Sheriffs in Oregon Defy New Controversial Gun Control Measure

[HillsideDesolate]

The law is the law. If you don't like the law, then change it but it's not up to everyone to decide what laws they want to follow and what laws they don't. That is pretty much called anarchy and leads to lawlessness!

>the law is the law
Because the police never let anyone off with a warning amirite?

We already live in a state of anarcho-tyranny. The ruling elite.can do whatever then want, Epsteins client list is sealed by a judge, elections are blatantly stolen. Rioters lead by democrat.operatives can loot businesses, burn cities, set up roadblocks armed AK47s and shoot people with zero consequences. The feds are requiring schools let mentally ill boys in the girls bathroom or they lose funding. Criminal gangs.are.allowed to terrorize common citizena. Meanwhile they are hiring 87,000 armed agents to ensure you pay your taxes.

>the law is the law

So when the government decides to ban firearms we better wait in line to hand them in.

 

[kingfish]

The law is the law. If you don't like the law, then change it but it's not up to everyone to decide what laws they want to follow and what laws they don't. That is pretty much called anarchy and leads to lawlessness!

I'll tell you where you are wrong on this. Yes the law is the law, but these sheriffs have sworn to defend the Constitution of the United States. If they believe the law is unconstitutional, which I think most of us here believe it is, then it is their duty to not enforce it. This is entirely different from prosecutors refusing to file charges against those who violate state statutes.

So let's say you are in the army and martial law is declared by the President. Your commanding officer orders you to fire upon an "unruly" crowd protesting. I can assume you are one who will be pulling the trigger? After all the law is the law.

 

[mavs]

I'll tell you where you are wrong on this. Yes the law is the law, but these sheriffs have sworn to defend the Constitution of the United States. If they believe the law is unconstitutional, which I think most of us here believe it is, then it is their duty to not enforce it. This is entirely different from prosecutors refusing to file charges against those who violate state statutes.

So let's say you are in the army and martial law is declared by the President. Your commanding officer orders you to fire upon an "unruly" crowd protesting. I can assume you are one who will be pulling the trigger? After all the law is the law.

Yes, the law is the law

 

[HillsideDesolate]

Yes, the law is the law

Some people just prefer the tranquility of servitude to the animating contest of freedom.

But this is why conservatives are.doomed.to fail. Our opponents would have us marched to reeducation camps while we calmly chant the mantra,"the laws the law" patting ourselves on the back for not breaking the rules.

 

[2busy]

Don't you just love that sheriffs and other public officials get to decide what laws they will enforce and which ones they won't? That's how we get district attorneys that won't prosecute people that steal less than $1000 in merchandise from businesses. Kind of leads to the POTUS refuses to prosecute illegal aliens and other parts of his oath of office.

What is the point of having laws and elections if this is acceptable in this country?

They learned it from the fudds.

 

[Catt57]

Here it is by county.

 

[ConstitutionCowboy]

Here it is by county.

View attachment 319140

There is a way to solve this left leaning democratic form of representation. As it stands, the current setup is OK for a house of representatives. It is not good for any form of a senate. Each state's senate (or equivalent) should consist of one senator from each county. That way, nothing will pass that is not good for both the highly populated centers or the rural areas. This will ensure a republican form of government for each state as is required by the Constitution.

Article IV, Section 4, of the United States Constitution is quite clear on this issue.

This measure would not have passed were it presented in a proper legislative body. The only way it passed is by referendum, and as we can see, it favored the highly populated centers only. (The Second Amendment's protection of the Right of the People to Keep and Bear Arms considered notwithstanding for the sake of discussion.)


Woody

 

[Chuckie]

Don't you just love that sheriffs and other public officials get to decide what laws they will enforce and which ones they won't? That's how we get district attorneys that won't prosecute people that steal less than $1000 in merchandise from businesses. Kind of leads to the POTUS refuses to prosecute illegal aliens and other parts of his oath of office.

What is the point of having laws and elections if this is acceptable in this country?

Everyone is entitled to their own opinion, but what I see are Sheriffs abiding by their oath to uphold the Constitution of the United States, which in this case is the 2nd Amendment part.

 

[mavs]

Everyone is entitled to their own opinion, but what I see are Sheriffs abiding by their oath to uphold the Constitution of the United States, which in this case is the 2nd Amendment part.

"Sworn law enforcement officers are those who have taken an oath to support the Constitution of the United States, their state, and the laws of their agency's jurisdiction."

It does not give the sheriff or officers the option as to which laws to enforce.

 

[JEVapa]

"Sworn law enforcement officers are those who have taken an oath to support the Constitution of the United States, their state, and the laws of their agency's jurisdiction."

It does not give the sheriff or officers the option as to which laws to enforce.

Constitution comes first. Period. Make sure you write that down in your report.