalid from the moment it is passed - not from the time it is declared unconstituional. Since Article 6 of the Constitution says that it (the Constitution) is the supreme law of the land, any law passed that doesn't measure up is no law at all.
Who decides? Here's where it gets sticky. You decide... as do I and every other member of the citizenry. We have the right to make those decisions but we also have the responsibility to assume the costs of making them. Case in point: If I choose to carry a concealed gun without first getting a permit and get caught I will have to bear the cost of fighting and probably losing an action in court. But that's my choice. You have similar choices to make every day. There are so many laws that attempt to regulate us that it is well-nigh impossible to go through a day without breaking one or more of them. You make a choice when you don't come to a complete stop at a stop sign or when you "top off" your tank at the beginning of a long trip or ... the list is too long for me to continue but you get the idea. You are a free person and free to make your own choices. If you choose to let the legislators make your choices for you... well, that's your choice.
 @Kimberly Brown http://www.infoplease.com/us/supreme-court/cases/ar31.html
@Kimberly Brown The Constitution trumps..
Â
All you folks that think that what these Sheriffs are doing is illegal, and that they should removed from office might was to do your research first:
Â
https://www.google.com/search?q=Printz+v.+United+States&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&aq=t&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&client=firefox-a
Â
First of all the Sheriff's are elected not appointed, as such, they can be recalled, but not fired, and I think you will find that most of their constituents wholeheartedly approve of their stances.
Â
Also per the case above, they have the right and duty limit or forbid federal law enforcement activities in their jurisdiction, if they believe it to be contrary to local law or the Constitution.
Sorry the link is broken, but Google "Printz v. United States, 521 US 898 - Supreme Court 1997", and you will find it.
Â
Â
Any sheriff who publicly states that he/she will not enforce laws should be summarily fired.
 @Brad Garber Luckily these Sheriffs are going to follow the law. The Whole "shall not be infringed" part of the law that they sore an oath to.
How do you feel about enforcing current laws like immigration, or federal laws prohibiting the use of pot............ My guess is you would like them to enforce laws you agree with and that's it.........
 @Brad Garber They are unconstitutional laws, therefore illegal directives.  Know what you are talking about before you speak.
This comment has been deleted
 @Fed up Fed F U F, Any law that your president signs in by executive order that is contrary to the Constitution of the United States is unconstitutional.  One does not have to be a member of the Supreme Court to interpret the law, or the Constitution.  It happens every day, all across the country, by lawyers, judges, law enforcement officers, and educated citizens. That's the beauty of it. Â
I do enjoy seeing you liberal gun grabbers squirm out of control when you realize your golden opportunity to push your leftist agenda, by capitalizing on the recent horrible violent tragedies, are slipping  through your fingers.  So go ahead and keep attacking what you don't understand with your whining and your dribble.  Maybe it will make you feel better about not being able to dictate other peoples rights.  Because after all, that's what this is all about.  You want to control my rights, and I won't let you, ever.
 @MMRoach  @Brad Garber Nothing I have seen will out law my guns. Â
 @MMRoach  @Brad Garber Also, the first directive in every public official's oath (at least the ones I have seen, and attested to myself..) begins with mention to uphold the US Constitution -- not laws, not other officials, etc.  That says something about the relative priority or precedence given to such factors throughout the evolution of the country.