- Messages
- 73
- Reactions
- 100
My email:
Dear Lane County Sheriff's Office,
I was wondering if I could get the LCSO's stance on whether or not the attached resolution passed by the Lane County Board of Commissioners in 2015 (basically declaring Lane County a 2A sanctuary county) is still in effect and does it reflect Sheriff Harrold's stance on recent unconstitutional anti-gun legislation passed by the Oregon legislature.
The response from LCSO:
Good morning –
Many questions have arisen as to what will happen to the rights of gun owners in Oregon since the passage of Ballot Measure 114. For the record, I believe BM 114 to be an unconstitutional restriction on the right to possess firearms, and I believe that the U.S. Supreme Court has already indicated as much in their review of other states' laws of similar nature. That said, I also believe that the founding fathers of the USA specifically designed a three part governance system so that no one person was given any kind of supreme power. In our three part system, the judicial branch is charged with the responsibility to declare a statute or act as unconstitutional.
My responsibility lies in the organization and operation of the Office of Sheriff in Lane County. I can tell you that we don't have sufficient resources to do the primary function of the Office, which is "to conserve the peace". We have the fewest number of deputy sheriffs per capita of any county in Oregon. We have an average response time to domestic violence calls for service of over an hour and a half. We have insufficient resources to properly respond and investigate burglaries in our county. We certainly don't have the resources to go out and investigate magazine capacity of firearms owners.
The Lane County Sheriff's Office is responsible for issuing Concealed Handgun License's (CHL) to qualified residents and there are roughly 25,000 CHL holders in the county. Since the introduction of Measure 114 there continues to be a surge in applications for new and renewing CHL's. We are already operating on limited resources and this, unfortunately, carries over into our CHL department. Currently, appointments are scheduled out months in advance for new applicants and renewals. We also serve walk-in applicants on Wednesdays in an attempt to lessen the lag time for scheduled appointments. However, the shear volume of CHL applicants and the current state of our resources creates an inability to adequately address that workload, let alone a new permitting process as required by BM 114.
Myself, and other Sheriffs, often rely on the analysis of our legal advisor(s) through our Oregon State Sheriffs Association. Having reviewed the BM 114 and the legal analysis received, the following is my understanding of the current status of the measure:
Sincerely
Sheriff Clifton G. Harrold
Dear Lane County Sheriff's Office,
I was wondering if I could get the LCSO's stance on whether or not the attached resolution passed by the Lane County Board of Commissioners in 2015 (basically declaring Lane County a 2A sanctuary county) is still in effect and does it reflect Sheriff Harrold's stance on recent unconstitutional anti-gun legislation passed by the Oregon legislature.
The response from LCSO:
Good morning –
Many questions have arisen as to what will happen to the rights of gun owners in Oregon since the passage of Ballot Measure 114. For the record, I believe BM 114 to be an unconstitutional restriction on the right to possess firearms, and I believe that the U.S. Supreme Court has already indicated as much in their review of other states' laws of similar nature. That said, I also believe that the founding fathers of the USA specifically designed a three part governance system so that no one person was given any kind of supreme power. In our three part system, the judicial branch is charged with the responsibility to declare a statute or act as unconstitutional.
My responsibility lies in the organization and operation of the Office of Sheriff in Lane County. I can tell you that we don't have sufficient resources to do the primary function of the Office, which is "to conserve the peace". We have the fewest number of deputy sheriffs per capita of any county in Oregon. We have an average response time to domestic violence calls for service of over an hour and a half. We have insufficient resources to properly respond and investigate burglaries in our county. We certainly don't have the resources to go out and investigate magazine capacity of firearms owners.
The Lane County Sheriff's Office is responsible for issuing Concealed Handgun License's (CHL) to qualified residents and there are roughly 25,000 CHL holders in the county. Since the introduction of Measure 114 there continues to be a surge in applications for new and renewing CHL's. We are already operating on limited resources and this, unfortunately, carries over into our CHL department. Currently, appointments are scheduled out months in advance for new applicants and renewals. We also serve walk-in applicants on Wednesdays in an attempt to lessen the lag time for scheduled appointments. However, the shear volume of CHL applicants and the current state of our resources creates an inability to adequately address that workload, let alone a new permitting process as required by BM 114.
Myself, and other Sheriffs, often rely on the analysis of our legal advisor(s) through our Oregon State Sheriffs Association. Having reviewed the BM 114 and the legal analysis received, the following is my understanding of the current status of the measure:
- While a federal court recently ruled BM114 as constitutional, it is still being challenged at the state-level and continues to remain on hold. At current, there is a trial set for September, 2023.
- Court challenges often take years. One such challenge is underway on a California magazine ban that was sent back to the 9th Circuit Court by the US Supreme Court for reconsideration due to a recent Supreme Court decision in the NY Rifle v. Bruen case.
- Since the measure as written provides an affirmative defense to possession of a >10 round magazine, if it was owned prior to the effective date of the measure it's advised to have proof of ownership before the measure took effect, such as a dated photograph of the magazines.
- The Oregon State Sheriffs Association, the Oregon Association of Chiefs of Police, and the Oregon State Police, continue to meet to discuss these questions and concerns as the logistics of Measure 114 are worked through. I know that there will continue to be questions surrounding this measure, and I am committed to providing that information as soon as it becomes clear. One piece of information that remains very relevant is that the Measure requires a nationwide background check utilizing fingerprints, however the FBI has made it clear that the system may not be accessed for the purpose of issuing permits under Measure 114. Therefore, no permits could be issued as the process under the measure would not be able to be completed, should the state court stay be lifted.
Sincerely
Sheriff Clifton G. Harrold
