But one letter — written by Linn County Sheriff Tim Mueller and sent to Biden — does stand out because it goes a step further than most of the others: Mueller declared that he would not permit federal law enforcement officials to enforce such a law in Linn County.
“In summary, it is the position of this Sheriff that I refuse to participate, or stand idly by, while my citizens are turned into criminals due to the unconstitutional actions of misguided politicians,” Mueller said. His comments were shared more than 57,000 times and 48,000 “likes” on Facebook.
I understand how the efforts of President Obama and Vice-President Biden to push for something resembling gun control is a hot-button issue. People on both sides of the debate have had their say, in some cases engaging in some ridiculously overheated rhetoric (see Alex “How many chimpanzees can dance of the head of a pin?” Jones).
It’s silly and disturbing enough when civilians engage in all manner of rhetorical combat. Here in Oregon, though, several sheriffs have made it clear that they may well refuse to enforce any additional federal gun control laws. That’s interesting, because a sheriff, of all people, should understand that they simply don’t have the option of ignoring laws they find repugnant or inconvenient. Law enforcement officers are enforcers of the law, not interpreters of it. Sure, I get that sheriffs, being elected officials, are preaching to the choir and they want to reassure people that they won’t be involved in taking anyone’s guns…but threatening refusal to enforce a law? I’d like to think that law enforcement- at least in their official capacity- would be above the partisan Sturm un Drang…but that may not in fact be the case. That’s just wrong.
Here’s the thing, though; if federal law called for weapons to be confiscated, law enforcement officers (sheriffs included) would be required to enforce the law. They might vigorously disagree with such a law, as is their 1st Amendment right, but they don’t get to refuse enforce it. Refusal would place them in violation of the law and their professional responsibilities…and the consequences that would flow from such unprofessionalism.
Tung Yin, a law professor at Lewis & Clark Law School in Portland, says Mueller may be walking on thin legal ice.
“It’s one thing for the sheriffs to say, ‘We’re not going to lift a finger to help you take guns away from our people,’” said Yin. “That’s OK. It’s another thing for the sheriffs to say, ‘Not only are we not going to lift a finger to help you, we’re going to do everything we can to stop you.’”
Yin said a sheriff interfering with federal agents enforcing federal laws would run afoul of the supremacy clause in Article 6 of the U.S. Constitution, which says federal law trumps state law, even state constitutions. “Whatever view that the sheriffs have of the Second Amendment would have to give way to the federal law,” Yin said.
If federal law makes certain types of weapons illegal, sheriffs like Tim Mueller would be required to enforce that law. Federal law trumps every other law, as it also trumps an individual’s opinion. Mueller and his colleagues are free to their opinions, of course, but they have two choices: enforce the law or turn in their badge. It’s that simple.
There’s certainly nothing wrong with sheriffs reassuring citizens that they support their rights. They are, after all, dependent upon the continued good will of the residents of their counties for their continued gainful employment. Ultimately, though, the choice of whether or not to enforce a law is not their call. Mueller and his colleagues, in refusing to enforce federal gun laws, would themselves be violating the law. In the final analysis, I have to believe that sheriffs will recognize their responsibility and conform to it. They may not like it, but they’re professionals and enforcing the law is what they do…regardless of their opinion. If for some reason they find themselves unable to do their duty, they need to find another line of work.
