North Dakota Shouldn’t Be Obliged To Help Enforce Bad Federal Policy

3-New-Petitions-Ask-for-Gun-Control-After-Elementary-School-Shooting-2

It seems that legislation introduced by North Dakota state Rep. Roscoe Streyle which would prohibit the use of state resources to enforce new federal gun control laws is drawing the ire of state law enforcement officials.

“So what next? Someone doesn’t like federal transportation law?” sniffed Cass County Sheriff Paul Laney on the Jay Thomas Show yesterday. “Now you can order it’s against the law for us to enforce federal traffic regs or highway rules. Emotion starts carrying away common sense.”

I suspect that Sheriff Laney’s problem is less the supposed lack of “common sense” in this law than the federal grants his department might not get should it pass. The federal government’s primary instrument for luring states into going along with federal policy is, frankly, bribery through grants and other appropriations. If states don’t want to go along, the federal government holds the state’s funding hostage.

Which is yet another reason, in addition to the sorry finances of the federal government in general, for states making themselves independent of federal largess.

But to the “common sense” issue, why shouldn’t states like North Dakota refuse to help implement bad federal policy? If our elected officials decide that a specific federal policy is misguided, whether it be transportation policy or firearm policy, isn’t it their right (and perhaps their duty) to refuse to help with the implementation of that policy?

We’re not talking about nullification is here. This bill isn’t saying the federal government can’t enforce their new gun control laws here. We’d just be saying we won’t help. What’s wrong with that?

And, to be clear, the Obama administration has endorsed this position in other instances. We all remember the showdown between the State of Arizona and the federal government over the enforcement of illegal immigration laws. If the feds can pick and choose when the states enforce federal laws, then can’t the states pick and choose which laws they want to help the feds enforce?

This situation highlights the beauty, and importance, of our federalist system of government. We have distributed government for a reason, and we ought not be so dismissive of the concept of a state asserting its rights under the federalist system.

Here’s my interview with Rep. Roscoe Streyle who introduced the bill:

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

  • $8194357
  • Captornado

    I would ask local LEO why they think they should be exempt from gun restrictions.

    • Hal109

      Most local LEO’s understand the Constitution and adhere to it.

  • yy4u2

    We need some sanctuary states for gun owners and less sanctuary cities/states filled with kookoo for cocoa puffs leftist loonies and their sheep.

    • SusanBeehler

      You mean so we can be the “Virginia” for DC gun crimes. Maybe North Dakota will gain favor with the gangs in Chicago if they tighten their gun laws more.

      • yy4u2

        No, so there might be less brain dead people like you to deal with.

        • SusanBeehler

          Do you think it is a good idea to provide law enforcement, first-responders and school offlicials with proper training for active shooter situations?

          • Hal109

            Don’t you think law enforcement, first responders and school officials already get proper active shooter training? Why don’t you look at the facts before you waste more taxpayer money.

          • SusanBeehler

            How is a comment wasting more taxpayer money? How much do you think this proposed legislation will cost a tax payer if is enforced? If there is improvements and new training standards realized under # 12 of the Executive orders signed this week they would be criminals under this proposed legislation if they participated in this new training.

          • Hal109

            What you advocate often is a total waste.

          • SusanBeehler

            “waste equals taxpayers money” a pretty big bridge you are trying to build?

          • Hal109

            You are boring. I’m guessing you aren’t married.

          • Lianne

            Married or not married, she is the sqeaky wheel getting the grease she so badly demands. You may have to learn to just ignore the squeak. All she does is distract from serious discourse.

          • SusanBeehler

            Yeah, boring is pretty serious.

          • yy4u2

            I’m not into central planning or engineering society because we can’t legislate stupidty out of people or common sense into them.
            Do you really think a program could be developed to cover every possible situation? And when the one situation occurs and was not taught or thought of what are we to do? Sue the company that provided the training? Certainly, let’s not use common sense but let’s grow more govt. Let’s let some agency make blanket policies to justify their jobs while limiting and/or infringing on those with boots on the ground.

          • SusanBeehler

            If there is improvements and new training standards realized under # 12 of the Executive orders signed this week they would be criminals under this proposed legislation if they participated in this new training. Are your boots on the ground those of the law enforcement and others who could be affected by this legislation? Or are you a vigilante wanna be or a member the make believe citizen militia,
            “guys with guns”. The above legislation is a “blanket” policy, if it is the gun and the mags he is worried about then say so in the bill do not throw out any tool which could be used to fight gun violence because it becomes available after December 31.

          • Hal109

            Everyone! Look at me! I’m Susan, the center of your world!!

          • yy4u2

            The only tool is you. Hopefully this never happens but let us know what the assailant says when you read him/her/them your lines of bs. Perhaps you could start writing it down or recording it so law enforcement can give the paper a time frame as to when the incident started, how long it lasted, and when they put a blanket on you.
            Keep your head in the sand there, Sue. A certain political mindset needs people like you.

  • PK

    So we can’t stop the Federal Government from violating the Constitution? So North Dakota government servants would let the Feds roll in and carry out Waco style sieges on our people? “We can’t stop them obviously.” What about Section II of the Articles of Confederation, you know the contract that actually created the union? Did the Feds conquering the states during the Civil War throw all that out? There are many Sheriffs standing up and saying they won’t even let the Feds in if they want to confiscate firearms and mags. Why can’t we have real leaders like that instead of these puffcakes?

    • http://sayanythingblog.com Rob

      I’m not sure you fully grasp the terms of the debate here.

      Whether or not the federal laws are constitutional is a separate issue from whether or not the state is going to help the feds enforce them.

      • PK

        Didn’t he mention gun and magazine confiscations and follow that up with, “if they want to do it, they can do it alone”, and “we can’t stop them” though? I think they need to assert the 10th Amendment and put forth a resolution stating any new firearms legislation will be null and void and any Federal agent trying to enforce new laws will be arrested like Montana, Wyoming and some other states are doing in various forms, instead of tiptoeing around the Feds because they’re afraid of getting reprimanded. The fact is we can stop the BATF and DHS from coming into the state to carry out confiscations. Are we going to have a debate on the constitutionality of gun confiscation after we have our guns taken? I’m not sure what you’re saying there.

        • SusanBeehler

          No one is talking confiscation, I think you are jumping the “gun”

          • Hal109

            Again, you don’t know what you are talking about.

            Cuomo continued, “Confiscation could be an option. Mandatory sale to the state could be an option.

          • SusanBeehler

            Do you live in New York?

          • A ND gunowner

            Are you some kind of Heidi H troll sent out to see what kind of hate & discontent will be tolerated?

          • SusanBeehler

            Are you some kind of paranoid tool owner?

          • PK

            http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ryUbJfg4tAo&feature=player_embedded

            This is a short clip of a New York lawmaker, who admitted confiscation was talked about.

          • SusanBeehler

            Let me clarify no one with power is talking confiscation here in North Dakota and just because it is mentioned does not mean it will happen or could happen. Did the gun world come to an end with the 1994 assault ban? If it was an inert law like some have said on this blog, why are so many gunowners freaking out over something which was in effect for over 10 years and the world did not end, what is different now?

          • Hal109

            No one with power? He already signed the most restrictive gun legislation into law. You are totally clueless.

          • SusanBeehler

            What legislation did “he” sign into power? Why don’t ‘use those restrictions on your guns ?

    • PK

      If we don’t live in the land our founders created, why do we refer to
      George Washington, Thomas Jefferson, etc as our founders? We should
      tell it like it is, Abraham Lincoln is apparently our founding father after hearing Streyle’s view of how the government works. Pitiful. “If the ATF wants to bring 500 agents in here and do it, we can’t stop them obviously.” Wow, this guy would probably hand in all his guns if there were a “law” and lick the Federal agents boots and thank him.

    • SusanBeehler

      Waco was Wacko people with guns

      • PK

        So that makes it ok for the gov, along with the military to lay siege on their complex that resulted in the deaths of 76 people including CHILDREN? What about the children? Now i’m in no way defending what the Davidians were doing, but the siege was about guns. It wasn’t about getting those kids away from that environment, it was about the guns. And no, the Davidians shouldn’t have resisted them, since there was a warrant, but the government didn’t have to go rambo on them and kill a bunch of people either.

        • Hal109

          Yes. Susan thinks those children were wacko’s so they must have deserved to be killed.

        • SusanBeehler

          Yes you are defending the Davidians they made the choice to point their children in harms way, they were the ones who decided to take the action they did. Parents with guns pointed at law officers will prevent a peaceful outcome. There is more than one way to fight a fight , The Davidians made their choice and their children paid the ultimate price. How would you have handled these lawbreakers?

          • Hal109

            You don’t know what you are talking about. That incident completely changed how law enforcement deals with situation similar to those. Everyone knows that was completely and totally mismanaged, start to finish. Nobody operates that way anymore.

          • PK

            No i’m not defending them, i’m criticizing how the government handled the situation. They could have backed off because there were children present. Cops will stop pursuing a fleeing motorist if there is a danger to society, so that’s what they should have done. They had to leave to complex sometime, so they should have waited for the right time to move in on them. I bet you think it’s ok for the military to bomb weddings and houses that kill hundreds of innocent people to get one suspected terrorist. Hey, those terrorists put all those people in harms way, so it’s ok to kill innocence. It’s not our fault right? You are a crazy women.

          • SusanBeehler

            It appears you are defending them. Because of what happened at Waco does not have much to do with the legislation proposed by this Representative. Terrorists are not addressed in this proposed legislation. Just because Waco happened, military actions are taken and there are terrorists in our world does not justify legislation to make law officers and others into criminals because they may access tools to help them do their job. This legislation will make a criminal out of law enforcement! Just like you do not want to be a criminal because you own a certain kind of gun, why should we turn our laws on those who are here to serve and protect. That is CRAZY!

          • PK

            I don’t think you understand what the ND legislation means. Please re-read it.

          • Hal109

            We all live under the same laws, you idiot. Law enforcement personnel are not exempt from the laws. When you infringe on Constitutional rights, EVERYONE is affected whether Susan realizes it or not.

    • SusanBeehler

      So when are these Feds coming to get your firearms and mags? Do you think it is a good idea to take guns away from convicted felons? Do you think Fish and Game have the right to seize your gun if you are poaching or doing something illegal while hunting? If Fish and game take seize a weapon do you think it would be a good idea to run a full background check before they give it back to you?

      • Hal109

        You have lost any credibility you originally built up when you first started participating in SAB discussion. Now you sound like a little child arguing just for the sake of argument. You are not the center of the universe.

        • SusanBeehler

          You are not the center of the universe.

          • Hal109

            I don’t think I am, nor do I want to be. You are very annoying.

      • PK

        Your questions about felons and criminals have nothing to do with law abiding citizens not being able to have 30 round magazines and semi-autos. Obviously someone convicted of a violent crime shouldn’t be allowed to have weapons. If there wasn’t talk about confiscation by lawmakers around the country, why did Streyle mention it and why would they be introducing this bill? Read the news ma’am. Did you know there’s a military tactic that when as a military is invading, they broadcast on a loud-speak, “this is not an attack”? It’s a simple way to limit the resistance from the occupied citizenry. People like you do a fine service for the people attacking the 2nd Amendment.

        • SusanBeehler

          Yes it does because if law enforcement participate in Executive order #3 and #5 they could be charged with a misdemeanor and lose their job under this proposed legislation, didn’t you read the list of Executive orders signed. I think their is more paranoia than reality when people choose to believe “law enforcement and the military” are invading and you need a weapon to defend against ” a made up” invasion. I think it shows the willingness for people to be fear driven by gun lobbyist, gun manufacturers and then they exploit it for gun sales and ammo sales. It has been a very effective marketing gimmick. How many weapons and How much ammo have you acquired since December 14? READ how to get your customers to buy a product, marketing 101.

          • PK

            Actually it’s lawmakers proposing and passing bans on semi-automatic weapons and magazines over 7-10 rounds, that is causing people to go out and buy them before we can’t anymore. Do you even know that New York just passed a ban? In a year anyone who doesn’t forfeit their magazines will be a criminal. The federal bill mirrors that one. Then you accuse people resisting it of just trying to make a profit, even though there was already record sales. It’s almost pointless to try and have an intellectual discussion with you. You just refer back to the same old script.

          • SusanBeehler

            I don’t live in New York and from what I can tell from our legislators we do not look to New York to model our laws here in North Dakota. New York and North Dakota are not even close in demographics. But you appear to not be arguing it is NOT okay to make a officer a criminal by allowing him to access federal help to address gun violence. If it is magazines this legislator is afraid of losing than put it into a law don’t throw a blanket over everything taking the good out along with the thing you really don’t want, the ban of magazines or the ban of whatever “gun owners seem to fear”.

          • PK

            But we do live in the USA, and i said the federal bill mirrors the New York bill. That’s why i brought it up. And this ND bill isn’t that broad. It doesn’t say that the state can’t access federal intelligence like you say, it says the state can’t assist the Feds in new actions against the state’s people.

          • PK

            Or enforce any new laws that criminalize legal weapons and feeding devices.

          • SusanBeehler

            Define Federal action, I would think a Executive order from the President is a “Federal action” So desperate you are willing to make law enforcement criminals? Isn’t that broad? It takes the good and the bad, that is broad.

          • PK

            Ma’am, everything in that bill goes back to enforcement of new gun laws criminalizing legal firearms and feeding devices. It doesn’t make cops criminals for accessing federal data to catch a felon with guns. Like i said, please re-read it.

          • Hal109

            Give up now. There is no way to have an intelligent conversation with Susan. She is better off talking to herself.

          • SusanBeehler

            People have no control over their choice to buy a gun they can only react to a proposed law, they are forced to react, because they can not control themselves? They tell themselves ” I must act because someone has cried Fire even though the fire 1000’s miles away, I must get out my garden house and fight this fire it will be here any minute, who cares who I hurt to get that fire hose out, the fire must be fought!” Just imagine if all the law enforcement quit because this Representative introduced this bill, it would seem kind of silly, but yet you are saying people have to buy guns because a bill has been written. You have falling for the “pitch”.

  • Za

    And it isn’t. Since Rob obviously doesn’t know much about constitutional law, this one’s on me: http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/95-1478.ZS.html. Since we’re being indignant on settled issues, how about a post saying we should be independent from Great Britain?

    • SusanBeehler

      So if I am reading this Supreme Court decision correctly, as a state we do not have to follow any federal “gun” now, purely voluntary and if this is the case than this legislative bill is unnecessary and could end up making some who voluntarily helps the feds in a “gun’ related crime or ‘gun control’ issue could lose their job and be charged with a misdemeanor.

      • Hal109

        Susan, I am sorry (sort of) for being an a$$ this morning but I wanted to show you how you ruin the discussion by cluttering the debate with nonsense…..And you do it daily. Plz get back to the “old” Susan where you had thoughtful posts that added to the debate. Later!

        • SusanBeehler

          Did you see the Police officer from Chaska, Mn speak on CNN in front of the congressional committee? He stated his officers once carried a shot gun in their vehicle but have had to get bigger and better guns because it is what they are encountering on the street. Continually upgrading of those guns has a direct impact on our taxes, but worse more and more gun power also makes their jobs more dangerous. Who has contributed to this? Gun Manufacturers. Gun owners are fighting a battle for gun manufacturers, they do not need to fight it because they have their consumers with such desire for their product, their weaponry, the consumer is willing to pay whatever price, even if it is our children which are sacrificed. The gun manufacturers and the gun lobbyists have given the gun owners the talking points and incited fear of losing your weapons, and are skipping all the way to the bank. Maybe because it is “morning” you view what I post as “ruining” and “cluttering” . My point has been because the focus is at the ultimate “terror” of not being able to own a gun; those arguing here have forgot their personal power to make a difference with gun violence. Law enforcement is not the enemy; the “bad” guys, “crazy” guys with guns are the enemy they are murdering our children, our teachers, our loved ones and because gun owners are so focused on their guns they lose the decency to come up with solutions which could effect change to become a less violent society and rather point the finger at someone else to take responsibility. This is a society problem. Gun owners need to be part of the solution and stop making “good” people enemies because they are not “hysterical” about their guns. Gun owners are acting like a child thinking they will lose their “toy” when all that is being sought is a behavior change. It is not the gun, it is the violence and the solutions which we all should be talking about.

          • PK

            Haven’t you read the crime statistics where 3 times the amount of people are killed with fists and blunt objects than with firearms? And about 75% of the gun murders happen in cities with very strict gun laws where there are gang wars going on. You said one thing right, “it is not the gun,”. So then why do we need more gun laws?

          • willieB

            It’s time for new laws pertaining to hammers, and other blunt instruments.

          • Hal109

            You are wrong again. Look at the people committing the crimes that require cops to be better armed. How long is their “rap sheet”? Why have they not been dealt with properly?

          • SusanBeehler

            How would you deal with them properly? Shoot them? A “rap sheet” always requires more gun power to fight it? Which gun will out gun a black ball musket or a bushmaster?

  • LibertyFargo
  • Ed
  • Kevin Flanagan

    All the feds have to do is threaten to cut off the flow of federal money.

  • Tim Heise

    “states making themselves independent of federal largess”
    I SO AGREE

    • SusanBeehler

      I disagree

    • SusanBeehler

      Do you think it could be valuable for law enforcement to get information on lost and stolen guns?

      • Hal109

        You don’t have a clue. Do you really believe that law enforcement doesn’t have the ability to get information on stolen guns? This isn’t 1920.

        • SusanBeehler

          You don’t have a clue, this proposed law would make it a misdemeanor, to follow this Executive order issued this week by President Obama. The Executive order was signed after December 31, 2012 which is the date used in this proposed legislation. It was number 10, so law enforcement would break the law if they looked at this report?

          • Hal109

            You don’t know what you are talking about.

  • exsanguine

    Oof. Wrong answer Mr Laney. wrong answer.

    • SusanBeehler

      Right answer Sheriff Laney, right answer!

      • Hal109

        Hey everyone, look at me, I’m Susan Beehler! I have an answer for everything.

  • Bman

    How is it possible, that politicians in some far away capital city can possibly know what’s best for North Dakotans?

    • SusanBeehler

      Why are so many North Dakotans willing to take that far away capital city’s money?

      • yy4u2

        Because they graduated with honors from the Susan beehler school of it’s all about the feelings baby and how to talk nonsense when u know nothing at all.

        • SusanBeehler

          Money is without feelings. You don’t think the hyper “they are going to take away my guns and my big magazines” has nothing to do with most the posters’ feelings on this blog. I think it spews, “I am so scared of losing my guns, I can’t think common sense in a situation where I perceive my gun is under threat mentality.” I don’t worship a “tool” .

          • Hal109

            Replace “guns” with any other constitutional right that you enjoy. You are a self centered drone who can’t see past your little, immediate world.

  • Shadowwalker

    Mr Laney only goes after the criminals that he wants to. Friend of mine was held hostage in his shop in Fargo for several hours. They found this mentally ill multiple offence convicted felon in possession of a .45 high point pistol, a Remington shotgun and several thousand rounds of ammo. There was nearly 20 law enforcement officers involve in getting him out of this shop and into a “mental health facility” at Praire and this individual didn’t get a single charge out of this incident. A couple of months later he nearly beat a woman to death in Dilworth. To bad Mr. Laney wouldn’t have arrested this man on federal gun violations and that the States attorney wouldn’t have prosecution him. That woman from Dilworth wouldn’t have a bleed in her brain, unreal headaches and a disfigured jaw. Mr. Laney, do your job and quit whining. I know of many more issues just like this Mr. Laney. I even have some of them on tape. Fraud!

    • SusanBeehler

      It is not the cop doing the beating, it was the offender. Don’t ban the cop because of an offender. Don’t take away the cops because the “system” did not bring justice. It is not the cop who kills, it is the offender with a gun who kills.

      • Shadowwalker

        It is the Sheriff and the States At tourney specifically that didn’t request the charges. It was directly his responsibility and he didn’t step up to the challenge. I wish he would do his job but he is very selective in it. The public is in danger because these men don’t do their jobs and that is my point.

        • SusanBeehler

          I can not judge a case based on the very little information you have given here. You believe he did not do his job in this instance. Do you know all the circumstances? Do you know how to interpret the laws pertaining this case? My guess you are not a “At tourney” because you would know how to spell your profession’s name.

          • Hal109

            You judge everything else without knowing the facts. Go ahead, give it a shot.

          • SusanBeehler

            Injustice

          • Shadowwalker

            1: I was 1/3 owner of the shop the incident happened in. My partner was the one taken hostage.
            2: I do have a law back round but not in criminal law.
            3: Spent many hours in the states at tourney’s office (spelling was purposeful.) They have a great victim’s advocate!
            4: Am familiar with many other incidences by the same individual that committed this crime and was either never charged or was slapped on the wrist including but not limited to beating several women, multiple felon with firearm events, assault and batteries and the list goes on and on. He is currently walking the streets again.
            5: It was his screw up that lead to my partner being held hostage.

            This list could go on for awhile and most is public record after we finally did get him charged with witness tampering (a poor excuse for a crime to convict someone of at best in ND. Furthermore, people like myself have done so much for lightly educated individuals as yourself to be able to speak your mind freely. (First Amendment) All I ask in return is the ability to protect my family from monsters like the one I have written about above in any way I need to. I am well trained and hold several licenses and certificates to do just this we speak of. (Some of my training was stated in open court.) Please don’t get in our way. There are many of use in this situation. I fully support your right to speak openly and freely, please don’t infringe on my rights in return.

          • SusanBeehler

            I am sorry for this incident happening to you, this proposed law does not address the injustice you have endured nor will it do anything to prevent it from occurring again. You have the 2nd amendment ability to protect your family now and their is nothing being proposed to prevent this. If you believe I am “lightly educated” Do you have a disability which prevents you from spelling and writing in an articulated manner? If this person is a threat still, it should be reported to the authorities. Many men still get away with beating women, this is why it is so important for domestic violence programs to be supported in our communities, they provide a safe way for women to escape from their situations.

          • Shadowwalker

            The spelling as noted before was purposeful and as for “writing in an articulated manner” the pot may be calling the kettle black or maybe you need to do a little more world traveling. Not ALL language is north central american dialect correct. Taking away my tools would hinder my ability to do my job. A doctor may wish a scalpel rather than a box cutter. Law enforcement is well aware of the danger of this individual and even the victim’s advocate fears for her life because of her involvement in this case. Nothing will be done. It is not the job of law enforcement to protect the individual. As for Mr. laney, I have every respect for most serving under him but have no respect for the man himself. He would like to disarm me. This I know personnelly. Yes I spelled his name with a lower case L. As for the state not wanting to help the feds, many great local law enforcement died when the feds went after Mr. Kahl in 1983. I don’t blame them for not wanting a repeat of this.

            My daughters have been educated in offensive arts. May the good Lord help anyone that tries to beat one of them.

          • SusanBeehler

            Again I am sorry for the circumstances you have endured. I have worked as a victims advocate and understand the “terror” of such “monsters” you speak of.

      • Hal109

        Did the cops beat Rodney King? Should we ban cops?

        • SusanBeehler

          Don’t ban cops from using tools provided by the Feds they can access when fighting crime, this proposed legislation takes tools away from them and than charges them with a crime if they “dare” use those tools?

          • Hal109

            I’m trying to understand your demented philosophy. The cops beat Rodney King, should we ban cops?

          • SusanBeehler

            What do you not get? I said “don’t ban cops”. Rodney King beating is not a crime created by a North Dakota legislator. This legislation will “ban cops” from using tools the Feds may be able to provide to fight gun violence. Can you understand now, did I state it clear enough for you? Get it?

          • Hal109

            The Rodney King beating wouldn’t be a crime in ND? Why? Is there a racial bias I am sensing from you, Susan?

            Well, it’s kind of fun to argue mindlessly like Susan.

      • Shadowwalker

        He beat her with his bare hands……..along with a long line of other women.

        • SusanBeehler

          The Sheriff beat someone? Why haven’t you reported this?

  • Lynn Bergman

    Law enforcement, of all people, should understand the inherent benefit of citizens owning weapons in case an executive (President or Governor) decides to impose dictatorial edicts.
    Law enforcement students are likely taught the lesson of NAZI Germany where Hitler used the “safety of children” to justify the confiscation of arms from German citizens. If anyone chooses to declare me “lacking in common sense” for understanding that history repeats itself, so be it. I love my guns; they make me confident I’ll always be free.

    • SusanBeehler

      It is not a benefit to have citizens willing to shoot children or others because they have a legal gun.
      You need a gun to feel confident?

      • Hal109

        Do you need a cake to feel confident? There, you have brought me down to your trashy level.

        • SusanBeehler

          A cake? Like I am supposed to get what you are talking about. Is it “trashy” to desire to have your children and others protected from gun fired on them.

          • Hal109

            You are trashy.

      • Shadowwalker

        Please inform me of one of these monsters that kill children that had not been deemed mentally deficient before they slaughtered the children. Is it odd that all of these monsters appear to lean to the left side of the field? Is it odd that a social worker works in a real gun free zone but our children have to go to school in a pretend gun free zone? I do not need a gun to feel confident in my person. I desire a gun to help my ability to keep me safe from monsters that are younger and or stronger than myself, my wife and my children (great equalizer if believe). Myself and my family have owned guns for years. We have never shot at or killed any children to the best of my knowledge. As for “other” to the best of my knowledge, only in the service of our Countries. The thought never accured to me to shoot someone just because I had a “legal” gun.

        • SusanBeehler

          I am sorry for the violence you have endured. No guns are being confiscated, no guns have been banned.

    • Hal109

      “Law enforcement, of all people, should understand the inherent benefit of citizens owning weapons”
      You are correct. It is not uncommon for Law Enforcement to advise individuals to get a gun and learn how to use it because response times very often are not adequate to protect citizens. How many times have we heard of murders being committed while the victim was on the 911 call and before police arrived? Too many, you have the right to defend yourself.

  • RCND

    Mr Laney forgets that traffic laws and constitutional rights are two different things. He swore to protect, uphold, and defend that Constitution, of which the 2nd Amendment is a part of and which has been found twice in recent SCOTUS history to protect individuals rights to own guns. He thus has a duty NOT to enforce any infringements by the federal government, to include the legislation being discussed out in the beltway.

    • SusanBeehler

      Felons probably feel their right to own a gun has been “infringed” on. He also swore to protect and serve.

      • Hal109

        Probably? You don’t know what you’re talking about.

      • RCND

        An unconstitutional law is not a law, and that constitution is still first in line. If you honestly don’t like the 2nd Amendment then go through the process to attempt its repeal

        • SusanBeehler

          It is not a law until it is proven through our court system it is unconstitutional law. I am not against the 2nd Amendment, I against the twisted version it has come to mean to some.

          • Hal109

            That was incoherent, like most of your thoughts.

          • PK

            Have you ever read Article I, Section I of the North Dakota constitution?

          • RCND

            It already has been twice in recent history. Susan, once again your emotions are getting the best of you. Time to take a Xanax, unplug from the debate, and join us all again when you are rested and under control

  • SusanBeehler

    “This bill isn’t saying the federal government can’t enforce their new gun control laws here. We’d just be saying we won’t help. What’s wrong with that?”
    Maybe it is the law of unintended consequences or a law they will not enforce like the corrupt practice act for North Dakota politicians, the law sounded very similar in the punishment area. What if this law was the opposite, written to say if they did not corporate with or enforce federal laws they could be charged with a misdemeanor? North Dakota is a state of the United States, why should we punish those choose to be part of the Union?

  • SusanBeehler

    Many of you guys forget, it is not you and your gun owner buddies putting their lives on the line, to serve and protect, it is law enforcement putting their lives on the line every time they are called to a “domestic”, they never know who will be carrying and one of theirs will be lost to a “crazy” with a gun. Sergant Kenner of the Bismarck PD gave the ultimate sacrifice to serve and protect; his life. Many of the comments I have read make me want to “puke on you” . How many of you even have a clue what a law enforcement encounters out there in their job? Some of you have the nerve to say you need a certain type of gun to protect you from the “good” guys; our law enforcement. Sickening! This law is a “knee jerk” law! No it is a “jerk” law.

    • http://proof-proofpositive.blogspot.com/ Proof

      Susan: Do you get all your exercise jumping to conclusions? Did it ever occur to you what percentage of our “gun owner buddies” might participate in law enforcement in their day job? Both law enforcement and the military, past and present, are well represented in groups such as the NRA. I would wager that a higher percentage of law enforcement officers are gun owners personally than the population at large. On that, I’d even give you odds, Little Susie. Wake up! *

      If you want to make pronouncements, borne of ignorance, as to who our “buddies” may or not be, go right ahead. They are certainly on a par with the rest of your drivel.

      *Channeling my inner Everly Brother

      • SusanBeehler

        I am sorry I thought that is what the majority of the bloggers do here, you know label people, like liberals,right,left,good,bad, all, nothing and such? This isn’t a place to sort the “dirty laundry”? Did I put Sheriff Laney in the wrong “bin”? Is it only NRA members who have good ideas, worthy ideas for discussion? If it is not about “guns” and about the people behind the gun why are so many being sorted as gun owners good, non gun owners bad? Take away the word “gun” and we are all people.

        • http://proof-proofpositive.blogspot.com/ Proof

          Sorry, Susie, but it looks like you can’t read either. That or you cannot comprehend what the words mean. I didn’t say anything about Sheriff Laney or your characterization of him. I never said or implied anything about gun owners or non-owners as being “good or bad”. If you are hearing voices telling you otherwise, perhaps the “bin” for you is “looney”?

          • SusanBeehler

            Sorry, I thought when you quoted “our” gun buddies you were implying you were part of the blog crowd which seems to be all about the gun rather than focusing on what can be done about gun violence. Are you in law enforcement?

          • PK

            Every American citizen has the same “powers” that law enforcement have. The people hire citizens to help keep the peace full time. From your comments, you seem to think there’s a difference between the people and peace officers, when in reality there isn’t. Just thought i would clue you in on that.

          • SusanBeehler

            In your opinion; but I would like to see how that plays out in reality when a police officer confronts a burglar, both of them having law enforcement “powers”. I would like a clue how that reality works. I think there is a difference between a police officer, a citizen and a burglar, but maybe I don’t see your reality. Care to explain your real world to me? How come we pay police officers if we are all police officers because no one confronts disturbing of the peace full time?

          • PK

            Have you ever heard of a citizens arrest? That’s the same power that peace officers use. The people, hire citizens to help keep the peace full time. They use the same arrest powers that every citizen has. They’re not given special “powers” because they wear a costume and a badge. They already had that power, they just do it for a living. It’s not that difficult to understand.

          • PK

            And it’s not my opinion, it’s fact.

          • SusanBeehler

            Sure I have, how often have you seen those powers being used? You mean it is not Halloween every day? I think you are insulting to law enforcement saying they are dressed up in a costume when everyone knows it is the uniform they wear allows them to stand apart from the rest of the “powers” out there.

          • PK

            Haha, wow. I used the word “costume” because in reality, that’s what it is. It’s just clothing. They don’t get their power from the uniform or badge, they already had it. When you can’t add anything do an argument you divert, a very simple tactic that isn’t very effective to an educated audience.

          • PK

            To any peace officers and military persons who took offense to my word usage of “costume”, when i was explaining that your powers don’t come from the textiles identifying you as such, i am sorry.

          • http://proof-proofpositive.blogspot.com/ Proof

            I can try to teach you what the word “our” means. I can try to keep you from making false distinctions between “gun owners” and “law enforcement”, labeling people and pounding square pegs into round, elliptical, octagonal and triangular holes. But, you seem to prefer broad* generalizations over facts, such as “the blog crowd which seems to be all about the gun rather than focusing on what can be done about gun violence”.

            You speak in cliches, Susie. You are all over the map on this discussion. I have no interest in investing the amount of time it would take to disabuse you of your careless thought (if I might characterize it so generously), over generalizations and erroneous conclusions.

            *Not a reference to sex or gender, but size and scope**.

            **Not to be confused with the optics on a handgun or long rifle***

            ***Not to imply that handguns do not use rifled barrels****

            ****Not to be confused with a smooth bore*****

            *****Not to be confused with someone boring, such as yourself, Susie. Ciao.******

            ******Not to be confused with an Italian.

          • SusanBeehler

            You were being factual? There is a map? There is a conclusion to the debate on this legislation. Thoughts can be careless? Thanks for playing.

          • http://proof-proofpositive.blogspot.com/ Proof

            Bleat some more, Susie. You’re lulling your fellow sheep!

          • SusanBeehler

            Are you talking about gun owners now? They appear to run the minute they hear “wolf” and go buy more guns because the “wolf” is coming, the “wolf” is coming!

          • http://proof-proofpositive.blogspot.com/ Proof

            Put down the crayons and go lay down, Susie, or you’ll flunk “Nap time” again.

          • Onslaught1066

            She really has her heart set on earning the title of “hanniturdlet”.

            I wonder if she is the proud owner of an $800.00 purse, or what she thinks the word “Cramp” is short for?

          • http://proof-proofpositive.blogspot.com/ Proof

            I really noticed the resemblance to Tiny Hanni today. Considering the way she grates on people, maybe they were separated at birth? Hanni & Gratezel?

          • Onslaught1066

            Or at afterbirth.

          • Spartacus

            Or she’s got the hots for him…good God, I’m not sure which one I should feel sympathy for!

          • http://proof-proofpositive.blogspot.com/ Proof

            The one with the shorter mustache.

          • Spartacus

            Must I repeat myself? I mean you’re being unfair to SuzyQ because everyone knows Willy waxes his upper lip to get rid of the peach fuzz on a quarterly basis, like clock work.

          • Spartacus

            I think it’s Hannitized’s mother. She probably came here to yell at us for picking on her poor defenseless (and clueless) son. And how many times have I warned him in the past not to come here without his helmet…?

    • Shadowwalker

      I share your sorrow for a fallen officer. I weep for many of my fallen brothers and sisters but I would never suggest that it is the gun that killed them. Many of my brothers and sisters have died from road side bombs, clubs, knives, pointed sticks and so forth. It isn’t the gun that killed Mr. Kenner. It was the sick bastard that was holding onto the gun. Until we are willing to address this truth, this debate is lost for both of us. I don’t know what tragedy has befallen you to have such a view as you do but I truly hope you find peace some day.

      • SusanBeehler

        It is much more “difficult” to kill someone with their bare hands, a gun makes it much easier to kill. Imagine if someone had to hunt a deer and kill it with their bare hands,How many people would still be hunters after their first attempt to ‘bag” their deer? Guns make it easier to kill.

  • SusanBeehler

    Bravo to Sheriff Laney! Thank god there are some gun owners with common sense. I support local law enforcement and glad they are willing to do what is necessary to protect our citizens and willing to work the FEDS. Good job for speaking up Sheriff Laney!

  • PK

    SusanBeehler, have you read this publication by the Attorney General’s office?

    http://www.ag.state.nd.us/Reports/BCIReports/CrimeHomicide/MURDER11.pdf

    If you had, you would know that in the last 20 years, there have been 234 homicides in North Dakota. Less than half of those murders involved firearms. No mass shootings. North Dakota is in the top 5 for highest percentage of gun ownership, and in the top 5 for lowest crime rate. Why do we need any more restrictions on firearms? Those scary looking AR-15’s and high capacity magazines have been around for much longer than 20 years. The highest crime rates in the country are in cities with complete gun bans for the citizens. And you accuse people of knee-jerk reactions, when you’re the one who doesn’t look at the empirical evidence showing more guns equals less crime.

    • PK

      By the way Ms. The “AR” in AR-15 doesn’t stand for “assault rifle”. It stands for Armalite, the first company to make a civilian version of the military’s M-16. Just a little fact.

    • http://proof-proofpositive.blogspot.com/ Proof

      10 X

      • PK

        What?

        • http://proof-proofpositive.blogspot.com/ Proof

          The 10 ring on the target is the bullseye. 10 X is shorthand for “right on the money”

          • $8194357

            10X
            Proof…

          • PK

            Thanks.

  • C. Y.

    In ’96 the SCOTUS said the feds can pass and enforce laws but they cannot require local agencies to enforce the same laws. Sheriff Mack vs the Brady Bill. It does nothing to stop cooperation between federal or local agencies. I don’t believe Rep. Streyle’s bill restricts any cooperation between those agencies either as it only concerns new unconstitutional laws on gun control.

Top