President Joe Biden wants gun control and he wants it bad. He’s said so from the moment he kicked off his campaign. We all knew he’d push for it and he has. It didn’t happen quite as fast as we feared, but fast enough.

The thing is, he doesn’t have the votes he needs to make gun control a reality.

As a result, he went the executive action route. While he’s likely still hopeful that he can get gun control passed through Congress, he wanted something right now.

Well, he’s got it. That includes a bill in Idaho seeking to undermine those orders.

A House panel on Monday approved legislation intended to head off a half-dozen executive actions from President Joe Biden to combat what he called an “epidemic and an international embarrassment” of gun violence in America.

The House State Affairs Committee sent to the House the measure that prohibits Idaho government entities from upholding the executive actions announced earlier this month. The measure has already passed the Senate.

Idaho already has in place legislation from 2014 stating that Idaho government cannot enforce federal actions that infringe upon Second Amendment rights. The additions to that law now being proposed with the new legislation seek to prevent Biden’s executive actions from being enforced in Idaho.

Biden’s orders include a move to crack down on “ghost guns,” homemade firearms that lack serial numbers used to trace them and are often purchased without a background check.

Biden also moved to tighten regulations on pistol-stabilizing braces like the one used in Boulder, Colorado, in a shooting last month that left 10 dead. The braces for handguns allow them to be fired from a shoulder, like a rifle.

Biden is also seeking “red flag laws” allowing family members or law enforcement to, with a court order, temporarily bar people in crisis from accessing firearms if they present a danger to themselves or others.

This is an interesting approach.

For most of us, embracing sanctuary status has been enough. We took it to also include executive orders, but we probably shouldn’t have. That’s not a new regulation and a case can be made that enforcing those is really just enforcing laws already on the books prior to the sanctuary state law.

By doing this, Idaho is removing any and all ambiguity. Law enforcement won’t be able to wiggle around the sanctuary rules by playing semantics. This makes it clear, which is a good thing.

My only wish is that none of this was required. If we had a pro-gun Congress, they could override an executive order easily enough, but we don’t. We lost the House and, for all practical purposes, lost the Senate. All we can do is hold serve legislatively while Biden does whatever he wants through executive action.

It’s funny how the people upset with Trump’s executive orders and called them tyranny are fine with Bidens, just as they were fine with Obama’s.

For the rest of us, though, the issue isn’t that an executive order is being issued, it’s that we’re seeing still more infringement of our Second Amendment rights.