Oregon sheriff says proposed gun background-check law won't be enforced

[The Legion]

http://www.foxnews.com/us/2015/04/15/oregon-sheriff-says-proposed-gun-background-check-law-wont-be-enforced/?intcmp=latestnews

 

 

An Oregon sheriff said Tuesday that he will not enforce an upcoming state law that expands gun background checks to include private sales, The Herald and News reported.

Sheriff Dave Daniel, from Josephine County, which sits on the border with California, told the paper that it appears that the law is not in line with the county’s charter and said he does not have the personnel to pursue violators committing a misdemeanor.

The Oregonian reported that Senate Bill 941, which passed the state Senate on Tuesday, calls for criminal background checks for private gun transfers. The Beaver State would become the 12th state to adopt the policy. The state already requires a background check at dealerships.

Like any gun law, supporters say any measure that makes it more difficult for a criminal to obtain a firearm is positive. On the other hand, those opposed say criminals will manage to get their hands on a gun anyway and will not be scared off at the thought of committing a Class B misdemeanor.

 

The Herald and News report pointed out that Daniel is in a precarious position because state law would seemingly trump the county charter. But Daniel appeared to play down the significance of the law.

"I can't enforce that law, so therefore it won't be enforced," Daniel told the paper. He continued, "I have felonies going on daily in Josephine County. That's my priorities."

[Ugly]

Good for him and those he represents!

[btq96r]

I'm not really digging this...I personally don't see a background check as an infringement on 2nd Amendment rights as long as it can be done at the time of purchase.  I'd also be worried about a local government official picking and choosing which laws they enforce, when a state law clearly supersedes a county one.  If state preemption of local laws can be ignored for a pro gun stance, they can be ignored for an anti-gun stance, and that's one can of worms I want to stay shut.

Edited April 15, 2015 by btq96r

[Major Kong]

I'm not really digging this...I personally don't see a background check as an infringement on 2nd Amendment rights as long as it can be done at the time of purchase.  I'd also be worried about a local government official picking and choosing which laws they enforce, when a state law clearly supersedes a county one.  If state preemption of local laws can be ignored for a pro gun stance, they can be ignored for an anti-gun stance, and that's one can of worms I want to stay shut.

I see a background check for ANY right as an infringement.

[btq96r]

I see a background check for ANY right as an infringement.

I know I'm probably in the vast minority on this one, but I consider background checks consistent with the "well regulated militia" intent of the 2nd Amendment.

[2.ooohhh]

I'm not really digging this...I personally don't see a background check as an infringement on 2nd Amendment rights as long as it can be done at the time of purchase.  I'd also be worried about a local government official picking and choosing which laws they enforce, when a state law clearly supersedes a county one.  If state preemption of local laws can be ignored for a pro gun stance, they can be ignored for an anti-gun stance, and that's one can of worms I want to stay shut.

As typical the news has left out a large part of the story.

 

Like most new laws it's essentially an unfunded mandate to the local law enforcement. Unfortunately there is just not enough law enforcement in that corner of oregon to begin to even think of trying to enforce such laws.

 

You have to have been out there to understand it. For years now the law enforcement has been trying to get a handle on the actual crime in and around the counties' mountainous terrain and thousands upon thousands of acres of state and national forests. But at the same time timber payments have come to a screeching halt, which previously made up over half of some of these counties' budgets, and the citizens all refused a tax increase to continue critical community services such as Police, EMS, and Fire.

 

Cutting of the income-

http://www.oregonlive.com/environment/index.ssf/2012/01/loss_of_federal_forest_payment.html

 

Everyone voted "no new taxes" so many services had to be cut. . . i.e. from 24.5 deputies to 6 -

http://www.oregonlive.com/news/index.ssf/2012/05/josephine_county_begins_disman.html

 

Very little was missed by the drastic budget reduction including releasing many of the inmates from the county jail-

http://www.oregonlive.com/news/index.ssf/2012/05/josephine_county_begins_releas.html

 

http://ouroregon.org/sockeye/blog/recipe-disaster-josephine-county

 

 

Cliff's notes-

 

"The sheriff's office issued a public warning for people in a "potentially volatile situation" such as being the protected person in a restraining order. "You may want to consider relocating to an area with adequate law enforcement services.""

 

"With just six patrol deputies for the entire county, this amounts to one deputy for every 13,785 residents -- up dramatically from a ratio of one deputy to 3,308 people before the cuts took place. Or, from a geographical stand point, each remaining deputy is effectively responsible for 273 square miles of the county."

[K191145]

I'm not really digging this...I personally don't see a background check as an infringement on 2nd Amendment rights as long as it can be done at the time of purchase.  I'd also be worried about a local government official picking and choosing which laws they enforce, when a state law clearly supersedes a county one.  If state preemption of local laws can be ignored for a pro gun stance, they can be ignored for an anti-gun stance, and that's one can of worms I want to stay shut.

 

The Anti-American Socialist In Chief who's polluting the White House right now has been picking and choosing what laws to enforce as he personaly sees fit so I say why not? I wish more sheriffs were like him, choosing not to enforce an Un-Constitutional law which they should because they took an oath to defend the Constitution unlike that traitor POTUS we have who craps on the Constitution when he can.

I would never obey a background check law for a private sale to a friend or family member, I would probably privatly sell or trade something out of pure spite if there ever was a federal background check law for private sales.

[Worriedman]

I'm not really digging this...I personally don't see a background check as an infringement on 2nd Amendment rights as long as it can be done at the time of purchase.  I'd also be worried about a local government official picking and choosing which laws they enforce, when a state law clearly supersedes a county one.  If state preemption of local laws can be ignored for a pro gun stance, they can be ignored for an anti-gun stance, and that's one can of worms I want to stay shut.

 

An Oregon sheriff said Tuesday that he will not enforce an upcoming state law that expands gun background checks to include private sales...

And just how do you propose to do a background check at time of purchase for a private sale?  Do we give in to a background check to give a firearm to a loved one, to will one to a child?

Where does your Statism stop?

[btq96r]

As typical the news has left out a large part of the story.

 

Like most new laws it's essentially an unfunded mandate to the local law enforcement. Unfortunately there is just not enough law enforcement in that corner of oregon to begin to even think of trying to enforce such laws.

 

I get that this Sheriff's jurisdiction has a lot more important things listed on their priorities of work and can't go out solely to deal with this issue, but law is still law, and if a violation of such is in front of you, they you enforce the law.

 

 

The Anti-American Socialist In Chief who's polluting the White House right now has been picking and choosing what laws to enforce as he personaly sees fit so I say why not? I wish more sheriffs were like him, choosing not to enforce an Un-Constitutional law which they should because they took an oath to defend the Constitution unlike that traitor POTUS we have who craps on the Constitution when he can.

I would never obey a background check law for a private sale to a friend or family member, I would probably privatly sell or trade something out of pure spite if there ever was a federal background check law for private sales.

 

Two wrongs don't make a right.  As mentioned earlier, I know I'm in the minority, but I don't think background check laws are unconstitutional as long as a background check can be run in what I'd call a "time now" fashion.

 

If you want to become a criminal should something like this ever come to pass, that's on you.  

 

 

And just how do you propose to do a background check at time of purchase for a private sale?  Do we give in to a background check to give a firearm to a loved one, to will one to a child?

Where does your Statism stop?

 

Going to a local gun shop, or any other FFL with access to TICS and the process is easy enough.  Doesn't add a step that isn't already there for a LGS, or internet purchase.  I'm not saying I'm in favor of this becoming a standard, but I'm not opposed to it either.

 

My "Statism stops" when the government wants a quantitative edge over the population with regards to arms, because I think that's what the intent of the 2nd Amendment was about.  If there are weapons banned for civilian use, they need to be banned for law enforcement/military use as well.  If cops and troops have them, civilians should be able to get them on the open market and own them.

Edited April 16, 2015 by btq96r

[K191145]

 

 

 

 

Two wrongs don't make a right. 

 

 

 

 

 

Refusing to enforce an Un-Constitutional law is not a "WRONG". His oath to protect and defend the Constitution makes it a "RIGHT".

[JohnC]

I guess all those felons will make sure to go the local FFL and do a background check before they go rob the corner liquor store, or go gang-bangin in the hood. smh

[LagerHead]

I know I'm probably in the vast minority on this one, but I consider background checks consistent with the "well regulated militia" intent of the 2nd Amendment.

You're incorrect on two fronts. First, the phrase "well-regulated militia" at the time of the writing meant "well trained." Second, the entire phrase within which it is contained, "A well-regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state," is a subordinate clause and seeks to support or clarify the main clause, not place conditions upon it.

The authors of the Constitution understood the need for our newly formed country to maintain a standing army, as repugnant as the idea was to many of them. And since the idea of a standing army was objectionable to them, they secured in writing the right of the people (not the militia) to keep and bear arms.

In other words, background checks are in no way consistent with the wording nor the intent of the 2nd Amendment. Edited April 16, 2015 by LagerHead

[Worriedman]

 

Two wrongs don't make a right.  As mentioned earlier, I know I'm in the minority, but I don't think background check laws are unconstitutional as long as a background check can be run in what I'd call a "time now" fashion.

 

Going to a local gun shop, or any other FFL with access to TICS and the process is easy enough.  Doesn't add a step that isn't already there for a LGS, or internet purchase.  I'm not saying I'm in favor of this becoming a standard, but I'm not opposed to it either.

 

So, I am guessing that you would not be opposed to "registration" of every firearm?  That is what private background checks is about, building that registry.

[K191145]

So, I am guessing that you would not be opposed to "registration" of every firearm?  That is what private background checks is about, building that registry.

 

I have learned throughout my many years of life the what is "supposed" to be and what actually is, is two different things. That's why I believe that although NICS records are "supposed" to be destroyed/deleted after 24hours, after a firearms purchase there is a database somewhere still in existence. I know that gun stores hold 4473's but I don't think it's a tin foil hat moment to believe the NICS check on your new gun was not completly deleted. A database/list of gun purchases can also be used as a registry. I personally find it refreshing that the city, state, federal government has no idea what all firearms I have in my possession through private sales and has no idea who I might sell mine to or leave to when I die. Liberals who propose background checks on private sales also support a firearms registry, you can't really have one without the other.

We already have a pretty good law, If I sell a gun to Joe Blow meth making home invading violent felon, and I knew Joe Blow was a felon then I get my own felony charge. That's a real crime unlike selling a gun to a friend or family member.

Edited April 16, 2015 by K191145

[TrickyNicky]

As a Ca native I can say been there, done that, I'll pass on the T-shirt. These changes amount to back door registration in the worst case scenario and an expensive, wasteful violation of privacy in the best case. Screw that. 

 

As far as it "not being a big deal" to head down to an FFL and go through a BGC to loan or borrow a weapon or give or sell one to a friend or relative, my thoughts are:

 

1. If it's not a big deal to do it, it must not be a big deal NOT to do it. Screw it.

 

2. Screw that.

 

3. I wonder how many FFLs are in the immediate area? I guess if theres one on every block, anyone wishing to do so may in fact find out "it's not a big deal". My guess is that they are fewer and farther between that deputies. Screw that.

 

4. What does the state pick up out of this, and what are the FFLs picking up out of this? In CA a private sale costs you $35 to commence with I believe $20 to the state and $15 for the FFL. Sounds great huh? "Want to borrow my gun pal? That'll be $70." Screw that.

 

5. I hate to bring up my old nemesis logic, but it stands to reason that people who felon for a living are not likely to give two slices of excrement about breaking another law. The only ones who will are law abiding citizens. Screw that.

 

 

 

It sucks that an elected official has to tell his people he can't follow through with something for lack of funding, and thats probably an honest part of his stance, but in this particular case I'm glad they can't afford to do it. Maybe I just woke up on the wrong side of the bed today but screw a whole boatload of that.

[Ugly]

You didn't wake up on the wrong side of the bed. You saw reality and it pissed you off. Me too, more than usual!

On a good note, the recall process has been started for 3 of the butt monkeys that passed the law. More to follow too.

[btq96r]

Sorry to bring this back so many days after, but I had a weekend mostly away from a keyboard.

 

 

Refusing to enforce an Un-Constitutional law is not a "WRONG". His oath to protect and defend the Constitution makes it a "RIGHT".

 

I don't see the law as unconstitutional, thus it's two wrongs in my mind.  I get that we disagree on that however, and I'm not trying to convert your thought on it.

 

 

You're incorrect on two fronts. First, the phrase "well-regulated militia" at the time of the writing meant "well trained." Second, the entire phrase within which it is contained, "A well-regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state," is a subordinate clause and seeks to support or clarify the main clause, not place conditions upon it.

The authors of the Constitution understood the need for our newly formed country to maintain a standing army, as repugnant as the idea was to many of them. And since the idea of a standing army was objectionable to them, they secured in writing the right of the people (not the militia) to keep and bear arms.

In other words, background checks are in no way consistent with the wording nor the intent of the 2nd Amendment.

 

In his A View of the Constitution of the United States of America (1825), William Rawls wrote this:

 

A disorderly militia is disgraceful to itself, and dangerous not to the enemy, but to its own country. The duty of the state government is, to adopt such regulations as will tend to make good soldiers with the least interruptions of the ordinary and useful occupations of civil life. In this all the Union has a strong and visible interest.

 

I consider background checks in line with the the state adopting the regulations he was talking about.  After all, if the person in question isn't qualified to serve as militia, why should they have a weapon to begin with?

 

 

So, I am guessing that you would not be opposed to "registration" of every firearm?  That is what private background checks is about, building that registry.

 

I wouldn't be opposed to it, but I not going to push for it.  Consider me neutral on the subject.  Though I can see the benefit of using a registry to trace a gun to determine if someone is buying guns for criminals once a registry has been in place for a while. 

[Worriedman]

Worriedman, on 16 Apr 2015 - 09:59 AM, said:

 

So, I am guessing that you would not be opposed to "registration" of every firearm?  That is what private background checks is about, building that registry.

 

I wouldn't be opposed to it, but I not going to push for it.  Consider me neutral on the subject.  Though I can see the benefit of using a registry to trace a gun to determine if someone is buying guns for criminals once a registry has been in place for a while. 

Wow, and you said you were not a Statist.  I do not think the word means what you think it does.

Edited April 20, 2015 by Worriedman

[Worriedman]

I consider background checks in line with the the state adopting the regulations he was talking about.  After all, if the person in question isn't qualified to serve as militia, why should they have a weapon to begin with?

 

A man who was instrumental in the founding of this nation had a slightly different view of the Militia than do you sir:
 

"Who are the militia, if they be not the people of this country...? I ask, who are the militia?  They consist of now of the whole people, except a few public officers."-George Mason

He also said, "To disarm the people is the best and most effectual way to enslave them."

The registry that you think is permissible is the quickest way to achieving the disarming of the People.
 

 

Edited April 20, 2015 by Worriedman

[Dennis1209]

It never ceases to amaze me the length the liberals and anti gun crowd will go to keep guns out of the hands of responsible law abiding citizens as feel good measures and reactionary responses.

 

Think about it, the majority of laws and checks are directed at those citizens who actually follow the law. It's common knowledge the vast majority of weapons criminals, gang-bangers and the mentally ill posses are stolen and/or obtained by straw purchases. The overwhelming percentage of gun related violent crime is related to drug use and the drug trade in one way or another, and/or you gots it and I'm taking it. 

 

It doesn't take an I.Q. of Einstein to realize the enlightened and liberals are dancing around the root causes of violent crime and shifting their efforts, by design, to those who actually follow the law.

 

Just one persons uneducated thought process...

[LagerHead]

In his A View of the Constitution of the United States of America (1825), William Rawls wrote this:
 
A disorderly militia is disgraceful to itself, and dangerous not to the enemy, but to its own country. The duty of the state government is, to adopt such regulations as will tend to make good soldiers with the least interruptions of the ordinary and useful occupations of civil life. In this all the Union has a strong and visible interest.
 
I consider background checks in line with the the state adopting the regulations he was talking about.  After all, if the person in question isn't qualified to serve as militia, why should they have a weapon to begin with?

Because, as I stated earlier, the 2nd Amendment is NOT about serving in a militia, it's about defending AGAINST a state-run militia. Again, the 2nd Amendment does NOT mean that the right to keep and bear arms is reserved for the militia. It does not say it. It does not imply it. That is an invention of gun-grabbers like Brady and VPC. It clearly states that "the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed." It does not say the right of the militia. There is a reason it is worded that way.

[Ugly]

"Nobody needs 30 round magazines for hunting"
A. Lib
Hahahaha

[Clod Stomper]

Because, as I stated earlier, the 2nd Amendment is NOT about serving in a militia, it's about defending AGAINST a state-run militia. Again, the 2nd Amendment does NOT mean that the right to keep and bear arms is reserved for the militia. It does not say it. It does not imply it. That is an invention of gun-grabbers like Brady and VPC. It clearly states that "the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed." It does not say the right of the militia. There is a reason it is worded that way.

Yes. Thank you.

On top of that, "why would anyone, who is not qualified to be part of a militia, need a weapon"?

Well, let's see. Self-defense perhaps? Should a 90-year-old, wheelchair-bound woman, who is clearly not militia qualified, not be able to defend herself?

Of course, there are some who would argue that no one should live to be that old and be a drain on "the system", but that's another topic.

I think.

[btq96r]

Wow, and you said you were not a Statist.  I do not think the word means what you think it does.

 

I don't think the word means what you think it does.  But please, don't stop trying to denograde me with a catchy word for having a different belief.

 

 

noun stat·ism \ˈstā-ˌti-zəm\

Definition of STATISM

:  concentration of economic controls and planning in the hands of a highly centralized government often extending to government ownership of industry

 

 

 

 

Because, as I stated earlier, the 2nd Amendment is NOT about serving in a militia, it's about defending AGAINST a state-run militia. Again, the 2nd Amendment does NOT mean that the right to keep and bear arms is reserved for the militia. It does not say it. It does not imply it. That is an invention of gun-grabbers like Brady and VPC. It clearly states that "the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed." It does not say the right of the militia. There is a reason it is worded that way.

 

The 2nd Amendment, as originally drafted, was only a matter between the federal government and the states. 

[Worriedman]

From the Ayn Rand Lexicon:

A statist system---whether of a communist, fascist, Nazi, socialist or “welfare” type—is based on the (pick 'em) government’s unlimited power, which means: on the rule of brute force. The differences among statist systems are only a matter of time and degree; the principle is the same. Under statism, the government is not a policeman, but a legalized criminal that holds the power to use physical force in any manner and for any purpose it pleases against legally disarmed, defenseless victims.

I get what Statism means and is.