Why One Sheriff Won't Enforce Oregon's New Background-Check Gun Law

[Nick Burkhardt]

Why One Sheriff Won't Enforce Oregon's New Background-Check Gun Law

http://www.opb.org/news/article/sheriff-wont-enforce-new-background-check-law/

 

[Red Wind]

DD: They’re going to get (a gun) anyway. That’s the bottom line. This process of having the people that are law abiding, and they want to transfer guns, go through the system, is fine. But the bad people are going to get the guns regardless. So I truly think it’s a waste of time.

A man with a brain.

 

[Frank Ettin]

Why One Sheriff Won't Enforce Oregon's New Background-Check Gun Law

So what?

First, let's look at what he really said in the interview:

KD: When you say “not enforce,” do you mean that you won’t go out looking for people who don’t comply with the new law? Or do you mean that if you were investigating a person crime, or a violent crime that’s already been committed, would you ignore the law in your investigation?

DD: No, I don’t think that’s the case. If you’re talking about investigating some type of a gun crime, where you have a person to person crime or potentially a property crime, if it comes across our desk we’ll look at it. However, in the totally of the investigation it is very low on a priority list as to whether a person went through some type of a background check....​

The Sheriff is setting priorities, and a failure to get a background check on a gun transfer, as a stand alone crime, gets a low priority. That doesn't mean he'll ignore a background check violation if there possibly are other crimes associated with it.

In any case, Sheriff Daniel is merely stating the policy he has currently put in place in his Department. He could change his mind tomorrow and without any notice to the public. And if he leaves office, his successor might very well have different ideas.

These sorts of policy announcements can be interesting and have some meaning politically, but they can't necessary be relied upon. No one should count on being able to violate the background check law in Josephine County with impunity.

 

[1911 guy]

What you've said is correct. However, it leaves out half of the interview. He was asked directly whether this was a purely resource driven decision or an ideological one. The sheriff indicated it was definitely both. He viewed the law as a waste of time, as well as an infringement of the 2A, thus the decision to place low priority on enforcement. He must have some level of enforcement, it's his job. An anti-gun sheriff would place higher priority due to their own bias.

A County Sheriff comes out with a clear statement of what many of us say here daily and it rates "So what"?

Color me confused. Why are we not cheering his statement that the law is an infringement and encouraging other public servants to do the same?

 

[Frank Ettin]

...County Sheriff comes out with a clear statement of what many of us say here daily and it rates "So what"?

Color me confused. Why are we not cheering his statement that the law is an infringement and encouraging other public servants to do the same?

First of all because the OP didn't bother to raise that as the point of the discussion. He just tossed out a link and left us all to guess what he thought the significance of the Sheriff's statements were.

Second, IIRC a number of Oregon law enforcement officials made similar statements when the bill was being debated in the Oregon legislature (and Washington law enforcement officials made similar statements during the I-594 campaign). There's nothing particularly new or novel about what Sheriff Daniel said. It's a well recognized and accept truth in some law enforcement circles. But it hasn't gained much traction with the body politic. So it would be interesting to explore (1) why not; and (2) how/if that could be changed.

 

[danez71]

..... expanding on Frank's #2...

How can this be used to help our side?

It doesn't do us any good to tell ourselves "See, we're right" if nothing changes.

Other people beside us needs to understand this if its going to be meaningful.

 

[1911 guy]

I don't know what will work in the PNW, as the culture is different than here in the midwest. But I do know what worked here.

Back when our CCW law was still in the "Gee, wouldn't it be nice" stage, we compiled statements from elected officials in support of, logical statements made by them and nationally recognized people commenting on states that previously had passed CCW and making it clear that we would not vote for anyone opposing the legislation when it came up for voting. Letters to editors, any means of getting the message out that there was a logical argument for and the case against was fear-mongering and deceit. I don't have a public platform, so I wrote letters and talked to friends. Those with public platforms utilized them. It was a battle for public opinion and the ammunition was facts, statistics and sound bytes compiled from interviews and published statements.

Keeping the pressure on (there are several groups that do so nearly full time), our law has been revised for the better several times now.

Politicians, regardless of location, support these measures only because they perceive public support. If a campaign is waged to deny the illusion of support or to erode support that does exist, they change their tune because they seek re-election above all else.

 

[X-Rap]

Anytime a Sheriff or group of them come out publicly in opposition to a law and pledge to either not prioritize or ignore the enforcement it is a strong statement.
There are around 5000 counties in the US and a Sheriff holds a great deal of power within his county's and when they are like minded within their states.
IMO they are the first governmental firewall between the people and the federal government.

 

[Tony k]

Most of the sheriffs in Oregon have made similar statements.

 

[P5 Guy]

This is a complete list of the 3,143 counties and county equivalents of the United States of America as of July 1, 2013. For more detailed information, see the individual state lists shown below.
In the United States, a county is a political and geographic subdivision of a state. Of the 50 U.S. states, 48 states are divided into a total of 3007 counties. The number of counties per state ranges from the three counties of Delaware to the 254 counties of Texas. The five counties of Rhode Island, the eight counties of Connecticut, and eight of the 14 counties of Massachusetts no longer have functional county governments, but continue to exist as legal and census entities.
Instead of counties, Louisiana is divided into 64 parishes which are functionally identical to counties. Alaska is divided into 19 organized boroughs and a single Unorganized Borough. The United States Census Bureau has divided the Unorganized Borough of Alaska into 11 census areas for federal census and planning purposes. In addition to their counties, the states of Virginia, Maryland, Missouri, and Nevada also have a total of 41 independent cities which are not a part of any county. The Census Bureau and the Office of Management and Budget consider the 64 parishes, 19 organized boroughs, 11 census areas, 41 independent cities, and the District of Columbia, though not the Unorganized Borough, to be equivalent to counties for statistical purposes.


From:https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_United_States_counties_and_county_equivalents

 

[JSH1]

Color me confused. Why are we not cheering his statement that the law is an infringement and encouraging other public servants to do the same?

Some of us know a little bit more about the particulars:

1. Josephine County is in rural Southwest Oregon
2. They have 2 sheriff's deputies to cover 1600 square miles
3. Josephine County has the lowest property taxes in the state of Oregon and has repeatedly voted against ballot initiatives to fund the Sheriff's Department.
4. They can't even respond to 911 calls let alone do stings to catch people selling guns without a background check.

In short there is absolutely nothing out of the ordinary with the Sheriff's statement and it was well known before the bill past. Also he still says he will use the law as it was intended to be enforced, tracing guns found at crime scenes.

 

[TwinReverb]

Not a fan of the current background check (FBI) because it's a de facto gun registry.

However, hopefully if a guy I once served with in Iraq, the recipient of a Do Not Arm order from our commander, lives in Oregon, he gets snagged by that law. The guy should've been barred from owning guns, but due to the systems not shaking hands, I'm pretty sure he can buy a gun if he wants.

 

[CoalTrain49]

It's a political position. Sheriffs are elected there. If he thought he could get some political mileage out of supporting the new law he would be all over it. It's a rural county without a huge tax base. What would you expect him to say? He doesn't decide who gets charged anyway so he doesn't have anything to lose. Most of the sheriffs in the rural counties in WA came out against I-594 because they knew that position would likely get them re-elected.

I live in a rural county in WA and I watch this stuff with interest. I know the county officials and what they do and say. If the sheriff and prosecutor support I-594 in any way, manor or form they won't be getting my vote and I've told them that. All politics is local.

You have to remember that this guy isn't an appointed chief of police beholding to a mayor in a city that always votes democratic like Portland.

 

[JSH1]

It's a political position. Sheriffs are elected there.....

Yes they are. Dave Daniel was elected to be Josephine County Sheriff in 2014.