Second Amendment Sanctuary Facing First Court Tests in Oregon

Salem, Oregon (AP) — The first court test to see if a local government can ban police from enforcing certain gun controls is in a rural county in Oregon.

The· Measure Narrow approval by voters in the logging area of ​​Columbia County last year has banned local authorities from enforcing most federal and state gun laws and could impose thousands of dollars on attempters. There is.

According to Sean Fields, an assistant professor at Campbell University, the Second Amended Sanctuary Resolution was adopted by approximately 1,200 local governments in states around the United States, including Virginia, Colorado, New Mexico, Kansas, Illinois, and Florida. Many are symbolic, but some, such as Columbia County, have legal force.

The· The movement has begun Around 2018, 17 people were killed and survivors were well-known gun control activists as the state considered tightening gun laws following mass shootings, including a high school shooting near Parkland, Florida. became.

After President Joe Biden took office, conservative lawmakers in several states have proposed banning police from implementing federal gun measures, with at least one proposal. Arizona The law has been signed.

The movement has not yet faced major legal challenges. The Oregon proceedings were filed by Columbia County under anomalous provisions in state law. This allows the judge to consider the bill before it comes into force. There is no timeline for court hearings.

“This allows the court to tell us if the county can actually refuse to enforce certain state laws and tell us how to comply with the will of voters to the extent we can. “Masu,” said a lawyer in the azure, conservative, devoted county of Oregon.

Supporters of the ordinance include the Oregon Firearms Federation mentioned in November statement The “radicals” and “radicals in big cities” were trying to reduce their gun rights.

The group referred to Portland’s protests against police atrocities that became occasionally violent last summer, and the ordinance “ensures the right and ability to protect your life and the lives of your loved ones. I called it the “common sense” step.

The ordinance prohibits enforcement of laws such as background checks and restrictions on the carrying of guns, but there are exceptions to others, such as protecting guns from convicted serious offenders.

The Oregon Firearms Federation did not respond to requests for comment on the proceedings.

Sheriff Brian Pixley said in March and expressed his support statement One of his responsibilities is to uphold the rights of the Second Amendment to the People, and he is eager to “move forward at the will of the voters.”

However, the bill was divided in rural areas, and four residents submitted court documents against it. One Brandee Dudzic mentions the rigorous gun safety training he learned in the medic training and respects the right to own a gun, but says safety measures such as background checks and safe storage should be taken. thinking about.

The owner of a gun shop in Columbia County supported the background check and said he believed that “state law outweighs county law.” However, he in principle agreed with the Second Amendment to the Constitution.

“We need to make sure people are safe. We need to make sure people are responsible,” he said. “But as more rules are in force, we need to make sure we are not overly regulated.”

He spoke on the condition that he wasn’t identified because some of his customers opposed gun restrictions and didn’t want to lose their business.

The Gun Safety Group Everytown is pushing to overturn this measure. Managing Director Eric Tillschwell said this would be the first court trial in the country for the Second Revised Reserve Act.

Everytown claims that the ordinance violates the US Constitution and states that federal law supersedes state law, the state constitution, and Oregon law, which empowers states to regulate firearms.

This decision has no direct impact outside of Oregon, but you can send a message.

“This case is important, and if a state or local jurisdiction attempts to unconstitutionally or illegally invalidate gun safety legislation, we are ready to go to court and send a message that we will go to court. Should be, “said Tirschwell.

Other legislation that seeks to blunt federal gun control, such as the 2009 Montana law exempting state-manufactured guns and ammunition from federal law and a similar 2013 law in Kansas, worked well in court. Could not.

However, many of the recent waves of action have taken different steps by focusing on local police actions, including fines and other penalties.

From the perspective of federal law, gun advocates may have successful legal debates under the so-called anti-commander doctrine, which allows the U.S. government to force state and local officials to enforce federal law. Law professor Darrell Miller said he couldn’t, at Duke University Law School, co-department of the Duke University Firearms Law Center. He agreed that the Oregon proceedings were the first of its kind.

On the other hand, local enforcement of state law is another matter. Most states do not have similar provisions in their own code, and the Oregon Attorney General states in court documents that the Columbia County Ordinance is “incompatible” with the obligations of criminal law and county authorities.

“As long as the local government is trying to say that it doesn’t enforce state law, it’s a much more difficult and complex position,” Miller said. “The state’s authority over the provinces is much stronger.”


Whitehurst reported from Salt Lake City.