Posted on 11/05/2015 5:08:08 PM PST by ForYourChildren
P.S. This is illegal.
WASHINGTON -- The residents of Coos County, Oregon, passed a ballot initiative Tuesday night that requires their sheriff to block the enforcement of state and federal gun laws that he thinks seem unconstitutional.
The 2nd Amendment Preservation Ordinance passed with 61 percent of the vote. The measure directs the sheriff to decide whether certain state and federal gun laws violate the Second Amendment. If he thinks they do, the county is then banned from using any resources to enforce those laws. Any county employee who violates the ordinance will be fined $2,000.
It is questionable how local officials would enforce the initiative.
Coos County Sheriff Craig Zanni told The Oregonian last month that he is a strong supporter of gun rights, but had concerns about his role in deciding what is and isn't constitutional.
"I'm not sure the courts would agree with that concept," he said. "I would just bet there would be some legal challenges to it."
Charlie Hinkle, ... said Zanni would be violating his oath of office by enforcing a county ordinance that is contrary to state or federal law. "Of course local officials can’t decide what laws are constitutional. That's why Kim Davis went to jail," Hinkle told The Huffington Post.
"Even the president can't decide what’s constitutional - that’s why a federal court enjoined his executive orders regarding immigration."
Similar measures have been adopted in Eastern Oregon's Wheeler and Wallowa counties, and they've amounted to little more than symbolism. Supporters want to use the ordinances to bar local enforcement of Oregon's background check law, which passed in May and expands checks to almost all gun sales in the state. The initiatives are also part of a broader push by pro-gun enthusiasts to make federal gun control "nearly impossible to enforce."
(Excerpt) Read more at huffingtonpost.com ...
A lot of Oregon’s Counties had similar edicts passed by their County Commissioners. Coos has a couple of weasels, so this was done by petition, pretty much as a stick in their eyes.
I wanted to put the authors face in that but I didn’t have the time.
Fortunately, her face comes equipped with a bottle opener.
Each and every one of us can decide. And it’s time we started.
CO sheriffs said they wouldn’t enforce any more gun control laws.
This is even better!
That guy seems [very] slightly effeminate.
There are different kinds of beauty and ugliness. Enough said.
I probably should have researched it better before posting.....will ask the mods to delete it.
Mods, please delete this post. Posted before researching.
I appreciate it.
Thanks for bringing it to my attention.
No.
Even if federal gun laws do not violate 2nd Amendment (2A), I hope that the sheriff understands the following. The sheriff has got to find specific constitutional clauses that are clearly delegations of specific power that Congress needs to justify a given federal gun law. And the only clause that comes close to relates to an express delegation of power for the feds to justfy gun laws imo, is Clause 16 of Section 8 of Article I, that clause concerned with arming state militias.
In fact, note that the Militia Acts of 1792, such acts examples of early federal gun laws, the acts actually requiring citizens to supply their own guns (BYOG).
But it is also disturbing to note that federal laws for regulating civilian firearms seem to have started appearing in the books during the time Constitution-ignoring FDR, FDR and his corrupt Congress infamous for making laws which blatatantly ignored the federal governments constitutionally limited powers.
Franklin Roosevelt: The Father of Gun Control
Regarding state gun laws, since the Founding States had originally decided that the states did not have to respect the rights protected by the Bill of Rights, I surmise that the states did not have to respect 2A protections (corrections welcome).
However, the congressional record shows that John Bingham, the main author of the 14th Amendment (14A), that amendment ratified under very questionable circumstances, had clarified that 14A did apply 2A to the states (see middle of middle column).
So whereas the states arguably had the 10th Amendment (10A)-protected power to regulate firearms, citizens having the 2A and 10A-protected power to bear arms as well, our pioneering ancestors arguably armed whenever they left their homes, I am not sure where the line of demarcation between states and citizens should be with respect to states regulating guns.
Note that Justice Reed had explained that it is the job of Constitution-respecting judges to balance between 10A-protected state powers and 14A-protected rights, rights that the states have amended the Constitution to expressly protect.
"Conflicts in the exercise of rights arise and the conflicting forces seek adjustments in the courts, as do these parties, claiming on the one side the freedom of religion, speech and the press, guaranteed by the Fourteenth Amendment, and on the other the right to employ the sovereign power explicitly reserved to the State by the Tenth Amendment to ensure orderly living without which constitutional guarantees of civil liberties would be a mockery." --Justice Reed, Jones v. City of Opelika, 1942.
Again, I am not sure where the line of demarcation should be between states and citizens where 2A rights are concerned. Insights welcome.
Great post. Thanks.
Very clever. This is the exact tactic used by states to prevent the return of fugitive slaves. When the Federal courts ruled that states could not be compelled to enforce Federal Laws, they passed laws forbidding state officials from enforcing the fugitive slave laws.
This puts the courts in a funny position. Because this so closely resembles the tactic used to stop the enforcement of fugitive slave laws, if the court says this tactic is invalid, they would have to legally invalidate what happened with the fugitive slaves.
I predict they will be loath to condemn this methodology because of it's prior history. No one wants to be seen as saying the fugitive slave laws should have been enforced.
Amendment10. Check out this post. Interesting analysis.
This sounds as if the federal courts upheld state nullification of unconstitutional federal laws. But when did the federal courts make such a ruling?
The Supreme Court has ruled that the federal government cannot force Sheriffs to expend resources to enforce federal law.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tenth_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution
It is called the Anti-Commandeering Doctrine.
The Huffington Post is just wrong on this. So, what else is new.
There is considerable precedent for local and state governments refusing to use resources to enforce federal law.
Exactly my thought when I read the reference to Kim Davis - the Christian "lawbreaker".
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.