Franklin County, Indiana Passes 2nd Amendment Preservation Ordinance

While a number of states are currently considering legislation to nullify federal gun laws, rules, acts, orders and regulations, and various sheriffs around the country are issuing notice that they will not enforce any such federal laws, a new grassroots undercurrent could be building to support those efforts: local governments nullifying unconstitutional federal acts that violate the 2nd Amendment.

Last week, Beaufort County, North Carolina became the first in the country to do so. On Tuesday, Franklin County, Indiana joined them by passing a 2nd Amendment Preservation Ordinance. It passed unanimously, and County Commissioner Scott M. McDonough says they mean business.

“The citizens of Franklin County take the Constitution seriously and the State and Federal government need to do so as well,” he said.

The ordinance itself is an extremely strong stand in support of the 2nd Amendment. It reads, in part:

All federal acts, laws, orders, rules or regulations regarding firearms are a violation of the 2nd Amendment

The ordinance continues:


Alaska Updating their Firearms Freedom Act

Representative Chenault, along with cosponsors Representatives Millett, Johnson, and Wilson, have introduced HB069 that builds on their previous Firearms Freedom act of 2010 HB 186.

Currently HB069 is assigned to the House Judiciary Committee.

HB069 has minor changes to the previous Firearms Freedom Act of 2010. This bill removes the “made in Alaska” stamp requirement from HB 186. Instead, Alaska will have to acknowledge all legally obtained firearms possessed in the state of Alaska as not subject to any federal acts, laws, or regulations.

HB069 states, “A personal firearm, a firearm accessory, or ammunition that is possessed in this state or manufactured commercially or privately in this state and that remains in the state is not subject to federal law or federal regulation, including registration, under the authority of the United States Congress to regulate interstate commerce as those items have not traveled in interstate commerce.”

The bill continues, “The authority of the United States Congress to regulate interstate commerce in basic materials does not include authority to regulate firearms, firearm accessories, and ammunition possessed in this state or made in this state from those materials. Firearm accessories that are imported into this state from another state and that are subject to federal regulation as being in interstate commerce do not subject a firearm to federal regulation under interstate commerce because they are attached to or used in conjunction with a firearm in this state.”


Hawaii Legislature Considers Extending Its Defiance Of Feds On Pot

With a 12-plus year fed-defying track record with its medical marijuana program, the Hawaii legislature will consider the next step during the 2013 legislative session – full legalization of pot for recreational use.

House Speaker Rep. Joseph Souki and Rep. Scott Saiki introduced HB150 on Jan. 18. The bill description summarized the legislation.

Authorizes persons 21 years of age or older to consume or possess limited amounts of marijuana for personal use. Provides for the licensing of marijuana cultivation facilities, product manufacturing facilities, safety testing facilities, and retail stores. Requires the counties to provide for licensing of marijuana facilities if the State fails to do so. Authorizes the counties to regulate or prohibit marijuana facilities within their boundaries.

The legislation completely ignores federal prohibitions on marijuana and the Supreme Court ruling empowering the feds to regulate it, effectively nullifying the unconstitutional federal act.

Notwithstanding any other provision of law, the following acts shall be lawful and shall not be a basis for seizure or forfeiture of assets for persons twenty—one years of age or older…

These legalized acts include possessing, transporting, growing and consuming less than one ounce of marijuana.


Alaska House Speaker Calls for Nullification

And a local reporter condemns him with the same old fourth-grade arguments. He gives us the Supremacy Clause (which he evidently thinks Thomas Jefferson didn’t know about), which he takes to mean that any old federal law trumps all state law, an interpretation that would have come as a surprise to the ratifiers. He gives us the morally grotesque “the Civil War settled this” argument, naturally. And so on.

Then we get the usual lecture about the bad old Articles of Confederation, regarding which Aronno is content to repeat his fourth-grade lesson, and has evidently never shown any curiosity beyond that. He quotes Madison without acknowledging the Report of 1800, where Madison said the states had to have a defense mechanism to guard against all three branches of the federal government.


El Paso County, CO Resolution for the 2nd Amendment: A Win and a Loss?

In Colorado, El Paso County Commissioners Tuesday unanimously passed a resolution preemptively rejecting any potential gun control legislation by the Obama administration.  It’s the 2nd local government in the country to have done so.

Dozens of supporters spoke in favor of the resolution, authored by Commissioner Peggy Littleton. “The County Commissioners and the Sheriff, as duly-elected officials sworn to uphold our oath of office, will protect the 2nd Amendment rights of people, even if our Federal government tries to come in and take those away from us,” Littleton said.

The resolution reads, in part:

the County of El Paso, State of Colorado, WILL uphold the Second Amendment of the Constitution of the United States, and WILL act in conformity with our sworn duties as duly elected officials charged with public trust, and WILL, in conjunction with prior decisions by the United States Supreme Court, NOT enforce any statutes, edicts, Presidential Directives, or other regulations and proclamations which conflict—and are expressly preempted by—the U.S. Supreme Court’s rulings.

The decision to stand for their oath is a good one. The basis, though, is a bit convoluted as it appears to indicate that the oath is to decisions made by the Supreme Court. While they’ve got a good leg to stand on, for now, in that the Court previously ruled in Printz v United States that the federal government cannot compel states or localities to enforce federal acts – a new court decision could change that at anytime.


PA State Representative Introduces Legislation to Nullify Federal Gun-Grabbing

Today Pennsylvania became the 13th state in the last three weeks to introduce legislation nullifying federal encroachments of firearms ownership.  State Representative Daryl Metcalfe modeled the Right to Bear Arms Protection Act (House Bill 357) after legislation recently introduced in Wyoming and Texas.

Highlights of House Bill 357 (yep, that’s 357) include:

  • prohibitions against enforcement of any new federal registration, restriction or prohibition requirement for privately owned firearms, magazines and ammunition.
  • the requirement that the state of Pennsylvania, including the Office of Attorney General, to intercede on behalf of Commonwealth citizens against any federal attempt to register, restrict or ban the purchase or ownership of firearms and firearms accessories which are currently legal products.
  • felony charges against anyone – including federal agents who try to enforce any type of gun control restriction within state borders.

“Passage of my legislation will send the message that there will never be additional gun control, anywhere in Pennsylvania,” said Metcalfe.  “Whether by White House executive orders, congressional fiat, or judicial activism, we will never allow the left to benefit from the wicked acts of murderers in order advance their senseless gun-grabbing agenda which would only succeed in replacing one of our most sacred personal liberties with the chains of government tyranny.”


New Mexico – Rep. Nora Espinoza ‘Unloads’ On Federal Overreach Of Amendment II

New Mexico joins a rapidly growing list of States stepping up to the Nullification plate.

Recently introduced legislation by Representative Espinoza looks to protect citizens of the ‘Land of Enchantment’ state from the long arm of   ‘the un-Constitutional’ law.   Representative Nora Espinoza has introduced  H.B. 114.


H.B. 114 applies criminal charges for federal agents who vioalte the 2nd Amendment within the State of New Mexico:

An official, agent or employee of the United States government who enforces or attempts to enforce any act, order, law, statute, rule or regulation of the United States government upon a personal firearm or firearm accessory, or upon ammunition, that is owned or is manufactured commercially or privately in New Mexico, and that remains exclusively within the borders of New Mexico, is guilty of a third degree felony and shall be punished by a fine of not more than five thousand dollars ($5,000) or by imprisonment for a definite term not to exceed three years or both.

There is a unique facet to this legislation in that it opposes ALL those federal laws “created OR effective ON or after July 1, 2013″.  New Mexico joins many other states where legislation is being/has been introduced to protect the Constitutional rights of its’ citizens. This Bill was introduced on January 16 and is currently in the House Consumer and Affairs Committee.


A Peep’s Executive Order

Executive orders have been bothering me for quite awhile.

Sometime ago, when Bill Clinton issued executive order 13119 engaging American forces in the Kosovo conflict, I sent him a letter asking by what authority he had made his decision. He never answered me. Had he replied and not lied (as in ‘I never had sex with that woman’), he probably would have said: “The Constitution does not give me the power to declare war, but I do have executive orders, though there is no constitutional statute or provision that explicitly allows for executive orders either, guess I’ll just have to wing it, I’m the President, so sue me.”

Seventeen members of congress did just that, stating: “It is incumbent upon us to resort to the courts to force Mr. Clinton to follow his oath of office to uphold the Constitution and laws of the United States.” A federal judge dismissed the lawsuit. How does a judge not uphold the Constitution?

Clinton was just doing what presidents, including George Washington, have been doing for over 200 years. In 1793, Washington issued his “Neutrality Proclamation,” which declared that the United States would remain neutral in the conflict between France and England, and would bring sanctions against any American citizen who attempted to provide assistance to either party. In October of last year Barrack Obama issued an executive order that claims the power to freeze all bank accounts and stop any related financial transactions that a “sanctioned person” may own or try to perform with respect to Iran or Syria. Sound familiar? Other Obama executive orders are appointing nominees to government positions without senate approval, halting deportations of illegal immigrants who met certain requirements without congressional notification and changing welfare policy without submitting those changes to congress.


Arizona Senate Bill Proposes Jail Time for Violations of the 2nd Amendment

BOYERBORRELLISEEL and GRAY have introduced a bill in the senate that would prohibit the federal government from regulating “a personal firearm, a firearm accessory or ammunition that is owned or manufactured commercially or privately in this state and that remains exclusively within the borders of this state.”

SB1112 would revise Arizona statutes by adding a section on firearms. The text of the bill simply states:

“A public servant or a federally licensed dealer who sells firearms in this state shall not enforce or attempt to enforce any act, law, statute, rule or regulation of the United States government relating to a personal firearm, a firearm accessory or ammunition that is owned or manufactured commercially or privately in this state and that remains exclusively within the borders of this state.”


“An official, agent or employee of the United States government shall not enforce or attempt to enforce any act, order, law, statute, rule or regulation of the United States government relating to a personal firearm, a firearm accessory or ammunition that is owned or manufactured commercially or privately in this state and that remains exclusively within the borders of this state.


Oklahoma 2nd Amendment Preservation Act Threatens Jail and Fines for Violating It

The 2nd Amendment Preservation Act was introduced by Senator Dahm on Jan. 16 and declares that:

“The Legislature of the State of Oklahoma declares that the 2nd Amendment guarantees an individual right to keep and bear arms free from infringement; that federal acts, laws, orders, rules, regulations, bans, or registration requirements regarding firearms constitute an infringement on the individual right, are not authorized by the Constitution of the United States and violate its true meaning and intent as given by the founders and ratifiers, and are hereby declared to be invalid in the State of Oklahoma, shall not be recognized by this state, are specially rejected by this state, and shall be considered null and void and of no effect in this state.”

SB 548 would declare “an emergency” and would protect Oklahoma’s citizens from federal firearm “laws and regulations” from the date of passage and signing. The text of the bill simply states:

“It shall be the duty of the Legislature of this state to adopt and enact any and all measures as may be necessary to prevent the enforcement of all federal acts, laws, orders, rules, regulations, bans or registration requirements regarding firearms within the limits of this state.”

But how does the state plan to enforce the provisions of this bill?