Sheriffs, state lawmakers push back on gun control

Jan 17, 1:10 PM EST — GRANTS PASS, Ore. (AP) — From Ore­gon to Mis­sis­sippi, Pres­i­dent Barack Obama’s pro­posed ban on new assault weapons and large-capacity mag­a­zines struck a nerve among rural law­men and law­mak­ers, many of whom vowed to ignore any restric­tions — and even try to stop fed­eral offi­cials from enforc­ing gun pol­icy in their jurisdictions.

“A lot of sher­iffs are now stand­ing up and say­ing, ‘Fol­low the Con­sti­tu­tion,’” said Josephine County Sher­iff Gil Gilbert­son, whose ter­ri­tory cov­ers the tim­bered moun­tains of south­west­ern Oregon.

But their actual pow­ers to defy fed­eral law are lim­ited. And much of the impas­sioned rhetoric amounts to polit­i­cal pos­tur­ing until — and if — Con­gress acts.

Sen­ate Major­ity Leader Harry Reid, a Demo­c­rat, said Wednes­day it’s unlikely an assault weapons ban would actu­ally pass the House of Rep­re­sen­ta­tives. Absent action by Con­gress, all that remains are 23 exec­u­tive orders Obama announced that apply only to the fed­eral gov­ern­ment, not local or state law enforcement.

Gun advo­cates have seen Obama as an enemy despite his expres­sion of sup­port for the inter­pre­ta­tion of the Sec­ond Amend­ment as a per­sonal right to have guns. So his call for new mea­sures — includ­ing back­ground checks for all gun buy­ers and Sen­ate con­fir­ma­tion of a direc­tor of the Bureau of Alco­hol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explo­sives — trig­gered new vows of defiance.

In Mis­sis­sippi, Gov. Phil Bryant, a Repub­li­can, urged the Leg­is­la­ture to make it ille­gal to enforce any exec­u­tive order by the pres­i­dent that vio­lates the Constitution.

“If some­one kicks open my door and they’re enter­ing my home, I’d like as many bul­lets as I could to pro­tect my chil­dren, and if I only have three, then the abil­ity for me to pro­tect my fam­ily is greatly dimin­ished,” Bryant said. “And what we’re doing now is say­ing, ‘We’re stand­ing against the fed­eral gov­ern­ment tak­ing away our civil liberties.’”

Ten­nessee Repub­li­can state Rep. Joe Carr wants to make it a state crime for fed­eral agents to enforce any ban on firearms or ammu­ni­tion. Carr instead called for more armed guards at schools.

“We’re tired of polit­i­cal antics, cheap props of using chil­dren as bait to gin up emo­tional attach­ment for an issue that quite hon­estly doesn’t solve the prob­lem,” Carr said.

Leg­isla­tive pro­pos­als to pre-empt new fed­eral gun restric­tions also have arisen in Wyoming, Utah and Alaska.

A Wyoming bill spec­i­fies that any fed­eral lim­i­ta­tion on guns would be unen­force­able. It also would make it a state felony for fed­eral agents to try to enforce restrictions.

“I think there are a lot of peo­ple who would want to take all of our guns if they could,” said co-sponsor Rep. Kendell Kroeker, a Repub­li­can. “And they’re only restrained by the oppo­si­tion of the peo­ple, and other law­mak­ers who are con­cerned about our rights.”

Repub­li­can state Sen. Larry Hicks cred­ited Wyoming’s high rate of gun own­er­ship for a low rate of gun violence.

“Our kids grow up around firearms, and they also grow up hunt­ing, and they know what the con­se­quences are of tak­ing a life,” Hicks said. “We’re not insu­lated from the real world in Wyoming.”

In Utah, some Repub­li­cans are prepar­ing leg­is­la­tion to exempt the state from fed­eral gun laws — and fine any fed­eral agents who try to seize guns. A bill in the Alaska House would make it a mis­de­meanor for a fed­eral agent to enforce new restric­tions on gun ownership.

While such pro­pos­als are eye-catching, they likely could never be implemented.

“The leg­is­la­ture can pass any­thing it wants,” said Sam Kamin, a con­sti­tu­tional law pro­fes­sor at the Uni­ver­sity of Den­ver. “The Supremacy Clause of the Con­sti­tu­tion makes that clearly uncon­sti­tu­tional. Where there’s a con­flict between state and fed­eral law, the fed­eral gov­ern­ment is supreme.”

Kamin and other legal experts said such dis­dain of Obama’s pro­pos­als is rem­i­nis­cent of for­mer Con­fed­er­ate states’ refusal to com­ply with fed­eral law extend­ing equal rights for blacks after the Civil War.

The National Sheriff’s Asso­ci­a­tion has sup­ported admin­is­tra­tion efforts to com­bat gun vio­lence after the Sandy Hook Ele­men­tary shoot­ings. Pres­i­dent Larry Amer­son, sher­iff of Cal­houn, Ala., said he under­stands the frus­tra­tions of peo­ple in rural areas with the fed­eral gov­ern­ment. But he feels his oath of office binds him to uphold all laws.

“Any sher­iff who knows his duty knows we don’t enforce fed­eral law, per se,” said Amer­son, a long­time firearms instruc­tor and hunter.

Some rural sher­iffs view the fed­eral gov­ern­ment as an adver­sary, with gun own­er­ship at the core of that belief.

In Min­nesota, Pine County Sher­iff Robin Cole sent an open let­ter to res­i­dents say­ing he did not believe the fed­eral gov­ern­ment had the right to tell the states how to reg­u­late firearms. He said he would refuse to enforce any fed­eral man­date he felt vio­lated con­sti­tu­tional rights.

The Con­sti­tu­tional Sher­iffs and Peace Offi­cers Asso­ci­a­tion, based in Fred­er­icks­burg, Texas, encour­ages that point of view. Founder Richard Mack, a for­mer sher­iff of Apache County, Ariz., speaks reg­u­larly at gath­er­ings of Tea Party groups and gun rights organizations.

“I will tell Mr. Obama and every­body else who wants to impose gun con­trol in Amer­ica, that whether you like it or not, it is against the law,” said Mack. “Now we have good sher­iffs who are stand­ing up and defend­ing the law against our own president.”

Posted by Randa Wagner on Jan 17 2013. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS Feed. Both comments and pings are currently closed.