Nullify the Drones in Tennessee!

droneSen. Mae Beavers and Rep. James Van Huss have introduced SB0796/HB0591 to protect Tennesseans from the specter of unconstitutional drone surveillance. The House version, HB0591, will head to the House Civil Justice Subcommittee on Wednesday, March 20 immediately following the meeting of the full House Civil Justice Committee at 12:30 PM Central.

The bill will prevent the use of drones in Tennessee except for very specific purposes to ensure proper respect is paid to the rights and civil liberties of Tennesseans. It will require any use of drone technology in the state of Tennessee to do one of the following:

  • Provide credible risk of terrorist attack from the Secretary of Homeland Security,
  • Provide a search warrant signed by a judge authorizing the use of a drone, or
  • Provide evidence of reasonable suspicion that there is an immediate threat such that “swift action is needed to prevent imminent danger to life.”

Read the full text here. 


Arizona Legal Tender Bill Moves Another Step Towards Law

Arizona is working towards becoming the second state, after Utah, to recognize gold and silver as legal tender authorized for payments of debts and taxes.

The Arizona Senate voted at the end of February to approve SB 1439, the Constitutional Tender Act, which allows businesses and the state government to accept payments in gold or silver.  The vote was 17-11. (see how reps voted here).  And today, the House Committee on Financial Institutions approved the bill by a vote of 4-2.  It now goes to the House rules committee, which is the last step before going to the full State House for a debate and vote.

The Legal Tender bill specifies that legal tender in Arizona consists of all of the following:


Alaska Legislation Would Nullify Indefinite Detention

The Last Frontier state, Alaska, has now joined in to say that they will not allow the NDAA to be implemented within its 663,268 square miles, and some 731,000 citizens.

Alaska is the latest states to fight back against unconstitutional acts such as the NDAA, federal gun laws, the REAL-ID Act of 2005, and even the Authorization for Use of Military Force (the authorization from Congress in 2001 that has been used as a justification for the War on Terror).

SB75 was introduced by Alaska Senator Coghill on March, 11, 2013.

This bill seeks to prohibit the use of Alaska state assets to aid or implement a multitude of federal encroachment that may violate any of the Bill of Rights. The legislation specifically mentions a person’s right to due process (5th Amendment), the REAL ID Act of 2005 (P.L. 109-13, Division B), National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2012 (secs. 1021 and 1022, P.L. 112-81), National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2013 (secs. 1021 – 1028, P.L. 112-239), and lastly the Authorization for Use of Military Force (P.L. 107-40).

The law would prohibit any Alaska funds, facilities, equipment, services, or other resources of a state agency to be used to strip its citizens of their rights.


Iron County, Utah Tells Feds: Don’t Try to Enforce Gun Laws Here

Iron County, Utah – Last week in Southwest Utah, the Iron County Board of Commissioners voted unanimously in passing an Iron County 2nd Amendment Protection Resolution.  This is the second Resolution passed in the county, the first being the Cedar City 2nd Amendment Resolution passed by the City Council.

In that resolution, passed by Cedar City on February 13th, 2013, the Chief of Police is directed to support the resolution if the federal government attempts to enforce federal gun laws.

The county Resolution makes it clear that the county does not recognize any federal acts, laws, orders, rules, executive orders, or regulations that violate the 2nd Amendment of the US Constitution:

 “NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED by the Governing Board of Iron County, Utah the Iron County Board of Commissioners declares that any federal act, law, order, executive order, rule, or regulation regarding firearms that is a violation and infringement of the 2nd Amendment of the Constitution of the United States, passed by the Congress, and/or signed by the President, violating the true meaning and intent of the 2nd Amendment of the Constitution of the United States as given by the Founders and Ratifiers of the Constitution, is invalid in Iron County, shall not be recognized by Iron County, is specifically rejected by Iron County, and shall be considered null and void and of no effect in Iron County.”

The county resolution goes further:

 “BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that it shall be the duty of the Sheriff of Iron County to take all measures as may be necessary to prevent the enforcement of any federal acts, laws, orders, rules, or regulations in violation of the 2nd Amendment to the Constitution of the United States.”

In talking with Iron County Sheriff Mark Gower, he said, “I will not allow anyone to come into this county and violate the Constitutions of the United States or Utah. 


Michigan Bill would Ban Warrantless Drone Spying

Representative Tom McMillin, a Michigan State lawmaker, has privacy concerns regarding unmanned drones used by law enforcement agencies in the state.  He wants to ensure that drones do not illegally collect personal information or violate personal privacy.

Michigan HB4455, a bill to authorize and regulate the use of unmanned aerial vehicles; to provide the powers and duties of certain state agencies and departments and local units of government; to authorize the use of unmanned aerial vehicles under certain circumstances; to prohibit the operation of unmanned aerial vehicles under certain circumstances; to prohibit the disclosure of information collected by unmanned aerial vehicles under certain circumstances; and to provide penalties and sanctions was introduced on March 14, 2003, by Representative McMillan and sent to the Criminal Justice Committee on the same day.

A law enforcement agency of this state or a political subdivision of this state shall not disclose or receive information acquired through the operation of  an unmanned aerial vehicle.   A person shall not operate a UAV that contains, mounts, or carries a lethal or nonlethal weapon or weapon system of any type.  The body of a UAV shall bear the name of the political entity that owns the UAV in clearly printed and visible lettering.  

Information about a person acquired through the operation of an unmanned aerial vehicle shall not be disclosed or received unless 1 or more of the following circumstances apply:  

1.  The person has given written consent to the disclosure.

2.   The unmanned aerial vehicle is used in circumstances in which it is reasonable to believe that there is an imminent threat to the life or safety of a person, for the purpose of assisting the person.

 “Since drone technology is developing so rapidly, we should prepare now for the legal and practical challenges that are quickly approaching us, while allowing the reasonable, very narrow, use of drones by law enforcement to aid in our citizens’ protection,” McMillin said in a statement Thursday. “Our citizens should not have to worry about Big Brother looking down on them from above.”