Congrats, asshole, the pigeons have come home to roost. How do you feel about Sandy Hook being a hoax now, you fucking piece of dog shit? Yeah, you’re a real stalwart for the 2nd Amendment, and a real hero for telling VP Biden that you would refuse to obey any gun laws that the administration might pass. I’m sure that this tragedy will not change your opinions one iota, and that you will continue to be a prick of major proportions. I’m sure that you will default to the Jeb Bush opinion that “stuff happens”, and the NRA belief that there can never be enough guns out there. Fucking asshole.
Link?
Here’s one that says he told Biden he wouldn’t enforce gun laws he decided weren’t constitutional.
Nothing on him saying Sandy Hook was a hoax, though.
From our good friends at Talking Points Memo…
Sorry about that. My rage overcame my sense of board etiquette. 
Shit, Chefguy, you da man! Keep on rockin’ in the Free World…
I’mma get in now before this devolves into bullshit:
Fuck John Hanlin. As a shooter, an Oregonian, and a mental health professional, I endorse and agree with the OP in every particular.
OK, it looks like the letter said he wouldn’t enforce executive orders. I was too hasty and thought it said laws, not executive orders. Although a dickish letter, he’s in the legal right, there. The president doesn’t have the authority to give orders to county employees.
Still hate the guy.
The link in post #4 contains an expanded version of that quote that implies he wouldn’t enforce regulations enacted by Congress, either.
I wish some reporter had the balls to ask him “Do you still think Sandy Hook was a hoax?”
He just said to “keep an open mind” on the issues! You know, “teach the controversy”.
Sorry, but I don’t think he can hide behind the Just Asking Questions skirt. If he posted it, he must have found it to have merit.
“… anymore”, he continued sotto voce.
“…in public…”
I think he’s grandstanding with that “I’m not going to name the shooter” thing in the hopes that this will become the story, rather than his past idiocy.
“I won’t tell you who the shooter was. But be sure to send me any tips you can about him.” Ummm…
Not naming the shooter is to deprive perpetrators of infamy. There is thought that part of the reason people commit spree killings is to push their message or get fame. Not naming the person, not publishing their manifestos, etc. is a way to combat that. Here is what this particular perpetrator said about the on camera killing of the news employees in Virginia:
We’ll never know if that event planted the seed. Not naming the shooter doesn’t seem like a terrible idea.
I know nothing about this particular sheriff, but there are a few high profile sheriffs who have stated they will not enforce various gun laws for various reasons, including that they are ineffective or low priority. Here are examples in Colorado, another Oregonexample, New York, and Missouri.
Yeah, the guy is a dick who thinks he has the rights of an appellate court to disregard laws he finds unconstitutional, but not naming the shooter is the correct thing to do.
He doesn’t need tips from anybody, and while not naming the shooter won’t undo the 9 deaths he caused, it might start a trend which might make some would-be shooter in the future, who has narcissistic personality disorder, not go through with it.
I understand his intent, but there is no evidence that not naming the person does anything to help avoid publicity. I can understand and agree with not publishing a manifesto, and avoiding things like provocative photos of the shooter holding guns. But leaving off the name hinders the investigation into what caused it and if any preventative steps could have been taken. When it’s a sheriff who advocates against gun restrictions, and some of those preventative steps might include discussions about guns, it pegs my bullshit meter. Hell, even the relatively conservative Oregonian editorial board called him out on it.
So what? If there’s a mass shooting in one of their towns, I’ll call them out on it too.
It worked with Herostratus.
Wait…