Keep Your Oath, Commissioners

EDITOR’S NOTE: The following letter, by Frank Krazalkovich, was written in support of a local 2nd Amendment Preservation Resolution in Pennsylvania. To support Mr. Krazalkovich’s resolution, you can contact Elwood Taylor, the President of the Board of Commissioners. The Board’s web site gives Mr. Taylor’s e-mail address as: Urge Mr. Taylor to bring the resolution up for a vote

I’d like to begin by acknowledging that the problem of gun violence in communities throughout these United States is real; HOWEVER, combatting this threat cannot come at the great expense of mitigating basic, fundamental, unalienable Rights.

The Second, Ninth and Tenth Amendments to the United States Constitution and the so-called “Supremacy Clause” (Article IV, Clause 2 of the US Constitution) are VERY CLEAR and unambiguous. Therefore, ANY federal acts, laws, executive orders, agency orders, and rules or regulations of all kinds (i.e., “gun control” legislation currently being considered in Washington DC) are not made in pursuance of the Constitution, are not authorized by the Constitution, violate its true meaning and intent as given by the Founders and Ratifiers, and thus, are not the supreme law of the land, and consequently, SHOULD be considered void ab initio.

Kudos to our neighbors in East Coventry Township for recently joining the likes of the Borough of Gilberton, the Borough of Frackville, the Borough of New Britain, and even Susquehanna County – in passing Second Amendment Preservation Resolutions in PA. These Resolutions are important measures because they 1) Recognize the Individual Right to Keep and Bear Arms as fundamental and NATURAL; 2) Assert the sovereignty of the People; and, 3) Rightfully condemn Federal overreaches into areas they are explicitly unauthorized to act within.

During the Upper Pottsgrove Township’s Board of Commissioners’ February monthly meeting, I presented, in a private capacity as a resident of the Township, a Second Amendment Preservation Resolution which I had authored and asked for its consideration and adoption.


Idaho Anti-Drone Bill is Only a Partial Victory for Privacy, at Best

Yesterday, the Idaho legislature passed Senate Bill 1134 (S1134), which would severely restrict the use of drones by law enforcement within the state. The bill is intended to protect privacy and bars police from using unmanned aircraft to conduct surveillance without a warrant — except in emergencies like hostage standoff.

Under the bill, anyone unlawfully targeted could press charges and would be entitled to $1,000 in damages. The House approved the measure 66-2 early Wednesday, and the Senate followed suit later on a 30-4 vote. The bill is now on its way to the governor’s desk.

The bill reads, in part:

Absent a warrant…no person, entity or state agency shall use an unmanned aircraft system to intentionally conduct surveillance of, gather evidence or collect information about, or photographically or electronically record specifically targeted persons or specifically targeted private property

While the bill only limits drone use by state and local government, it will have some serious impact on intended results being pushed by the federal government. At this stage in the ‘drone game,’ the feds are working hard behind the scenes to get states to operate the drones for them.

In fact, the primary engine behind the expansion of drone surveillance being carried out by states and local communities is the Federal government itself. Department of Homeland Security issues large grants to local governments so that those agencies can purchase drones. Those grants, in and of themselves, are an unconstitutional expansion of power.

The goal? Fund a network of drones around the country and put the operational burden on the states. Once the create a web over the whole country, DHS steps in with requests for ‘information sharing. Bills like these put a dent in this kind of long-term strategy. Without the states and local communities operating the drones today, it’s going to be nearly impossible for DHS plans to – take off.  And with the above restrictions, S1134 would play a big part in blocking these federal drone plans.

However, the final passed version of the bill does include some exceptions:


Texas House Committee Passes Two 2nd Amendment Preservation Bills

In Texas yesterday, the State House Committee on Federalism and Fiscal Responsibility gave approval to two important bills regarding the right to keep and bear arms. House Bill 928 (HB928) and House Bill 1076 (HB1076) were both passed by a vote of 3-1, with one abstaining.

Both bills would require the entire state apparatus, including local governments and agencies, to refuse to enforce, assist or aid in enforcement of federal gun laws.  As Judge Andrew Napolitano has said recently, such widespread noncompliance can make a federal law “nearly impossible to enforce” (video here)

This mass noncompliance with an unconstitutional federal act is both constitutionally sound, and very effective.  Read more about it here.  A future legislative session could also address how to further prevent federal enforcement should these steps prove to not be effective enough.