Voters adopted strict new restrictions for those trying to purchase a firearm
Bob Unruh
WND News Center
It’s not just lawmakers in America that can do some odd things, like the pending decision in Congress on the oddly named “Respect for Marriage Act” that actually wouldn’t do that.
What it would do is “leave millions of men and women of faith out to dry, as it offers them no meaningful protection from … legal harassment.”
In Oregon this month, it was the voters.
They approved a plan to require people to finish an “approved” in-person firearm safety course, pay a fee, provide personal information, submit to fingerprinting and photographing and pass a federal criminal background check in order to buy a permit – which then could be used to buy a gun.
Multiple sheriffs in the state fear it’s unconstitutional, and don’t want to get caught up in enforcing something that’s illegal.
In question is the state’s Measure 114, which also bans magazines over 10 rounds and creates a statewide gun database.
Newsweek reported the Oregon State Sheriffs’ Association, representing the 36 elected sheriffs, fought the plan, saying it would hurt public safety by forcing agencies to create and fund a firearm permit process out of their budgets.
Now a number of sheriffs have pledged not to enforce the demands.
Sherman County Sheriff Brad Lohrey “said our office would not enforce Measure 114,” Undersheriff James Burgett told Newsweek on Tuesday. Another opponent is Jefferson County Sheriff Jason Pollock.
“The biggest thing is this does absolutely nothing to address the problem,” Sheriff Cody Bowen of Union County said in an interview with Fox News. “The problem that we have is not… magazine capacity. It’s not background checks. It’s a problem with mental health awareness. It’s a problem with behavior health illness.”
He warned the agenda is “an infringement on our Second Amendment.”
Malheur County Sheriff Brian Wolfe also said in an interview the ban is a problem.
“I don’t think this is superseding anything. I don’t believe that I am superseding state law by not enforcing it. Anybody in law enforcement, including the state police, including the governor, has to pick and choose what laws they are going to be able to enforce,” he said.
Michelle Duncan, the Linn County sheriff, posted on Facebook that her office is not enforcing the magazine capacity limits.
She explained the measure was poorly written and there “is still a lot that needs to be sorted out.”
Also read:
- With more state financial stress on horizon, Ferguson signs WA budget
Washington’s latest $79.4 billion state budget taps rainy day funds, reduces child care provider payments, and defers big tax collections, setting up a deficit in 2028. - Gov. Ferguson signs controversial law tightening standards for WA sheriffs
Sheriffs must now meet strict standards or risk removal, with local officials appointing replacements instead of voter recall, amid ongoing debate over constitutionality. - Opinion: Stalin would be proud – Clark County Socialists gathered for ‘No Kings’
Reform Clark County’s Rob Anderson criticizes local and national groups for organizing protests that featured Auditor Greg Kimsey as a keynote, raising concerns about public trust and political partisanship. - Higher payroll taxes may hit workers as eligibility rules broaden
Elizabeth New argues the state’s paid family leave system drains paychecks from lower-income workers and gives more to frequent and high-income users, urging repeal or major reform. - Clark County Sheriff’s Office completes extradition in homicide case
Dariel Nunez-Montero was transferred from Kentucky to the Clark County Jail and is being held as the investigation into the death of Courtney Clinton moves forward. - Letter: Vancouver Mayor Anne McEnerny-Ogle makes several serious and incorrect engineering statements
Bob Ortblad critiques engineering claims by Vancouver Mayor Anne McEnerny-Ogle, highlighting cost and safety advantages of an immersed tunnel for the I-5 crossing. - Opinion: The beginning of the end of anchor babies
Lars Larson argues the Constitution excludes children born to non-legal residents, as the Supreme Court debates birthright citizenship and public opinion data shows limited support.
wpDiscuz
