Oregon Judge accuses Sheriffs of being “racist and white nationalist"

[TroglocratsRdumb]

Judge Jim Egan of the Oregon Court of Appeals ruled that the sheriffs did not have the authority to create sanctuaries that “create a ‘patchwork quilt’ of firearms laws in Oregon,” further saying that the sheriffs' arguments go in the “dustbin,” according to the ruling. Sheriffs in Oregon began to introduce Second Amendment sanctuaries after Oregon passed Ballot Measure 114, which requires background checks, firearm training, fingerprint collection and a permit to purchase any firearm.
Egan ruled that local governments cannot declare themselves Second Amendment sanctuaries, further saying that the sheriffs that implemented a Second Amendment ordinance were embracing “racist and white nationalist ideologies.”

Oregon Court Rules Sheriffs’ Refusal To Enforce Anti-Gun Laws Is ‘Racist,’ Embraces ‘White Nationalism’

An Oregon judge ruled Wednesday that local governments can not declare themselves Second Amendment sanctuaries, according to the ruling.

dailycaller.com

Comment:
This anti second amendment Judge seems to be irrational and paranoid.
He believes that wanting to be able to defend yourself is a secret racist white nationalist plot.
The right to be able to defend yourself is the most basic human right.
People just want to be able to defend themselves from the Democrat Party's beloved criminals and terrorists.

 

[DudleySmith]

lol when he repeals that 'sanctuary city' nonsense for criminal illegal aliens let us know. He's just another hypocrite and phony. And of course a liar.

Map: Sanctuary Cities, Counties, and States

Updated 3/10/25: Map and list of sanctuary cities, counties, and state that are obstructing federal immigration enforcement.

cis.org

 

[DudleySmith]

Judge Jim Egan of the Oregon Court of Appeals ruled that the sheriffs did not have the authority to create sanctuaries that “create a ‘patchwork quilt’ of firearms laws in Oregon,” further saying that the sheriffs' arguments go in the “dustbin,” according to the ruling. Sheriffs in Oregon began to introduce Second Amendment sanctuaries after Oregon passed Ballot Measure 114, which requires background checks, firearm training, fingerprint collection and a permit to purchase any firearm.
Egan ruled that local governments cannot declare themselves Second Amendment sanctuaries, further saying that the sheriffs that implemented a Second Amendment ordinance were embracing “racist and white nationalist ideologies.”

Oregon Court Rules Sheriffs’ Refusal To Enforce Anti-Gun Laws Is ‘Racist,’ Embraces ‘White Nationalism’

An Oregon judge ruled Wednesday that local governments can not declare themselves Second Amendment sanctuaries, according to the ruling.

dailycaller.com

Comment:
This anti second amendment Judge seems to be irrational and paranoid.
He believes that wanting to be able to defend yourself is a secret racist white nationalist plot.
The right to be able to defend yourself is the most basic human right.
People just want to be able to defend themselves from the Democrat Party's beloved criminals and terrorists.

View attachment 757642View attachment 757643

lol I like the pic with the sign.

 

[DudleySmith]

gan ruled that local governments cannot declare themselves Second Amendment sanctuaries, further saying that the sheriffs that implemented a Second Amendment ordinance were embracing “racist and white nationalist ideologies.”

Egan hates it when white people defend themselves from violent racist black and brown thugs.

 

[EvilCat Breath]

Egan hates it when white people defend themselves from violent racist black and brown thugs.

Self defense is racist.

 

[DudleySmith]

Self defense is racist.

Somebody should ask him what he thinks about Maxine Waters refusing to live in her own Congressional district if whites owning firearms is 'racist'.

 

[excalibur]

Another derp in a dirty black robe. Has he no idea that one of the biggest reasons for the 14th Amendment was to give 2nd Amendment rights to blacks?

 

[AMart]

Yeah that is an anti constitutional ruling.

 

[SavannahMann]

lol when he repeals that 'sanctuary city' nonsense for criminal illegal aliens let us know. He's just another hypocrite and phony. And of course a liar.

Map: Sanctuary Cities, Counties, and States

Updated 3/10/25: Map and list of sanctuary cities, counties, and state that are obstructing federal immigration enforcement.

cis.org

You do understand there is no real comparison don’t you.

First. Immigration is exclusively a Federal Right and Responsibility. Second. The Supreme Court has ruled that only the Federal Government has the Constitutional Right to determine and enforce Immigration Law.

But let’s go ahead and compare shall we? What is it that is so awful that the locals are doing? They are not honoring Detainer Requests. So what is a Detainer Request?

Immigration Detainers | American Civil Liberties Union

www.aclu.org

To put it simply. It is not a legal order. It is not a warrant. It is not a lawful document requiring action. It is a form letter asking the local cops to hold the suspect for an addition 48 hours after he is supposed to be released. So let’s put that simply. After the locals have no reason to hold the arrestee legally. The ICE agents want them to hold the fellow for two more days under dubious and probably unconstitutional circumstances.

Remember. The Supreme Court has ruled that the States have no right to enforce Immigration laws.

Now if it was an actual Warrant signed by a Judge, the locals would have no choice but to hold the guy. But it isn’t a warrant. It is a letter asking the locals to take actions which may leave them in jeopardy of civil or criminal penalties. In other words. They can and probably will be sued. And their defense of. Well ICE asked us to isn’t going to be much of a defense.

Finally. What else do the Immigration Sanctuary City folks do? They tell the cops not to ask questions and not to call anyone if they suspect the individual may be illegal.

Again. The court decided that the local cops could ask that question, but were not required to do so.

Compare it with the so called Second Amendment Sanctuary. In this case the Sheriffs are refusing to enforce State Law. A level of law they are required by law to enforce. They are empowered and required to do just that. That is why we have local cops, to enforce local laws, locally.

Now. Even if the Sheriff believes that a law is unconstitutional, he is still legally required to enforce it until or unless the law is shot down by the Courts. That is the way our system works. That is the way it has worked for a very long time.

This isn’t anything new. Failure to do so is actually criminal. Malfeasance. Dereliction of duty.

If you don’t like a law, no problem. File a legal challenge. Donate to a group that is filing a legal challenge. But ignoring the law is done at your own peril. Even if the law is later found unconstitutional, you could still end up in prison.

 

[DudleySmith]

You do understand there is no real comparison don’t you.

You do understand you're just making up handwaves and excuses for a crooked judge don't you?

 

[DudleySmith]

emember. The Supreme Court has ruled that the States have no right to enforce Immigration laws.

There is no 'Constitutional law', we're ruled by judical fiat, which means any Federal judge can rule however he wants, and nobody will do a thing about it.

 

[TheParser]

Comment:
This anti second amendment Judge seems to be irrational and paranoid.

Of course, I do not know whether that judge is "irrational and paranoid."

But I do know that he is one lucky person: he (or one of his loved ones) has probably never been smashed in the face by one of the many violent predators who roam our city streets.

 

[SavannahMann]

There is no 'Constitutional law', we're ruled by judical fiat, which means any Federal judge can rule however he wants, and nobody will do a thing about it.

Actually. There is. The Supreme Court determines what is and isn’t Constitutional.

Arizona v. United States - Wikipedia

en.m.wikipedia.org

That as I said has been the standard for a very long time. Because you are ignorant does not mean it is untrue.

 

[DudleySmith]

Actually. There is. The Supreme Court determines what is and isn’t Constitutional.

Arizona v. United States - Wikipedia

en.m.wikipedia.org

That as I said has been the standard for a very long time. Because you are ignorant does not mean it is untrue.

Rubbish. So you think this Federal judge is right on this, but you also think he can not rule the same on locals deliberately encouraging violations of Federal law by declaring themselves 'sanctuary cities', and in the case of Oregon a 'sanctuary state'???

lol you're just sad. Take a nap. you're babbling again.

 

[SavannahMann]

You do understand you're just making up handwaves and excuses for a crooked judge don't you?

Not at all. I’m describing the differences. I live in Georgia. Let’s say a cop asks a witness to a crime if he is here illegally. The witness says yes he is. Then the man walks away. The local cop can do absolutely nothing to stop him from walking away.

The cop is prohibited from enforcing Federal Law.

Scenario two. Juan Hernandez is arrested for DUI. He sobers up in jail and posts bond. The cops get a detainer request. Juan is held for two days. Juan is a citizen. You have just held him without charges for two days. He sues and wins six figures from your county. Who pays? The Feds aren’t going to. They didn’t hold him. You as a taxpayer will.

That is why a lot of cities object to the detainer request. It is not a legal defense if the identification is wrong. The locals are responsible since they are the ones holding him.

 

[DudleySmith]

The Supreme Court determines what is and isn’t Constitutional.

Actually they just rule by whim and fashion. But you wouldn't admit that.

 

[SavannahMann]

Rubbish. So you think this Federal judge is right on this, but you also think he can not rule the same on locals deliberately encouraging violations of Federal law by declaring themselves 'sanctuary cities', and in the case of Oregon a 'sanctuary state'???

lol you're just sad. Take a nap. you're babbling again.

The Supreme Court stated unequivocally. The Federal Government is solely responsible and empowered to create and enforce immigration laws.

 

[DudleySmith]

Not at all. I’m describing the differences. I live in Georgia. Let’s say a cop asks a witness to a crime if he is here illegally. The witness says yes he is. Then the man walks away. The local cop can do absolutely nothing to stop him from walking away.

The cop is prohibited from enforcing Federal Law.

Scenario two. Juan Hernandez is arrested for DUI. He sobers up in jail and posts bond. The cops get a detainer request. Juan is held for two days. Juan is a citizen. You have just held him without charges for two days. He sues and wins six figures from your county. Who pays? The Feds aren’t going to. They didn’t hold him. You as a taxpayer will.

That is why a lot of cities object to the detainer request. It is not a legal defense if the identification is wrong. The locals are responsible since they are the ones holding him.

And so what? We already know criminal illegal aliens are a protected species. Your weird excuses don't change anything. Just becasue the Feds aren't enforcing laws isn't a good excuse. Crimijnal illegal aliens violate more than just one law by being here.

 

[SavannahMann]

Actually they just rule by whim and fashion. But you wouldn't admit that.

So overturning Roe was a whim? Got it.

 

[SavannahMann]

And so what? We already know criminal illegal aliens are a protected species. Your weird excuses don't change anything.

It is not that he is protected. It is the man hasn’t done anything to warrant an arrest. He hasn’t committed a crime the cop is empowered to enforce.

Without a warrant, or suspicion of a crime that the cop can enforce, there is nothing the cop can do.