Oregon Linn County Sheriff’s Statement Re: IP43

[Howard1955]

This is from the sheriff's office website (link below).


**********


Sheriff Riley Responds to Oregon Initiative 43

Posted April 24, 2018 1:58 pm; last modified April 24, 2018 2:00 pm.


In light of the recent media attention regarding our Second Amendment rights and in particular, concerns over IP 43, I feel it's a good time to remind Linn County constituents of my stance on the issue.

On March 31, 2015, I published my opinion on SB 941 which required background checks on private party gun sales; refer below:

As Sheriff of Linn County I am frequently asked by citizens my opinion on proposed legislation. There are many bills before the Oregon State Legislature this year that in my opinion, are cause for concern. One of these bills is SB 941 which calls for background checks on the private party transaction of firearms.

While this bill may look good on the surface, don't be fooled. It does nothing to make our families, communities, schools or businesses safer. Adding additional requirements and unnecessary laws for law abiding citizens is a waste of time and resources; time and resources that could be better spent on stiffening our current laws that deal with crimes committed with guns and the mental health issues that currently face our community every day.

As your Sheriff, I am committed to keeping guns away from criminals. I am equally committed in allowing law abiding citizens the right to possess firearms without further infringement.

Whether it's SB 941 or IP 43, my view has not changed. More gun laws are not the answer. Holding gun-toting criminals accountable and strictly enforcing practical gun laws is my top priority.


Bruce Riley,

Linn County Sheriff



Sheriff Riley Responds to Oregon Initiative 43 - Linn County Sheriff's Office

Read More

 

[Rem700..300]

He retires in June sometime I believe.

 

[JavaDude]

He retires in June sometime I believe.

Special election for replacement?

 

[Hawaiian]

I doubt the other local news media stations will not report on this. Shameful.

 

[Rem700..300]

It was in the local paper within the last month. Albany Democrat Herald. Linn County normally promotes the under sheriff if the county commisioners approve. Then it goes to the normal election in November. Linn county will be in very good hands.

 

[Ura-Ki]

As of today, we have a solid accounting of 29 Oregon Sheriffs, and we still haven't heard from the rest! We know of 1 who will not stand behind the Constitution, Multico Sheriff Mike Reese, but we knew that! I'm still curious on the rest of them, this is info we need going forward!

 

[1Asterisk]

As of today, we have a solid accounting of 29 Oregon Sheriffs, and we still haven't heard from the rest!

I would have one question for them all...Does their County require a concealed carry permit?
If yes, they DO NOT believe in your right to keep and bear arms without infringement.

 

[Ura-Ki]

Good point, unfortunatey were all stuck with that, unless we get Constitutnal carry or at least reciprocity, our Sheriffs kind of have their hands tied same as us! While a united stance from them could remove said infringement, I don't see that happening unless We The People take up that call and do something about it, a citizens refrendom like IP43, Constitutnal Carry!
Let's fight the fight in front if us for now, but keep that one close for when we strike down the anti gun challenges, then we can take the positive momentum and start taking back our rights, I bet you a dollar to a donut our Sheriffs would back such if we pushed for it!

 

[etrain16]

As of today, we have a solid accounting of 29 Oregon Sheriffs, and we still haven't heard from the rest! We know of 1 who will not stand behind the Constitution, Multico Sheriff Mike Reese, but we knew that! I'm still curious on the rest of them, this is info we need going forward!

I think our Clackamas Co Sheriff John Roberts generally supports us, but unfortunately he seems unwilling to take a personal stance on these issues, as he failed to do with SB941. While much of Clackamas Co is outside the influence Multco, the northern most tip is firmly planted up Multco's backside, and his office lands in that area as well. Too bad too, because I think he's a good sheriff overall, but he seems too concerned about the leftis anti's that populate that little tip of Clackamas County.

 

[Ura-Ki]

Sadly, he is on the list of those against us!
Maybe we should have a sit down with him and see if we can get a more positive position from that office, traditionally Clackamas is a pretty solid Red county, and I agree, most of that county is pretty conservative!

 

[Ura-Ki]

You guys in WashCo get an updated statement from Sheriff Garrett yet, he needs to speak up again, his last was 2013, and while that should hold good, he really needs to reinforce his statements against this latest, in doing so, he would make a pretty potent one, as always! I also know his D.A. is a pretty solid person, might be a good time for a statement joined with Garrett!
Sheriff Garrett is one of the best in Oregon, if not the nation, time he spoke out again!

 

[nammac]

You guys in WashCo get an updated statement from Sheriff Garrett yet, he needs to speak up again, his last was 2013, and while that should hold good, he really needs to reinforce his statements against this latest, in doing so, he would make a pretty potent one, as always! I also know his D.A. is a pretty solid person, might be a good time for a statement joined with Garrett!
Sheriff Garrett is one of the best in Oregon, if not the nation, time he spoke out again!

And we need to make sure the Soros boy Wall doesn't get in as Washington County DA

 

[Ura-Ki]

Yup, gotta SWAT that nasty one down! I know that office, there would be some serious friction if that slime ball got in!

 

[DuneHopper]

He retires in June sometime I believe.

In Douglas County there is rumored our Sheriff may retired and he has openly opposed these laws and wrote a letter to Biden a few years ago.... in a nice professional way stating he was a dumbass and no business making gun policy and that he would not comply was the basic of it. I worry what the next law enforcement will do.

It should be noted that cities do not have to abide by county rules in their limits, so its just as important to know where the Chief of Police ( who are not elected) stand. Here being our mayor is Pro-2nd the police are as well, but in many towns like the new Socialist state of Portland will do as they please and the hell with rights or a pesky Constitution.

 

[Ura-Ki]

Actually the Sheriff IS the ultimate law enforcement in his county, and if city tries any thing the Sheriff dosnt agree with, he has the power to stop it! In fact, even the Fed has to answer to a County Sheriff if they want to conduct business in that county, and if the Sheriff dosnt like what the Feds want, he has the power to toss them! Harney County would have been vastly different had Sheriff Ward owned a pair and followed the law and upheld the Constitutional rights of those in his county, but instead he was led around by the nose by a crooked "Judge" and the Fibs!

 

[1Asterisk]

This is from the sheriff's office website (link below).
"As your Sheriff, I am committed to keeping guns away from criminals. I am equally committed in allowing law abiding citizens the right to possess firearms without further infringement.

Whether it's SB 941 or IP 43, my view has not changed. More gun laws are not the answer. Holding gun-toting criminals accountable and strictly enforcing practical gun laws is my top priority.

Bruce Riley,

Linn County Sheriff

Sheriff Riley Responds to Oregon Initiative 43 - Linn County Sheriff's Office

"...without further infringement"? "...enforcing practical gun laws"? This is just political double speak.

Good point, unfortunately were all stuck with that, unless we get Constitutional carry or at least reciprocity, our Sheriffs kind of have their hands tied same as us!

I don't agree. Much of the U.S. Constitution is easily interpreted by anyone who can read and comprehend the English language. It doesn't require a politician, lawyer, or judge to interpret what "...shall not be infringed" means. If any law [or court ruling] infringes, restricts, or encroaches upon a right, then that law or ruling is void, and it is not law.

Now, having said that, the reality is that a great many laws, and many court rulings do infringe on the 2A. And we have allowed them to go un-challenged.

Ura-Ki: my point to your post is that any citizen, LEO's included, can refuse to recognize an obviously unconstitutional law [not w/o risk]. ANY infringement of the 2A is obviously un-Constitutional, regardless any court ruling. A sheriff can refuse to enforce laws requiring a concealed carry permit as easily as he can refuse to enforce SB941 [when it became law] or IP43 [if it becomes law], if he chooses to do so. The sheriff's problem is, he is dependent on votes to get re-elected and he is dependent on his county commissioners to authorize/approve his department's budget.

Any law enforcement officer can refuse to enforce any obviously un-constitutional law. The Superintendent of Oregon State Police could declare IP43 un-constitutional and refuse to enforce it should it be passed. Just as any police Chief could. The reality is though that the Superintendent would be fired by the Governor, and many police Chiefs would be fired by their Mayors. LEO's tend to put their job security ahead of our right to keep and bear arms and/or they are just ignorant of their U.S. and Oregon Constitutions.

 

[Ura-Ki]

Fight the fight in front of us for now! Worry about getting past this November with our 2nd rights intact, just know that we have most of our Sheriffs on our side, and they are the front line in what would almost always be a County issue with an anti 2nd violation! Were going to see the office of Sheriff tested if IP43 passes, and any other draconian anti 2nd plans in the future!

 

[1Asterisk]

Fight the fight in front of us for now! Worry about getting past this November with our 2nd rights intact,

I hear ya. Though lets not be fooled into thinking a sheriff is pro-2A because he says things like "...without further infringement"? "...enforcing practical gun laws" etc.