Oregon sheriff says he won't enforce new gun laws
Jan 16, 2013 | 13 Comments
Only online subscribers may access this article. Subscribe online by clicking here . Already a subscriber, please log in
• High speed pursuit ends in McMinnville (4451)
• Sheriff's office investigating rock quarry theft (3331)
• Did Oregon miss chance to stop a serial killer? (2393)
• A simple message for the people of 'O' (2218)
• Need warm couch Saturday night; will contribute game of juggle (2028)
• Feline obesity at all time high (1988)
• Clair Sarsozo - Navigating grief (1835)
• Weekend Tempo 5/10/2013 (1738)
• Dribbling 'free spirit' touches local family before untimely death (1732)
• One DSA winner was missing (1546)
• A simple message for the people of 'O' (6)
• Need warm couch Saturday night; will contribute game of juggle (3)
• City and county sued for excessive use of force (3)
• Grange proves a hit with vendors, shoppers (2)
• Oregon Senate OKs bill letting moms keep placentas (2)
• Oregon budget talks gain momentum with econ report (2)
• Mixed media (1)
• With simple fall comes devastating diagnosis (1)


Would you like to comment on this article?
Only online subscribers may comment on articles. Click here to see how you can subscribe.
Already a subscriber, please log in
Comments
SHERIFF CRABTREE:
Can the citizens of Yamhill County expect the same kind of service?
I hope to see a powerful announcement in the NR next week.
Re Yamhill County’s Sheriff, he took a thoughtful and courageous stand when he fought to prevent publishing the names of concealed weapon permit holders. I have faith he will honor his oath and do the right thing with regard to this issue as well.
I believe that 'Sheriff''s (in particular) no matter the county they are elected to serve have always prioritized to what degree the enforcement of any law will be, under his ..or .. watch.
That being said, a Sheriffs deputy who held the rank of Sargent at the time once retrieved a 5 gallon can of gasoline from the trunk of his patrol cruiser and poured it into the gas tank of the car I'd been riding-in. The time was about 20:00 and my buddies and I had run out of gas out on highway 1 (we'd been traveling North towards town) and the deputy had asked me why we were all so agitated.
I'd explained to the deputy just prior to his giving us his spare 5 gallons of gasoline, that at the time we'd ran out of fuel, we were headed to town to kick the crap out of a bunch of 3rd string 49's that we had heard had offered cocaine to some of the local gals.
He said---> "oK boys! You'll be go'n North, and I'll be go'n South, just give me a two minute head start."
That deputy later on got himself elected Sheriff of Mendocino County, based on his proven ability to prioritize. True story.
I take your point and agree that discretion is useful and necessary. However, I still view this approach as dangerous macho grandstanding. In my (humble?) opinion, there is an undercurrent of unfounded fear and paranoia driving the discussion. I can understand why the NRA feeds it (BIG profits for their gun/ammo manufacturers – AT OUR EXPENSE I might add) but the foundation of a civilized society is that we all agree to live by the rules. Without our compliance, the alternative is anarchy. We need calm and reason from our public officials, not this counter-productive display of inflammatory rhetoric.
As a law-abiding gun owner and former corrections officer, I am trying to understand the debate from both sides. (And as I process the information, I remain absolutely POSITIVE that no one is “coming for our guns,” regardless of the hysteria these few knee-jerkers foment with their hypocritical public “declarations.”) I assume we can all agree that we DO want laws enforced to try to keep weapons out of the hands of crazy people and criminals. It’s a start?
So, are you going to share the results of your sanctioned confrontation? I sure would like to hear how it all played out.
My personal opinion is we need to change the constitution or we will become obsolete with it, let those aliver become the voice government follows, not thise of the dead so government can take advantage.
troy prouty*
Yeah... well ..no doubt that a majority of Americans once upon a time would have voted to ban high-capacity arrow quivers and limited native Americans to possession of only one pointy stick for the purpose of hunting & home/self defense.
Of course there were no auto or semi-auto weapons back in those days, surely none mentioned in the 2nd Amendment, but, then again, I don't think that anyone had envisioned the 1st Amendment being interpreted to protect such extreme ideas as to what actually constitutes speech, in these times.
As for myself, as a convicted felon, have had my own ability to defend my home reduced/curtailed to the use a pointy stick, Troy.
troy*
wink..
martinarchery.com
troy*
Apparently, he'd gotten a little emotional as well as arrested for the crime of 'perching' himself in a tree. I'm think'n that the judge probably was concerned about some guy perched in a tree having too much access to so many sticks in an urban enviroment.
I mean think about that, who in their right mind should be allowed that kinda access to so such 'poking power' within a city's limits?
this time.. wink...
I also go for the chains with pipes so they don't know where to cut.
I say block off K street. Use Rodent repellant on the whole street.
troy*