While Democrats in Washington are busily working to find ways to pass more restrictive gun control laws, Montana is headed in a decidedly different direction. On Friday, Governor Greg Gianforte signed a new bill into law that’s pretty much the opposite of “gun control.” This law prohibits law enforcement officials or other state workers from enforcing federal gun restrictions or spending taxpayer funds on restricting certain firearms, ammunition, or accessories such as magazines. Considering the fact that the “certain firearms” in question are the immensely popular AR-style rifles and the magazines in question are clearly of the extended variety, this measure would effectively mute the gun control legislation being worked on in Congress. (Fox News)
Montana Gov. Greg Gianforte signed a bill into law Friday that’s intended to protect gun owners in the state from any new federal regulations or bans on firearms.
“Today, I proudly signed Rep. [Jedediah] Hinkle’s law prohibiting federal overreach into our Second Amendment-protected rights, including any federal ban on firearms,” Gianforte, a Republican, wrote on Twitter. “I will always protect our #2A right to keep and bear arms.”
Republicans in the state passed the law amid President Biden’s push for federal gun reform measures in the wake of a series of mass shootings across the country this year.
Today, I proudly signed Rep. Hinkle's law prohibiting federal overreach into our Second Amendment-protected rights, including any federal ban on firearms.
— Governor Greg Gianforte (@GovGianforte) April 23, 2021
Gianforte can clearly see where most of his state’s residents come down on such issues. As you may recall, the voters in Montana passed a referendum last November that prevents local and municipal governments from passing laws restricting gun ownership and portability beyond the limits of state and federal gun control laws already in place. And that referendum passed despite a huge flood of outside money from gun control groups trying to stop the measure.
You might be wondering how one state can pass laws that undercut the enforcement of federal laws. It’s a fair question. But the Democrats across the country have probably shot themselves in the foot over the past several years by providing a prime example. We could equally well ask how the states or cities around the nation can pass laws undercutting the enforcement of federal immigration laws. And yet the sanctuary states and cities have managed to do exactly that with wild abandon. Perhaps this just comes down to a case of what’s bad for the goose is equally bad for the gander.
As the linked Fox News report notes, Gianforte isn’t alone in this effort by any means. In fact, Arizona’s governor signed an almost identical bill a few weeks earlier. Oklahoma is on its way to becoming a Second Amendment sanctuary state.
When you put Oklahoma’s efforts in context with Montana and Arizona and compare these measures to all of the sanctuary city nonsense that’s been going around for years now, a picture comes into focus. If you want to create a sanctuary for illegal aliens where they can’t be the subject of enforcing federal immigration laws, you’ve opened Pandora’s Box, haven’t you? If those laws are fair game, then others will be as well, and you might not like the results of your “creative” thinking. I still think the Supremacy Clause should be in play when questions like these arise, but I thought the same thing about the sanctuary city plans. Apparently, that’s an outdated approach to government, so maybe we’ll just have to embrace the future and turn half of the country into Second Amendment sanctuaries.