Shared publicly  - 
 
An Oregon sheriff has sent a letter to Vice President Joe Biden saying his department won't be enforcing any new gun laws it considers unconstitutional. 
105
14
Doug Turner's profile photoPaula Benham Ortiz's profile photoSylvester Miniea's profile photoDean Barnett's profile photo
125 comments
 
I imagine his boss, the district or county attorney, may hold different views.
 
The people are his boss. He's elected. It's the same for us in my state. We the people hired him in the election and we can fire him in the next if we so choose. And I applaud him.
 
I doubt that unless they want a revolt and get voted out or fired .
 
Actually +Dean Barnett no one should be enforcing illegal laws!  And to do so, is their self breaking the law.
 
Or maybe they actually feel there could be an uprising from the egotistical maniac we have in the office now and realize that the people will not stand for it.  Why should honest people be treated like common criminals.  When you screw with the constitution it tends to piss people off.
 
"Though the letter might add fuel to an already hot topic,Mueller said he wishes people could have a civilized discussion about the issue, rather than resort to threats and name-calling."
But threats to not enforce laws already on the books, with new enforcement directives via executive orders, are ok? Contradict yourself much, sheriff?

" He said he doesn't think the vice president is a bad person; he just doesn't like the path he appears to be on regarding gun laws."
You mean the path of talking to all interested national gun lobbies, for AND against, and coming to reasonable conclusions? The sheriff doesn't want to help, he's perfectly fine with the status quo and should just state as such.
 
+Gino Venditti   actually, no, the people are not the "boss", they just elect them, they have no control over what they do or do not do after they are elected.  All they can do is not vote for them next time.

They take an oath to uphold the law, not the will of the people...
 
But the constitution IS the ultimate law of the land.
 
I for one applaud the sheriff.  I wish more would stand up to the tyrants of Obama and Biden.  The thought of a 2 person rule bypassing congress makes me sick.  And the reason they will do it is they know it would not be passed by the majority.
 
+Steve Barnes  well said.   The courts interpret the constitutionality of law, not those tasked with enforcement.
 
+Chris Ellis  what exactly have they done that you are claiming ?
Nothing  LOL  more hot air...
 
If two laws contradict each other, which should be enforced?  IMHO, the Constitution (as amended) is higher law than any made by congress and so it controls.  So I think the Sheriff is simply announcing that he intends to uphold the law - as presumably he has sworn to do.
 
+Scott Kemp exactly... he is blowing hot air, unless a court tells him a law is "unconstitutional" he is bound by oath and law to enforce it....
 
Put it in context and settle down.  

The Sheriff states that he will not enforce new gun regulations that the President creates by executive order.  Sheriffs are the only law enforcement personnel established with constitutional authority, and this sheriff is perfectly within his rights to uphold the constitution he swore to protect.

To presume that whatever a President states is Constitutional throws all the checks and balances out of the window.  Take it to a court and see who wins, the Democrat judge or the Republican judge.
 
They are expected to put a ban on assault weapons which is against our constitution.  Guns are not the issue, mental illness is.  Them using executive order instead of going thru congress should force impeachment.  At least one Republican is threatening to bring this up.  So no hot air here +Mike Mac 
 
The U.S. Constitution is the ultimate law of the land!  End of story!
 
I think people confuse "illegal laws" with laws they don't like. Health Care Reform Act is not an illegal law, even upheld by the Supreme Court. So when a governor says they think its unconstitutional, They are wrong. 

Jim Crow laws in the South...

This Sheriff gets to make his judgement, but they are not going to do anything un-constitutional. I think he is wrong. He has to enforce law

This whole gun thing has just devolved to stupidness with NRA and Gun Manufacturers profiting. Some one has to make a dollar off this mess
 
+Mike Mac - I think that someone who hires and fires would have to be considered "the boss".  So, the voters are the boss.
 
The Supreme court did not say the "Health Care Reform Act" was constitutional and that was not what they voted on.  They voted on the mandate penalty which the court called a "tax"
 
Constitution states those who belong to a militia have the right to bare arms. Not any joe schmuck. Hill billys beware, if made law, military will enforce if hick cops don't. Trust me their guns are bigger, or find out for your self. I'll have the news on with a bag of pop corn. Front row seat to the death of a band of duechers. Theres no reason you need high caliber automatics or semis to hunt, you just need target practice. The only reason you want them is for a fight. Go vote, keep the peace. You guys got your heads wrapped around a revolution that happened when voting didn't, and yes electoral still counts. You just don't like it cuz the times they are a changing. 
 
+Mike Mac , Unless you believe in top down governemnt from which the president gets his right to rule from God himself, you make absolutely no sense. Our government is only sovereign if we give them our personal soveregnty. That makes us the boss.
 
+Chris Ellis  where did you read they are expected to put a ban on assault weapons via Executive order?  That is not at all what Obama stated, he said they would propose legislation for a ban.....
 
Love how entitled this Sheriff acts. Like he's really the law round them parts. I have this mental image of him sitting in his office now like borat KING OF THE CASTLE, KING OF THE CASTLE
 
There is a lot of government funding that goes to states and even more commerce.  There is a system in place to decide if something is constitutional   Let it work.  Even if they do ban assault weapons it will just mean the Brady Bill again.  We have been through that before.  Stop calling for revolution over this! 
 
The main hunting the Second Article of Amendment protects is at tyrants. Every person who wishes to remain free is a member of the militia.
 
+Daniel Ganoung  what are you talking about?   You can not "fire" an elected official in any traditional sense.  When you elect them, it is like a contract.   you can only fail to renew their contract... you are only "the boss" for a few seconds when you vote, after that it is out of your hands.
 
Awesome. Let's support all that react this way to unconstitutional laws. 
 
it is constructional to to restrict gun ownership
 
Executive Orders are simply the President's memos to the bureaucracy his/her instructions about the laws should or not be enforced. The Orders can be links of various laws which may caused enforcements of things Congress hadn't intended. The problem isn't the Executive Orders but they are too many laws which can be strung together with possible tyrannicalesque results.
 
+Chris Ellis   no where in that article does it say that Obama is planning to use any Executive actions to ban any guns.  Obama specifically said the opposite of what you are claiming in his address.
Your claim remains unfounded ....


Go ahead and provide the FOX link too, but read it first and note how FOX only suggests he will....
 
Last time I checked Sheriff you don't decide what is constitutional or unconstitutional
 
+Rodney James obama-care-tax is un-Constitutional.  No where does the Constitution give the government any power over health care.  As for taxation, there is no need for a tax for that, since the government doesn't have any power over health care.  The Federalist Papers deal with this issue in no.41.  Congress can only make laws which is listed in Article One Section Eight and any attempt to do more is stealing power and become tyrants!
 
It is the responsibility of every citizen without regard to their status of work to know the Constitution. In addition, they must ultimately are the ones to decide the constitutionality of every law.
 
+Paris Mosley That may be true, but being the Sheriff does mean he can enforce whatever he wants. The people of his area can decide to keep him or not during election.
 
+Chris Ellis  yes we will, then whatever Executive orders he may issue will not go into effect for 30 days after he puts them on the federal record.  During this 30 days, there will be time for their constitutionality to be challenged.
 
And time for me to go buy whatever he deems illegal
 
Actually that was a joke.  I have no need for an assault rifle even though my standard rifle has probably more power than some of these so called assault rifles.
 
+Sylvester Miniea   yes he can choose what laws to enforce and what to not enforce, if they are State laws, State Police will/can intervene to enforce their laws, or the Feds will step in for Federal laws...
 
+Greg Wills, yes it is, the supreme court passed it as.  Plus the fact the irs is going to collect it.
 
Love the part of the story about Texas is going to try and pass a state law that would allow them to arrest federal officials that try to enforce the gun bans in their state. 
 
+Daniel Woodworth
Actually what the Supreme Court thinks has everything to do with it. Ignoring laws because you can present a convoluted argument that you are basically free to do what you want, is what had little to do with it.
 
Its nice to see people who will stand up to protect the Constitution. Good for him!
 
+troy martin from 2008:
http://www.lawnix.com/cases/dc-heller.html

The Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home.

You might also want to check out Printz v. U.S. (521 U.S. 898) to see just how much power a Sheriff does, in fact, have in their own county.  You might be surprised, based on your vitriol and sarcasm.
 
+Larry Weathersby nice! You have a reference. Most people can speak their opinion. Yet, they cannot back it up. Probably the same people who believe high school text books share the whole truth. iSheep for the media only believe what's on the telly, but never does their own research.
Ron N
 
+troy martin. Really? Then why after signing the Constitution, and it became law, did they not arrest all non militia gun owners and imprison them? After all they were just a bunch of farmers.
 
So in conservative bubble not Supreme Court but a local sheriff can strike down laws.... 
 
The only thing +Troy Martin got correct: "Theres no reason you need high caliber automatics or semis to hunt" That's correct. The Constitution NEVER says you have a right to bear arms only to hunt.
 
+Kevin Ball Thanks.  I'm beginning to find it humorous that, for the most part, the people supporting more laws, limiting the rights of law abiding citizens, or outright confiscation of all guns (yes, I've seen comments proposing this) can't make a rational argument without name calling.  There is way too much emotion on both sides of this argument.  The NRA is going full retard with their mishandled press conferences and ads.  They don't represent me, nor do I need them to. 
 
Fyi on executive orders; GWB made 48 executive orders during his time as president. The police followed those, executive orders ARE legal, and if they weren't supreme court would have something to say. Trust me people don't want the supreme court to get involved on this because then the constitution will be followed. They are talking about autos and semis here, which aren't needed. You want one join a the military or a militia. We aren't as entitled to guns as folks think, they have just been lax on the propper enforcement. Keep in mind the reason such time is being spent sitting on this exec order, is, to make sure that when he makes it, it'll be legal.You may not like obama, but he isn't a fool. 
 
Yes, there there for protection from criminals, and tyrants 
 
Actually +Doug Turner their is a reason for them.  Wild hogs are a big thing.  They run in packs and could kill anyone trying to control them.  You need high capacity magazine and semi automatic.  I am sure there are other reasons also, but as you said that is not the reason for the constitution anyways.  The government should fear its people and not the other way.  This is how we retain our freedom.  If or government has larger weapons how do we remain free if we are using 22's and single shot handguns.  Simple answer you don't.
 
The constitution can be modified thru amendments so I don't see legally how the Oregon sheriff thinks he is upholding the constitution.
 
Typically forums like this are left leaning and Democrat only, but this is not the case on the gun issue which leads me to believe people are not drinking the Koolaid.  I'm tremendously motivated by the fact that so many true Americans are on here voicing their opinions.
 
+ann harrison Same logic as that idiot CEO of personal firearms training company claimed that he will start killing people if his rights will be infringed by Obama.... 
 
+Ron N His job is to follow laws and executive orders are laws. No matter how you spin it he either has to enforce laws or quit his job. He can't claim that a law that he doesn't like is unconstitutional - we have SCOTUS for that. 
 
+Daniel Woodworth I liked your summary of the issue, however there is a difference when a court rejects a law and the sheriff rejects a law. According to legal theory (beginning in Marbury v. Madison) the court doesn't refuse to "enforce" an unconstitutional law; it nullifies it due to a concept known as judicial review. Under judicial review, if a law fails to pass the requirements in the constitution, they actually strike the law from the legal code.

When an officer refuses to enforce a certain part of the legal code (for example, not issuing a traffic ticket), it is done so at his/her discretion. When an officer declines to enforce the law, the law is still valid and can be enforced by other officers, unlike when the courts nullify the law entirely. 
 
+Jason Lepper The President himself stated that he would not enforce the Defense of Marriage Act which was passed by Congress and signed into law by the President.

Hello Pot, Kettle calling....
 
+John Shepard He thinks it is unconstitutional, however you can fire him for not doing his enforcement job... Just like he can fire that sheriff... 
 
+Ron N no if the constitution is amended; this sheriff is not upholding the law. Federal law always trumps lower government laws. I really don't understand the logic behind not wanting some restrictions passed to counteract the mass killings we have had. There will be more of these tragedies but there has to be some common sense safe guards in order to reduce massive killings from occurring. It is going to hurt but the restrictions also protect you and your families too.
 
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.

μολὼν λαβέ
 
The sheriff and his department have no power to interpret what's constitutional or not - I'm positive the Constitution is quite clear on who interprets, passes, and enforces the law - check it out sometime, it's a good read.
 
+Sergey Laktionov  A President cannot declare a law unconstitutional.  His opinion is irrelevant.  At this point, the only option for Barrack is to repeal the law.  Pending that, someone could sue the government over the law, and the Supreme Court could declare it unconstitutional.  

The left wingers on this thread want to accuse this Sheriff of overstepping his bounds.  He never said he would not enforce standing laws merely that he would not enforce executive orders of questionable origin.  It is not without precedent either.  The federal government will not allow sheriffs to enforce immigration law, so why do we now expect sheriffs to enforce this executive order?
 
There will be thousands of lawsuits filed against the federal government... Mark my words!
 
POTUS doesn't have to declare law unconstitutional he can just stop enforcing it and you will have your chance to fire him for that every 4 years.... Executive orders are laws BTW.... 
 
A Sheriff is a constitutional officer just like the President, and like you say +Sergey Laktionov , he can choose not to enforce it as well...

We have no dictators, and as Barrack demonstrated, constitutional officers can pretty much do whatever they want.
 
Ohhh no!  Obama the Tyrant is asking CONGRESS to pass gun control legislation.  It's the act of a treasonous king!!!  -sarcasm
 
Obama is asking congress to ban assault rifles although Obama could have banned them via executive order.  He's an out of control power hungry mad man!!!!  </sarcasm>
 
You are correct. That's why I own no assault weapons. I only own defense rifles which I will use if I have to with no questions asked. 
 
Hey +Larry Jennings we have a sheriff like this. He's awesome, and our crime rate is down. No school shootings either.
 
It seems to me that shot guns are the most effective self-defense type firearm.  Your assault "defense" weapons seem a bit ridiculous, +Larry Jennings 
 
I can't believe Obama the tyrant has asked Congress to ban assault weapons and high capacity clips even though he could have done so via executive order.  It's the act of a mad man that wants to take all our guns!!!!  </sarcasm>
 
+Joseph Ellis. Maybe ridiculous but if you know anything about guns you would also know that a shot gun has a very limited range and I choose to defend myself before a criminal that is out to get me gets that close.
 
How is this different from Colorado and Washington not enforcing drug laws pertaining to marijuana?
 
+Joshua Sutton. Imho. Marijuana isn't in the constitution. I believe marijuana is a States Right issue. However I understand your question.
 
+Larry Jennings then, by your standards, this sheriff's actions are even more valid, as the rights are listed in the constitution. Correct?
 
Yes they are. However the constitution doesn't give the right to use drugs. Again. It's only my opinion and my opinion doesn't count. I only have the right to express it. 
 
+F Wust Obama has simply asked Congress to act - how is this attacking the constitution?  Or attacking the 2nd Amendment?  He could have issued executive order to ban assault rifles and ammo clips, just as George HW Bush did in 1991 for certain firearms, but instead, he is asking Congress to act (not forcing them to act) - Congress doesn't have to if they feel it's not the will of the people they represent.

Get a grip;
 
Having 3 stuffed bears myself, I also am concerned about the government restricting my right to bear arms. They would look stupid without them!!
 
+Adam Heywood
Assuming the executive orders are illegal, you have a point. But my reading of the contents doesn't support that notion. The bigger changes are contained in the legislation the White House would like to see passed.
Pete S
 
"We the People" need to stop admitting we live in a FEDERAL ZONE, i.e. ZIPCODES (like when you go to a gas pump and press in your ZIPCODE)....by doing that we are saying we are not FEDERAL CITIZENS/CIVILIANS and dont have to follow FEDERAL CODE
 
Do not follow any of the Obamanations executive orders because he can not make them legally.
 
+Sean Armstrong So, they are simply reporting news. Explain how this is FOX sensationalism. Do you mean because it isn't on CNN?
 
Funny, I read a similar article on CNN earlier but it was boring, devoid of the baseless emotional commentary....it's old news and rolled off their ticker, it is just another loudmouth....

This article tries to make this Joe Wannabee seem significant because he is beating his chest and proclaiming that he will do the job he is sworn to do... There might be something to it news-wise if there was anything that was true about what he is claiming, but even after today, when, according to many here,  Obama was supposed to announce that he was coming personally to take everyone's guns, there is still nothing....  But its entertaining in a Jerry Springer sort of way, that is why they call it Fox News Entertainment
 
+Robert Quance   you may want to read up on your Constitution.. .Executive Orders are as enforceable as any other law, some guy named George Washington was the first one to use them, and every president since has.  Woah.. that is all of them...
 
+Mike Mac you may want to read up on how a republic works, and review the oath Obama took. 
 
Congress can nullify Executive orders as they must be approved by Congress to be made law.
 
+Justin Clark   no need for me to read up on anything, if there are any issues, you need to take them up with every president ever elected.....and everyone in every congress ever....  lol
 
+Robert Quance 30 days after an Executive Order is put on the books, it becomes law, if it is not overturned/nullified before then or held under a court order.
 
+Pete S It's not about where you live.  I'm proud to call myself a United States citizen.  It is about how the law works.  Federal & state laws and the purposeful separation of each.  Calling our country a "FEDERAL ZONE" sounds too much like martial law to me. I follow and will continue to follow federal laws that are constitutional.
 
+Erik Grissell   no they won't.  They can not afford too, a good portion of our defecit spending they are all complaining about goes right to them on the teet they are sucking off from the other side of their mouths.

They could not defend themselves.

They could not financially support themselves.
(imagine losing all government contracts for one example)

They could not provide their own disaster relief.

All a bunch of hot air...
 
 
+Erik Grissell  Use of Executive Orders started with ... let me see... who was it...  OH!  George Washington !  and let me see... Oh Yea.. every president has used them, some thousands of times during their term(s)......

you were saying?
 
+Erik Grissell
"how many took away your constitutional rights, right to bear arms????"

Historically... None, unless they were found to be unconstitutional, then they would be overridden.  That is why there is a 30 day waiting period.

and still none. 
 
+Erik Grissell Executive Orders are not "proposed' they are "issued"

If you are talking about "proposed" legislation, then that will have to go through the normal channels of congressional approval, and be subject to the same checks of constitutionality by the Judicial branch...
 Once they rule (or if it is never brought to them) it is indeed "constitutional"
 
+Erik Grissell  that is "old"  "news" about what he announced yesterday , and was wrong BS anyway,  you may have seen it on FOX  lol 

The POTUS CAN NOT modify the Constitution, period. Congress can not even change the Constitution

BHO is not going to do anything to change the Constitution
and he can not implement unconstitutional laws in any way, least of all through Executive Orders......
 
BHO will do what BHO can get away with. 
 
yup....like any politician.. and if he was doing anything at all that was unconstitutional or "wrong", the GOP would be acting on it instead of just whining and blowing hot air.
 
"A free people ought not only to be armed and disciplined, but they should have sufficient arms and ammunition to maintain a status of independence from any who might attempt to abuse them, which would include their own government.” – George Washington
 
I COMMEND YOU AND ALL LAW ENFORCEMENT THAT BELIEVES THAT AMERICA IS BEING ATTACKED BY THESE RADICAL LEFTY IDIOTS   THANK YOU
 
+James Dailey you sound like 1 of those crazy conservatives that hopefully soon will have a greater access to mental health care 
 
+Daniel Woodworth it can also be interpreted that anyone is able to join a registered militia, and anyone registered in a militia can carry military grade weapons. The constitution does not support or condone that we guarantee armament or right to poses arms to domestic, or foreign terrorists illegally here. It does not denote regulation. No reason to posses military grade weapons, without intent to fight in the military, registered militia, or civilian law enforcement; active or retired.
 
+Mike Mac it seems you must be one of those extreme liberals that wants to take apart our constitution one part at a time and more than likely a immigrant or a first generation immigrant that not one of your family shed one drop of blood in sacrifice for America.yes I have and I,ll be damed if you or anybody like you even has the right to even comment on this subject
 
+James Dailey   as usual  you are off in the weeds with your misunderstanding and incorrect assumptions....  You are the problem in this country, you feel that your opinion trumps those that do not agree with you, and you try to deny them their voice in this great nation.

You are an embarrassment to America, and all the principals we stand for.  Please make sure to dry your piss off our Constitution before you hang it back up.
 
remember gun regs are supposed to be states rights item.
Add a comment...