General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsMontana Gov. Greg Gianforte signs bill nullifying federal gun restrictions
Link to tweet
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*
Phoenix61
(17,023 posts)drink to 21. Feds withheld Hwy funding and low and behold everyone fell in line.
former9thward
(32,121 posts)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)the feds did it. As you noted they did not withhold funds because states complied and raised the age to purchase alcohol to 21.
CurtEastPoint
(18,674 posts)PortTack
(32,817 posts)yagotme
(3,018 posts)How many states are ignoring it?
former9thward
(32,121 posts)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)but they can refuse to provide any support to the feds, like personnel, jail space, etc.