- Messages
- 15,997
- Reactions
- 33,768
Many here have praised the passing of pro 2A county ordinances in Oregon, but some have raised valid points related to Oregon's State Preemption Law, and there is the issue of the Federal Supremacy Clause.
It is fact;
1) State Preemption Law in Oregon states that authority to regulate firearms or create rules related to firearms rests solely in Oregon's Legislative Assembly.
2) the Federal Court of Appeals in recent years, have ruled that States indeed can have more restrictive rules on firearms (see Maryland, California, New York, etc) than what is outlined in the Federal Constitution, per 10th Amendment, and they have ruled the regulations "constitutional"
On the other hand;
3) the Federal Court of Appeals did in fact rule that States cannot "subvert" the Federal authority in terms of firearms manufacturing and sales within the State, even if firearms were to stay within State; see Firearms Freedom Act 2009, Montana.
4) the same Federal Court of Appeals have in the past, ruled that the 2nd amendment only protect military arms in common use (Miller decision),
5) but it has recently been ruled under USSC that the 2nd Amendment protects an individual right to arms (see Heller).
Given the seemingly contradictory rulings, and given that recently the USSC have chosen not to hear 2nd A cases between NRA/2AF/GOA and States; I wonder what does this really signify for the future of gun rights?
The USSC could rule either that the Federal maintains sole authority in regulating firearms sales, transfers, and manufacturing, and States cannot interfere with Federal authority in any way related to firearms regulations (a somewhat preferable notion, because it could nullify and void the various anti 2A State laws around the Nation)
Or that the States also have authority to regulate firearms; and therefore the Federal does not have sole authority, but that the States have every right to regulate how they see fit (may require an USSC decision regarding Firearms Freedom Acts in states like Montana, thereby nullifying the Federal Appeals court decision related to that)
What does the County SAPOs have to do with the above? Quite a bit.
They declare that the County recognizes Federal authority held in the Constitutionas the supreme law of land, and that States should not subvert the Federal Laws by passing more restrictive rules and regulations than that of the Federal Authority; and declare that the County Law Enforcement Agencies will not enforce the particular State laws within the Counties; but defers that enforcement to State Police who supposedly will have to enforce the State regulations..
(But heres a problem...)
The thing of it is basically jurisdiction issue. Do the State Police have the actual authority to enforce all of the State laws in Counties and cities?
Can the State Police be expected to provide resources and manpower to force Counties to enforce State laws?
It may seem simple enough that State Police is "higher" in authority than County Police/Sheriffs, BUT... let us look at their respective jurisdictions.
Oregon State Police; primary jurisdiction on all State Highways and State owned Property. May be called to assist local and county LE
Oregon County Sheriff Departments; full jurisdiction of counties, including municipalities and cities.
City Polices; primary jurisdiction within city limits, assists County Sheriffs in regards to local crimes.
So. It is clear that the County Sheriff Departments have more authority to enforce laws in the Counties, however one could argue that firearm regulations are to be enforced only by the OSP; but theres another problem. For Concealed Handgun licenses, on the forms it says Chief LE agency to sign off on it.. that more often than not, falls to the County Sheriff.
As for OSP manpower and resources, there are only 406 or so Troopers (most of who are driving around the Highways), and 514 Civilians employed by the State Police. These people cannot be expected to enforce State gun laws in all 36 Counties
It is fact;
1) State Preemption Law in Oregon states that authority to regulate firearms or create rules related to firearms rests solely in Oregon's Legislative Assembly.
2) the Federal Court of Appeals in recent years, have ruled that States indeed can have more restrictive rules on firearms (see Maryland, California, New York, etc) than what is outlined in the Federal Constitution, per 10th Amendment, and they have ruled the regulations "constitutional"
On the other hand;
3) the Federal Court of Appeals did in fact rule that States cannot "subvert" the Federal authority in terms of firearms manufacturing and sales within the State, even if firearms were to stay within State; see Firearms Freedom Act 2009, Montana.
4) the same Federal Court of Appeals have in the past, ruled that the 2nd amendment only protect military arms in common use (Miller decision),
5) but it has recently been ruled under USSC that the 2nd Amendment protects an individual right to arms (see Heller).
Given the seemingly contradictory rulings, and given that recently the USSC have chosen not to hear 2nd A cases between NRA/2AF/GOA and States; I wonder what does this really signify for the future of gun rights?
The USSC could rule either that the Federal maintains sole authority in regulating firearms sales, transfers, and manufacturing, and States cannot interfere with Federal authority in any way related to firearms regulations (a somewhat preferable notion, because it could nullify and void the various anti 2A State laws around the Nation)
Or that the States also have authority to regulate firearms; and therefore the Federal does not have sole authority, but that the States have every right to regulate how they see fit (may require an USSC decision regarding Firearms Freedom Acts in states like Montana, thereby nullifying the Federal Appeals court decision related to that)
What does the County SAPOs have to do with the above? Quite a bit.
They declare that the County recognizes Federal authority held in the Constitutionas the supreme law of land, and that States should not subvert the Federal Laws by passing more restrictive rules and regulations than that of the Federal Authority; and declare that the County Law Enforcement Agencies will not enforce the particular State laws within the Counties; but defers that enforcement to State Police who supposedly will have to enforce the State regulations..
(But heres a problem...)
The thing of it is basically jurisdiction issue. Do the State Police have the actual authority to enforce all of the State laws in Counties and cities?
Can the State Police be expected to provide resources and manpower to force Counties to enforce State laws?
It may seem simple enough that State Police is "higher" in authority than County Police/Sheriffs, BUT... let us look at their respective jurisdictions.
Oregon State Police; primary jurisdiction on all State Highways and State owned Property. May be called to assist local and county LE
Oregon County Sheriff Departments; full jurisdiction of counties, including municipalities and cities.
City Polices; primary jurisdiction within city limits, assists County Sheriffs in regards to local crimes.
So. It is clear that the County Sheriff Departments have more authority to enforce laws in the Counties, however one could argue that firearm regulations are to be enforced only by the OSP; but theres another problem. For Concealed Handgun licenses, on the forms it says Chief LE agency to sign off on it.. that more often than not, falls to the County Sheriff.
As for OSP manpower and resources, there are only 406 or so Troopers (most of who are driving around the Highways), and 514 Civilians employed by the State Police. These people cannot be expected to enforce State gun laws in all 36 Counties
