The Chieftain reported last week that after our county commission unanimously approved a new gun rights ordinance at a meeting on Dec. 16, the hall erupted in applause. Ill admit that I wasnt on hand for the meeting, and that if I had attended, I wouldnt have been applauding. Having read the original draft of the ordinance and having also read that the language of the final draft remained almost entirely unchanged, I would argue that a law which fines county employees thousands of dollars for any infringement of Second Amendment rights could impede the ability of the police and the courts to protect public safety.

Here are several scenarios, ripped from todays headlines, that might give you pause to wonder about whether this ordinance could hamper sound law enforcement practices.

#1. A man with a checkered past but no felony convictions decides to settle in Wallowa County. He claims to want a quiet life where he can sell his paintings. Two former girlfriends and an ex-wife have at one time or another called 911 to report that he was committing domestic violence. The man has been arrested several times, has had restraining orders against him, and was even tried for murdering an unarmed teenager, but complaints were dropped in some cases and he was acquitted of the murder charge.

A few weeks after his arrival, his new girlfriend calls 911 to report that he has tried to strangle her and has threatened her with a shotgun. The police arrest him and confiscate all his weapons. The next day his girlfriend drops her complaint and says that it was all a misunderstanding. The man is released and his weapons are returned to him, but his lawyers demand that the dispatcher and the police officers involved be fined $2,000 each under the new ordinance for violating their clients Second Amendment rights.

#2. A white supremacist group buys acreage and gets approval from the planning commission

to build a compound near Troy. The new residents fly a Confederate flag, a noose, and a sign at the property entrance that says, No Kenyans allowed! Neighbors report that the residents of the compound appear to be engaging in paramilitary exercises, and that explosions that sound like bomb blasts are commonly heard from the property. A delivery man confidentially tells police that he brought castor beans to the compound.

A deputy asks the sheriff if the new ordinance allows him to check on whether ricin is being manufactured on the property. Does the right to keep and bear arms include the right to make and store ricin? Should the sheriff allow the deputy to investigate or tell him to mind his own business until he is sure that laws have been broken?

#3. An Amber Alert has been issued for a 16-year-old girl, who is believed to have been last seen in the Wallowa-Whitman National Forest camping with an old family friend. Local residents report having observed the pair together but say that the girl did not appear to be under any constraint. The man the girl is traveling with has no criminal record and owns several legally obtained firearms. The FBI now regards him as a kidnapping suspect, and asks local law enforcement for their cooperation in tracking and disarming the man. The sheriffs office cooperates and the man is arrested.

The whole thing turns out to be a case of mistaken identity. The man is outraged and demands that any county employees that were responsible for arresting and disarming him be fined to the maximum for violating his Second Amendment rights.

What would happen in each of these cases? I cant answer my own questions with any certainty, and I doubt that the proponents and supporters of this new ordinance can either.

John McColgan writes from his home in Joseph.