ND Law Enforcement Drops Opposition To Bill Preventing Enforcement Of New Federal Gun Control Laws

rstreyle

This morning the House Judiciary Committee her testimony on HB1183. This was the bill introduced by Rep. Roscoe Streyle which would prevent North Dakota officials from enforcing any new federal gun control laws.

Law enforcement officials in the state had expressed some concern about the law – most notably Cass County Sheriff Paul Laney was vocally critical – but at the hearing today there was no testimony from law enforcement officials against the bill.

No doubt this is because of amendments to the bill which remove the penalty for state officials cooperating with federal law enforcement. Sheriff Laney was heard telling reporters that was the one part of the bill they opposed. Originally the bill would have made any official in violation of the law guilty of a Class A Misdemeanor.

But there is another amendment to the bill gun rights proponents may like. Bringing the legislation more in line with bills passed in Wyoming and Texas, an amendment offered by Rep. Bette Grande would make it illegal for the federal government to enforce any federal gun control laws on guns or ammunition manufactured in the state.

A legislator sent me this picture of Grande’s amendment (click for a larger view):

grandeamendment

Rob Port is the editor of SayAnythingBlog.com. In 2011 he was a finalist for the Watch Dog of the Year from the Sam Adams Alliance and winner of the Americans For Prosperity Award for Online Excellence. In 2013 the Washington Post named SAB one of the nation's top state-based political blogs, and named Rob one of the state's best political reporters. He writes a weekly column for several North Dakota newspapers, and also serves as a policy fellow for the North Dakota Policy Council.

Related posts

  • SusanBeehler

    Rob, I didn’t see you at the hearing were you there? Where is the other amendment Rep Stryle submitted it is the reason more than 6 officers in attendance some traveling from as far Wahpeton did not testify? The one above Rep Grande submitted but will not stand up to legal muster, it is a “feel good” ammendment.

    • RCND

      Thanks for being there Susan. I’m told your testimony was very helpful…. to those supporting 1183 and the concealed weapons ones which you testified either in opposition to or took a supposedly neutral stand. Keep up the good work!

    • exsanguine

      Susan: Montana’s FIrearms Freedom act (same concept as grande’s)
      is getting its hearing in the 9th circus in march. Their intent is to push it to the Supreme court unless the 9th circus has one of those rare same moments and they decide in favor.

      • SusanBeehler

        I thought Rep Grande was not for any political games? Sounds like the bill is being introduced for a political movement.

        • exsanguine

          I take it you don’t like the 10th amendment? Love the overreach of the commerce clause? closet commie?

          • SusanBeehler

            I don’t spend time in a closet.

          • Hal414

            Either Susan doesn’t understand the 10th Amendment or she rejects it.

          • SusanBeehler

            State has the right to govern themselves. I just don’t like the direction the state is taking reacting to something which is not happening and did not happen in North Dakota and wanting to punish law enforcement if the “imperial” State does not get their residents to comply. You do know federal officers live within our communities and I don’t think it is good policy to make them felons if they do there job and it is exactly what law-abiding gun owners do not want to happen to them. It is like a gun battle on paper. For what? To say you are right , to say you are more American than another American. It is totally out of control and I say enough, stop, think before you write legislation which effects all North Dakotans not just those who are the “imperialists” in our state. To me the State is acting no different than the Federal government and in this “pissing” match it is the citizens which will be stuck in the cross fire, it is not in our best interest, it is selfish and politically motivated, our state should not get in the game!

          • Hal414

            ” I just don’t like the direction the state is taking”

            Great! so you advocate ignoring the 10th Amendment since YOU don’t like the position 1 state takes on 1 issue. No wonder you were stopped during your rambling and asked to submit 0bama’s speech in writing. You are developing quite a reputation.

          • SusanBeehler

            No, I am talking about the “political game” that is being played. This is not about “gun protection” this is about the 10th amendment, and the state is joining with other states to make their political case for the 10th amendment. Do we have a new confederacy forming?

    • Anti-NCAA

      Susan, I was there listening to testimony. I loved it when you testified in opposition to the law. The looks of everyone in the room said it all…. you were grasping at assumptions, provided no backup information to what you were stating, and even the legislators hearing your testimony were giving those ‘squint in surprise’ by what you were even saying!! Thanks…. you were able to make your statement yet come across as lacking credibility that I think you help the bills approval more than any damage. Please continue to attend…

      I’m not in support of the bill, nor in opposition, but YOUR stance swayed me in the other direction. You were unorganized, unsure of what your facts were, and unsure where your papers were when arriving at the podium to provide testimony. Thanks…. you were the best circus act anyone would want.

      • Lianne

        Quite a pictorial commentary. A thank-you from those of us who can not attend.

      • SusanBeehler

        Thank you for the critique. Sorry to disappoint you I am just a citizen and not a paid legislator or lobbyist, maybe your expectations are too high. I must of missed your testimony? I am glad I provided you with your desired entertainment for a serious situation, I must have cut the tension for you with a little humor. Please continue to sit on your butt you probably did not understand what I was reading. It was the 23 executive orders the President signed. Someone’s personal performance on a position for or against sways you to be against the person’s position just by the way they performed and looked? Sounds like you are very superficial and one of those low information voters this blog likes to bash.

        • Lianne

          Let me see if I understood you correctly. You read the 23
          E. O. orders written by Obama to our state legislative committee?

          • SusanBeehler

            I first stated I felt this legislation was as ineffective as our “Corupt Practice Act” it was very similiar in wording and it could come back to bite them depending on which political party is the majority in the legislature. I asked if this legislation would have been introduced if it weren’t for Sandy Hook? I also said I did not believe just like gun owners do not want to be made into criminals because of the guns they currently own. I believed we should not make law enforcement and others into criminals if they would participate in helping federal officials with executives orders and other federal legislation passed after December 31. No guns have been banned and no ammunition has been limited and I believe this legislation was premature. If a gun ban is introduced and the legislature is not in session than call a special session and address that issue. Because now I did not think it was bad for North Dakota to than I started to read each order and than the Chairman stated they would prefer for me to just hand in my testimony. I got through these
            1. Issue a presidential memorandum to require
            federal agencies to make relevant data available to the federal background
            check system
            2. Address unnecessary legal barriers,
            particularly relating to the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability
            Act, that may prevent states from making information available to the
            background check system.

            3. Improve incentives for states to share information
            with the background check system.

            4. Direct the attorney general to review
            categories of individuals prohibited from having a gun to make sure dangerous
            people are not slipping through the cracks.

            5.
            Propose rule-making to give law enforcement the ability to run a full
            background check on an individual before returning a seized gun.

            6. Publish a letter from ATF to federally
            licensed gun dealers providing guidance on how to run background checks for
            private sellers.

            7.
            Launch a national safe and responsible gun ownership campaign.

            8. Review safety standards for gun locks and
            gun safes (Consumer Product Safety Commission).

            9. Issue a presidential memorandum to require
            federal law enforcement to trace guns recovered in criminal investigations.

            10.
            Release a Department of Justice report analyzing information on lost and stolen
            guns and make it widely available to law enforcement.

            11. Nominate a new director of the Bureau of
            Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives.

            12.
            Provide law enforcement, first-responders, and school officials with proper
            training for active shooter situations.

          • zipity

            And how do you feel about the Obama Administration not enforcing
            Federal Law that they don’t like? Such as on illegal immigration?

            Goose, meet gander.

          • SusanBeehler

            So in North Dakota we pass a law about not enforcing laws which would be good for our citizens because you do not like what the President does or does not do about immigration? Sounds like it is a political game and the citizens are going to get stuck or shot in between the moves, “he does this so I will do that, he doesn’t do this so I will “really get him kind of game.”

          • camsaure

            I am sure that states rights is a foreign concept to a statist like yourself.

          • Hal414

            Susan does not understand the Declaration of Independence, United States Constitution or the Amendments to the Constitution. But, she sure knows how to read executive orders demanded by the imperial President.

          • RCND

            OK, so lets break this EO breakdown a bit so you can see where you went astray as it pertains to 1183. Before we begin, lets define what laws our cops won’t be able to help enforce:

            From the bill: “Federal firearms laws not in force as of January 1, 2013″ means those laws passed by the Congress of the United States and signed into law by the President of the United States after December 31, 2012, a rule, a regulation, or an executive order that specifically deprives a citizen of the United States of manufacturing, importing, buying,selling, transferring, transporting, possessing, bearing, and keeping on the citizen’s body or in a location where the citizen has a legal right to be unless otherwise forbidden by this state’s law, and any other law, including a rule, a regulation, or an executive order, forbidding the private ownership of any firearm not forbidden as of December 31, 2012…”

            1. 1183 won’t stop this. Applies to federal agencies

            2. Doubtful 1183 will apply, because the information itself doesn’t specifically deprive a citizen of their 2nd Amendment rights; only the actions taken by whoever uses it. Even so, provisions are already in place to share such information, which is not forbidden by 1183 because they existed before Jan 1

            3. 1183 won’t stop this. They can dream up all the incentives they want at the federal level

            4. 1183 won’t stop this. Barry is just giving direction to one of his appointees

            5. 1183 won’t prevent seizures if the firearm is needed as evidence of a crime (stated further along in the bill). So no impact here

            6. 1183 won’t stop this. ATF already has direct interaction with and oversight of FFL’s

            7. 1183 won’t stop this. Federal initiative

            8. 1183 won’t stop this. Federal initiative

            9. 1183 won’t stop this. Direction from the President to federal agencies

            10. 1183 won’t stop this. Direction from the President to a federal agency

            11. 1183 won’t stop this, although I wish it could because the ATF as of late has become less law enforcement agency and more of a gun supplier to known criminals for the purposes of creating strawmen to justify new gun laws

            12.1183 won’t stop this. training is not forbidden under this bill.

            So basically, if you really did read all this stuff to the committee, you wasted a huge amount of their time and were most likely tuned out after you brought up Corrupt Practices anyways

          • SusanBeehler

            You are seeing the bill for only the “gun” portion, it also means resources, support, resource support and investigating. You have quoted only one part of the proposed legislation.
            Wouldn’t this directly affect 1,5,7,12 with this portion of the bill
            d. Accept resource support for, and use existing resource support
            already received for a violation or suspected violation of federal firearms laws not in force as of January 1, 2013; or
            e. Take any other action which can or may directly or indirectly aid
            or assist any governmental entity in investigating, enforcing, or prosecuting any citizen of the United States for a violation or suspected violation of federal firearms laws not in force as of January 1, 2013 .

          • RCND

            Wrong. The definition of “Federal firearms laws not in force as of January 1, 2013″ states what specific aspects of federal directives this will apply to. It is you who are seeing what you want to see with this bill. Resources and resource support applies to the definition as written in Sec 1

          • SusanBeehler

            This is what Section 1 says: “Resource support” means individuals, funding regardless of source, equipment,supplies, real property, intellectual property, assistance, or other assets of or associated with any governmental entity, including federal or state governmental entities, including a political subdivision, for the purposes of conducting activities to
            enforce federal firearms not in force as of January 1, 2013 .

            Reads like it would apply to the Executive orders which were given after January 1, 2013

          • RCND

            And the federal firearms laws as defined in section 1 don’t pertain to the activities in the EOs as I broke them down for you. Here are the activities from the definition of federal firearms law from section 1: “… specifically deprives a citizen of the United States of manufacturing, importing, buying,selling, transferring, transporting, possessing, bearing, and keeping on the citizen’s body or in a location where the citizen has a legal right to be…”

            You need to quit while you can still see everyone else’s behind in this race Susan. Somehow you were more rational when you were an emotional puddle

      • SusanBeehler

        The most egregious piece of this legislation was turning our law enforcement into criminals. So many despise any gun ban because it is turning law abiding citizens into criminals based on the gun they own, so gun supporters would do this to those who are here to serve and protect? Sounds like a “cannibalistic philosophy” feeding on others let law enforcement be the “fall” guy instead of the gun owner in this made up fight which addresses a futuristic gun ban.

        • C. Y.

          Does not turn our LE into criminals.

          http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/95-1478.ZO.html

          “We held in New York that Congress cannot compel the States to enact or enforce a federal regulatory program. Today we hold that
          Congress cannot circumvent that prohibition by conscripting the State’s officers directly. The Federal Government may neither issue directives requiring the States to address particular problems, nor command the States’ officers, or those of their political subdivisions, to administer or enforce a federal regulatory program. It matters not
          whether policymaking is involved, and no case by case weighing of the burdens or benefits is necessary; such commands are fundamentally incompatible with our constitutional system of dual sovereignty. Accordingly, the judgment of the Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit is reversed. “

          • SusanBeehler

            Exactly there is no need for this legislative bill, it is a political ploy and it does not serve the people of North Dakota. It was calling for a misdemeanor charge not by Congress but by our elected Representatives in our state! It was the “teeth” of the bill, and the “teeth” was removed by the outcry from those who have taken an oath to serve and protect. Driving across state to be present, watch and see how this was going to play out, expecting an amendment and they got it. But then they decide if they can’t go after state law enforcement, they will go after Federal officers and threaten them with a felony. A awful way for our legislators to say thank you for the help our Federal officers gave last month in Minot. These legislators are shooting off their foot and won’t be left with a leg to stand on when they may need it.

        • RCND

          And that part was changed by amendment

          • SusanBeehler

            Yeah than they decide if they can’t go after state law enforcement, they will go after Federal officers and threaten them with a felony. An awful way for our legislators to say thank you for the help our Federal officers gave last month in Minot. These legislators are shooting off their foot and won’t be left with a leg to stand on when they may need it. Would you want to put any effort in helping someone with the threat of a felony hanging over your head? Terrible, terrible way to treat our fellow citizens especially when they are willing to lay their lives down to protect. For what? The perceived not a real threat, so you or someone else might loose a gun or your bullets, when it is not even a realty,it is a fear in your head. It is disgusting anyone would throw them up to sacrifice out of your irrational fear. Now who is tyrannical? The state has become what they feared, a government out of control, oppressive. For What? The black boogeyman? For accolades from those who believe in the boogeyman? Just because you believe it is real does not mean it is real. FEAR is FEAR and that is the reality, FEAR is controlling this legislation not reason.

          • RCND

            If it is so bad, why did a cop testify in favor of the bill? You also really have no credibility to talk about reason based on your emotional diatribes on this blog as well as your testimony today.

          • SusanBeehler

            Because of the amendment he is not the “fall” guy and he is not a federal agent. You make think I have no “credibility” but I have the right to: Freedom of Speech. This legislation has nothing to do with “creditable” “good” legislation; it has all to do with a political ploy to fight what all Republicans can not stand, they did not win the presidential election and now the black boogeyman might get them.

          • camsaure

            Black boogeyman??? You racist.

          • SusanBeehler

            Your creation, your dream

          • RCND

            Pictures say what words can’t

          • SusanBeehler

            Here is a better picture, although the “political game” is taken out of this blog’s context and I am not quite the “circus” you described http://www.kfyrtv.com/News_Stories.asp?news=61611

          • SusanBeehler
          • Hal414

            Your link showed a picture of Bette Grande. Susan……you are no Bette Grande.

          • SusanBeehler

            You don’t know what I look like, do you? There are six others in the background.

          • Onslaught1066

            I do, you look like a constipated cow.

          • Hal414

            I know you would love to be the center of attention, but I thought only a narcissist would post a link where the focus was the “others in the background”. Pitiful.

          • nac

            Poor ignorant little Hal414/guest. A narcissist would post a picture of only herself/himself. Much like Rob’s pet troll hanni does.
            Use a dictionary before you use words you don’t know the meaning of.

          • Hal414

            No dictionary needed, but you clearly need to work on your reading comprehension. I’m sure if she could have found a link to a pic where she was the subject, she would have.

            I did have to look up nac though. National AIDS Clearinghouse is such a nice name for you. Your parents must have loved you dearly.

  • SusanBeehler

    Like I have said this is a “political” game this has nothing to do with what North Dakotans need. Here is a quote from someone in Wyoming a state which introduced the similiar legislation: “We think Wyoming did the right thing by putting penalties in the game for the feds. This will pitch the feds against the local police, which is a good thing for the people that want to remain free and exercise their constitutional rights.” This is being done not for us but to fight the perceived battle in Washington DC. I thought our state was above something like this. Sounds destructive not constructive.

Top