Linn County Oregon Sheriff got his panties in a knot about upcoming gun control laws, & before any new laws are in place, he fired off a letter to Vice President Joe Biden:
This Sheriff of Linn County (population 118,122) thought it was wise to tell off the VP of the United States that new gun control laws "shall not be enforced by him or by his deputies, nor will he permit enforcement of (what he himself ) deems unconstitutional regulations or orders by Federal officers,
within the borders of Linn County, Oregon".
I for one would like Sheriff Tim Mueller to get his ass fired.
His job is to uphold the laws, and not to determine which ones he agrees with or not,
and or if he chooses to enforce laws.
I see on the web site, Mueller has 3 kids. Lucky for him his kids were not massacred at age 6 or 7, or in a theater, on a college campus, a member of Congress public meet & greet, or a shopping mall, but the fact of the matter is that other kids & people ARE getting gunned down by assault rifles w high capacity magazines, designed for military use.
Sheriff Mueller is not even bright enough to figure out the control of high capacity ammo assault rifles might even save his own life some day.
Sheriff Mueller should turn in his badge, because he just publicly stated
he refuses to uphold laws of the land in the county in which he resides.
He just announced to the Vice President he won't do his job.
I think the Feds should tell the State of Oregon & the County of Linn
his job just ended.
Or maybe send in Homeland Security to investigate his operation.
Sheriff Tim is going rogue & telling off the President & Vice President?
Could he be any more inappropriate or unprofessional?
Meanwhile the State of New York (population 19,465,197),
just enacted a list of gun control measures.
"The new law mandates a life sentence without parole for anyone who murders a first responder, the so-called "Webster Provision."
With some provisions due to take effect immediately, the legislation expands the state's ban on assault weapons, puts limits on ammunition capacity and has new measures to keep guns out of the hands of the mentally ill.
"People who are mentally ill should not have access to guns, that's common sense," Cuomo said at a signing ceremony in Albany. "That's probably the hallmark of this bill, coming up with a system that allows for mental-health screens."
The measure limits magazine capacity to no more than seven cartridges - the current limit is 10 cartridges - and requires a statewide re-registration of all handguns and grandfathered assault weapons.
"Seven bullets in a gun, why? Because the high-capacity magazines that give you the capacity to kill a large number of human beings in a very short period of time is nonsensical to a civil society," Cuomo said."
Feel free to call the Linn County Sheriff's office to let them know what you think about a Sheriff refusing to uphold the law.
COMMENT MODERATION HAS BEEN ACTIVATED BECAUSE NAME CALLING IS NOT REALLY INTELLIGENT EXCHANGE. I WILL POST OPPOSING VIEWS, GRANTED THEY CONTAIN SOMETHING OF SUBSTANCE. TROLLS GET NO AIR TIME HERE!
I think the law he is choosing to enforce is the the Constitution, which supersedes all other laws.
Oh! So law enforcement officers get to choose which laws they might enforce & a county Sheriff tells the Federal Government, Vice President & President what laws he will pick & choose to uphold?
The president has been sworn to uphold the constitution. Violating that should get him fired not a sheriff who refuses to enforce a law that is not constitutional. We need more people like Sheriff Meuller who take the "people's" rights into consideration.
The second amendment was designed to protect us from a tyrannical government. Our government (Obama) seems to be moving that way. God help us all!
I think it was Benjamin Franklin who said,something like- he who give upmfredon to have security will have neither. Or something like that..
Isn't it already to kill people or steal guns? Do written laws actually prevent crime? Will writing laws to infringe on our rights as citizens keep us safer?
Every one of the recent shootings already have something in common. They broke a law(s) to accomplish what they did. They murdered, they stole, and they broke laws all the way to where they died or were taken in to custody. Why do you think they would follow any new laws introduced to attempt to prevent murder? Seems the liberals have a flawed thought process
Read the next post if Sheriff Mueller wants to embrace the constitution- stock up on black powder, & flintlock muskets, because THAT is what the Founding Fathers were referencing when the constitution was written.
How many must die because the NRA has bought politicians & serve the gun profiteers?
This idea that gun control is a new politicized topic, as opposed to something the NRA has been meddling & tampering with lobbying since 1977.
Do written laws actually prevent crime?
A: Do countries with more strict gun control laws have less mass murders w semi automatic, military style guns? (yes)
Will writing laws to infringe on our rights as citizens keep us safer?
A: What rights are we talking about?
The right for a Congresswoman to have a meet & greet & not be shot in the head?
The right for 6 & 7 year old children to go to school & not be killed?
The right for people to shop, pray, & go to a movie in peace?
The right for first responders, firefighters to go to put out a housefire & not be gunned down?
Because the right to own any kind of high powered firearms is infringing on others rights
to live their lives in reasonable safety.
Every one of the recent shootings already have something in common. They broke a law(s) to accomplish what they did.
Well, the Aurora CO shooter purchased everything legally.
What they do seem to have in common is some type of unchecked mental illness & access to high powered semi automatic rifles.
Since we can't monitor mentally ill people, then the common sense answer is to take the big guns out of the equation.
"Seems the liberals have a flawed thought process"
Get past the us & them division mindframe.
I'm sure there were some "conservatives" who were amongst those who had to bury loved ones (literally) caught in the crosshairs & were murdered by these type of guns.
These weapons do not have a civilian application. Most law officers are not even allowed to carry them, while on duty.
Are you against protecting law officers & civilians?
"The second amendment was designed to protect us from a tyrannical government. "
How's that lax gun regulation working out?
I wish every one who recites the "Constitutional right" to be armed to the hilt, had to attend the funerals of every innocent person who was killed
by a madman w a semiautomatic high capacity ammo rifle.
No one is saying people can not have guns. just *reasonable guns* for civilian applications.
By the way if the gvmt really wanted to be tyrannical, don't you think they would just take out it's citizenry w Drones?
If I am understanding this Sheriff, he has decided that he is the one who can determine whether or not something is constitutional. I thought the final authority for that was the United States Supreme Court. I was not aware that for Second Amendment issues the local sheriff has that authority.
Actually in all counties the sheriff has absolute authority. The FBI cannot even do an investigation in his county with out him authorizing it. He is an elected official, not someone who sent in a job application and got the job.
The Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess and carry firearms
Let's just say it is a good thing they did not decide to put Nuclear weapons up for sale @ gun stores, for obvious reasons. Same situation here.
No one is saying all guns are prohibited, Just saying this type of gun, which is not necessary for civilians or hunting, does not belong on the streets of this country.
If people are using this kind of gun to do mass murder of innocent people, then the obvious common sense solution is to take it down a notch.
Yes your constitutional right to have a gun is still protected. Just like nuclear bombs are not available to the mass market, neither should semi automatic guns w high capacity ammo magazines.
The county is the level of administration subordinate to the state.
You can rest assured there will lots of formal complaints issued over the head of this Sheriff, who is openly stating he won't abide by the law.
Honestly if I were an officer, I would be happy to have a law that could save my life.
Just because certain weaponry exists, does not mean it belongs in the hands of everyone.
Which Presidents selectively ignored immigration laws?
I suppose we should start with Ronald Reagan...
& all the Presidents thereafter.
Did you go after them over the issue, or just now during the Obama administration?
Funny that things like fiscal responsibility were not an issue when G W Bush took the country 8 Trillion into debt, no problem, then tried to accuse President Obama for the debt.
Suddenly the big spenders "care" as opposed for taking the blame for racking up the debt in the first place.
Illegal immigration was allowed by all the GOP Presidents, without issue @ the time.
I seriously hope Mueller loses his job for his off the cuff remarks. If it were the GW Bush administration, Homeland Security would have already knocked (down) at his door.
Flat out telling the President & VP you refuse to uphold the law is generally not a good idea.
He is free to say it, but also free to lose his job.
You are right-- he should absolutely be fired. If you directly refuse to do your job, you deserve to be fired. If the sheriff wanted to put his convictions to trial without sounding like a bratty teenager, he should have threatened to resign.
A sheriff has sworn to uphold the law, not just the laws he likes or doesn't like. He's not a judge. If he wants to be a judge, let him run or be appointed to that office. Whatever Obama can do by executive order (which can be quite broad as expanded under Geo W Bush) could be found unconstitutional by the Supreme Court. That's the way our country works. It is not a Sheriff's job to determine consitutionality, assuming he even had the qualifications to do so.
I WISH THESE PRO GUN- ANY & ALL GUNS PEOPLE COULD DROP THE TALKING POINT RHETORIC FOR LONG ENOUGH TO THINK ABOUT THE PEOPLE WHO DIED AS A RESULT OF MASS MURDERS AROUND THESE SPECIFIC TYPE OF GUNS.
ARE WE EVER GOING TO BE ABLE TO ERADICATE
MADMEN W GUNS? NOT LIKELY
BUT CAN WE GET A GRIP ON THESE KILLING SPREES? WE HAVE TO
I FIND IT VERY SELFISH & NARROW MINDED TO
INSIST OF MILITARY STYLE WEAPONRY, REGARDLESS OF THE EPIDEMIC OF KILLING. IN JUST ABOUT EVERY SECTOR--
ELEMENTARY SCHOOLS, CHURCHES, MOVIE THEATER, COLLEGE CAMPUSES, MALLS, HIGH SCHOOLS.
SAD TO SAY, IF IT WERE THEIR FAMILY MEMBERS WHO WERE ASSASSINATED, THEY MIGHT UNDERSTAND THE NATIONAL DISENCHANTMENT WITH MORE OF THE SAME.
THE PRESIDENT SAID IT BEST-- THIS HAS TO STOP, AND IN ORDER FOR IT TO STOP WE MUST CHANGE.
THE "DON'T POLITICIZE THIS, PRAYERS FOR YOU & MORE OF THE SAME" PROGRAM IS NOT WORKING.
SHERIFF MUELLER IS ENTIRELY OUT OF LINE, AND SHOULD BE STRIPPED OF HIS BADGE.
AS HE ANNOUNCED HIS (THREAT) INTENT TO NOT UPHOLD THE LAW.
It is more the concept behind the proposed laws. Another infringement here or there... when will it stop? Reality: criminals don't follow the law. Enacting laws will only effect those who are law abiding, not mentally ill criminals (or just criminals)
insanity is doing the same thing & expecting different results.
The trouble is his entire premise is flawed. If you read the holding in the current CONSERVATIVE court's Heller decision, they pretty much state that government can ban certain types of weapons and still not violate the 2nd amendment:
"Like most rights, the Second Amendment right is not unlimited. It is not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose: For example, concealed weapons prohibitions have been upheld under the Amendment or state analogues. The Court’s opinion should not be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms. Also, the sorts of weapons protected are the sorts of small arms that were lawfully possessed at home at the time of the Second Amendment’s ratification, not those most useful in military service today, so “M-16 rifles and the like” may be banned."
Those were the court's words, not mine. His plan has the potential to harm the careers (as well as endanger them physically) of his staff and cost his county large sums to defend lawsuits based ENTIRELY on his flawed personal opinion of what the law says.
I'm closing this thread.
While attending the gathering of the community who just experienced a mass murder of 20 children, aged 6 & 7, and 6 teachers, President Obama said:
"We can't tolerate this any more.
These tragedies must end & to end them we must change."
Doing nothing is not working.
Post a Comment