I subscribe to a number of mailing lists of people whom I consider my political opponents, because it is “best to keep your friends close, and your enemies closer.” One of these lists is the one managed by the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence, which might better be called, the “Brady Campaign to Destroy the Second Amendment to the Constitution”, if they were being honest about their goals. But honesty is not a strength of the organization. To wit, their latest campaign to try and shame Oregon Sheriff John Hanlin into resigning, for daring to 1) have an opinion, publicly, that they disagree with, and 2) daring to state, publicly, that any hypothetically implemented unconstitutional laws passed would not be enforced by his department.
You have made clear that you will not enforce Oregon’s expanded background check law – which is supported by the overwhelming majority of Oregonians and works to keep guns only out of the hands of dangerous, prohibited purchasers.
No, actually, Sheriff Hanlin made no such thing clear. The specific incident that is being deliberately obfuscated here is as follows:
When Vice President Joe Biden asked for stricter gun laws after the Newtown killings, Hanlin decided to speak up.
He wrote Biden a letter. “Gun control is NOT the answer to preventing heinous crimes like school shootings,” Hanlin wrote in a letter posted on the Sheriff’s Office’s Facebook page.
He asked that Biden “NOT tamper with or attempt to amend the 2nd Amendment,” and informed the vice president he didn’t plan to enforce any laws he found unconstitutional. His deputies wouldn’t either.
Further, the Brady Campaign smear piece goes on:
Your very job is to enforce the law and you intend to violate your duties and sworn responsibilities.
Strangely, they showed no such concern when San Francisco’s sheriff actively refused to enforce immigration law, which led to the death of Kate Steinle, at the hand of Juan Francisco Lopez-Sanchez, Mexican national, with a stolen BLM gun.
Even more strangely, they showed no such concern towards BATFE, when they encouraged straw purchases of over 2000 weapons, and subsequently let those weapons be moved over the border into Mexican drug cartels’ hands, where they have been used to kill not only innocent Mexicans, but also a Border Patrol agent in the US, Brian Terry.
Not content with just taking an out-of-context quote in their whining, posturing missive, the Brady Campaign went on:
You have also shown that you subscribe to theories that both the 9/11 and Sandy Hook tragedies were government conspiracies designed to disarm the public. Anyone with these views is not fit to serve as a protector of public safety, no less lead the important, sensitive investigation into the tragedy at Umpqua Community College and what could have been done to prevent it.
Sheriff Hanlin posted a link, now gone, to a “Sandy Hook Shooting” hoax video on youtube. Sheriff Hanlin has since overtly stated that he does not believe that the Sandy Hook Shooting was a hoax or conspiracy, but never mind that; the real crime, in the Brady Campaign’s estimation, is, of course, that Sheriff Hanlin disagrees with the Brady Campaign’s goals, and so he must be humiliated and forced out of his elected office. Posting a screen shot of someone else posting a link to something you find objectionable is hardly proof that the person in question agrees with the content you’ve got your panties in a bunch over. For instance, I posted a link in the start of this article to the Brady Campaign’s sloppy rhetoric that I’ve discussed throughout this entry, but that doesn’t actually imply that I agree with anything they said. Link != endorsement, after all.
The real problem I have with the Brady Campaign’s effort here is two-fold; 1) for them to use their national exposure to try and depose a legally elected law enforcement officer in an area that elected him likely because they, as a community, feel the same way about subjects like the 2nd Amendment as Sheriff Hanlin, himself, does, is detestable. 2) For them to go to such efforts as twisting his words from two years ago into an implication that an action he was never forced to take (since no unconstitutional laws were passed that he was required to enforce) means that he bears some responsibility for the actions of the sociopath who inflicted such pain and misery upon his victims is indicative of some level of desperation on behalf of the Brady Campaign.
At the same time, I do find it amusing just how easily distracted they are from their primary goal of pushing legislation while emotions are still high; it is this reactive tendency which I believe will ultimately help lead to their inevitable defeat. OH LOOK, SQUIRREL! Do what now?