Maricopa County Attorney Continues to Fight Judge’s Medical Marijuana Approval

Bill  Montgomery, Maricopa County’s attorney, filed the request Friday with the state’s highest court after a lower court ruled that Arizona’s medical marijuana law was constitutional. A Maricopa County Superior Court judge ruled last month that federal drug laws don’t stand in the way of public officials implementing Arizona’s law.

The case started over a dispute, whether Maricopa County had to approve zoning for a dispensary in Sun City. White Mountain Health Center, the proposed dispensary, is the subject of the court fight. More than 30,000 people already have cards authorizing them to possess and use medical marijuana in Arizona. Maricopa County is asking the Arizona Supreme Court to decide if federal drug laws pre-empt Arizona’s medical marijuana laws. Source

SPOILER ALERT! The answer is, NO! It’s unconstitutional!

Maricopa County Superior Court Judge, Michael Gordon, ruled against Montgomery last month and ordered the county to provide the required zoning information. He was absolutely right in doing so! Judge Gordon has pointed out in the past to Montgomery and Attorney General Tom Horne the reasons for his stance. In previous rulings, Gordon has said, “that 18 states and the District of Columbia already have enacted laws permitting some form of legal marijuana use. I’m not about to declare Arizona’s own version invalid.” Also stating, “this court will not rule that Arizona, having sided with the ever-growing minority of states and having limited it to medical use, has violated public policy.”

Responding to Montgomery and Horne’s argument, Gordon also pointed out that, “a conviction under federal law for aiding requires proof the person assists or participates in committing the crime.” He said, “that’s not the case with public workers. Their specific intent is to perform their administrative tasks.”


Oklahoma House bill would Nullify the Drones

Republican Paul Wesselhoft, Oklahoma House of Representatives, has introduced HB 1556  [Oklahoma Unmanned Aerial Surveillance Act] and it will be Referred to Committee  when the legislature convene’s Feb. 4, 2013.  This Bill targets the warrant-less use of unmanned aerial surveillance drones in the state of Oklahoma.  

Oklahoma is part of a growing number of states to introduce similar legislation designed to thwart the ubiquitous onslaught against ‘the people’s right to privacy‘.

HB 1556 can be basically broken down into 3 categories:

[1]    Section 3(A) – “it shall be unlawful to operate an unmanned aircraft system for or in connection to surveillance within the   state.”

It then goes on to spell out the legal use of drones:  3B(1) a warrant has been issued;  3B(2) missing persons search;  3B(3) firefighting or other emergency services agency;  3B(4) anyone asking to be a surveillant;  3B(5) an innocuous use of drones in public lands or properties.

Any use of drones by law enforcement would require a warrant.  Even the legal uses enumerated above would require sworn statements within 24 hours of use as to the grounds for and intent of said use.  Additionally, HB 1556 has a few teeth for those who violate as well as those being violated.  Violator’s are subject to misdemeanor penalties [$500-$5000 fine/up to 1 year in jail], and allows for an aggrieved party to pursue civil action with potential claims as high as $50,000 per violation.


Indiana Senate Bill Would Nullify Agenda 21

Indiana Senator Dennis Kruse has introduced a bill that would nullify “Agenda 21” in the Hoosier State.  The bill as introduced, SB 134, provides that “an Indiana governmental entity may not adopt or implement: (1) any policy recommendations relating to the United Nations’ 1992 “Agenda 21″ conference on the environment and development that deliberately or inadvertently infringe on or restrict private property rights without due process; or (2) any other international law or ancillary plan of action that contravenes the Constitution of the United States or the Constitution of the State of Indiana.”

SB 134 does not currently have any co-sponsors, however a similar bill, HB 1021, was introduced in the Indiana House by Representative Tim Neese back in December of 2012. 

Both bills are currently in committee awaiting further consideration.

The US federal government officially endorsed Agenda 21 in 1992 when President George H. W. Bush signed on to a treaty with 177 other countries that he personally described as ’mammoth’ at a U.N. meeting called the ’Earth Summit’ in Rio De Janeiro, Brazil.  


Wyoming House Votes YES on Firearms Protection Act, 46-13

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.

Today, HB104 passed the full state house by a vote off 46-13.

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.


New Hampshire Seeks to Establish Liberty Preservation Act, Nullify NDAA

HB 399, a Liberty Preservation Act, has been introduced by House Representative Dan Itse. The bill would nullify NDAA “indefinite detention” within the state.

Itse is no stranger to nullification, and in many ways has been one of the intellectual leaders of this movement growing in state houses around the country.

HB399 states, “The legislature finds that the enactment into law by the United States Congress of Sections 1021 and 1022 of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2012, Public Law Number 112-81, is inimical to the liberty, security, and well-being of the people of New Hampshire, and was adopted by the United States Congress in violation of the limits of federal power in United States Constitution.”

The bill also lists the peoples’ rights which are under attack with the 2012 NDAA from (a) Article I, Section 9, Clause 2’s right to seek writ of habeas corpus; (b) The First Amendment’s right to petition the government for a redress of grievances; (c) The Fourth Amendment’s right to be free from unreasonable searches and seizures; (d) The Fifth Amendment’s right to be free from charge for an infamous or capital crime until presentment or indictment by a grand jury; (e) The Fifth Amendment’s right to be free from deprivation of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; (f) The Sixth Amendment’s right in criminal prosecutions to enjoy a speedy trial by an impartial jury in the state and district where the crime shall have been committed; (g) The Sixth Amendment’s right to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; (h) The Sixth Amendment’s right to confront witnesses; (i) The Sixth Amendment’s right to counsel; (j) The Eighth Amendment’s right to be free from excessive bail and fines, and cruel and unusual punishment; and (k) The Fourteenth Amendment’s right to be free from deprivation of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law.”


Mississippi Could Block Health Insurance Exchanges

Mississippi currently stands among those states committed to moving forward with a state-based insurance exchange under the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act.

But that could soon change.

The Mississippi legislature will consider a bill that would take the first step in stopping implementation of Obamacare  in the Magnolia State.

Sen. Chris McDaniel (R-Ellisville) introduced SB2775 on Jan. 25. The bill would prohibit creation of a health insurance exchange and retroactively invalidate any moves to create one prior to passage.

No state agency, department or political subdivision thereof shall plan, create, participate in or enable a state-based exchange for health insurance under the federal patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, or contract with any private entity to do so. If such an exchange is established by a state agency, department or political subdivision thereof before the effective date of this act, any such action shall be invalid and such exchange must be discontinued.

The bill has three Senate cosponsors.

Mississippi Insurance Commissioner Mike Chaney informed the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services that he would move forward with creating a state-based exchange last November, despite opposition from Gov. Phil Bryant.


North Dakota Bill Says Not in Our State to New Federal Gun Control

North Dakota Representatives Streyle, Becker, Brabandt, Grande, Headland, Maragos, Porter, Ruby, Toman along with Senators Larsen, Miller, Sitte have introduced a bill that would stop federal gun control “laws” within the borders of North Dakota.

HB 1183 would create and enact three new sections to chapter 62.1-01 of the North Dakota Century Code, relating to forbidding state governmental entities from providing aid and assistance to the federal government or any other governmental entity for the investigation, enforcement, and prosecution of federal firearms laws not in force as of January 1, 2013. The text of the bill states that:

“…laws passed by the Congress of the United States and signed into law by the President of the United States after December 31, 2012, a rule, a regulation, or an executive order that specifically deprives a citizen of the United States of manufacturing, importing, buying ,selling, transferring, transporting, possessing, bearing, and keeping on the citizen’s body or in a location where the citizen has a legal right to be unless otherwise forbidden by this state’s law, and any other law, including a rule, a regulation, or an executive order, forbidding the private ownership of any firearm not forbidden as of December 31, 2012…”

It goes on to state that no “state or local governmental entity, including law enforcement and those individuals responsible for or who otherwise support prosecution of laws within this state, may not do any of the following as they relate to federal firearms laws not in force as of January 1, 2013: