Sheriffs in Oregon Defy New Controversial Gun Control Measure

[Glocktogo]

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?

LOL, where have you been the past 50 years? We haven't had equal rights and protections under the law in my lifetime.

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!

Again, where have you been? Under a rock?

Yes, the law is the law

You should conduct a test. In one hand, take your laws and try to impose them upon anyone in violation. In the other hand, take your laws and add them to your fiber intake.

Let's see which one produces results.

 

[JEVapa]

Constitution vs troll...Constitution wins!

 

[JEVapa]

This has already been established, not counting the numerous SCOTUS decisions on the 2A, but on laws in violation of the Constitution. Next step is lawfare and the people will win...they do every time. The law is the Constitution first, it's really that simple. That's why they aren't shutting the Sheriffs down because they know they'll get their nuts crushed. But we'll see.
These people are always pushing their luck and violating the Constitution and people who either know and disregard civics, or are ignorant of civics, tend to agree with the offending parties.

Per the below article:
“that a law repugnant to the constitution is void, and that courts, as well as other departments, are bound by that instrument.”

Marbury v. Madison | Background, Summary, & Significance | Britannica

Marbury v. Madison, legal case in which the U.S. Supreme Court first declared an act of Congress unconstitutional and thus established the doctrine of judicial review. The court’s opinion, written by Chief Justice John Marshall, is considered one of the foundations of U.S. constitutional law.

www.britannica.com

 

[sklfco]

I do not and never will agree that we should shoot fellow Americans because we don't like their chosen life-style or political thoughts. Sounds too much like something Russia or China does to their own citizens that have criticized their own government. I don't know TK, maybe you're beholding to those regimes.

I bet Ethel and Julius Rosenberg are roasting just wishing you would of been on the jury.

 

[JEVapa]

I bet Ethel and Julius Rosenberg are roasting just wishing you would of been on the jury.

That's kinda apples and oranges there.

 

[sklfco]

Kinda; however that’s how the crowd rolls here in OSAland.

 

[Raido Free America]

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?

POLITICIANS AT EVERY LEVEL, WILL DO WHATEVER, WE THE PEOPLE ALLOW THEM TO GET AWAY WITH! We elect people to public office, send them to Washington DC, and a very few years later they are ALL MARICLOUSLY BILLIONARES, AND NO ONE, NOT EVEN THE IRS BOTHERS TO ASK , WHERE ALL THAT MONEY CAME FROM? WHY WOULD THEY NOT GET RICH SELLING US OUT, IF WE DON'T CARE? Obama has bought 5, $12,000,000.00 to $25,000,000.00 estates since leaving office in 2016, on a $150,000.00, per yr pension! Does that add up? Only if you are a democrat I guess? Anyone that fails to take care of THEIR BUSINESS, WON'T HAVE A BUSINESS TO TAKE CARE OF VERY LONG! VOTE!!!!!!!!!!!!

 

[Raido Free America]

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?

Did you ever hear of IMIGRATION LAWS? Our country and Mexico evolved at the same time, right next to each other, right? Why do we have the undisputed HIGHEST STANDARD OF LIVING IN HUMAN HISTORY, WHILE THE POOR MEXICAN PEOPLE LIVE IN SQUALOR, POVERTY, FEAR, AND HOPELESSNESS? Why do so many of them literally risk their, and their kids lives, trying to come to this country by any means avalable to them? The ONLY difference between how we turned out, and how they turned out is, THE RULE OF LAW, NOT MEN, RIGHT? If we set aside the RULE OF LAW, FOR ANY REASON, ARE WE NOT BECOMING JUST LIKE, THE PLACE THESE POOR PEOPLE ARE FLEEING? VOTE FOR REAL LOGIC, NOT SOB STORIES! WHERE DO THESE POOR PEOPLE, AND AMERICANS, FLEE IF WE ALLOW OUR GREATR COUNTRY TO BECOME JUST ANOTHER BANANA REPUBLIC, RULED BY THE DRUG CASRTEL? VOTE, AND KEEP THEM HONEST!

 

[ConstitutionCowboy]

Thank you sir. People don't get to decide what laws are constitutional or unconstitutional. The courts are the ones who decide that and not every person gets to make those decisions including the sheriff or district attorney.

If a person believes a law to be unconstitutional, disobeys said law, gets arrested and arraigned, that person has standing. Such a law can then be challenged as to its constitutionality. If a person doesn't have some sort of standing, the court won't heat the case. Ergo, said person must break said unconstitutional law in order to eventually get relief. If said person believes said law to be unconstitutional, it is only a matter of convincing the court if the unconstitutionality of the law is not within judicial notice.

For the common man, the Constitution is written in plain and concise verbiage, and with unambiguous meaning so long as a person can read and understand the English language. Just because agenda driven public servants decide not to abide the Constitution to ply their nefarious means toward their desired end, doesn't mean everyone else must knuckle under to the desires of those bent servants of the people. Just as a soldier doesn't have to obey an unlawful order, neither do We the People.

In court, when such a law is challenged, it is those in government who must defend the law on its face, and not anyone who has disobeyed the bad law. So, as you can see, anyone can decide that a law is either constitutional and abide it, or unconstitutional and disobey it. In the latter case, the law can then be challenged because a person or persons believe said law is unconstitutional.

We don't live in a dictatorship.

Woody

 

[mavs]

Did you ever hear of IMIGRATION LAWS? Our country and Mexico evolved at the same time, right next to each other, right? Why do we have the undisputed HIGHEST STANDARD OF LIVING IN HUMAN HISTORY, WHILE THE POOR MEXICAN PEOPLE LIVE IN SQUALOR, POVERTY, FEAR, AND HOPELESSNESS? Why do so many of them literally risk their, and their kids lives, trying to come to this country by any means avalable to them? The ONLY difference between how we turned out, and how they turned out is, THE RULE OF LAW, NOT MEN, RIGHT? If we set aside the RULE OF LAW, FOR ANY REASON, ARE WE NOT BECOMING JUST LIKE, THE PLACE THESE POOR PEOPLE ARE FLEEING? VOTE FOR REAL LOGIC, NOT SOB STORIES! WHERE DO THESE POOR PEOPLE, AND AMERICANS, FLEE IF WE ALLOW OUR GREATR COUNTRY TO BECOME JUST ANOTHER BANANA REPUBLIC, RULED BY THE DRUG CASRTEL? VOTE, AND KEEP THEM HONEST!

huh?