Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

Nevilledog

(51,260 posts)
Sat Apr 24, 2021, 12:57 PM Apr 2021

Montana Gov. Greg Gianforte signs bill nullifying federal gun restrictions



Tweet text:
PoppaBear
@APoppaBear
So take away their federal funding. I'm sure you can operate just fine with State and local tax income.

https://news.yahoo.com/montana-gov-greg-gianforte-signs-145147844.html

Gov. Greg Gianforte, a Republican, said in announcing his decision to sign the bill that it would protect Second Amendment rights in the state.

Montana Gov. Greg Gianforte signs bill nullifying federal gun restrictions
Gov. Greg Gianforte, a Republican, said in announcing his decision to sign the bill that it would protect Second Amendment rights in the state.
news.yahoo.com
9:39 AM · Apr 24, 2021


https://news.yahoo.com/montana-gov-greg-gianforte-signs-145147844.html

HELENA, Montana — Gov. Greg Gianforte on Friday signed a bill that prohibits state and local law enforcement in Montana from enforcing federal bans on firearms, ammunition and magazines.

Supporters of the law have said it would protect the Second Amendment from stiffer gun control laws that could come from federal legislation or executive orders by President Joe Biden in the wake of several mass shootings that took place this year, including a recent shooting that killed eight people in Indianapolis.

Opponents of the bill have said it would make it difficult for local law enforcement to collaborate with federal authorities on issues beyond gun access when such collaboration is essential to protect public safety, including in cases of domestic violence and drug offenses.

Montana law would prohibit law enforcement officials and other state employees from enforcing, implementing or spending state funds to uphold federal bans on particular kinds of firearms, ammunition and magazines.

*snip*


8 replies = new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight: NoneDon't highlight anything 5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
Montana Gov. Greg Gianforte signs bill nullifying federal gun restrictions (Original Post) Nevilledog Apr 2021 OP
States did the same thing with raising the age to Phoenix61 Apr 2021 #1
No funding was ever withheld. former9thward Apr 2021 #5
I didn't say it should or shouldn't I said Phoenix61 Apr 2021 #7
Maybe I am simple but I thought states could NOT override federal law. CurtEastPoint Apr 2021 #2
☝️☝️☝️☝️☝️ PortTack Apr 2021 #3
According to federal law, cannabis is illegal. yagotme Apr 2021 #4
States do not have to enforce federal law. former9thward Apr 2021 #6
States can't interfere with Fed. agents enforcing Fed. laws, MarineCombatEngineer Apr 2021 #8

Phoenix61

(17,023 posts)
1. States did the same thing with raising the age to
Sat Apr 24, 2021, 01:02 PM
Apr 2021

drink to 21. Feds withheld Hwy funding and low and behold everyone fell in line.

former9thward

(32,121 posts)
5. No funding was ever withheld.
Sat Apr 24, 2021, 04:31 PM
Apr 2021

There were threats but that is about it. Also it was not the "age to drink". It was the age to purchase alcohol. It is legal for people under 21 to drink in 29 states under the loose "family exceptions" exemption.

But since you think funds should be withheld when there is a conflict between the states and federal law, what about drug laws? Since MJ is illegal under federal law should the feds withhold money to states that have legalized MJ?

Phoenix61

(17,023 posts)
7. I didn't say it should or shouldn't I said
Sat Apr 24, 2021, 04:48 PM
Apr 2021

the feds did it. As you noted they did not withhold funds because states complied and raised the age to purchase alcohol to 21.

former9thward

(32,121 posts)
6. States do not have to enforce federal law.
Sat Apr 24, 2021, 04:37 PM
Apr 2021

The Supreme Court indicated in Prigg v. Pennsylvania,(1842), that the states cannot be compelled to use state law enforcement resources to enforce federal law.

The Supreme Court reaffirmed this principle in cases such as Printz v. United States, (1997) and New York v. United States,(1992), which held that the federal government may not enact a regulatory program that "commandeers" the state's legislative and administrative mechanisms to enforce federal law. States therefore may refuse to use their legislative or administrative resources to enforce federal law.

Many cities and some states have declared that their cities will not help ICE enforce federal immigration law. No one here has had any problem with that. These things go both ways.

MarineCombatEngineer

(12,449 posts)
8. States can't interfere with Fed. agents enforcing Fed. laws,
Sat Apr 24, 2021, 04:56 PM
Apr 2021

but they can refuse to provide any support to the feds, like personnel, jail space, etc.

Latest Discussions»General Discussion»Montana Gov. Greg Gianfor...