Sheriff won't enforce gun laws

Jan 16, 2013 Full story: KCCI-TV Des Moines 45

An Oregon sheriff says he will not enforce any federal regulation that President Barack Obama lays out in his package of gun control proposals Wednesday.

Full Story
First Prev
of 3
Next Last

“Headed toward the cliff”

Since: Nov 07

Tawas City, Michigan

#2 Jan 16, 2013
Then the sheriff needs to be removed from office, just as any other official who refuses to follow federal law.
duh

Abilene, TX

#4 Jan 16, 2013
WeTheSheeple wrote:
Then the sheriff needs to be removed from office, just as any other official who refuses to follow federal law.
we the people know who needs to be removed from office ant its not some local official.
Cracker

Festus, MO

#5 Jan 16, 2013
WeTheSheeple wrote:
Then the sheriff needs to be removed from office, just as any other official who refuses to follow federal law.
Just as Terrorist Obama refuzes to uphold America's law's !!!

Kudos to the Sheriff though , God Bless America .
Cracker

Festus, MO

#6 Jan 16, 2013
Impeachment of Obama, it's coming ...
:)

“Headed toward the cliff”

Since: Nov 07

Tawas City, Michigan

#7 Jan 16, 2013
Cracker wrote:
<quoted text>
Just as Terrorist Obama refuzes to uphold America's law's !!!
Kudos to the Sheriff though , God Bless America .
And yet you can't name a single law the President hasn't upheld.

“Voters elect Big Bird”

Since: Jan 07

Dump American Eagle

#8 Jan 16, 2013
WeTheSheeple wrote:
<quoted text>
And yet you can't name a single law the President hasn't upheld.
Uh,he's shot holes thru our immigration laws. Refusing to deport certain eligible illegals,ordering releases of others.

“Headed toward the cliff”

Since: Nov 07

Tawas City, Michigan

#9 Jan 16, 2013
okimar wrote:
<quoted text>Uh,he's shot holes thru our immigration laws. Refusing to deport certain eligible illegals,ordering releases of others.
That's your opinion.

If you really believe that then have him impeached.

Go for it.

I'd love to see the white GOP House Judiciary members holding impeachment hearings on the first black president.

I TRIPLE dog dare you......

“Voters elect Big Bird”

Since: Jan 07

Dump American Eagle

#10 Jan 16, 2013
WeTheSheeple wrote:
<quoted text>
That's your opinion.
If you really believe that then have him impeached.
Go for it.
I'd love to see the white GOP House Judiciary members holding impeachment hearings on the first black president.
I TRIPLE dog dare you......
He didn't BREAK any laws,he's just a bit "selective" about how he chooses to enforce some of them. Thats not an impeachable offense. He's much to mindful to do anything really stupid to invite impeachment.

I just watched his dog and pony show and so far the only thing I have an issue with is the new call for a re-instatement for the "assault" weapons ban from Congress. This will have as much of a chance of passing as a snowball sailing thru he11..... As far as what the 23 E/Os will consist of we'll have to wait until they are reported on.
Angela Lee

Lexington, KY

#11 Jan 16, 2013
I am shocked that some of the people in your county apparently don't uphold the actual U.S. Constitution, much less the (I assume) sworn oath taken by law enforcement to uphold the law of the land. I have to believe your sheriff swore such an oath but apparently now thinks its OK to pick and choose which laws he will or will not uphold! Some of you apparently place assault weapons ownership by the public at large ahead of the lives of innocent children and commonsense needed changes in our laws to diminish the number of innocent lives lost to gun violence. You appear to have missed the point entirely when it comes to the majority of your fellow Americans, along with those who have lost loved ones to violence at the end of a gun, and our President and Vice-President explaining very clearly and logically why certain changes are long past due. No hunter uses an assault rifle to kill a deer (or any other game) to feed his family or just to pursue this as a sport. No homeowner is going to be attacked by an army of people and if a handgun or shotgun for protection of your property and family is insufficient then you either must be a heck of a lousy shot or absolutely delusional.

Your sheriff is not a constitutional lawyer. In fact I suspect he is not a lawyer of any kind. He is sworn to uphold all laws. He doesn't get to choose whether he will uphold certain gun laws and not others; certain laws against property and not others, etc. Your county is not an island. It is part of the great State of Kentucky which, in turn, is part of the United States of America. As such what happens in one place can well happen just about anywhere. Newtown could just as well have happened somewhere in Kentucky as well as Connecticut. We need to start acting like adults and being protective of our children's lives, especially, rather than acting as if we are ignoramuses who can't tell reality from conspiratorial fiction.

“Headed toward the cliff”

Since: Nov 07

Tawas City, Michigan

#12 Jan 16, 2013
okimar wrote:
<quoted text>He didn't BREAK any laws,he's just a bit "selective" about how he chooses to enforce some of them. Thats not an impeachable offense. He's much to mindful to do anything really stupid to invite impeachment.
I just watched his dog and pony show and so far the only thing I have an issue with is the new call for a re-instatement for the "assault" weapons ban from Congress. This will have as much of a chance of passing as a snowball sailing thru he11..... As far as what the 23 E/Os will consist of we'll have to wait until they are reported on.
Didn't break any laws.
Not an impeachable offense.

Good to know.

“Voters elect Big Bird”

Since: Jan 07

Dump American Eagle

#13 Jan 16, 2013
WeTheSheeple wrote:
<quoted text>
Didn't break any laws.
Not an impeachable offense.
Good to know.
We try to keep folks informed. Some people seem to confuse an unpopular decision with an unConstitutional one. It would help some to check their emotions at the topix door before entering.

“Voters elect Big Bird”

Since: Jan 07

Dump American Eagle

#14 Jan 16, 2013
Angela Lee wrote:
I am shocked that some of the people in your county apparently don't uphold the actual U.S. Constitution, much less the (I assume) sworn oath taken by law enforcement to uphold the law of the land. I have to believe your sheriff swore such an oath but apparently now thinks its OK to pick and choose which laws he will or will not uphold! Some of you apparently place assault weapons ownership by the public at large ahead of the lives of innocent children and commonsense needed changes in our laws to diminish the number of innocent lives lost to gun violence. You appear to have missed the point entirely when it comes to the majority of your fellow Americans, along with those who have lost loved ones to violence at the end of a gun, and our President and Vice-President explaining very clearly and logically why certain changes are long past due. No hunter uses an assault rifle to kill a deer (or any other game) to feed his family or just to pursue this as a sport. No homeowner is going to be attacked by an army of people and if a handgun or shotgun for protection of your property and family is insufficient then you either must be a heck of a lousy shot or absolutely delusional.
Your sheriff is not a constitutional lawyer. In fact I suspect he is not a lawyer of any kind. He is sworn to uphold all laws. He doesn't get to choose whether he will uphold certain gun laws and not others; certain laws against property and not others, etc. Your county is not an island. It is part of the great State of Kentucky which, in turn, is part of the United States of America. As such what happens in one place can well happen just about anywhere. Newtown could just as well have happened somewhere in Kentucky as well as Connecticut. We need to start acting like adults and being protective of our children's lives, especially, rather than acting as if we are ignoramuses who can't tell reality from conspiratorial fiction.
ALL Officers of the court and Law Enforcement take a sworn oath,just as the armed forces,to uphold and defend the Constitution. As such they can also interpret do a degree what they or their state laws decides what a Constitutional condition is. If a Federal law clashes with state law in most cases state law trumphs. THAT is the limitation placed on the Fed by the Constitution. As E/Os are not enacted law,but rather a directive of the President,local/state authorities are not bound to it. Being a Commonwealth Kentucky has more leeway than a state in these regards.
downhill246

Boca Raton, FL

#15 Jan 16, 2013
WeTheSheeple wrote:
Then the sheriff needs to be removed from office, just as any other official who refuses to follow federal law.
We have three states that legalized the use of marijuana in violation of federal law. Should we remove every LEO in those three states?
Cracker

Festus, MO

#16 Jan 16, 2013
WeTheSheeple wrote:
<quoted text>
And yet you can't name a single law the President hasn't upheld.
Immigration agents sue to stop Obama’s non-deportation policy
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2012/aug/...

The fact your still here ,criminal . That's 1
Cracker

Festus, MO

#17 Jan 16, 2013
conservative crapola

Allentown, PA

#18 Jan 16, 2013
Cracker wrote:
Impeachment of Obama, it's coming ...
:)
Another dumbphuck with no charges, except rush and bullshitmountainnews said so.

hahahahahahahahahahaha
Wally1

East Wenatchee, WA

#19 Jan 16, 2013
WOW, Here on one hand we have the feds telling Sheriff Joe Arpaio that he cannot enforce Immigration law in Arizona, and you are fine with that. Now you are upset when a Sheriff in Oregon follows the constitution, and you want him fired because he does not enforce a presidential decree on an assault weapons ban that is not even law yet? Being illegally in the USA is a crime. Why won't the feds allow local law enforcement to arrest illegals for that crime? Being a citizen, having passed a backround check and owning a AR-15 is not illegal! So the president and the FEDS are not even following or enforcing their own laws. Simple, they have an agenda. Here is an interesting question: How about Firearms purchase form 4473,(It's the form gun dealer fill out when someone purchases a firearm). One question on the form has to do with Marijuana use, It restricts a person from purchase of a firearm if they are or have been a chronic user of marijuana. So in Washington and Colorado where state laws have been passed legalizing marijuana, it is still prohibited by federal law. So if a person is a MJ user, even if that person has a medical marijuana card, he can be refused purchase of a firearm. If he lies on the form, it's a felony. The feds should enforce this, but they don't. Why not? It's a felony to be a marijuana user and illegally purchase a firearm! The feds could care less! Why? Because it's about control, not the law. They more interested in violating law abiding citizens rights to own a firearm than enforcing the law. So if you get arrested for owning a ar-15, one could make the case that this is discrimination. Let's make the case that law abiding Gun owners are being discriminated against. Interesting!

“Headed toward the cliff”

Since: Nov 07

Tawas City, Michigan

#20 Jan 16, 2013
okimar wrote:
<quoted text>We try to keep folks informed. Some people seem to confuse an unpopular decision with an unConstitutional one. It would help some to check their emotions at the topix door before entering.
Agreed.

I don't agree with everything the President has done either, but I know the difference between actually violating the constitution and just doing something people don't like.

“Headed toward the cliff”

Since: Nov 07

Tawas City, Michigan

#21 Jan 16, 2013
downhill246 wrote:
<quoted text>
We have three states that legalized the use of marijuana in violation of federal law. Should we remove every LEO in those three states?
If those state laws are indeed in direct conflict with federal law, then federal law has supremacy.

Of course the debate is whether those state laws are actually in direct conflict with federal law.

I've heard arguments on both sides.

I DO think the issue needs to be resolved one way or the other though.

“Voters elect Big Bird”

Since: Jan 07

Dump American Eagle

#22 Jan 16, 2013
WeTheSheeple wrote:
<quoted text>
If those state laws are indeed in direct conflict with federal law, then federal law has supremacy.
Of course the debate is whether those state laws are actually in direct conflict with federal law.
I've heard arguments on both sides.
I DO think the issue needs to be resolved one way or the other though.
When Srtate law and Federal law conflicts Federal law has jurisdictional trump. HOWEVER it is up to the LOCAL authorities as to which they will follow. The only carrot the feds have in a case like that is the pursestrings,funding for locals to carry out the enforcement if they choose to accept the funding.

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker
First Prev
of 3
Next Last

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Joe Biden Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
US generals call on Obama to end 'torture' (Dec '08) 52 min swedenforever 30
The Political Win That Could Make Elizabeth War... Jan 26 swedenforever 3
Let's Talk Turkey Jan 26 lets 2
Obama to cut India visit short for Saudi Arabia Jan 25 Too sad for words 5
First Lady announcing one-stop job site for vets (Apr '14) Jan 21 uLubin 72
Shots fired near US Vice President Joe Biden's ... Jan 20 Fake Hair Much 4
Shots fired near Vice President Biden's Delawar... Jan 20 Nose Pickin Sinner 63
More from around the web