It looks like Montana has been busy, signing into law House Bill No. 258 on April 23 that prohibits enforcement of federal ban of firearms, amongst other things.
NEW SECTION. Section 4. Prohibition of enforcement. (1) A peace officer, state employee, or employee of a political subdivision is prohibited from enforcing, assisting in the enforcement of, or otherwise cooperating in the enforcement of a federal ban on firearms, magazines, or ammunition and is also prohibited from participating in any federal enforcement action implementing a federal ban on firearms, magazines, or ammunition. This does not apply to fully automatic firearms amongst other sensible conditions such as “the enforcement of any federal or state law prohibiting a person with a violent felony conviction from possessing a firearm.”
We obviously live in interesting times when one has a constitution which the federal government is taking or has expressed the intention to take one interpretation of and a state government is responding or pre-empting by taking another.
On a different note, Montana’s Senate and House of Representatives earlier passed House Joint Resolution (HJ) 9, reminding the POTUS and Congress that the Constitution grants Congress the power to declare war (Article 1, Section 8). Below are the first two of the five points:
(1) That the President of the United States and the United States Congress be urged to take no action to employ military forces of the United States in active-duty combat unless and until the United States Congress has passed an official declaration of war or has taken an official action or renewed action to authorize the use of military force save in instances when our forces must respond to attack.
(2) That the President of the United States and the United States Congress be urged to repeal the 2001 Authorization for the Use of Military Force and to ensure any future authorizations feature geographic and mission-specific language on their intended scope, regular reporting on their use, and automatic sunsets to require their periodic review, debate, and approval by recorded vote.
Whilst the resolution cites the war in Afghanistan as an example and is about not unnecessarily going to war in the future, the timing is interesting given the business going on in Ukraine.
Be sure to subscribe to our mailing list so you get each new Opinyun that comes out!
