I’m sure they’ll immediately apply this same ruling to all the left-leaning sanctuary cities that refuse to do anything about illegal drugs or illegal migrants. 
Who can tell what impact an Oregon Court of Appeals decision about a single county will or can have on the more than 1,200 local governments throughout the US that have declared themselves 2nd Amendment sanctuary communities.
In Colorado, where I live, the legislature passed a magazine capacity restriction law limiting capacity to 15 rounds. But, go to any gun show and many gun stores and you can find and buy magazines with larger capacities. Local law enforcement chooses not to enforce those laws, just as Colorado chooses not to enforce federal drug laws criminalizing marijuana possession, sale and consumption.
The slippery slope is that when local authorities decide what laws they will or will not enforce, they become lawmakers rather than the elected state or even federal lawmakers. Then, there is the risk/uncertainty individuals face when future groups of local authorities decide that they will enforce laws passed by the legislature.
We’ll see, I guess. Meanwhile, in the State of Washington some law makers want to allow local governments to make their own gun laws… as long as they restrict gun owners rights to a greater extent than the state. HB1178.
To me, “common sense gun law” means making it easier for law abiding citizens to abide by the law through sensible and understandable legislation. But to the left, it’s a matter of how can we trap gun owners – all gun owners, law abiding or not – into being prosecuted and having their right to own firearms taken away.
BTW, here in New Mexico, some representatives want to enact a ban on any magazine that holds 10 or more rounds as a “large capacity magazine,” violators of which being subject to a fourth degree felony charge. HB50.
…and once they declare you a felon, they can revoke your right to own firearms.
This came about when left leaning Salt Lake City wanted to turn into Chicago, well, at least they wanted to regulate the hell out of firearms.
The ol’ one, two punch.
Kinda fits into the ridiculousness of “If you have nothing to hide you hide nothing” or “If you’re not breaking the law why worry”. Well today I have nothing to hide, I’m perfectly legal, I’m breaking no laws. But tomorrow?
@Alces_Americanus Have you checked out SB171, HB101? Troublesome! NM not looking good if these bills pass. 
J. Block’s Permitless Carry HB164 was tabled. 
Nice try J, Block 
Yes, I’ve been keeping an eye on all of the gun bills, @Ronald150. Did you see how HB101 came back from Consumer & Public Affairs with a Do Pass on the their “substitution?” The original bill was 5 pages, and their sub was 16 pages. It should be voted down based upon that alone.
Having local law makers restrict gun rights also means: (1) a patchwork of rules and laws that guarantee they will be incomprehensible to the gun owning public; and, (2) local governments will use their war chests of taxpayer dollars rather than the state to defend dumb gun laws. In Colorado, the gun laws in the Denver and Boulder corridor differ a lot from the rest of the state. It’s dicey to have a firearm in your car much less carry one concealed when visiting these areas.
It’s also true in other areas, as well where local law enforcement makes up laws. For example, my former sheriff in a rural county reported CCW owners to the NCIS (National Criminal Information System) where criminals names come up when confronted by local cops. He also used his discretionary powers to deny CCW permits to political opponents even though Colorado is theoretically a “shall issue” state. Those things are illegal under Colorado’s state laws, but to challenge them means the plaintiff gets to spend his/her own money to challenge the sheriff who can draw on a virtually unlimited warchest of local taxpayer dollars and the county attorney.
Of course. And this won’t change until people like your sheriff are held personally accountable when they violate the law.