Associated Press
Sheriff Tim Mueller
From time to time, state and local officials may not like federal laws. Maybe it's Democratic local officials objecting to Republican policies, perhaps it's Republicans in municipalities who disapprove of Democratic policies, but since the Civil War, there hasn't been any credible debate about whether such laws are optional.
The sheriff of an Oregon county sent a letter to Vice President Joe Biden on Monday saying he and his deputies would not enforce -- nor allow federal officials to enforce -- any new federal firearms laws in his county, according to a copy of the letter posted on the Linn County Sheriff's Office website.
"Politicians are attempting to exploit the deaths of innocent victims by advocating for laws that would prevent honest, law abiding Americans from possessing certain firearms and ammunition magazines," Sheriff Tim Mueller wrote in the letter dated January 14, 2013. "Any federal regulation enacted by Congress or by executive order of the President offending the constitutional rights of my citizens shall not be enforced by me or by my deputies, nor will I permit the enforcement of any unconstitutional regulations or orders by federal officers within the borders of Linn County, Oregon."
As Mueller sees it, it's apparently not up to courts or judges to determine which laws are consistent with Americans' constitutional rights; it's instead up to a local sheriff. And if the local sheriff decides the law doesn't meet the standards of his constitutional analysis, he just won't enforce it.
To put it mildly, this is a problematic approach to a functioning democracy.
Similarly, there are new measures pending in the South Carolina and North Dakota state legislatures on ignoring new federal gun policies -- before policymakers even know what they are -- and Mississippi Gov. Phil Bryant (R) wants state legislation that would make any "unconstitutional order" on gun policy taken by President Obama "illegal to enforce in Mississippi by state and local law enforcement."
And who would decide which policies are "unconstitutional"?
Bryant didn't say, exactly. If courts rule a law unconstitutional, then it's a moot point -- no one enforces laws that are struck down -- but if the governor and legislature think they're the arbiters of constitutional analysis, there's a problem.
The rule of law still matters. So does separation of powers and judicial review. I have no idea what, if anything, Congress will pass to help prevent gun violence, but I do know state and local policymakers should realize that they're not in a position to pick and choose which laws they'll honor and which laws they'll ignore.
Update: It looks like some policymakers in Missouri and Texas are thinking along similar lines.
Leave a Comment:
Guess what buddy, you'll be out of a job.
This is funny. Benen can't decide to follow the rule of law or ignore it. Whatever is convenient, right? Good thing Rosa Parks didn't have Benen around to keep her "in line".
This is the most authoritarian, dare I say it, fascist BS I've seen from the left so far....
Benen, we'll decide what's legal and what isn't. Not you.
@Shooter: No you won't. The courts decide what is constitutional or not. If the court doesn't strike down a law, it is considered constitutional and should be enforced by any and all officers of the law.
Hey Shooter: THE COURTS DECIDE CONSTITUTIONALITY. Not you, not the sherriff and not Steve Benen.
This is why they need to start teaching civics in schools again. Ignorance everywhere. No idea how the mechanics of government actually work. Clueless.
Yes we will, the Constitution is pretty straightforward about arms, and the President et al are sworn to protect the constitution, not the gun control lobby.
If you want to start throwing people in jail for their beliefs, Bull Conner would be proud. Like it or not, this is about civil rights.
Shooter: You can choose not to follow the law if you like. That's what civil disobedience is. However, be prepared, like Rosa Parks, to go to jail for it. If you think that's worthwhile in order to make a point about your rights and sway public opinion, go ahead. But there's no reason a sheriff should keep his job of enforcing the law while refusing to do so. If he finds the new laws that objectionable, he should resign in protest.
Well done, Jurgan!
Here, before people start to take ol gasbag shooter seriously, here's the thing. Rosa Parks notwithstanding (who was just too tired to get up and decided she didn't give a damn, not trying to start a movement), if someone decides they think a law is unconstitutional, they may refuse to follow it in the hopes of challenging it in court, or taking a stand that will inspire the law to be changed. Perhaps a better example then Rosa Parks would be the Scopes Monkey Trial.
Whether this sheriff is preemptively declaring that he is challenging the constitutionality of a law, or he's preening to a base (is his job of sheriff an elected one or an appointed one? I don't know but I wonder), OR he's a just a racist or partisan sack of ass who will declare any law from any Democrat unconstitutional because as we all know Democrats hate 'Murka...I don't know the answer to any of those questions and perhaps time can tell. But if we have a sheriff point blank telling the government to take their laws and shove 'em, that's the time for the government to act to preserve the law and let this sheriff plead his case and let the law be tested.
The only reason for anyone to get their nipples in a twist is that, for as long as he is the Lawman in town, people with guns in his town that they shouldn't have can still have them, and who knows what deviltry they might come up with to use those weapons while they still have them?
That would certainly be the ideal, Jurgan. Unfortunately I live in Arizona and see this sort of BS everyday. This state has spent literally millions (that it doesn't have) challenging federal laws it doesn't agree with, and strangely enough (s/o) it hasn't won a case yet! :}
I was surprised to see that Oregon also has whacked out sheriffs. I had thought we had the monoply on those. I don't know if I should be happy or downright scared about that, but I think it's the latter...
Here we go again... Now another Oregon Sheriff is on the bandwagon. Crook County (Central Oregon) Sheriff Jim Hensley has cut and pasted Sheriff Mueller's letter and sent it to Biden vowing the same willingness to interpret the Constitution... I live in a neighboring county, and hope it doesn't spread here...
Always attack the messenger, the blood splatter will distract from the message, and you win.
We can always hope. This sheriff wouldn't know the constitution if it bit him in the ass.
I see shooter is trying to spout the cnstitution again. No it's not "straight foreward. Matbe you people spouting it should try reading the Supreme Court rulings on the 2nd Amendment. But why should you prove yourselve wrong? And please tell us what part of President Obama's EO's are "unconstituional". Can't do? Wonder why.
Oh my! Oh please can I get a picture of Shooter linking arms with wingnut friends and singing "We shall overcome!" LOL
slappy magoo . . . Mueller's job as Sheriff in Linn County, Oregon is an elected position. He's playing to his base. Linn County, unlike Lane (Eugene) and Benton (Corvallis) Counties, which border it, is an island of bright red in the generally blue sea that is the northern--and most heavily populated--part of western Oregon. He is up for re-election in 2014.
I've always wondered who decides which laws are enforced and which are not. It was my previous belief the law is the law, not so in many cases.
Look at what happened to Arizona when they tried to enforce the Federal Immigration laws. Hasn't the DOJ recently announced not enforcing certain laws as directed by this administration? Are we now saying only the President can decide which laws to enforce?
Sounds a little bit like a Dictatorship to me.
All these petulant trolls who rant about "dictatorship" deserve to actually live in one.
WARNING: You are now entering a national memorial battlefield. For your safety watch for low flying civil war "states rights" rhetoric and slippery slope arguments
We are seriously getting to the point of Civil War, which will be an interesting event if it happens, given that the Special Forces (particularly the SEALs) and the Air Force and Marines are overrun with wingnut whackjob Christian Righties.
TC. I believe it's coming. It's just when? I don't think we'll need to wait much longer. Not as long as some might believe.
Rumor has it that this guy has been on the take for most of his career. Maybe he is being paid by the NRA this time
Don't know about "on the take", but he's a lousy sheriff.
Mr. Kilgore noted another local cop in KY saying basically the same thing. http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/political-animal-a/2013_01/armies_of_one042412.php
This man who has sworn to uphold the law should be relieved of his duties at once since he has stated publicly and in writing that he does not intend to fulfill those duties.
Didn't Obama say he wasn't going to enforce the marijuana laws? Are you going to relieve him of his duties too? Duh.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/10/19/new-medical-marijuana-pol_n_325426.html
Really shooter still firing blanks we see.
Annie Oakley: I wish... How about just one freaking time you be right on something factual!!! I'll choose this post, this time. I wish Obama was leaving medical marijuana alone, but he is not. What world do you live in, that article is from 2009! I simply can count on you Annie Oakley to be astoundingly wrong on virtually everything, and for that I thank you. You are reliable. At every poker game I play, I like to have a couple of people like you at the table, easy to read...
Shooter can't help it.. He was programmed that way...
It wouldn't matter anyways Lebowsky. The President has the authority as the leader of the Executive to make the decision as to what laws he wants to enforce and what laws he doesn't want to enforce at the federal level per the Constitution and the discretional authority delegated to the Executive branch (so, in other words, it's not an absolute). The federal government always reserves the right to pass authority off to the states or default authority to the states. The states, however, do not reserve this authority for the federal government. That is the fundamental difference between a confederacy (what the south wanted in the civil war) and a federacy (what we have now). In a federacy the central power (in our case the US Constitution and the federal government delegated therin) delegate powers outward to the states. In a confederacy the states delegate power to the central authority and do not follow a singular, central policy (like the US Constitution). This is a common mix-up that happens between the left wing understanding of the role of the government and the right wing understanding of the role of the government. The left operates under the modern understanding and the right is still arguing the same point it was arguing during the Civil War. This is why, for the record, the right still clings to the idea that it has the right to kill elected officials, military, and police personnel who pass laws or enforce laws that the right doesn't agree with. Because in a confederacy this would be true. In a federacy, however, it's not.
Annie Oakley was just making a sleight of hand there
There are many examples of government officials who do not enforce laws. In 1830 the supreme court ruled that Indian relocation was unconstitutional, Pres. Andrew(Mad dog}Jackson said" Marshall has ruled now let him enforce it". He then carried out the five Indian nation land grab and relocated the Indians to Oklahoma. You might have heard of the Trail of Tears where over four thousand Cherokees died while force marched to OK.
I heard it said when JFK was assassinated that "the US had lost it's innocence" I maintain that the US never had any innocence.
If Americans were as passionate about civil rights as they are about gun rights we would have a great country.
Can anyone say anarchy?
So the ultimate in Republican, no government involvement in your lives, is simply to let everyone make up their own rules.
Time for the federal government to put a couple of these bozos in jail? Perhaps this "sheriff" could be number 1?
Hope, Hope.
This is just nuts. What is happening in America?
What happened? Rumor has it, somehow a black person took possession of the White House.
Someone "other" became "THE CHIEF" and it's wrecked their world...
@ Day -- actually a constitutional lawyer was ELECTED to the White House by a vast majority of the electorate - he took a close look at the 2nd amendment and found the words 'Well Regulated" - and so he decided it was high time to put a few regulations in place. Then the ill-informed took offense that someone with intelligence acted in the best interests of the nation.
Actually, that constitutional lawyer looked a the case law and found that even the Heller case left in lots of guidance on regulating firearms, including subjects like magazine capacity, multi-round firing capability, types of ammunition, etc.
This, mind, from the Roberts court.
The big take-away from "Heller" is that it was Scalia who spoke of those restraints!
To the good sheriff of Linn County, I ask...How many law-abiding citizens who own guns have gotten into disagreements with friends, family, co-workers, strangers they've met in bars or on the road, and have used their weapon and killed someone? How many of these acts would he consider to have been done by "law-abiding citizens" who were just exercising their Constitutional rights? The stats for gun violence/deaths in Linn County when broken down by criminal behavior vs. law-abiding citizens' behavior would be very interesting. How many of his law-abiding citizens need a Bushmaster or other civilian version of a military weapon and a magazine or drum with 30 or 100 bullets for their law-abiding activities? Most drivers are law-abiding, but the vehicles they drive are regulated by maximum speed they can go, braking equipment, safety belts, and types of protection they can be manufactured with, and as we know, many vehicles are used by their drivers without regard for law or safety to detriment of over 40,000 lives lost per year. Our regulations on both the vehicles and the drivers don't stop all deaths or injuries, but they do reduce them. Law-abiding citizens, probably even those in Linn County, believe the same reduction in gun deaths can be achieved by limited, common sense regulations on guns and their operators. If the Linn County Sheriff enforces speeding laws, vehicle registration and tab laws, etc., how can he view gun safety laws any differently and refuse to enforce whatever those laws might be?
This "sheriff" is sheriff of my county. He wouldn't know the contitution or most state laws if the bit him hard. If he has to leave his desk, he's lost.
I live in Mult. County and forget that I am surrounded by encroaching republican counties. Never underestimate the paranioa of being safe. If one cannot feel safe within ones skin, a gun certainly isn't going to make that insecurity go away.
Not to take sides on either issue, but there is some seriously unfair coverage going on here. This absolutely was not the take on states trying to legalize pot? I recall a certain north-west city police blog getting big praise for their humorous posts that basically said "hey, that substance that's illegal under federal law, well we don't care about that law here . . ."
I understand the perceived 'duality' here, but cannabis doesn't shoot bullets.
Apples and oranges... but nice try
Well and there is a difference in another way. The states legalizing marijuana were not advocating ignoring the federal law on the issue. They requested that the Federal Government permit the states to regulate unilaterally in the area and for the Fed's to not enforce the drug policies but no sheriff's indicated they would flat out ignore federal law.
He (she?) actually has a point that I wanted to raise, too. There are certain laws that the present federal government has decided to turn a blind eye to, among them enforcement of marijuana laws and a selective application of deportations. I am in favor of tighter gun regulation, although I think there are already a number of regulations on the books that just need enforcement (but appointing a head for ATF, yeah, that's a good thing to do). That said, the sheriffs who are claiming they will not enforce the regulations and the states (like Texas) that reject any regulation of firearms and ammunition are acting unconstitutionally.
You know, back in 2008 I was so happy that Obama had been elected -- here, I thought, was a metaphor for a new age: a man who is half-black, half-white, representing a coming together of the disparate elements of our society. Here is a man of intelligence, willing to listen to others and weigh their advice, a man who knows the law ... and yet he has been hounded and rejected and spat upon and despised. It makes me so ashamed for my country.
"He was despised, despised and rejected, a man of sorrow and acquainted with grief."
And in 2012 I was so relieved that common sense and charity had prevailed. But the same forces of rejection, obstructionism, divisiveness and contempt are still sowing their seeds. And it makes me frightened for my country.
Really surprised he beat Sheriff Arpaio to the media with such hare-brained nonsense. I expect a lot of crazy over the next few days...
Has Ted Nugent collapsed from the horror yet ? One can hope....
How can this man claim to be an officer of the law when he picks and chooses which ones he and his colleagues will enforce? This is absurd. I hope the citizens of his county demand his resignation.
He does this daily.
I guess Tanks should be sent to storm all the marijuana dispensaries in Washington and Colorado immediately
Let me get this straight:
Conservatives will not agree to a law (gun control) without reading it while saying Liberals put through a law (health care) without reading it.
What is it with reading stuff in DC that is so taboo?
"Liberals put through a law (health care) without reading it.
So the Republicans proposed over 600 amendments to a bill that they didn't get a chance to read?
I don't think so.
Even if they were given the bill the day before the vote, between all of the House and Senate staffs do you really think that the bill wouldn't have been divided and read?
1) COMPREHENSIVE immigration reform--otherwise the tanks should go raid all the landscapers and dishwashers and vegetable pickers that are menacing our society immediately, right after they arrest all the very dangerous pot heads, oh and the 995000 squeaky clean gun permit holders in FL(out of a million, similar i'm sure in TX etc)
2)COMPREHENSIVE gun reform would get rid of the ridiculous requirements to own guns in the blue states(I should say anti gun states not blue as Vermont is if anything too lenient) while also instituting the backround check rules (and giving easy access to the system for private sellers)
3) Why is it okay if law enforcement entities don't enforce marijuana or immigration rules (even if I don't agree with them ditto most of the posters hers) but if they refuse to arrest someone for having a 15 round magazine in their car or home or (permitted) person that's not ok?
This sheriff and Ann Coulter are a match made in heaven.
This is how civil wars start, isn't it?
That's my greatest fear, trompeter!
How does this compare to States that decide not to enforce Federal drug laws (notably WRT marijuana?)
He not only refuses to enforce federal laws, which is his right since he is not a federal employee, but he has also stated he will not allow (HA! right?) the feds to enforce the federal law, which is where he gets into trouble. States that have legalized dope are not stopping the feds from enforcing federal law (indeed it's a huge problem), they have just taken the laws off of the state books that make possession a state crime. It's still a federal crime. There's no law that says states have to make every law passed by Congress a state law.
It's time for some people to get their ass handed to them, one way or the other.
Texas has gone the route of Hooterville. I bet this guy climbs a pole to answer the phone.
Wasnt the left all up in arms when law enforcement officials in AZ were trying to enforce the federal law regarding illegal aliens coming across the border? Werent they told not to enforce the federal law?
That wouldnt be hypocrisy from the left again....would it?
just saying...
No re reg your not just saying you are making things up that never happened and trying to call your version of what happened a word you can't comprehend. What the left was up in arms about was the papers please Bull @!$%# AZ law that made a minority group prove they were citizens based on the color of their skin. Oh btw re reg AZ can only pass state laws not Federal Laws so straw man from our uneducated re reg.
Always nice to have one of the whackjobs stop fornicating their sheep long enough to come over here and remind us of just what serious morons you morons are.
Whom...actually you are wrong...AGAIN. AZ passed their controversial law because the federal government would not allow them to enforce the existing laws regarding illegal immigrants.
TC...please don't talk about Whom like that...he prefers pigs, not sheep.
just saying...
....I don't even know where you got this idea.
Arizona officials cannot enforce immigration policies because immigration falls onto the federal government to enforce and not the state or local municipalities to enforce. Arizona and it's proponents- who were mostly Republican- was the entity trying to usurp federal authority by stating that the 10th Amendment allows the states to set their own immigration policies (which it doesn't). The left was saying that A. the 10th Amendment doesn't work this way and B. that it wouldn't matter regardless because of the Supremacy Clause. And then the Supreme Court got ahold of the case and agreed with the basic premise of the left- that state authority does not override federal authority on issues deemed under federal jurisdiction. It was the Republican wing that wanted to change this authority, not the Democratic wing.
No one was ever told to not enforce federal law. I have no idea where that came from. There were people on the left pointing out that Obama has deported more people than Bush and has overall been a better enforcer of immigration policies than Bush, and there have always been people on the left who have stated that they want to see the immigration policies of our nation changed. No one is upset when a cop enforces a law that we- the people- passed. But people will get upset when we- the people- pass laws that someone else doesn't like. I would call this a strawman, but honestly I can't even remotely think of where you're pulling this from so I can't think of an argument that you'd dumbing down or ignoring to create this false argument. This is just a complete fantasy.
Arizona cannot enforce federal immigration law. Arizona passed SB1070 because Arizona believed that the federal immigration law wasn't adequate enough and the state wanted to take that power from the federal government. The left (and, quite honestly, pretty much anyone who agrees with the US Constitution) were saying no the state cannot do this.
Cartoon
If states cannot enforce federal laws then gun control legislation is a mute point. According to your ideas it doesn't matter what laws the feds come up with they cannot be enforced by the states. This sherrif didn't even need to write a letter.
Wow reading is not your strong point is it.
YOur comments are pretty hollow.
Do it for me again, your points are racking up.
whom...,
It is not so much a lack of reading comprehension among those on the right, it is a lack of basic human decency.
I always assumed Linn County was relatively sane. I guess a county calling itself "Grass Seed Capital of the World" can't be entirely sane.
We use to be. And some parts still are. He wouldn't know where they are. And I doubt he'd be able to find that pole to climb to answer his phone. OH, forgot, he has never answered his phone.
Here's what I'm hearing from the likes of the dear sheriff and others with his perspective:
I'm not a fully invested American citizen who understands and recognizes different legitimate institutions sharing power and jurisdiction, and I will impose my own will upon those things I personally have a disagreement with, by 1) not being fully versed in Constitutional law, but 2) knowing in my heart of hearts my perspective trumps all others who may have more knowledge and understanding I do, and 3) I think my allegiance is to guns and not the American democratic system where legitimate decisions are made by the institutions of power and reviewed for their Constitutionality by our judicial institution.
To jump the shark and emotionally say you're gonna kill people if your guns are taken away is to admit the insanity of your intellect! And, as a law enforcement officer, to tell the superseding jurisdiction you're gonna summarily defy the new laws of the land, you otta just put a gun to your head and end it all cause you're a bit too whacked to function as a representative of civil order and lawful duties! -Kevo
Yeah, this guy really sounds like the kind of person we ought to trust with a loaded firearm day-in and day-out. Totally sane. Absolutely.
I re-read this idiot's letter to Biden. The last part truly struck me.
". . . nor will I permit the enforcement of any unconstitutional regulations or orders by federal officers within the borders of Linn County, Oregon."
Yep. I want to see this idiot tell ATF, the FBI, etc. to stand down and that he's running the show, not them.
He would definitely try. He thinks he's God.
Better yet, next time there is a serious crime, just revoke his user rights to any national database (e.g. fingerprints) and make him work on his own.
There is nothing proposed to keep you from shining your shotgun or stroking your six-shooter. They make 'ExtenZe' if you need a bigger gun.
Okay, okay, I get it. This guy is a moron and a jerk thinking as a sworn law enforcement officer that he gets to decide which laws he's going to enforce, and which he's not. But, isn't torture against the law? Isn't kidnapping against the law? Isn't there a law against holding people in prison without charges or due process, or for that matter, killing them? When the highest law enforcement officer in the land, the Attorney General of the United States, refuses to enforce the laws of the land, why are we surprised when some backwoods dink of a sheriff thinks it's an okay thing to do?
Obama has also instructed his guys at justice dept to not defend DOMA as well.
I think this guy is probably some small town, NRA loving, gun freak, but I also like to keep my biases in check.
The present administration is continuing to abide by the DoMA legislation as same sex couples still do not receive the same Federal benefits that opposite sex couples do. If the present administration wasn't abiding by the DoMA legislation, the latter wouldn't be happening.
There is no requirement for the Federal government to defend a Federal law in court, which is what is happening.
This "guy" is the so-called sheriff of a large county. He live in a large campus city.