Oregon county lets sheriff ignore 'unconstitutional' gun laws, raising legal question

[usmarine0352_2005]

Interesting.






http://www.foxnews.com/politics/201...tutional-gun-laws-raising-legal/?intcmp=hpbt1

Oregon county lets sheriff ignore 'unconstitutional' gun laws, raising legal questions

Published November 10, 2015

In this Oct. 9, 2015, photo, demonstrators wave flags and signs as President Obama's motorcade drives by in Roseburg, Ore. (AP)
An Oregon county has approved a controversial measure giving the local sheriff discretion to ignore gun laws he deems unconstitutional -- potentially putting the sheriff in the middle of a Second Amendment battle and raising legal questions that may have to be resolved in court.

The central reason for the initiative was to prevent enforcement of the state's new background check law. Sheriff Craig Zanni already was steering clear of actively enforcing the law, but the ballot measure puts additional pressure on him to defy state and federal gun laws.

It bars the county from using government resources to enforce any "unconstitutional" laws that infringe on the right to bear arms -- and declares "it shall be the duty" of the sheriff to decide which laws are constitutional and which are not. Even Zanni has voiced concerns over what he's legally allowed to do. Zanni told The Oregonian he is a strong supporter of gun rights, but predicted before the vote that the matter would end up in court.

 

[Double Naught Spy]

This seems like a bad idea. Shouldn't an effort be made first to determine what laws the Sheriff should be allowed to ignore, maybe start legal proceedings to contest such laws, etc.? What happens when a new sheriff takes office?

Are there any legal drawbacks on the sheriff for failing to enforce the law?

I am all for being pro gun and such, but it seems like the Sheriff will be the one to suffer repercussions if there is a problem, not the county. That puts the risk on his shoulders.

 

[Sam1911]

The idea that the Sheriff is capable of, or even physically CAN, decide whether any law is "unconstitutional" is silly on its face. But the extent to which this will be successful or unsuccessful will ride on the Sheriff's innate ability/requirement to use his own discretion in acting and prosecuting.

 

[Arizona_Mike]

The "unconstitutional" part is silly but the foundation of the policy seems to be anti-commandeering which exists in some state constitutions as it does under the Federal constitution.

Mike

 

[JSH1]

The Sheriff has always had the authority to decide which laws they will strictly enforce and which they will let slide. Nothing new here.

 

[yugorpk]

The entire state decided to ignore federal drug laws. I don't see how this is any different.

The county doesnt HAVE to prosecute anything. Sheriffs don't prosecute. They arrest. If the people f the county decide they don't want to pay someone to enforce the law the feds can always step in if important to them.

 

[steve4102]

The Sheriff has always had the authority to decide which laws they will strictly enforce and which they will let slide. Nothing new here.

Here is the Proposed Ordinance.

http://www.co.coos.or.us/Portals/0/...vationordinance.pdf?ver=2015-10-20-111618-217

Correct me if I'm wrong, but under "penalties", does it not say that any LE that violates this Ordinance may be made a defendant in Civil Proceedings and fined up to $2000. ??

 

[MEHavey]

The uber liberal "Sanctuary Cities" concept [wherein federal law is
ignored if not outright obstructed) does have two sides.
What's sauce for the goose... don'cha know.

 

[jamesjames]

I got to vote on that one. The results absolutely drove my liberal friends nuts.

 

[JSH1]

Here is the Proposed Ordinance.

http://www.co.coos.or.us/Portals/0/...vationordinance.pdf?ver=2015-10-20-111618-217

Correct me if I'm wrong, but under "penalties", does it not say that any LE that violates this Ordinance may be made a defendant in Civil Proceedings and fined up to $2000. ??

It would be an interesting lawsuit. I have a feeling the county would lose if they attempted to penalize law enforcement officers for enforcing the law.

 

[nbrown2500]

I live is Coos Bay and I voted for it. It might not make any headway but at least I got to vote for something I wanted and it passed. That's probably not the best way to look at it but when when your voting against Portland and other liberal cities on the I-5 corridor and loose 100% of the time one small win feels good.

 

[orionengnr]

I wonder...

Was the Sheriff's oath "to support and defend the Constitution..." or was it "to uphold the laws of XYZ County..."?

 

[bikemutt]

I live is Coos Bay and I voted for it. It might not make any headway but at least I got to vote for something I wanted and it passed. That's probably not the best way to look at it but when when your voting against Portland and other liberal cities on the I-5 corridor and loose 100% of the time one small win feels good.

I feel your joy, and understand it well, living in the north version of the beast

 

[steve4102]

Was the Sheriff's oath "to support and defend the Constitution..." or was it "to uphold the laws of XYZ County..."?

Good question.

Here is an Oath but not Coos County.



http://www.clackamas.us/sheriff/documents/CCSO-OathOfOffice.pdf


Emphasis Mine.

I, _____________________, being first duly sworn, as a Deputy Sheriff, upon oath say and affirm that I will
support the Constitution of the United States, the Constitution of the State of Oregon, the Clackamas County
Code, and all the laws thereof, and that I will faithfully discharge my duties in accordance with the lawful
policies and procedures of the Clackamas County Sheriff’s Office.

 

[yugorpk]

The Coos County Sheriff is too busy running down meth labs to bother with crap like this.