Infringement of the 2nd amendment nullified by Ballot measure

I just receive my ballot today. I thought I would check and see how the Sheriff and the Police Chief feel about this. I am happy to say, both are completely in agreement with ballot measure.

I asked the Chief, since you need to enforce, Federal law, State law, County law, and City laws, how can you pick and choose when they are in conflict? He had a very good answer at the ready, I took an oath to uphold the constitution and that is what I am going to do. Thank you Chief!

http://www.bendbulletin.com/localstate/3622805-151/ballot-measure-in-coos-county-seeks-to-nullify#

 

The Chief took an oath to up hold the Constitution. So did I. But we all need to understand the Constitution, not just oath takers.
It is written in English barfo, try it.

The Chief's answer was perfect.

 

No not at all. He will obey the authority immediately superior to him, County law and the law on the top rung, the Constitution. Right now it appears the State law might have been ill advised,
passed by North Willamette valley people but ultimately rejected by the vast regions (counties) of Oregon.

 

I guess the residents most of the counties would probably disagree. In this county, like most counties, we hire and pay the law enforcement people. We are just taking control of which laws will be enforced.

This latest law passed by the Democrats, not one representative from my county or an adjacent county voted for it, I find completely ridiculous, since I can not even transfer my weapons to family members for safe keeping when I go sailing without them needing to get a back ground check for each weapon. I don't think I agree with your definition of criminals.

It is interesting to note, that not one resident of this county opposed this ballot measure that primarily prohibits the county law enforcement from enforcing any law that would infringe on the 2nd amendment. My family will not be arrested by law enforcement for processing weapons I left with them. Prospective buyers can look at a gun in a gun store, even see if it fits the hand, before
needing a background check. Seem very reasonable to me.

 

It is a stupid law, passed by Portland, the majority of the States residents in a huge geographic area, disagree with it. Their needs are entirely different and since they hire and pay their law enforcement, it seems like reasonable solution. The Democrats that push this thing could have listened but that didn't server their agenda. Perhaps they crafted a fix for Multnomah county but forcing the same on the other counties of the State was ignorant as well as being against the rights ( the right to arms) of most citizens.

 

The good thing about the Constitution is, the requirement for a super majority to rule.

 

Well Sly, thinking back in time, I can remember several time where I would be in violation of this law.

This is not about selling guns, it is about transferring a weapon.

When I worked in Portland, I took four guys, all city boys, hunting. I supplied the rifles for them to practice with and use on the hunt. They had them about a week I would not have known
whether they would be prohibited from processing a firearm. As their employer, I am not even sure you are permitted to gather that information. I would be afraid to do it under this law.

Another time, my next door neighbor lady came over crying, afraid of her guy. I knew him to be a complete ass especially when he was drunk. She was going to get a restraining order the next day, but that night was a problem. So I loaned her a gun, and told her to lock her doors and call the cops if he came around that night. Call me right after you call the cops. I probably would be in trouble under this latest by the Democrats and I don't think that would be right.

About 5 years ago, we had a mountain lion roaming our neighborhood. Sighted by several older ladies that walk alone in the area regularly. Near as I could tell from the tracks, it was indeed a big cat.
But very unusual behavior, stalking humans is not their style. Probably and old one that was look for some easier targets. So I armed a couple ladies as well as my wife and suggested they walk together and always be armed. A neighbor guy got the cat a couple weeks later, a big old male lion with a bad leg, He had take a couple dogs, but no ladies. Again I might be in trouble with this law, hell I can't see what good it does.

We had burglaries in the neighborhood a few years back, again I armed my neighbor that had none but willing to help. As it turned out, we pieced together the info, it was a follow up hit team that followed a landscaping crew. We told the Sheriff what we knew and bang he nailed them. No ams needed but again, I transferred a weapon temporarily to a neighbor so he could help.

I have more but enough...

You know, things have been nice and peaceful around here, perhaps this place doesn't look like an easy mark. Yeah,we have a Neighborhood Watch too.

And then I think adding cost to acquiring arms is an infringement, the main point actually of this friggin law.

 

Spot on! I think that is exactly right, you guys passed the law, we don't intend to spend money on it. Should have kept it in your counties.