Bills Nullifying Agenda 21 Pass Missouri House and Senate

JEFFERSON CITY, Mo. (April 12, 2013) – Two bills protecting property rights and nullifying Agenda 21 provisions overwhelmingly passed each chamber of the Missouri legislature in the last week.

House Bill 42, sponsored by Lyle Rowland, amends Chapter 1 of the Revised Statutes in Missouri by adding a new section relating to the prohibition on certain policies that infringe on private property rights.

The legislation is charging forward and passed the House of Representatives with a vote of 113 to 42 on Wednesday.

The bill prohibits the adoption or implementation of any policy or regulation that deliberately or inadvertently infringes or restricts private property rights without due process, and more specifically prohibits any policy recommendations that originate in or traceable to Agenda 21, along with any other international law or ancillary plan of action that contravenes the Constitution of the United States or the Missouri Constitution.

“…the State of Missouri and all political subdivisions are prohibited from entering any agreement with, expending any sum of money for, receiving funds from, contracting services from, or giving financial aid to those nongovernmental and intergovernmental organizations as defined in Agenda 21…”

HB 42 finds foundation in limiting the government in the Missouri Constitution, found in Article I Section 2;

“That all constitutional government is intended to promote the general welfare of the people; that all persons have a natural right to life, liberty, the pursuit of happiness and the enjoyment of the gains of their own industry; that all persons are created equal and are entitled to equal rights and opportunity under the law; that to give security to these things is the principal office of government, and that when government does not confer this security, it fails in its chief design.”

The bill now is scheduled to go before the Senate General Laws Committee on April 16 for an open hearing on the bill.

Details

Oklahoma Republican Suppresses Nullification Bill

State Senator Clark Jolley, chairman of the Appropriations Committee in the Oklahoma Senate, suppressed a recent nullification bill there. (On nullification, see StateNullification.com and NullificationFAQ.com.) A friend sent me a copy of his letter to a constituent. It reads, in part: Nullification is simply a fantasy that is the most dangerous type – one semi based in reality. It…

Details

Missouri House to Consider Bill to Nullify All Federal Gun Control

Today, the Missouri State House Rules committee voted to send House Bill 436 (HB436) to the full house floor for debate and vote.  Earlier this week, the General Laws committee voted 9-3 in favor.

HB436, the 2nd Amendment Preservation Act, might be the most appropriately named bill anywhere.  It proposes to do just what’s in the title, and would nullify virtually all federal gun control measures on the books – “past, present, or future.”  It reads, in part:

All federal acts, laws, orders, rules, and regulations, whether past, present, or future, which infringe on the people’s right to keep and bear arms as guaranteed by the Second Amendment to the United States Constitution and Article I, Section 23 of the Missouri Constitution shall be invalid in this state, shall not be recognized by this state, shall be specifically rejected by this state, and shall be considered null and void and of no effect in this state.

(2) Such federal acts, laws, orders, rules, and regulations include, but are not limited to:
(a) The provisions of the federal Gun Control Act of 1934;
(b) The provisions of the federal Gun Control Act of 1968;
(c) Any tax, levy, fee, or stamp imposed on firearms, firearm accessories, or ammunition not common to all other goods and services which could have a chilling effect on the purchase or ownership of those items by law-abiding citizens;
(d) Any registering or tracking of firearms, firearm accessories, or ammunition which could have a chilling effect on the purchase or ownership of those items by law-abiding citizens;
(e) Any registering or tracking of the owners of firearms, firearm accessories, or ammunition which could have a chilling effect on the purchase or ownership of those items by law-abiding citizens;
(f) Any act forbidding the possession, ownership, or use or transfer of any type of firearm, firearm accessory, or ammunition by law-abiding citizens; and
(g) Any act ordering the confiscation of firearms, firearm accessories, or ammunition from law-abiding citizens.

There is no stronger protection for the right to keep and bear arms anywhere in the country – if passed into law.  Currently that title goes to Kansas, where an almost-as-strong bill is sitting on Governor Brownback’s desk awaiting signature or veto.

Details

Say NO to Drones in your Local Community

by Nadia Kayyali, Constitution Campaign

This week, Bill of Rights Defense Committee is releasing model drone legislation to assist local communities and states in the growing battle against domestic surveillance drones. BORDC worked with the organizers across the country  who have been leading the opposition against rushed drone proliferation. The American Friends Service CommitteeAlameda County Against Drones, the No Drones Network,  and the Tenth Amendment Center all consulted on the language.

In response to the diversity of grassroots organizing efforts currently taking place, there are two models of the legislation. One creates a drone free zone, meaning it completely prohibits the use of drones over a city or county to the extent legally permissible. The other strictly limits the use of drones to specific situations. Both of the models contain significant explanations of why unregulated drone proliferation and use is so deeply concerning.  They also contain policy statements urging action at the state and federal level to restrict drone use.

The regulated use of drones model allows law enforcement to use drones only when they have obtained a warrant from a judge and they certify that drones are the least expensive and best option. It would also allow non-law enforcement missions, including search and rescue, fire response and prevention, and hazardous material spills but the language ensures that these exceptions will be strictly regulated.  Additionally, there are very strict auditing requirements and regulations on the use and destruction of data obtained via drones.  Portions of this model were contributed by civil rights lawyer David Frankel, representing a grassroots coalition called Aligning for Responsible Droning (“ARD”).

The need for action on drones right now is clear. As the prefatory clauses of the model legislation emphasize, drones have the potential to introduce ambient and persistent surveillance, meaning surveillance could be everywhere at all times and impossible to avoid. That’s because the drone technology ensures that specific and limited surveillance is impossible. When strict regulations are not imposed, drones can potentially catch images of everyday activity on their way to and from specific missions and law enforcement can use that information in any way they want. There is little incentive for law enforcement not to exploit this ability. What’s worse is that drone use will exacerbate the targeting of vulnerable groups by law enforcement.  Biased policing through the local enforcement of federal immigration laws, arrests for low level victimless crimes and racial and religious profiling will inevitably increase.

Details

Noncompliance Does Not Mean Spineless: Missouri Style

In 2009, the state of Missouri nullified the Real ID Act.

HB 361 set in stone how Missouri establishes residency, naturalization, and lawful immigration status. This bill also defined information included on a Missouri ID card. It specifically states that, “an applicant shall not have his or her privacy rights violated in order to obtain or renew a Missouri noncommercial driver’s license, noncommercial instruction permit, or a nondriver’s license.” The the law emphatically states,  “Missouri will not comply with the Department of Homeland Securities REAL-ID act.”

The department of revenue shall not amend procedures for applying for a driver’s license or identification card in order to comply with the goals or standards of the federal REAL ID Act of 2005, any rules or regulations promulgated under the authority granted in such act, or any requirements adopted by the American Association of Motor Vehicle Administrators for furtherance of the act.

Any biometric data previously collected, obtained, or retained in connection with motor vehicle registration or operation, the issuance or renewal of driver’s licenses, or the issuance or renewal of any identification cards by any department or agency of the state charged with those activities shall be retrieved and deleted from all databases. The provisions of this subsection shall not apply to any data collected, obtained, or retained for a purpose other than compliance with the federal REAL ID Act of 2005. For purposes of this section, “biometric data” includes, but is not limited to:
(1) Facial feature pattern characteristics;
(2) Voice data used for comparing live speech with a previously created speech model of a person’s voice;
(3) Iris recognition data containing color or texture patterns or codes;
(4) Retinal scans, reading through the pupil to measure blood vessels lining the retina;
(5) Fingerprint, palm prints, hand geometry, measuring of any and all characteristics of biometric information, including shape and length of fingertips or recording ridge pattern or fingertip characteristics;
(6) Eye spacing;
(7) Characteristic gait or walk;
(8) DNA;
(9) Keystroke dynamics, measuring pressure applied to key pads or other digital receiving devices.
5. No citizen of this state shall have his or her privacy compromised by the state or agents of the state. The state shall within reason protect the sovereignty of the citizens the state is entrusted to protect.

The End-Around

But it appears state bureaucrats are implementing Real ID through a back door, in direct violation of state law.

Details

Missouri Looking To Amend State Constitution To Bolster the Right to Keep and Bear Arms

The State of Missouri is getting serious when it comes to protecting the gun rights of its citizens, and the legislature has proposed amending their State Constitution to show they that mean business.

Senate Joint Resolution 14 was passed by a landslide 29 to 2 vote on Apr. 4, and this proposed State Constitutional Amendment would provide ‘that a citizen has the right to keep and bear arms in defense of their family, in addition to the current rights in defense of home, person and property.’

The bill gets even better from there as it would not just re-affirm gun ownership rights for individuals but it would also remove ‘language stating that the right to keep and bear arms did not justify the wearing of concealed weapons’ and provide ‘that the rights guaranteed under this provision of the Constitution are unalienable. The State of Missouri is obligated to uphold these rights and shall under no circumstances decline to protect against their infringement.’

The language in this proposed amendment is clear that the State of Missouri must act decisively in protecting the God-given right to bear arms. It is unclear how this would exactly take shape during a full-scale federal ban and seizure of firearms, but this type of action is a decisive rebuke of the would-be gun grabbers and creates the legal requirement that the State defend against such acts. The message is being sent loud and clear to the federal usurpers that at least one state will be firmly on the side of the people should they overstep their bounds on this important issue.

Details

Florida Senate Passes Anti-Drone Bill, 39-0

TALLAHASSEE, Fla. (April 10, 2013) – A bill restricting the use of drones in the Sunshine State unanimously passed the Florida Senate Wednesday morning.

SB92 would prohibit any law enforcement agency from using unmanned drones to gather evidence or other information without a warrant.

“A law enforcement agency may not use a drone to gather evidence or other information.”

The bill opens the door for any person whose privacy is violated by a drone to take civil action and would also make any evidence gathered in violation of the act inadmissible in court.

The act makes its only exception allowing for the use of drones “to counter a high risk of a terrorist attack by a specific individual or organization if the United States Secretary of Homeland Security determines that credible intelligence indicates that there is such a risk.”

The Freedom from Unwarranted Surveillance Act passed 39-0 with one Senator not voting.  (See the roll call HERE)

Sen. Joe Negron sponsored the bill.

“I believe it achieves a delicate balance between security and freedom,” he said before the full Senate vote.

SB92 sailed through five committee hearings with unanimous approval in each.

“I believe that privacy should be protected and I look forward to signing Sen. Negron’s drone bill. This law will ensure that the rights of Florida families are protected from the unwarranted use of drones and other unmanned aircraft,” Florida Governor Rick Scott said.

The House companion bill HB119 must now be passed before “the drone bill” can become law.

Details

South Carolina a Step Closer to Nullifying Obamacare

A bill that would nullify the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act in South Carolina through noncompliance passed out of a House committee Tuesday.

The Republican controlled House Judiciary Committee approved H3101 by a 14-9 vote along partisan lines.

The bill originally included penalties on federal agents who enforced the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act,  but sources close to the Tenth Amendment Center  indicate the bill was dead with penalties included, and they were amended out.

(3) It is the stated policy of the South Carolina general assembly that provisions of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act of 2010 grossly exceeds the powers delegated to the federal government in the Constitution.

(4) The provisions of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act of 2010 which exceed the limited powers granted to Congress pursuant to the Constitution, cannot and should not be considered the supreme law of the land.

(5,) The General Assembly of South Carolina has the absolute and sovereign authority to interpose and refuse to enforce the provisions of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act of 2010 that exceed the authority of the Congress.

The bill also prohibits state cooperation with implementation  of the unconstitutional federal act within the state.

(A) No agency of the State, officer or employee of this State, acting on behalf of the state, may engage in an activity that aids any agency in the enforcement of those provisions of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act of 2010 and any subsequent federal act that amends the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act of 2010 that exceed the authority of the United States Constitution.

(B) The General Assembly…is empowered to take all necessary actions to ensure that the provisions of subsection (A) of this code section are adhered to by all agencies, departments and political subdivisions of the State.

Details

Missouri House Committee votes to Nullify All Federal Gun Control Efforts

In Missouri yesterday, the State House General Laws committee voted 9-3 in favor of HB436, the 2nd Amendment Preservation Act.   If passed into law, the bill would nullify virtually every federal gun control measure on the books.  It reads, in part:

All federal acts, laws, orders, rules, and regulations, whether past, present, or future, which infringe on the people’s right to keep and bear arms as guaranteed by the Second Amendment to the United States Constitution and Article I, Section 23 of the Missouri Constitution shall be invalid in this state, shall not be recognized by this state, shall be specifically rejected by this state, and shall be considered null and void and of no effect in this state.

(2) Such federal acts, laws, orders, rules, and regulations include, but are not limited to:
(a) The provisions of the federal Gun Control Act of 1934;
(b) The provisions of the federal Gun Control Act of 1968;
(c) Any tax, levy, fee, or stamp imposed on firearms, firearm accessories, or ammunition not common to all other goods and services which could have a chilling effect on the purchase or ownership of those items by law-abiding citizens;
(d) Any registering or tracking of firearms, firearm accessories, or ammunition which could have a chilling effect on the purchase or ownership of those items by law-abiding citizens;
(e) Any registering or tracking of the owners of firearms, firearm accessories, or ammunition which could have a chilling effect on the purchase or ownership of those items by law-abiding citizens;
(f) Any act forbidding the possession, ownership, or use or transfer of any type of firearm, firearm accessory, or ammunition by law-abiding citizens; and
(g) Any act ordering the confiscation of firearms, firearm accessories, or ammunition from law-abiding citizens.

There is no stronger protection for the right to keep and bear arms anywhere in the country – if passed into law.  Currently that title goes to Kansas, where an almost-as-strong bill is sitting on Governor Brownback’s desk awaiting signature or veto.

Details

Action Alert: Tennessee Drone Bill Moves to Full Senate Thursday

droneSB0796, sponsored by Sen. Mae Beavers to provide strict regulation for the use of drones in Tennessee will go to the full senate for a vote on Thursday, April 11. Its companion bill HB0591 sponsored by Rep. James Van Huss has made it to the House Calendar and Rules Committee and will be heard on Wednesday, April 10 and is expected to be scheduled for a vote in the House shortly.

The “Freedom from Unwarranted Surveillance Act” will address the specter of unconstitutional drone surveillance. 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.”

There is also provision for aggrieved parties to file suit against done operators for civil damages and the bill also disallows the use in court of any evidence collected in violation of the bill.

Details