Second Amendment sanctuaries facing 1st court test in Oregon

[Eugene]

Source: Associated Press

Second Amendment sanctuaries facing 1st court test in Oregon

By LINDSAY WHITEHURST and ANDREW SELSKY
May 16, 2021

SALEM, Ore. (AP) — The first court test of whether local governments can ban police from enforcing certain gun laws is playing out in a rural Oregon county, one of a wave of U.S. counties declaring itself a Second Amendment sanctuary.

The measure that voters in the logging area of Columbia County narrowly approved last year forbids local officials from enforcing most federal and state gun laws and could impose thousands of dollars in fines on those who try.

Second Amendment sanctuary resolutions have been adopted by some 1,200 local governments in states around the U.S., including Virginia, Colorado, New Mexico, Kansas, Illinois and Florida, according to Shawn Fields, an assistant professor of law at Campbell University who tracks them. Many are symbolic, but some, like in Columbia County, carry legal force.

The movement took off around 2018, as states considered stricter gun laws in the wake of mass shootings, including a high school shooting near Parkland, Florida, that killed 17 people and made survivors into high-profile gun control activists.

-snip-

Read more: https://apnews.com/article/us-news-oregon-gun-politics-government-and-politics-1dec173dc5d6d7d5f343b933bb883368

[multigraincracker]

1. Wait a minute, the 2nd never mentions the words guns or firearms.

So, will they protect open carry of shoulder anti-aircraft arms, concealed swords and hand grenades?

[discntnt_irny_srcsm]

2. Many years of court decisions and opinions focus on the items covered by the 2A.

Accepted ATF regulations, federal and state laws and the SC decision in the Heller case all outline reasonable restrictions of what the 2A protects. Explosives, shoulder fired or otherwise, are not among those.

[multigraincracker]

3. What was reasonable was no longer after

Heller and they will change again as firearm violence increases. The only way to slow it will be “reasonable” new laws. Like background checks and capacity of rounds. Didn’t Heller leave open rules on public possession? If laws didn’t change according many things, there would be no need for courts or legislators. Enough gun violence and change will happen. It’s getting there now. Looks like Wayne has run the NRA into the ground. When members dues are paying suits that cost more than most member earn in a year, they will stop rolling in and Russian money is over. It’s up to sane gun owners now.

[discntnt_irny_srcsm]

4. re: "It's up to sane gun owners now."

Exactly! I've been saying this for a long time. I have suggested for local law enforcement offices to make NICS background checks available to any private citizen who wants to be assured his buyer is not prohibited. I believe that many private citizens wanting to sell a firearm would take advantage of that. BGCs or any other measure will never be 100% but they will help.

Heller does emphasize the reasonable restrictions are constitutionally acceptable.

I really don't follow Wayne and Ted and the other cartoon characters.

[Straw Man]

5. Background checks, yes.

Capacity limits, no. Why? Because mass shootings, while horrific, are extreme outliers in the overall firearm death toll -- less than 1% of all gun killing annually. There is little evidence that magazine limits would have any appreciable effect on the overall death toll. Why do we persist in handing the Republicans this delicious wedge issue on a silver platter year after year?

The whole calculus looks even more absurd when a "mass shooting" is defined as more than four people. How is a ten-round limit supposed to make any kind of a dent in those numbers? I'm picturing a day when new revolvers will have every other cylinder plugged, and the term "three-shooter" will enter the lexicon.

[Paladin]

7. "delicious wedge issue on a silver platter"

Congrats on giving yourself away.

[Straw Man]

8. Giving myself away?

Congrats on giving yourself away.

As what? As someone who recognizes issues that hurt Democrats and help Republicans while doing nothing of consequence for the country at large?

Or was there something else you were trying to say?

[friendly_iconoclast]

10. Don't bother-that sort are only candid when speaking to an amen chorus.

We don't qualify, obviously...

[RotorHead]

13. Huh?

Your litmous test seems arbitrary, poorly defined, and ex post facto.

Try again?

[RotorHead]

12. Reasonable?

I do not think that means what -you- think it means. How many rounds should a lawful person be restricted to, why, and what liability should the public have if it's not enough?

'Heller' didn't "leave" anything open. "Public possesion" was never a part of the case, and thus not addressed.

Meanwhile, while Second Amendment Rights are being restored, crime rates have been on a downward trend since the early 1990's....

And how is Wayne relevant to... well, -anything-, really?

[The Mouth]

6. The first amendment doesn't mention the internet, either.

[melm00se]

9. The ruling will be dependent

Last edited Tue May 18, 2021, 01:05 PM - Edit history (1)

up the constitutionality of ORS 166.170 which states:

(1)Except as expressly authorized by state statute, the authority to regulate in any matter whatsoever the sale, acquisition, transfer, ownership, possession, storage, transportation or use of firearms or any element relating to firearms and components thereof, including ammunition, is vested solely in the Legislative Assembly.

(2)Except as expressly authorized by state statute, no county, city or other municipal corporation or district may enact civil or criminal ordinances, including but not limited to zoning ordinances, to regulate, restrict or prohibit the sale, acquisition, transfer, ownership, possession, storage, transportation or use of firearms or any element relating to firearms and components thereof, including ammunition. Ordinances that are contrary to this subsection are void. [1995 s.s. c.1 §1]

This pretty much says only the state can regulate this particular issue. If the Oregon court upholds this law, then the locality would be in the wrong and their ordinances would be void.

There is an interesting conflict within this law.

§ 1 contains the following language "the authority to regulate in any matter whatsoever". This whatsoever is pretty powerful stuff. BUT §2 narrows that down some...

This conflict, in my mind, makes the Oregon court's ruling highly unpredictable.

The big question here is "Is this a hill a politician is prepared to die on"?

Supporting or opposing this law could be a CLM (career limiting move) depending upon one's long term goals.

This applies to parties as well. Back the wrong horse and it might cost the party. These aren't the days of FDR where Democrats could take a double digit loss in seats and still maintain their majority.

The current Democratic margin is razor thin (8 seats in the House and dead heat in the Senate). The average seats lost by the president's party is 27 in the House and 3-4 in the Senate during the midterms. The Democrats have to play defense to protect that lead.

[discntnt_irny_srcsm]

11. In my non-attorney opinion...

...this is a bit more complex. Since these actions by local officials do not change the legality of the acts violating the state law but direct local officers and deputies to leave the enforcement of those laws to the state police or other state level agency.

With both of the Senators and 4 out of 5 Representatives being Democrats, in would urge some serious caution on doing anything at the state level.