The Washington State Freedom of Travel Act

Washingtonians, like people in states around the country, are growing weary of the constant abuse of their liberties by the TSA. New legislation wasn introduced in the Washington State House this week regarding the freedom to travel without being subject to what the bill calls “an offense of official oppression by a public servant.”

HB 1454, introduced by representative Jason Overstreet, considers official oppression to cover the subjection of another person to mistreatment, arrest, or seizure that he/she knows is illegal; the intentional denial or impediment of another person’s powers and rights that he/she knows is illegal; and intentionally subjecting another person to harassment or sexual harassment.

“The conversation concerning the unconscionable and unconstitutional ‘grope and feel’ policies of the federal government in airport, bus, and train station security checkpoints around the country, is long overdue,” Overstreet said.  “It is unacceptable to allow ourselves, our sons, daughters and grandparents to be physically violated, in return for the opportunity to travel freely. Your elected officials swore oaths to protect you from unwarranted search and seizure–it’s time for them to step up to the plate and act.”

The act contains a list of various offenses committed without probable cause, such as the touching of sexual organs, the removal of minors from parents/guardians, intentionally causing offensive or provocative physical situations, all of which would fall under the “determination of whether to grant another person access to a public accessible venue or form of transportation, ” as well as harassment, coercion, intimidation, and threats to deny or condition access for the other person because of their refusal to comply with the above horrors.

HB 1454 makes an offense of official oppression by a public servant, a class C felony. It was introduced on January 28th, and has been sent to the Public Safety committee for a hearing.

Details

Wyoming Firearms Protection Act Passes out of Committee

In response to current threats from the Federal Government on banning firearms, firearms accessories and ammunition, States are beginning to take action to hold the Federal Government to its constitutional limits under the 2nd Amendment. “A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.”

Wyoming Rep. Kendell Kroeker has sponsored and introduced HB0104. the Firearms Protection Act. Representatives Baker, Burkhart, Jaggi, Miller, Piiparinen, Reeder and Winters and Senators Dockstader and Hicks have co-sponsered this bill.

On Tuesday, January 29, 2013, HB104 passed out of committee by a vote off 8-1. The only “NAY” vote was from Rep. Connolly of Albany County. The bill now moves on to the full house where it will be debated and vote on in the coming days. (Wyoming activists, see the end of this post for action items to support this bill)

Wyoming’s Firearms Protection Act, is “an act relating to firearms; providing that any federal law which attempts to ban a semi-automatic firearm or to limit the size of a magazine of a firearm or other limitation on in this state shall be unenforceable in Wyoming; providing a penalty; and providing for an effective date.” This act nullifies all federal laws made after Jan. 1, 2013.

“We need the second amendment because it is the protection for all of our other rights. Without it, those rights have no protection,” Kroeker said.

Details

Wyoming NDAA Nullification Passes Out of Committee

Wyoming state representative Kendell Kroeker, along with reps Hunt and Miller, and Senator Case, have introduced a bill that declares the indefinite detention provisions of the 2012 NDAA to be unconstitutional, prohibiting enforcement of the federal act.

On Tuesday, January 29, 2013, HB114 passed out of committee with a 6-3 vote. According to Kroeker, “This bill will preserve our constitutionally protected rights by not allowing the federal government to arrest and detain our citizens without trial or charges being brought against them. The federal government gave themselves this power, which completely shreds the bill of rights, with the passage of sections 1021 and 1022 of the 2012 NDAA. It will be an interesting fight on the floor when it comes up in the next few days.”

The bill not only cites the various constitutional violations of the NDAA, but makes it a criminal misdemeanor for state employees and public officers to participate in trying to implement the aforementioned provisions. This would be a bold step for Wyoming. If passed, they could possibly be the first state to make participation with the feds in kidnapping people under the NDAA a criminal act.

Representative Kroeker affirms that it comes down to the basics of his role as a legislator.

Details

Mississippi Bill Would Nullify NDAA

Senate Bill 2689 was introduced by Senator McDaniel of Mississippi to fight against the NDAA. Mississippi makes the 8th state to introduce legislation against NDAA so far this year. Currently the bill sits in the Senate Judiciary, Division A Committee.

“The Legislature of the State of Mississippi, condemns in no uncertain terms Sections 1021 and 1022 of the 2012 NDAA as they purport to (i) repeal the Posse Comitatus doctrine and authorize the President of the United States to utilize the Armed Forces of the United States to police the United States of America, (ii) indefinitely detain persons captured within the United States of America without charge until the end of hostilities as purportedly authorized by the 2001 Authorization for Use of Military Force, (iii) subject persons captured within the United States of America to military tribunals, and (iv) transfer persons captured within the United States of America to a foreign country or foreign entity.”

SB 2689 continues, “The State of Mississippi shall not provide material support or participate in any way with the implementation of Sections 1021 and 1022 of the National Defense Authorization Act of 2012 within the boundaries of this state. The Department of Public Safety is hereby directed to report to the Governor and the Legislature any attempt by agencies or agents of the United States Federal Government to secure the implementation of Sections 1021 and 1022 of the National Defense Authorization Act of 2012 through the operations of that or any other state department.”

Details

Nebraska Bill Would Nullify any new Federal Gun “Laws”

On January 22, 2013, Nebraska Senator Charlie Janssen introduced a bill that would nullify new federal restrictions on firearms, magazines, and firearm accessories within the state’s borders. Since then Senator Ken Schilz has joined Senator Charlie Janssen as a co-sponsor.

LB451 would, according to the text of the bill, block any new gun regulations. It states, in part:

“Any federal law, rule, regulation, or order effective on or after January 1, 2013, shall be unenforceable within the borders of Nebraska” …if it

“Bans or restricts or attempts to ban or restrict ownership of a semi-automatic firearm or any magazine of a firearm beyond those firearms which are already restricted in Nebraska.”

They go on to define exactly what the new federal regulations cannot ban or restrict, if it:

Details

Thought Controllers Up in Arms About Mississippi Nullification Bill

In Mississippi, House Bill 490 would establish a commission to evaluate the constitutionality of federal actions and prevent the enforcement of unconstitutional ones. (They are calling this neutralization, not nullification, but it’s the same thing.)

Naturally, the Opinion Police are appalled at this; this idea does not appear on the 3×5 card of positions we peons are allowed to hold. So the Clarion Ledger has published at least two articles on the subject in the past week in which we are treated to breathless posturing about the civil rights movement, in order to make the idea of political decentralization toxic to the public. They also claim the bill is “unconstitutional” — and whenever an article against nullification makes this claim, you can be sure it will be followed up with: “According to Fred Lawyer of John Marshall Law School, the bill is unconstitutional because according to Article VI of the Constitution, federal law trumps state law.”

Here are the two articles:

Details