俄勒冈州SALEM。当地政府能否禁止警察执行某些枪支法律的第一次法庭测试正在俄勒冈州的一个农村县进行，这是美国宣布自己为第二修正案避难所的一波县之一。
哥伦比亚县伐木区的选民去年勉强通过的这项措施禁止地方官员执行大多数联邦和州枪支法律，并可能对那些试图这样做的人处以数千美元的罚款。
第二修正案保护区决议已经被美国各州约1200个地方政府采纳，包括弗吉尼亚州、科罗拉多州、新墨西哥州、堪萨斯州、伊利诺伊州和加利福尼亚州佛罗里达州坎贝尔大学的助理法学教授肖恩·菲尔德斯跟踪了他们。许多是象征性的，但有些，像在哥伦比亚县，具有法律效力。
这场运动始于2018年左右，当时各州在大规模枪击事件后考虑制定更严格的枪支法律，包括佛罗里达州帕克兰附近的一所高中枪击案，该案造成17人死亡，幸存者成为引人注目的枪支管制活动分子。
总统之后乔·拜登就职后，几个州的保守派议员提议禁止警察执行联邦枪支措施，亚利桑那州至少有一项提议已经签署成为法律。
该运动尚未面临重大法律挑战。俄勒冈州的案件是由哥伦比亚县根据州法律中的一项不寻常的规定提起的，该规定允许法官在某项措施生效之前对其进行审查。法庭听证会的时间表尚未确定。
“这将使法院能够告诉我们该县是否真的可以拒绝执行某些州法律，它将告诉我们如何尽可能地遵守选民的意愿，”萨拉·汉森说，她是深蓝俄勒冈州倾向保守的县的律师。
该法令的支持者包括俄勒冈州枪支联合会，该联合会在11月的一份声明中表示，“极端分子”和“大城市激进分子”正试图限制枪支权利。
该组织提到波特兰抗议活动反对去年夏天偶尔演变成暴力的警察暴行，并称该法令是“常识”的一步，将“确保你捍卫自己和亲人生命的权利和能力”。
该法令将禁止执行背景调查要求和携带枪支限制等法律，尽管其他法律也有例外，包括禁止已定罪的重罪犯携带枪支。
俄勒冈枪支联合会没有回应就此案发表评论的请求。
治安官布莱恩·皮克斯利表示支持，他在3月份的一份声明中说，他的责任之一是维护人民的第二修正案权利，他渴望“按照选民的意愿前进”。
不过，这项措施在当地引起了分歧，四名居民提交了反对它的法庭文件。其中一位名叫布兰迪·杜济奇的女士提到了她在军医训练中所学的严格的枪支安全训练，她说自己珍视拥有枪支的权利，但认为应该有背景调查和安全储存等安全措施。
哥伦比亚县的一家枪支商店老板说，他支持背景调查，并认为“州法律胜过县法律。”但是他原则上投票赞成第二修正案。
“我们需要确保人们的安全。我们需要确保人们是负责任的，”他说。“但随着更多规则的出台，我们只需要确保我们没有被过度监管。”
他的条件是不透露他的身份，因为他的一些客户对枪支限制持强硬态度，他不想失去他们的业务。
一切为了枪支安全组织的附属机构，一切为了法律，正在推动这项措施被推翻。常务董事埃里克·提尔施韦尔表示，这将是美国在当前第二修正案庇护法浪潮中的第一次法庭测试。
所有人都认为该法令违反了美国宪法，美国宪法规定联邦法律取代州法律，以及州宪法和赋予州政府监管枪支权力的俄勒冈州法律。
这一决定在俄勒冈以外不会产生直接影响，但可能会发出一个信息。
“这个案件很重要，应该发出一个信息，即如果州或地方司法机关试图违宪或非法废除枪支安全法，我们准备并将诉诸法院，”提尔施韦尔说。
其他试图削弱联邦枪支限制影响的法律在法庭上进展不佳，包括2009年蒙大拿州的一项措施，该措施规定该州制造的枪支和弹药不受联邦法律管辖，以及2013年堪萨斯州的一项类似措施。
然而，最近的许多措施采取了不同的策略，将重点放在当地警方的行动上，包括罚款等处罚。
杜克大学法学院法学教授、杜克大学枪支法律中心(Duke Center for Firewall Law)联合主任达雷尔米勒(Darrell Miller)表示，就联邦法律而言，枪支权利倡导者在所谓的反征用原则下可能有一个成功的法律论点，该原则认为美国政府不能让州和地方官员执行联邦法律。他同意俄勒冈案是此类案件中的首例。
与此同时，地方执行州法律是另一回事。大多数州的法律中都没有类似的规定，俄勒冈州的司法部长在法庭文件中说，哥伦比亚县的法令与刑法和县官员的职责“不相容”。
“地方政府试图说，‘我们也不会执行州法律’....这是一个更加困难和复杂的问题，”米勒说。"国家对地方的权力要大得多."
Second Amendment sanctuaries facing 1st court test in Oregon
SALEM, Ore. -- The first court test of whether local governments can ban police from enforcing certain gun laws is playing out in a rural Oregon county, one of a wave of U.S. counties declaring itself a Second Amendment sanctuary.
The measure that voters in the logging area of Columbia County narrowly approved last year forbids local officials from enforcing most federal and state gun laws and could impose thousands of dollars in fines on those who try.
Second Amendment sanctuary resolutions have been adopted by some 1,200 local governments in states around the U.S., including Virginia, Colorado, New Mexico, Kansas, Illinois andFlorida, according to Shawn Fields, an assistant professor of law at Campbell University who tracks them. Many are symbolic, but some, like in Columbia County, carry legal force.
The movement took off around 2018, as states considered stricter gun laws in the wake of mass shootings, including a high school shooting near Parkland, Florida, that killed 17 people and made survivors into high-profile gun control activists.
After PresidentJoe Bidentook office, conservative lawmakers in several states proposed banning police from enforcing federal gun measures, and at least one proposal in Arizona has been signed into law.
The movement hasn’t yet faced a major legal challenge. The Oregon case was filed by Columbia County under an unusual provision in state law that allows a judge to examine a measure before it goes into effect. No timeline has been set for a court hearing.
“This will allow the court to tell us whether the county can actually decline to enforce certain state laws, and it will tell us how to abide by the will of the voters to the extent that we can,” said Sarah Hanson, who serves as counsel in the conservative-leaning county in deep-blue Oregon.
Supporters of the ordinance include the Oregon Firearms Federation, which said in a November statement that “extremists” and “big city radicals" were trying to curtail gun rights.
The group referenced Portland protests opposing police brutality that occasionally turned violent last summer and called the ordinance a “common sense” step that would “ensure your right and ability to defend your life and the lives of your loved ones.”
The ordinance would ban the enforcement of laws like background check requirements and restrictions on carrying a gun, though it would have exceptions for others, including keeping firearms from convicted felons.
The Oregon Firearms Federation didn’t respond to a request for comment on the court case.
Sheriff Brian Pixley has expressed support, saying in a March statement that one of his responsibilities is to uphold people's Second Amendment rights and that he's eager to “move forward with the will of the voters.”
The measure is divisive locally, though, and four residents filed court documents opposing it. One, Brandee Dudzic, referenced the strict gun safety drills she learned in military medic training, saying she values the right to own a gun but believes it should come with safety measures like background checks and secure storage.
A gun shop owner in Columbia County said he supports background checks and believes that “state law trumps the county law." But he voted in favor of the Second Amendment measure on principle.
“We need to make sure that people are safe. We need to make sure that people are responsible," he said. “But as more rules are in place, we just need to make sure that we’re not overregulated.”
He spoke on the condition he not be identified because some of his customers take a hard line against gun restrictions and he didn't want to lose their business.
Everytown Law, an affiliate of the group Everytown for Gun Safety, is pushing for the measure to be overturned. Managing Director Eric Tirschwell said it would be the nation’s first court test amid the current wave of Second Amendment sanctuary laws.
Everytown argues that the ordinance violates the U.S. Constitution, which says federal law supersedes state law, as well as the state Constitution and an Oregon law that gives the state power to regulate firearms.
The decision won't have a direct effect outside Oregon but could send a message.
“This case is important and should send the message that where state or local jurisdictions attempt to unconstitutionally or unlawfully nullify gun safety laws, we are prepared to and will go to court,” Tirschwell said.
Other laws trying to blunt the effect of federal gun restrictions haven’t fared well in court, including a 2009 Montana measure that made guns and ammunition manufactured in the state exempt from federal law and a similar 2013 measure in Kansas.
Many of the latest wave of measures, though, take a different tack by focusing on the actions of local police, including punishments like fines.
In terms of federal law, gun rights advocates may have a successful legal argument under the so-called anti-commandeering doctrine, which says the U.S. government can’t make state and local officials enforce federal law, said Darrell Miller, a professor of law at Duke Law School and co-faculty director of the Duke Center for Firearms Law. He agreed that the Oregon case is the first of its kind.
Local enforcement of state law, meanwhile, is another matter. Most states don't have similar provisions in their own legal codes, and Oregon's attorney general said in court documents that the Columbia County ordinance is “incompatible” with criminal law and the duties of county officials.
“To the extent the local government is trying to say, ‘We’re also not going to enforce state law either’ .... that’s a much more difficult and complicated position,” Miller said. “The authority of the state over localities is much, much stronger.”
