California Bill Would Nullify NDAA “Indefinite Detention”

Introduced in the California State Assembly this month is a bill that would oppose and nullify “indefinite detention” under the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) of 2012.

Sponsored by Assemblyman Tim Donnelly of the 33rd District, Assembly Bill 351 (AB351) states in part:

“Sections 1021 and 1022 of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2012 (Public Law 112-81), and the enforcement of those actions, are illegal within this state.”

If passed into law, the legislation would also require the state to refuse to participate or assist indefinite detention and also provides for criminal penalties for both state and federal employees who attempt to do so within the State of California. The bill reads:

It is the policy of this state to refuse to provide material support for or to participate in any way with the implementation within this state of Sections 1021 and 1022 of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2012 (Public Law 112-81)

The criminal penalties against indefinite detention are as follows:


FAA Releases Expanded Drone License List

On February 19, the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) issued a fact sheet reporting that it has granted 1,428 drone licenses to entities in the United States. Of those, 327 are designated active.

There is no legal restriction on who can request a license to fly a drone and the FAA statement claims that typical purposes for the unmanned vehicles include “law enforcement, firefighting, border patrol, disaster relief, search and rescue, military training, and other government operational missions.”

The FAA is hurrying to get all the licenses processed in order to meet the September 2015 deadline set by Congress for releasing the drones over the United States.

While there is no consensus on the number of drones that soon will begin buzzing over cities and towns in the United States, estimates range from 10,000 to 30,000 of the powerful surveillance craft may begin their patrol in the domestic skies.

Of all the licenses approved by the FAA, the majority have been granted to local and state law enforcement.


NDAA Nullification Passes out of Michigan Senate Committee

In the Michigan State Senate today, the Committee on Veterans, Military and Homeland Security approved Senate Bill 94, (SB94), to ban compliance with NDAA “indefinite detention” within the state. The vote was unanimous.

A vote in the full senate is due within the coming days (action items for Michigan residents below)

A modified version of the Liberty Preservation Act released by the Tenth Amendment Center, Michigan joins a growing choir of states and localities who’ve decided that waiting for federal politicians to repeal their own power is something they’re not willing to risk.

The bill was sponsored by State Senator Rick Jones along with 6 co-sponsors.

After today’s committee hearing on SB94, Dennis Marburger with the Michigan Chapter of the Tenth Amendment Center coordinator expressed his view that this is a big step forward for liberty:

This is another hurdle overcome in the fight against Government sanctioned kidnapping. Wolverine state nullifiers came so close to victory last year and that fight is paying dividends now. The full Senate did not vote on this topic last year, though the House voted 107-0 and the Judiciary committee was unanimous in favor of resisting the federalized police state. The prospect of Michigan residents being protected by their state and doing their duty to enforce the constitution are certainly improved today.


West Virginia Bill Would Nullify Some Unconstitutional EPA Power

The West Virginia legislature will consider bills that would free mines producing coal exclusively for use within the state from federal regulation.

Delegate Gary Howell (R. – Mineral) introduced HB2214 last week, and Sen. Dave Sypolt (R – Preston) introduced a companion bill SB56 in the Senate. The Intrastate Coal and Use Act would make the West Virginia Department of Environmental Protection the sole entity issuing coal mining permits to companies that produce and sell coal exclusively within the borders of West Virginia.

The act rests on the Ninth and Tenth Amendment to the U.S Constitution, and the West Virginia state constitution.

Section two, Article I of the West Virginia Constitution, states: “The government of the United States is a government of enumerated powers, and all powers not delegated to it, nor inhibited to the states, are reserved to the states or to the people thereof.” Specifically enumerated among those “powers so reserved to the states is the exclusive regulation of their own internal government and police; and it is the high and solemn duty of the several departments of government, created by this Constitution, to guard and protect the people of this state from all encroachments upon the rights so reserved.”

While the Constitution does delegate the authority to regulate interstate commerce to the federal government, the power to regulate commerce within a state’s borders remains with that state government. And the meaning of the term “commerce,” as used by the framers of the Constitution, did not include activities such as mining.


Colorado Anti-NDAA Vote, Last Minute Action Alert

Top Colorado State Rep Changes Position on NDAA via P.A.N.D.A On Friday, we told you Colorado’s Anti-NDAA bill was facing its final stand. In that action alert, we included a special note for the nation’s veterans to call Rep. Bob Gardner and ask him to honor his Oath. Hundreds of calls later, our phone calls, emails,…


Will Kentucky Nullify New Federal Gun Restrictions?

The Kentucky state Senate on Monday overwhelmingly passed a nullification bill (SB129) that would prohibit Kentucky from enforcing new federal gun control laws if they’re enacted.

The vote was 34-3. Three of the Senate’s 14 Democrats voted no, stating that the measure would be trumped by the U.S. Constitution’s Supremacy Clause.

What opponents are missing, however, is the fact that the federal government itself acknowledges that it has NO constitutional authority to force a state to enforce its laws. It often resorts to funding “bribes” to encourage compliance, but it cannot force it. This was upheld by the supreme court multiple times – most notably in the 1997 Printz case and in last Summer’s Obamacare ruling.

The is ZERO serious discussion that the federal government can require the state of Kentucky – or any other state – to enforce its laws.

Sen. Jared Carpenter, a Berea Republican, sponsored the bill. He said the Supremacy Clause applies only if Congress is acting in pursuit of its constitutionally authorized powers, which he said wouldn’t apply to stricter gun measures.

“If I thought the bill would be symbolic, I would’ve written a resolution,” Carpenter told the Associated Press. “I thought it needed more than that.”


Health Care Freedom of Choice Constitutional Amendment – It is Time Georgia

The Citizens of the State of Georgia need to make their voices heard in this moment of history.

Washington D.C. has felt it appropriate to make its influence known in every county across these States United. It behooves The People to stand up in defense of the rights and liberties which were secured to us in the Constitution of the United States. In the name of general welfare and safety, the federal legislation machine manufactures and spits out unconstitutional laws in order to control us in the realms of  healthcare, gun ownership, education and property rights to name just a few.

Judge Andrew Napolitano stated a truth for the people to stand on in a commentary concerning President’s Day:

All presidents but Jefferson have argued that their first job was to keep us safe. All presidents but Jefferson were wrong. If you read the Constitution, you will see that the President’s first job – as Jefferson understood well – is to keep us free.

And The People are standing… The calls for nullification of  many over-reaching unconstitutional federal laws can be heard throughout the country and are now daily news. The nullification naysayers, as well, continue their dribble at the risk of their own liberty and freedom.


Alaska House Passes 2nd Amendment Preservation Act, 31-5

Today, February 25th, Alaska’s Second Amendment Preservation Act, HB69, has passed the State House and will now move on to the Senate for concurrence.

On the 20th of February, HB69 was read during the House Judicial Committee meeting where it was then scheduled for a hearing that was held today. During that hearing meeting, the bill was read for a second reading where the committee unanimously consented to the bills adoption.  It was then considered by the full house.  The vote was 31-5.

HB69 states, in part: “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.” [emphasis added]

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.”

Unlike the firearms freedom act which passed in 2010, the bill covers firearms not only manufactured in the state, but also those simply “possessed” within the boundaries of the state.  It also provides for a penalty for anyone enforcing federal bans or regulations on firearms in Alaska.


6th County in North Carolina Passes Second Amendment Preservation Act

Local action on defending the Second Amendment is passing through many cities, towns, and counties across the country. In one state, the Second Amendment Preservation Act is sweeping through the counties like wild fire. In North Carolina many counties have passed acts the Second Amendment Preservation Act. Currently Cherokee, Beaufort, Lenoir, Pitt and Franklin Counties have all passed this act. Now, the sixth county to pass this act is Moore County.

In a Moore County Memorandum,

“In light of recent events, popular discussion and national debate it is proposed that the Moore County Board of Commissioners publicly restate their commitment to both the North Carolina and United States Constitutions and, particularly, the right of the people to keep and bear arms. The Second Amendment to the United States’ Constitution states that “[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.” Article I, Section 30 of the North Carolina State Constitution reads, “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; and, as standing armies in time of peace are dangerous to liberty, they shall not be maintained, and the military shall be kept under strict subordination to, and governed by, the civil power. Nothing herein shall justify the practice of carrying concealed weapons, or prevent the General Assembly from enacting penal statutes against that practice.” Each of the Moore County Board of Commissioners has sworn by solemn oath to uphold both the North Carolina and United States Constitutions.”

The Memorandum finalizes the decision,


Yes, Florida Voters Oppose ObamaCare’s Medicaid Expansion

by Michael Cannon, CATO Institute

Bloomberg’s Josh Barro criticizes the James Madison Institute’s poll showing that 65 percent of Florida voters oppose implementing ObamaCare’s Medicaid expansion. Barrow is mostly wrong. But even when he’s right, he’s still wrong. Disclosure: I helped JMI formulate their poll questions.

Barro complains that JMI conducted a “push poll.” His first complaint is:

It starts by priming respondents with questions about the national debt and the size of Florida’s existing Medicaid budget.

Then it gives an inaccurate description of the terms of the expansion. Poll respondents were told that Medicaid currently covers people earning up to 100 percent of the federal poverty line. That’s not true: In Florida, the limit for adults is 56 percent of FPL, and you must have dependent children to qualify.

Though Barro slightly mischaracterizes the poll question, he is basically correct, and the inaccuracy is my fault.

The folks who originally drafted JMI’s poll questions aren’t health care wonks, so they ran their questions by me. This question was originally worded the way Barro claims the final question was: “Medicaid coverage is currently available for those with incomes up to 100% of the poverty line.” I hurriedly emailed the JMI folks, “Florida does not offer Medicaid coverage to everyone below 100 percent of poverty. See page 2 and table 3 of this report. You might replace ‘currently’ with ‘generally.’” So that’s what JMI did. In retrospect, Barro is right. “Generally” gives the impression that Medicaid is available to more Floridians below the poverty line than is actually the case, and I should have offered a better edit. Mea culpa.