Oregon voters narrowly approved the anti-gun rights Ballot Measure 114 last week and several county sheriffs are refusing to enforce at least part of it. The sheriffs have publicly denounced Measure 114 as unconstitutional and an infringement on citizens’ Second Amendment rights. They also say Measure 114 is too expensive since the state will provide no funding for the extra employees and processes necessary for implementation and enforcement.
Measure 114: What it Is
Here’s what Measure 114 does, in a nutshell:
- Requires permits issued by local law enforcement to buy a firearm.
- Requires photo ID, fingerprints, safety training, criminal background check, and fee payment to apply for a permit. Applicants must pay for the training themselves and the permit can cost up to $65.00.
- Prohibits manufacturing, importing, purchasing, selling, possessing, using, or transferring ammunition magazines capable of holding more than 10 rounds and makes violations a class A misdemeanor.
The Oregon State Sheriffs Association opposed the measure, but said it expected its members to enforce the law. Several individual sheriffs aren’t buying it. Some sheriffs noted the measure’s unconstitutionality before election day, along with its unfunded expenses.
An Expensive Proposition
Measure 114 is expected to cost $55 million in the first biennium with ongoing costs of $50 million per biennium. As noted, the state provides no funding for that, and localities are expected to pick up the tab. Projected revenues from permit fees, even if every county charged the maximum allowed, total only $19.5 million per biennium.
You don’t have to be a math genius to see how that works. The only solution will be raising taxes, forcing all residents to pay for Measure 114, whether they own guns or not. Permit holders will pay extra: once for the permit and then with ongoing taxes.
What Sheriffs are Saying
At least 6 of Oregon’s 36 county sheriffs have publicly stated they will use discretion in enforcing Measure 114. Linn County Sheriff Michelle Duncan wrote on her office’s Facebook page that “This is a terrible law for gun owners, crime victims, and public safety. I want to send a clear message to Linn County residents that the Linn County Sheriff’s Office is NOT going to be enforcing magazine capacity limits. This measure is poorly written and there is still a lot that needs to be sorted out…I want to ensure anything we do or don’t do will not hinder gunowners’ rights to purchase firearms, intentionally or unintentionally.” Duncan added that she hopes the measure will be challenged in court.
Union County Sheriff Cody Bowen, again on Facebook, echoed Duncan: “As Union County Sheriff I agree 100% with Sheriff Duncan. This is an infringement on our constitutional rights and will not be enforced by my office. This measure will only harm law abiding gun owners and result in wasted time with additional redundant background checks. With no funding from the state to provide additional payroll costs this will ultimately sacrifice patrol and deputy presence in our community.”
Bowen also spoke to his critics, saying, “To the people who chime in with me picking and choosing which laws I want to enforce or not enforce! Hear this! When it comes to our constitutional rights, I’ll fight to the death to defend them. No matter what crazy law comes out of Salem!”
Malheur County Sheriff Brian Wolfe agreed. “That is just the way it’s going to be,” he said. “We have already made that decision. The supreme law of the land is the Constitution of the United States, and I believe that this measure is totally contrary to the Constitution.”
When asked by a reporter whether he has the authority to supersede state law, Wolfe replied “I don’t think this is superseding anything. I don’t believe I am superseding state law by not enforcing it. Anybody in law enforcement, including the state police, including the governor, has to pick and choose what laws they are going to be able to enforce.”
Crook County Sheriff John Gautney said on Facebook that he is “adamantly opposed to this ill-conceived attempt to restrict our right to legal firearm ownership.” Jefferson County Sheriff Jason Pollock wrote that “I believe Measure 114 is a violation of the United States Constitution and is contrary to current federal court precedent.” Sherman County Sheriff Brad Lohrey merely said, through Undersheriff James Burgett, that “our office would not enforce Measure 114.”
Can Sheriffs Refuse to Enforce Measure 114?
Sheriffs are different from the police. Sheriffs are elected Constitutional officers, making them beholden to the Constitution itself, instead of county or city administrators. Sheriff Wolfe noted that all law enforcement agencies, and even individual officers or officials, regularly set enforcement priorities. Sheriff Gautney said that Measure 114 would receive the “lowest priority.”
Since sheriffs only answer to the voters, they are far more likely to be in tune with what their constituents want and more likely to actively protect their Constitutional rights. Many argue that protecting those rights is the sheriff’s primary duty, even before enforcing laws. So, neither state nor county officials can order a sheriff to enforce a law they deem unconstitutional. The voters may turn out that sheriff come election time, but they are the only ones who can.
Keep in mind that state and local police forces can still enforce Measure 114 within those counties, as instructed by their superiors. The sheriffs only control their departments.
A State Measure Funded by Out-of-State Interests
Measure 114 was spearheaded by the inter-faith group, Lift Every Voice, chaired by Lutheran Pastor Mark Knutson of Portland. His organization raised approximately $2.4 million, mostly from out-of-state activists.
Seattle philanthropist Connie Ballmer contributed $750,000; Seattle Venture Capitalist Nicolas Hanauer and the dark money group Sixteen Thirty Fund each gave $250,000; the Michael Bloomberg-funded Everytown for Gun Safety donated $155,000, and the National Education Association chipped in $125,000 worth of its members fees. Bloomberg and Hanauer fund anti-gun initiatives all over the United States.
Hanauer is famous for decrying big money in politics, saying that wealthy elites should not influence elections. But he routinely infuses millions of dollars into anti-gun initiatives like Measure 114.
Despite its alleged stranglehold on gun policy, the National Rifle Association’s $125,000 contribution was dwarfed by the gun control supporters. The next largest donor was the Oregon Firearms Federation PAC with $31,000. Measure 114’s opponents raised only $200,000 in total. So much for the gun lobby supposedly suppressing gun control laws with all its money.
Passing with only 50.8 percent of the vote, it seems accurate to say that the out-of-state gun controllers bought Measure 114, much as they did the 2019 Virginia General Assembly races.
Legal Challenges Coming
Several Oregon sheriffs expressed hope that Measure 114’s constitutionality would be challenged in court. The Second Amendment Foundation, the Oregon Firearms Federation, and other gun rights advocacy groups are reportedly preparing to ask a judge for a temporary restraining order and a preliminary injunction to block Measure 114’s implementation on Constitutional grounds.
Just like laws passed by legislatures, voter initiatives like Measure 114 can be challenged. We will keep you updated on how this one goes. If the courts refuse to block Measure 114, watch for this to become a new tactic for anti-gun groups moving forward.
