Oregon Sheriff: Gun Control Push ‘Borderline Treasonous,’ Will Not Enforce

Breitbart ^ | 04/05/2015 | AWR Hawkins

[E. Pluribus Unum]

While Oregon Democrats stood with Gabby Giffords and the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence to push expanded background checks on April 1, Grant County Sheriff Glenn Palmer stood for the law-abiding citizens whom the checks will target by describing the gun control push as “borderline treasonous.”

Palmer also made clear that if the Democrats pass the measure there is zero chance of his office enforcing it.

Breitbart News previously reported that the push for expanded background checks in Oregon is being spearheaded by state senator Floyd Prozanski (D-Eugene). His efforts are strongly supported by the Brady Campaign and Giffords.

[TalBlack]

“Borderline”. Always “borderline”.

[Noumenon]

Support your local Sherriff

[Walrus]

This has to happen again and again; those charged with enforcing ridiculous, unconstitutional laws should refuse to do so.

Those who are expected to obey ridiculous, unconstitutional laws should also refuse to do so.

Government derives its just powers from the consent og the governed. WE DO NOT CONSENT!

[stars & stripes forever]

[Support your local Sheriff...]

or he may be replaced by a gun-control programmed robot.

[MichaelCorleone]

Absolutely right.

[faithhopecharity]

..”the rights of the Public to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed...”

(the sheriff is right, let’s hope there are a thousand more sheriffs with his Pride, Integrity, and Guts!)

[JennysCool]

Government derives its just powers from the consent of the governed. WE DO NOT CONSENT!

This is a HUGE reason why the left fears Ted Cruz. He will very skillfully and understandably communicate that the people run the government, not the other way around, spoiling years and years of liberal indoctrination.

[vette6387]

“Support your local Sheriff”

But only if he supports The Constitution, and too many of them don’t today! Some of them even go so far as to say that The Constitution is a hinderance to doing their jobs. That is why they are so adverse to being photographed “doing their jobs.”

[bikerman]

Good for him just a warning stay out of airplanes.

[Amendment10]

"Borderline”. Always “borderline”.

Although the sheriff was prudently practicing CYA imo, thank you for noting that.

Note that the Supreme Court has historically clarified in United States v. Cruickshank that citizens have a natural right to use firearms to protect themselves even if the 2nd Amendment didn’t exist.

"The second and tenth counts are equally defective. The right there specified is that of "bearing arms for a lawful purpose." This is not a right granted by the Constitution. Neither is it in any manner dependent upon that instrument for its existence [emphasis added]. The second amendment declares that it shall not be infringed, but this, as has been seen, means no more than that it shall not be infringed by Congress. This is one of the amendments that has no other effect than to restrict the powers of the national government, leaving the people to look for their protection against any violation by their fellow citizens of the rights it recognizes, to what is called, in The City of New York v. Miln, 11 Pet. 139, the "powers which relate to merely municipal legislation, or what was, perhaps, more properly called internal police," "not surrendered or restrained" by the Constitution of the United States." —United States v. Cruikshank, 1875.

[TLI]

I would want to see just what the “expanded background check” consists of.

What EXACTLY is disqualifying criteria?

Who conducts such a check?

What databases are used?

Who controls those databases?

Who or what makes the final determination of the “permission?”

Without that it is obvious how this will turn out.

.

[Noumenon]

Our Bonner County sheriff has gone on record saying that the Second Amendment should be the only permit you need.

[Wolfie]

Meanwhile, Sheriffs on Colorado are suing to enforce laws that no longer exist. What a country.

[Scrambler Bob]

Brady Campaign and Giffords -—

Aren’t these both literally brain damaged?

[Political Junkie Too]

The Obama Legacy will be that everyone has "prosecutorial discretion" now?

That's all that this sheriff has say, that he's simply exercising prosecutorial discretion just like Obama.

-PJ

[Spok]

If the Obama presidency has taught us anything it’s that the written law is strictly advisory. His “I have a phone and a pen” comment declared open season on the Constitution and a free-for-all on the rule of law. Of Course, let Congress write a letter to the Ayatollah about enforcement of treaties, and the leftist media shrieks like a scalded cat. The Rule of Law has become the Rule of Obama.

[TigersEye]

Colorado sheriffs overwhelmingly feel the same way about gun control laws.

[Oatka]

From the Oregon Firearms Federation

The Hired Help Goes Rogue
4.04.15

What happens when the hired help decides to use your money to promote their agenda? Don Johnson happens. Johnson is the Chief of Police for Lake Oswego, Oregon.

Johnson is not elected. He was hired by the City to serve as Chief of Police. He was not given carte blanche to use his office, his uniform, and his position with the City to promote a deceitful agenda attacking your rights. But that’s exactly what he’s done.

Not only did Johnson testify against your rights in the Oregon Legislature, in his uniform, (no doubt while on the clock) Johnson went further, appearing as a prop at an anti-gun press conference and recording anti-gun puff pieces for well funded anti-gun groups.

Did Johnson get greased by his handlers as well as collecting his Lake Oswego salary? That would be lucrative wouldn’t it?

Here’s a photo taken at the anti-gun press conference following last week’s hearing on an end to private transfers of firearms.

Johnson is on the far right.

The person at the podium is Mike Reese, the former Chief of Police of Portland, who was also at the hearing and testified that there is no current way for private persons to conduct background checks for gun purchases. This, of course, is totally false. Oregon has allowed private parties to conduct background checks for 15 years. Apparently Reese did not get the memo. We can only hope the current chief there is somewhat better informed.

Reese is retired. He can do what he wants and tell as many lies as he chooses to. But Johnson is being paid with taxpayer dollars. His misuse of his office should not be tolerated.

More and more sheriffs, who are elected to office and actually represent the people of their counties, are rising up in opposition to SB 941. As elected representatives of their counties, they have every right to take a stand. (It should be noted that the Sheriff of Grant County, who came to oppose this bill, did not use a dime of taxpayer’s money to attend, though he could have.)

People like Johnson are employees of the City and should not be taking political stands unless directed to by their bosses.

Did the City of Lake Oswego authorize this particular abuse? We have reason to believe they did not.

If you’re curious why not ask the City Council (CouncilDistribution@ci.oswego.or.us) a simple question?

Did you authorize your Chief of Police to use his office and uniform to attack my rights and advance a personal agenda?

We look forward to hearing from them.

[TigersEye]

I'm not sure what lawsuit over what laws you're referring to but CO sheriffs were planning a lawsuit to not enforce our new gun control laws a couple of years ago.

37 of 62 Colorado sheriffs to sue over new gun laws (More Likely to Join) April 10, 2013