Courts rule on laws' constitutionality, not sheriffs

Teri Love /


Published Feb 13, 2013 at 04:00AM / Updated Nov 19, 2013 at 12:31AM

I’m writing concerning the Around the State section in The Bulletin dated Jan. 16, and the statement by Sheriff Tim Mueller of Linn County, Oregon:

Shame on you Sheriff Tim Mueller. You are the one exploiting your position as sheriff to voice your views on new gun legislation. You are misusing your power as a sheriff whose job is to defend and protect every person in your covered territory, yet you take a stand against anyone who does not believe as you do by stating you will not do your job and enforce any new laws. It is not your job to determine whether a law is to be enforced by your opinion. That is for the judge, jury and Supreme Court to decide. You should be removed from office if you publicly state you will not do the job you are being paid to do.

Putting restrictions on certain semi-automatic firearms and ammunition magazines would not be a violation of peoples’ right to bear arms. It is being sensible in the interpretation of the Second Amendment. If this had been done many years ago, think about how many lives could have been saved. It would not be a violation of the Constitution if new laws were amended into our Constitution. So I suggest you do your job and protect and serve and leave the Constitution to the people we elected to do their job in legislating the laws and amendments.

Think about this: I am certain semi-automatic rifles with multiple magazines are not standard issue for deputies or police patrolmen. Would those deputies or the patrolmen want to go up against a person armed with assault rifles when they go to every domestic violence call or have one of those firearms pointed in their faces when they pull someone irate over for a traffic violation they don’t feel they incurred? I don’t believe the families of those deputies or patrolmen would want to think about those possibilities every day their loved one is on duty. This makes me wonder if this argument is really more about the age-old thought that bigger is better or a “real man” carries a bigger weapon. Or possibly in the same vein, women feel they are just as strong and powerful as a man if they have a bigger gun to equalize the power. I believe the better way to think about this is brains always prevail over brawn.

President Obama is not exploiting the deaths of innocent victims, rather defining the problem and stating his obvious reasons for making necessary changes in the current laws. It is because there have been so many similar innocent victims due to the use of assault and semi-automatic weapons with multiple clips that these changes are necessary. These are real-life situations turned deadly and tragic. This has to stop. More people carrying guns are not going to help the current situation in this country. We are not a third-world country that wants guns in our schools to protect our children. We must think about small children getting their hands on these guns in the schools and possibly causing accidental shootings.

Just because someone is trained to use a firearm does not mean they will be able to pull the trigger on another human being in times of stress. It is time to be sensible, logical and civilized toward gun control in our country.