After Oregon voters narrowly passed Oregon Ballot Measure 114, one of the toughest gun laws in the country, several elected sheriffs spoke out about new permit requirements and a ban on large-capacity magazines.
Many have posted letters on social media with similar talking points or shared the letter released on Nov. 18. 17 of the Oregon State Sheriffs Association, which said, “OSSA understands that Oregonians have strong views on this measure, and many … believe it is a violation of their Second Amendment rights.” .
Sherman County Sheriff Brad Lohrey has joined the first legal appeal filed against Measure 114. The federal lawsuit, filed on Friday, seeks a court-ordered injunction that would prevent the measure from becoming law and a court ruling that would measure 114 is unconstitutional. If a judge is not inclined to prevent the effectiveness of the entire provision, the applicants request that the judge alternatively prohibit at least the constraint of the magazine capacity. The plaintiffs are Oregon Firearms Federal, Lohrey and Adam Johnson, which owns Coat of Arms Custom Firearms in Keizer.
On Wednesday, the same plaintiffs filed an emergency motion to prevent the measure from taking effect. 8. A hearing has not been set on their request.
Baker County: Sheriff Travis Ash said, “The Baker County Sheriff’s Office will not focus the investigation on magazine capacity issues” and will work with partners on a permit system.
Clatsop County: Sheriff Matthew D. Phillips released a letter in October in which he wrote about Measure 114 and said, “Violating constitutional rights is not the path to the change being sought.”
Crook County: Sheriff John Gautney says he believes it is unconstitutional, places a huge burden on his understaffed staff, and that violations of Rule 114 “will be handled with discretion.”
Deschutes County: Sheriff L. Shane Nelson posted on Facebook that he thought Measure 114 would fail constitutional muster and “given our limited law enforcement resources, our response to Measure 114 violations will not be a priority for the our office”.
Douglas County: Sheriff John Hanlin said he believes the measure will be deemed unconstitutional, that he disagrees with it, but has nonetheless sworn to uphold the law. He said the violations would be a low priority for him as he works to develop the required licensing system.
Gilliam County: The Sheriff’s Office Facebook page shared a video of Deschutes County Sheriff Nelson voicing his concerns as president of the Oregon State Sheriffs Association.
Harney County: Sheriff Daniel Jenkins said the “best-case scenario” would be if the measure was deemed unconstitutional (he issued a second message when the measure’s effective date was clarified to Dec. 8).
Jackson County: Sheriff Nate Sickler assured residents his office “will work diligently to ensure that people have the ability to obtain a necessary permit to purchase a firearm, as it is a constitutional right. He also said, “We will not be spending the time and resources investigating anyone who has obtained magazines that have a capacity greater than 10 rounds after this measure goes into effect.”
Jefferson County: Sheriff Jason Pollock told The Bulletin in Bend that Rule 114 violations would not be a priority for his office. He posted on Facebook that for too long “a fraction of Oregon’s counties have exerted too much control over rural Oregon.”
Josephine County: Sheriff Dave Daniel said his county had a statute that precluded him from prosecuting Rule 114 violations related to high-capacity magazines, and that the Board of Commissioners had strengthened it by declaring Josephine a “Second Amendment Sanctuary County.”
Klamath County: Sheriff Chris Kaber released a statement before the election result was clear. 9 who claimed to rely on the opinion of the Oregon State Sheriffs Association, which deems measure 114 unconstitutional.
Lincoln County: Sheriff Curtis Landers said he opposed the measure and assured residents he would not go “door to door” looking for high-capacity magazines. He said he would uphold the law, as it is his duty to sworn him, if it were declared constitutional. (His office later issued the December 8 update as well.)
Linn County: Sheriff Michelle Duncan said, “I want to send a clear message to Linn County residents that the Linn County Sheriff’s Office will NOT enforce magazine capacity limits.”
Marion County: Sheriff Joe Kast said his office was preparing to help residents legally acquire firearms as court challenges unfold and would not prioritize violations of magazine capacity provisions.
Morrow County: Sheriff John Bowles said he will not prioritize high-capacity magazines and will not “knock on doors” to check residents’ guns.
Polk County: Sheriff Mark Garton posted, “First, let me say that there are still more questions that just don’t have answers yet, which I fully understand can cause uncertainty and anxiety for some, including myself.” He republished the OSSA letter.
Sherman County: Sheriff Brad Lohrey has joined the first lawsuit filed against Measure 114.
Tillamook County: Sheriff Joshua Brown said, “I am unable to speak to the exact process citizens will have to go through to obtain a permit to legally purchase a firearm in Oregon, along with other new restrictions that are spelled out in the measure.” He said he opposed the measure and will await the outcome of the appeals in court.
Umatilla County: Sheriff Terry Rowan’s Facebook page reposted the Deschutes County Sheriff’s video (above, below Gilliam County) and agreed with the sentiments expressed.
Union County: Sheriff Cody Bowen agreed with Linn County Sheriff Duncan, saying, “This is a violation of our constitutional rights and will not be enforced by my office!”
Wallowa County: Sheriff Joel Fish told the Wallowa County chieftain he would not enforce some provisions.
Yamhill County: Sheriff Tim Svenson said his office will work to help law-abiding citizens comply with the new process and obtain weapons and that he will not make high-capacity magazine limitations a priority. His delegates will have discretion depending on the “circumstances of the meeting”.