New Hampshire House Votes to Nullify Federal Marijuana Laws, 286-64

CONCORD, N.H. (March 20, 2013) – The New Hampshire House overwhelmingly passed a bill legalizing marijuana for medical use on Wednesday.  Passage into law would nullify, as 18 states are already doing, unconstitutional federal bans on the plant.

HB573 would allow seriously ill patients to use medical marijuana if their doctor recommends it. Patients would be able to grow up to three mature marijuana plants in their homes or obtain marijuana through one of five non-profit, state-licensed alternative treatment centers.

The bill, with its title amended to AN ACT  Relative to the Use of Cannabis for Therapeutic Purposes, passed 286-64.

 A qualifying patient shall not be subject to arrest by state or local law enforcement, prosecution or penalty under state or municipal law, or be denied any right or privilege for the therapeutic use of cannabis in accordance with this chapter.

Congress and the president claim the constitutional authority to prohibit weed. The Supreme Court concurs. But sharing an opinion on something doesn’t necessarily make it a fact. You can claim you are a unicorn, but you’re not. Clearly, the Constitution delegates no power of marijuana regulation to the feds. And the so-called war on drugs rests on the same legal authority as all of the other modern-day undeclared wars.

None.

So, more and more states continue to do exactly what they should do when the federal government tries exercise power it does not legitimately possess.

Ignore it.

Eighteen states have done just that, legalizing medical marijuana. That wave continues to build, with even more state legislatures considering medicinal marijuana legislation in the 2013 session, and more likely to follow suit.

Details

Montana Gun Control Nullification Bill Going to the Governor’s Desk

HELENA, Mont. (March 20, 2013) – The Montana House today concurred with the State Senate on a a bill prohibiting state compliance with any federal attempt to enforce a ban semiautomatic firearms or high capacity magazines  in Montana.  The vote was 62-35.

The House previously approved HB302 by a vote of 56-42.  And last week the Senate approved with with an amendment, 28-21.  The House had the option of approving the amended version of the bill or sending the original back to the Senate.  Inside sources indicated that the Senate was prepared to vote down the original bill which would have included a provision dictating to the county attorneys of the state how to handle violations of the act.

If signed by Governor Bullock, HB302 will prohibit “a peace officer, state employee, or employee of any political subdivision is prohibited from enforcing, assisting in the enforcement of, or otherwise cooperating in the enforcement of a federal ban on semiautomatic weapons or large magazines and is also prohibited from participating in any federal enforcement action implementing a federal ban on semiautomatic weapons or large magazines.”

The law also prohibits expenditure of public funds for the purpose of enforcing a federal gun ban. Any state agent working with the feds would be guilty of official misconduct.  Any use of public funds to assist the federal government would be considered “public theft.”

Details

Judge Napolitano: State Noncompliance Makes Federal Enforcement “Nearly Impossible”

via Fox News Insider

NOTE:  Fox News has recently removed the video of this exchange, but if you click the Play button above, you can hear the full discussion, audio-only.

President Obama said in December that the federal government has “bigger fish to fry” when asked if the feds would go after marijuana users. Some states have passed laws to legalize medical marijuana or allow people to have small amounts of the drug, contradicting federal law.

On Fox and Friends yesterday morning, Steve Doocy asked Judge Andrew Napolitano whether President Obama has set a precedent as many states try to pass gun laws to block stricter federal legislation. He explained that state authorities could legally choose not to enforce a federal gun law that goes against state law, but that the feds need the help of state and local authorities to enforce laws.

Details

Michigan Firearm Protection Act Sent to Committee

Michigan HB4457, a bill to provide that any federal law that attempts to ban certain firearms or magazines is unenforceable in this state; to provide for the powers and duties of certain state officers; to prohibit the enforcement of certain federal laws; and to prescribe penalties was introduced on March 14, 2013, by Representative Bill Rogers and sent to the Judiciary Committee.

At a recent Southeast Michigan Tea Party Meeting, a Northern Michigan Legislator advised that a bill similar to this Firearm Protection Act was introduced at the end of 2012.  HB5232, as it was known then, stalled after encountering opposition from state Democrats, who held a legislative majority at the time.   It was introduced after the Sandy Hook tragedy when people were reeling from that event. This is a second attempt to get a nullification of any Federal ban on firearms manufactured, sold or owned in the State of Michigan.

Details

Why I’m Not a Conservative

The Washington Post notes the following quote from Rep. Paul Ryan in his CPAC speech:

“We don’t see the debt as an excuse to cut with abandon, to shirk our obligations,” Ryan said. “We see it as an opportunity to reform government, to make it cleaner and more effective. That’s what conservatives stand for.”

That’s interesting because more effective (or efficient) government is also what liberals stand for.

As I wrote upon the release of Ryan’s latest budget proposal, more efficient government isn’t the same as limited government. I appreciate the argument being made by some limited-government advocates that Ryan’s budget is a “step in the right direction” because it would slow the growth in federal spending versus the Congressional Budget Office’s baseline. That’s a good thing—especially when compared to the bloated alternative put out by Sen. Patty Murray (D-WA). But I think that proponents of limited government should consider a “step in the right direction” to be a budget that actually attempts to extricate the federal government from involvement in every facet of our lives. In that regard, Ryan’s budget only represents a step toward a slightly cheaper big government.

Details