Web Poll: Can Oregon Sheriff ignore Obama gun orders?

catalyst poll vote Web Poll: Can Oregon Sheriff ignore Obama gun orders?New online poll on Catalyst (Right hand side of this webpage) dealing with local Linn County Sheriff choosing to ignore Obama’s plans for control measures. Here is the story on CNN.

An Oregon sheriff says he will not enforce any federal regulation that President Barack Obama lays out in his package of gun control proposals Wednesday.Linn County Sheriff Tim Mueller joins several other public officials across the nation who have decided to square off with the White House even before it outlines what its plans are for expanded measures.Mueller sent a letter to Vice President Joe Biden this week saying he won’t enforce any federal regulation “offending the constitutional rights of my citizens.” He won’t permit federal officers to come to his county to enforce such laws either, he said.

— Please vote

tt twitter big4 Web Poll: Can Oregon Sheriff ignore Obama gun orders? tt facebook big4 Web Poll: Can Oregon Sheriff ignore Obama gun orders? tt linkedin big4 Web Poll: Can Oregon Sheriff ignore Obama gun orders? tt reddit big4 Web Poll: Can Oregon Sheriff ignore Obama gun orders?

Posted by at 04:00 | Posted in Uncategorized | 3 Comments |Email This Post Email This Post |Print This Post Print This Post
  • marvinmcconoughey

    It is hard to say what “offending the constitutional rights of my citizens” will mean in practice. Courts seem the proper place to settle constitutional law issues.

    • Kathy

      Not recently. The courts wish to propagandize me to think corporations are human beings. A corporation does not seek care at a hospital ER–only money. People seek care at a hospital ER. Corporations are not people. The Supremes have lost it. Some say they lost it in 2000/2001 election season when King George II became US President–Jan 26 2001. Incidentally one week before the US Gov’t–(the Bush Administration through one of its US Gov’t health agencies)–applied for US Gov’t Patent 6630507. Feb 2 2001. roflmao

  • zanzara2041

    http://www.appleroguetimes.com/two_supreme_court_decisions_the_.htm

    TWO SUPREME COURT DECISIONS THE ANTI-GUNNERS DON’T WANT YOU TO SEE

    by Carl F. Worden

    January 15, 2013

    There are two Supreme Court rulings that directly relate to the current anti-Assault Weapon issue everyone needs to be reminded of.

    The first is United States v. Miller 1939. Miller possessed a sawed-off shotgun banned under the National Firearms Act. He argued that he had a right to bear the weapon under the Second Amendment, but the Supreme Court ruled against him. Why? At the time, sawed-off shotguns were not being used in a military application, and the Supremes ruled that since it didn’t, it was not protected. Even though Miller lost that argument, the Miller case set the precedent that protected firearms have a military, and thus a legitimate and protected Militia use. The military now uses shotguns regularly, but not very short, sawed-off shotguns, but an AR-15/AK-47 type weapon is currently in use by the military, therefore it is a protected weapon for the Unorganized Militia, which includes just about every American citizen now that both age and sex discrimination are illegal. (The original Militia included men of age 17-45) Therefore any firearm that is applicable to military use is clearly protected under Article II, and that includes all those nasty-looking semi-automatic black rifles, including full 30 round magazines.

    The second important case is that of John Bad Elk v. United States from 1900. In that case, an attempt was made to arrest Mr. Bad Elk without probable cause, and Mr. Bad Elk killed a policeman who was attempting the false arrest. Bad Elk had been found guilty and sentenced to death. However, the Supreme Court ruled that Bad Elk had the right to use any force, including lethal force, to prevent his false arrest, even if the policeman was only trying to arrest him and not kill him. Basically, the Supremes of the day ruled that as a citizen, you have the right to defend against your civil rights being violated using ANY force necessary to prevent the violation, even if the offending party isn’t trying to kill you.

    Both of these cases are standing law to this day.

    The Miller
    decision clearly includes AR-15/AK-47 type weapons as having a military
    application. The Bad Elk decision means that if the government tries to
    confiscate your AR-15/AK-47, or arrest you for having one, you can kill the offenders on the spot, even if they are not trying to kill you.

    I didn’t make these decisions; the United States Supreme Court did.

    by Carl F. Worden

    http://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/307/174/case.html

    http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/cgi-bin/getcase.pl?court=us&vol=177&invol=529

Stay Tuned...

Stay up to date with the latest political news and commentary from Oregon Catalyst through daily email updates:

Prefer another subscription option? Subscribe to our RSS Feed, become a fan on Facebook, or follow us on Twitter.

Twitter Facebook

No Thanks (close this box)