North Dakota House Votes To Stop State Enforcement Of New Federal Gun Control Laws


This was much heated debate on the floor of the North Dakota House today over HB1183, introduced by Rep. Roscoe Streyle (R-Minot), which would prohibit the use of state resources to enforce any new federal gun control laws.

Earlier today the House passed several laws easing up on concealed carry restrictions in the state – opening the door for carry in churches, schools and public gatherings – but Streyle’s bill was by far the most controversial.

Rep. Eliot Glassheim (D-Grand Forks) called the bill “nullification” and said it would be the “first step toward civil war.”

“If this passes I’m not going to say the pledge [of allegiance] any more,” he said.

But Rep. Streyle and others pointed out that the bill isn’t a nullification bill, but rather a restriction on the use of state resources. The federal government is free to enforce whatever federal gun control law they wish. State law enforcement, however, will not enforce the law. Given that the Obama administration argued against the State of Arizona enforcing federal immigration laws in the president’s last term, you’d think that would be a fairly non-controversial position.

Anyway, the bill passed on a 50-42 vote. I’ll have video of the debate later.

Rob Port is the editor of 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.

Related posts

  • RCND

    I’m hoping they film Elliot at the start of each floor session to see if he recites the pledge or not. What a drama queen

  • Roy_Bean

    I’m sure that this is what Barry O wanted. He wouldn’t let states enforce federal immigration laws, why would he let them enforce gun laws?

  • Jerry

    Glassheim’s a drama queen. He can move the the anti-gun utopia known as Chicago.

  • $8194357

    Way to go No Dak…
    Texas as well passed a similar law…

  • Shadowwalker

    This should have gone one step further and stated that county and local law enforcement could not enforce any of these people control laws that may be passed. This was a golden opportunity missed by our legislature. Once again not taking the bold initiative that a truly constitutional governance would prescribe. Hopefully we can elect a few more constitutionalist legislators to the next session and Lord only help us if we could get a governor with some nads.

    • SusanBeehler

      The bill does state no one can enforce or comply with any new laws that have to do with guns. So who do you shoot first when our state declares civil war as other legislation is stating our state of North Dakota will take up arms against our tyrannical government? Who do you shoot first, the marshalls, the judges just who is the tyrannical government which so many want to take up arms against?

      • sbark

        you didnt give us a choice of those with Obama stickers on their bumpers? Those are the ones that will be, as we see in Greece, rioting, pillaging for their “free stuff” to keep coming…….the low information voters.

      • Thresherman

        Susan, you are about as poor a thinker as I have come across in some time. We are a nation of free men and women and if we decide to take a stand on this, it will not be who we shoot first, it will be who will the government shoot first. They will be the ones who will have to by force exert their rule and they will be the ones who will have to fire the first shot. When the government that was founded by, for and of the people reaches the point where it feels it is necessary to disarm the people, it is no longer of, by and for the people.

      • Thresherman

        The thing that bugs me about people like Susan is that not only have they willingly surrendered a portion of their liberty, they want to force the rest of us to do so as well and when we object they view us as inferior. You can never make a slave out of a free man as long as he believes in his or her mind that he should not be enslaved and you can not make a free man or woman out of someone who thinks that others have the right to enslave you and deprive you of your liberty. Susan has a slave mentality to a degree and it offends her when we refuse to surrender our liberty in order to allow her to be in denial about that.

      • guest

        Susan, I plan on taking you out first.

        • SusanBeehler

          When are you planning to take me out?

  • Simon

    The vote should not have been that close.

  • SusanBeehler

    This is the worse of the worst legislation to pass. Saying you are not going to allow enforcement of something which has not even been decided. I suppose we are going to turn away any grants we could receive to place more resource officers in our schools too. But than North Dakota is so rich, I just hope everyone starts turning their social security monies over and above what they paid in back to the federal government too, then lets turn over any welfare and child support funding we receive too and we can’t forget about medicare, turn this back in too because we want to be independent of our Federal government, you know the government which makes us a part of the United States. This is NOT a political game as Representative Bette Grande states, she is such a drama queen!

    • Shadowwalker

      I would have no problem telling the Fed to go jump in a lake in all the items that you list and stop sending funds out of our state for those items. Nowhere in the Constitution are any of those items listed or allowed for. So I whole heartily agree that we should not be taking money for any of it. Defend our borders and promote trade. That is it otherwise but the heck out thank you very much. I’m so glad we can finally agree Susan!

    • RCND

      There is no linkage between grants for school resource officers and this bill. None. Nada. Zip. I saw you spreading that disinformation on your BS facebook site too. You may be able to convince a few other of the Dizzy Mothers Against the Constitution with that praddle but those voting on the bill (whether they support it or not) know better.

      • SusanBeehler

        The Executive Orders signed by our President provided additional monies for resources officers as I understood them, according to HB1183 any executive order can not be pursued or enforced. We are shooting ourselves in the pocketbook. They don’t know what the federal legislation will be so how could they know better. We are just following the tune of Dixie with this bill. “FREE us from the Union tune”, which I think is sick, if I wanted to live in Mississippi or Missouri I would be living there.

        • RCND

          Susan, go read the bill. Focus on the definitions. Better yet I’ll provide them to you:

          “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.

          “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 laws not in force as of January 1, 2013.

          The definitions are very important in that they make clear what legislative intent for this bill really is vs what you want others to think it is. Simply put, the laws we will not help the feds enforce are any new ones which will deprive citizens of their rights to keep and bear arms. The grants we will not accept are those used to help the federal government with enforcing new laws designed to deprive citizens of their gun rights.

          Nothing in there about resource officers. Nothing. Nada. Zip

          GOT IT??!!

          • SusanBeehler

            Of course there is no wording of resource officers in this bill, because the bill refers to an executive order relating to firearms, while maybe this is open to some kind of legal broader definition but I would think this legislation refers directly to the Executive Orders given after December 31, 2012 which #18 states: Provide incentives for schools to hire school resource officers.

            I do believe HB1183 includes the Executive Orders issued in relation to federal firearm laws.

            Does HB1183 or does it not include the Executive Orders issued at the end of January? If a school district would except the “incentive” would this be a violation of HB1183?

          • Rob

            Resource officers are not gun control, Susan, so of course school districts could accept the money.

            I’m so glad people like you are on the gun control side. You do such a disservice to the movement.

          • SusanBeehler

            I am glad you made your ruling on this now no attorney general opinion will be needed, because it seems to me their was question on being able to accept money from Planned Parenthood because of a law on the books. You are saying HB 1183 will allow Executive orders in relation to federal firearm laws which allows money for Resource officers? Which of the Executive orders out of the 23 issued will not be allowed and how is this determination made by HB 1183. If they are called Gun violence reduction and not federal firearm, than we can allow them?

          • Rob

            The text of the law is clear to purple who have actually read it, Susan.

          • SusanBeehler

            I guess I am not “purple”.

          • Shadowwalker

            I believe the shade is more of a red……

          • camsaure

            Purple no, red, yes.

          • flamemeister


          • Shadowwakler

            Rob…please stop calling it gun control. This in not what we are talking about and it is not what it is. The side of liberty will be better served if we call it what it is. What Susan and people like her including those traitor in Washington are is attempting people control and this needs to be called such at every turn. The argument will be much better served if we call a spade a spade and what these traitor are attempting is people control and keep repeating it….people control. The gun will not move until it is acted upon by a force equal to or greater than itself.

          • SusanBeehler

            I think it is funny how you write, now Under House Bill 1183, residents could seek civil penalties against a law enforcement agency that enforces a gun-restricting law passed by Congress. So you want more business for lawyers too? Hmm, nice?!

          • Hal801

            Are you a proponent of government by executive order? Please show me where the President has the power to fund anything through executive order?

          • SusanBeehler

            No! I am for government by the people through our Constitution, Our Executive, Our Judicial and Our Legislative branches not introducing laws mirrored after states from the south or laws written by lobbyists of gun manufacturers. If their is no power in an executive order why did our state legislators list as something to NOT comply with? To me this is similiar to 1996 legislation Congress passed so the continued research on gun violence was not funded and not continued. I guess the gun manufacturer lobbyist did not like what they where starting to find One of the critical studies that we supported was looking at
            the question of whether having a firearm in your home protects you or puts you
            at increased risk.


          • Hal801

            Why do you think the states should be compelled to do anything that is directed by executive order? Please explain how the President has the power to enact laws and budgets through executive order? Are there any limits to what the President can order through executive orders?

          • SusanBeehler

            Show me any other Executive orders issued by any other President and did any legislature, freak out and write a law not to follow any of these other Executive orders written by another President?

          • RCND

            Does 18 deprive people of their right to keep and bear arms? No. Therefore this bill won’t prevent it

          • SusanBeehler

            What about the other ones? Will this prevent universal background checks, better background checks? Will this bill prevent his other 22 orders from being followed or will some local government be up for a lawsuit, if they supply resources to help any of these? Do background checks prevent the right to keep and bear arms? What about any of the executive orders? What about requiring a background check for ammo is that a deprivation of the right to keep and bear arms? What if the magazine size is limited is that a deprivation of the right to keep and bear arms? How will the violation of the right to keep and bear arms be decided, by the sheriff, law enforcement, a legislator, a mayor?
            # 7 sounds like learning to control your gun will that be effected What about #9 if a gun was used for criminal activity will our local government be open for a lawsuit by a criminal if they trace the gun used in a crime? What if a doctor asks about a gun could somebody sue sombody for the question being asked?
            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 AccountabilityAct, 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 federallylicensed 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.
            13. Maximize enforcement efforts to prevent gun violence and prosecute gun crime.
            14. Issue a presidential memorandum directing the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention to research the causes and
            prevention of gun violence.
            15. Direct the attorney general to issue a report on the availability and most effective use of new gun-safety technologies and challenge the private sector to develop innovative technologies.
            16. Clarify that the Affordable Care Act does not prohibit doctors from asking their patients about guns in their homes.
            17. Release a letter to health care providers clarifying that no federal law prohibits them from reporting threats of violence to law enforcement authorities.
            18. Provide incentives for schools to hire school-resource officers.
            19. Develop model emergency response plans for
            schools, houses of worship and institutions of higher education.
            20. Release a letter to state health officials clarifying the scope of mental health services that Medicaid plans must cover.
            21. Finalize regulations clarifying essential health benefits and parity requirements within ACA exchanges.
            22. Commit to finalizing mental-health parity regulations.
            23. Launch a national dialogue led by Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius and Education Secretary Arne
            Duncan on mental health.

        • Guest Observer

          Once again, thanks for your comic relief. Good thing breathing is automatic for you.

  • nimrod

    I think Elliot has been crossing his fingers when saying the pledge in the past, so won’t make much difference for him.

  • two_amber_lamps

    Rep. Eliot Glassheim (D-Grand Forks), no pledge of allegiance?

    No worries, you probably hated reciting it anyways…. $%$# bolshevik.

  • SusanBeehler

    Remember, “resource officers are not gun control” they are in schools for promoting careers in law enforcement? or telling children not to run in the hallways?
    What is the purpose of arms guards in schools aka resource officers?

    • Shadowwalker

      Armed guards are not resource officers. Most of the time they are much better trained and always have to pass much tougher qualification courses with higher scores than law enforcement. I know this to be an absolute fact in both North Dakota as well as MN. I have trained security officers for both and there is no comparison. Actually it is rather sad the lacks scores and training that our law enforcement are allowed to qualify with. But as a former victims advocate you already know this so why pretend to be ignorant. I guess that doesn’t fit your agenda. I have had conversation about the joke that is security in our local middle school here in West Fargo with one of the principals. I showed him how his security could be compromised in a matter of seconds by even for an incompetent boob. Not funny! Stop pretend gun free zones!