Oregon sheriff says proposed gun background-check law won't be enforced

[Midwest]

Oregon sheriff says proposed gun background-check law won't be enforced


Oregon Sheriff says he won't enforce the proposed Oregon Universal Background Check law because it is not in his county's charter and he doesn't have the resources to chase after misdemeanors.

http://www.foxnews.com/us/2015/04/1...ed-gun-background-check-law-wont-be-enforced/


"The Herald and News report pointed out that Daniel is in a precarious position because state law would seemingly trump the county charter. But Daniel appeared to play down the significance of the law.

"I can't enforce that law, so therefore it won't be enforced," Daniel told the paper. He continued, "I have felonies going on daily in Josephine County. That's my priorities."
.

 

[MIL-DOT]

Works for me !! If our president can selectively enforce laws, why not a county sheriff ??

 

[fastbolt]

Looks like that SO does have some budget/staffing concerns.

http://www.co.josephine.or.us/SectionIndex.asp?SectionID=183

If they're "currently ONLY RESPONDING TO IN PROGRESS, LIFE THREATENING EMERGENCIES", I could see how such misd offenses might fall off their list of things they're able to do.

 

[JSH1]

Works for me !! If our president can selectively enforce laws, why not a county sheriff ??

All levels of law enforcement selectively enforce laws.

 

[jhb]

Truth is this occurs on a daily basis. Some laws ignored others enforced. Only the truly naive think all laws are followed and enforced.

Course their standard m.o. answer to reality is......."so we just give up and stop making laws then?" How can you argue with idealists living in ideal world while you are trying to discuss reality? Cant be done.

 

[Frank Ettin]

It's never wise to rely on these "the sheriff says he won't enforce this." If a new sheriff is elected, all bets are off; and the current sheriff can change his mind whenever he wants.

 

[steve4102]

Does this Sheriff, mean that he himself, will not enforce the law, or does he mean he will not and he will also demand that his deputies will not?

Can a Sheriff, force/demand that his deputies not enforce selected laws?

What, if anything, can a Sheriff do to a Deputy that enforces the law?

 

[Frank Ettin]

...Can a Sheriff, force/demand that his deputies not enforce selected laws?...

As the head of the department, a sheriff can generally set department policy. And as in pretty much any work situation, an employee with not find his career prospects enhanced by violating his employer's policies.

Of course, it's all a bit vague, and that's another reason one should not count on these sorts of statements. Blanche DuBois "always depended on the kindness of strangers", and it really didn't work out all the well for her.

 

[JSH1]

Does this Sheriff, mean that he himself, will not enforce the law, or does he mean he will not and he will also demand that his deputies will not?

Can a Sheriff, force/demand that his deputies not enforce selected laws?

What, if anything, can a Sheriff do to a Deputy that enforces the law?

Most likely it means that the sheriff will direct his department not to enforce it. Again, this is very common on all levels of law enforcement. Basically it is about setting priorities though sometimes those priorities are politically motivated. It doesn't mean individual law enforcement officers can't enforce these laws but, if they do, they risk angering their supervisors.

 

[blarby]

And, many localities are adopting non-enforcement of this legislation into the charters as we speak.

I love our sheriff's. Most of them take their oaths pretty seriously.

 

[Brin]

Sheriff Dave Daniel is a good guy but works with a limited budget because the County Commissioners pilfer monies earmarked for law enforcement. Every time we vote and pass a new tax levy for the Sheriff’s Dept. and jail, the Commissioners re-allocate it to pay for perks and increases for salaries for themselves and all their buddies who work in our bloated County Government. This has been going on for the thirty plus years I’ve been here.

 

[steve4102]

Most likely it means that the sheriff will direct his department not to enforce it. Again, this is very common on all levels of law enforcement. Basically it is about setting priorities though sometimes those priorities are politically motivated. It doesn't mean individual law enforcement officers can't enforce these laws but, if they do, they risk angering their supervisors.

So you are saying a Sheriff can violate his oath to uphold the law and demand that the rest of his department do the same, Or Else?

 

[blarby]

Our sheriff's oaths are a liitle more practical here in Oregon.

They aren't cops, they are constitutional sheriff's.

 

[steve4102]

Then we should have no problems or concerns when our other elected and appointed officials refuse to enforce existing laws,immigration laws for example. After all they are just setting policy, policy that must be obeyed, or else.

 

[Officers'Wife]

Personally I have mixed emotions on this. On the positive side setting priorities for available assets is an admirable quality for any manager. One rare enough to be nearly unheard of for a politician.

On the other hand, the office exists to enforce the will of the legislature. Picking and choosing which laws he considers worth enforcing is a slap in the face to the idea of a representative government.

 

[blarby]

Well, at least in Oregon, the Oath starts with affirming and protecting the Constitution first.

I've lived in a few counties, and parts two and three in each of them have been uphold the law, and keep the peace. The order has varied on the last two.

Theres a wide latitude in there in "upholding the law". While it may be more subjective to some and less to others, it certainly does not say in any of them to enforce all laws.

From the fantastic sheriffs i've had the occasion to speak with, that distinction is a mighty important one- as it allows them to rigidly adhere to the first part : Protecting the constitution.

Unless something has changed very recently, all sheriffs' deputies serve at the direction, and at the pleasure of, the elected Sheriff. So ya, I'd say they listen to what he says.

There seems to be a continuing misunderstanding of exactly what Sheriffs are, and what they were created to do. They are not rank and file law enforcement officers, and were never intended to be. While all jurisdictions are different, Sheriffs have a very specific mandate in our great country, and some of them are quite literal in that interpretation and execute the duties of their offices with that in mind.

 

[DeepSouth]

It's never wise to rely on these "the sheriff says he won't enforce this." If a new sheriff is elected, all bets are off; and the current sheriff can change his mind whenever he wants

While very true, in my county if a sheriff said something like that he'd never lose an election, he wouldn't even have to campaign.

 

[blarby]

Specifically, in Oregon :

(from wiki, but crossreferenced, and its correct...LSO webpage does not cut and paste well.... my emphasis in bold added for clarity in the issue )


General duties of sheriff
The sheriff is the chief executive officer and conservator of the peace of the county. In the execution of the office of sheriff, it is the sheriff's duty to:
(1) Arrest and commit to prison all persons who break the peace, or attempt to break it, and all persons guilty of public offenses.
(2) Defend the county against those who, by riot or otherwise, endanger the public peace or safety.
(3) Execute the process and orders of the courts of justice or of judicial officers, when delivered to the sheriff for that purpose, according to law.
(4) Execute all warrants delivered to the sheriff for that purpose by other public officers, according to law.
(5) Attend, upon call, the Supreme Court, Court of Appeals, Oregon Tax Court, circuit court, justice court or county court held within the county, and to obey its lawful orders or directions. [Amended by 1985 c.339 §1]


While sheriffs in most counties are entitled and entrusted to enforce the law, enforcement of all laws is not their primary charge.

Slippery slope, I grant you, but thats just kinda "how it is".


Now, we also have the Oregon State Police- and their mandate is significantly different, but it is outside the scope of this thread.

 

[Red Wind]

Of course, it's all a bit vague, and that's another reason one should not count on these sorts of statements. Blanche DuBois "always depended on the kindness of strangers", and it really didn't work out all the well for her.

Was that A Streetcar Named Desire reference,Frank?
New Orleans could use this Sheriff!

 

[km101]

It sounds to me as if he has his priorities straight. He intends to take care of the large problems first and the smaller ones as he can. That's all anyone can expect. He seems to have the general welfare of the county at heart.

We need more of this type of public official!!

 

[Frank Ettin]

Then we should have no problems or concerns when our other elected and appointed officials refuse to enforce existing laws,immigration laws for example....

That's one reason we have political processes.

On one hand, agencies performing executive functions as a practical matter have finite resources and need ot be able to exercise some discretion regarding how those limited resources are allocated and used. On the other hand, if they're not doing the sort of job they've been hired to do, they need to be accountable.

 

[Derry 1946]

The legislature can easily outlaw more behavior than the sheriff has money to enforce, creating endless unfunded mandates. Many jurisdictions still have on their books antiquated criminal laws that the Supreme Court has made unconstitutional. See e.g. Lawrence v. Texas. Sheriffs and DAs are not going to waste time and resources pursuing these "offenses." Selective enforcement is an omnipresent continuum, not a binary proposition. The Supremes reinforced this type of executive branch discretion just last month in Perez v. Mortgage Bankers Association.

 

[CoalTrain49]

The legislature can easily outlaw more behavior than the sheriff has money to enforce, creating endless unfunded mandates.

Or an initiative can be put on a ballot and passed by popular vote without any legislative funding which is what happened in WA with I-594. What people don't realize is in effect they are asking the county council to raise their taxes to enforce these mandates. Until it happens the sheriff probably won't enforce it. All the sheriff has to do is request additional funding from the county council and when he doesn't get it he just selectively enforces the laws he thinks are the most important. That's the sheriffs job to make that determination based on his budget.

As far as I know I-594 isn't being enforced in the rural counties of WA. because of budget considerations. If the voters of those counties feel that it's important for the sheriff to enforce it and they don't, the sheriff will likely be replaced in the next election. My gut feeling is that won't happen.

 

[Derry 1946]

Well put, CoalTrain.

 

[Officers'Wife]

That's the problem, the congresscritters pass law after law to solve problems (real or imagined) leaving the Administrative branch woefully short handed to enforce them and often when they do the Judicial declares the laws null and void making the expense wasted assets that could have gone to better things.

I remember once a state senator (from White County of course) asked my Dad to support her on some silly scheme that would "prevent" juvenile delinquency. He pretty well told her that instead of an "asinine" law that would be more honored in the breach the state would be better served to cut the Burns code to three basic offenses and enforce those laws to the letter than have thosands (I forget the exact number he stated) that to enforce would have a quarter of the population enforcing and the other 3/4 employed as guards for their incarceration. Needless to say, Dad was no longer on her Christmas card list.