Second Pennsylvania Constable Pledges to Protect Second Amendment

Across the U.S., we’ve seen local officials stepping in to affirm their commitment to the Second Amendment.

On June 15,  Constable of the 3rd Ward of the Borough of Perkasie, Pa. added to the chorus, becoming the second state constable to sign a Second Amendment Preservation resolution.

 I, Andrew Rumbold, Constable of the 3rdWard of the Borough of Perkasie, Bucks County, declare that all federal, state, or local acts, actions, orders, resolutions, rules, or regulations regarding firearms, firearms accessories, or ammunition – past, present, or future – shall be in violation of the 2nd Amendment to the Constitution of the United States and Article 1, Sections 1 and 21 of the Constitution of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, and are not authorized by the Constitution of the United States and the Constitution of the commonwealth of Pennsylvania, and violate the rights and duties of lawful citizens and were and are null and void from their inception and will not be implemented,enforced, or otherwise supported in this Commonwealth by the Office of Constable of the 3rd Ward of the Borough of Perkasie,

FURTHER, in keeping with my oath to support, obey and defend the Constitution of the United States and the Constitution of this Commonwealth, I hereby express my commitment to interpose this office and stand in defense of all persons including citizens and lawful residents of the United States within this Commonwealth, against any and all attempts by any agents of the government to subject the people to unconstitutional seizure of their firearms, firearms accessories, or ammunition…”

In Pennsylvania, constable is an elected office with a six year term. The office falls under the executive branch and the governor, but ultimately constables answer to the people. They are considered “peace officers” and have arrest powers.

Local resolutions send a strong message to lawmakers in Harrisburg and increase the chance of passing state-level legislation blocking violations of the Second Amendment. When officials like Rumbold and towns like Holly Springs take a stand, it also lays the ground work for the next step: city and county ordinances nullifying unconstitutional federal gun laws.

Details

Majority Wrong, Justice Thomas Right, in Arizona Immigration Case

NOTE: This is the first of several short commentaries on recent Supreme Court decisions.

The Supreme Court recently ruled that portions of Arizona’s immigration law violate federal statutes. In his dissent, Justice Thomas relied heavily on my own research.

The Independence Institute did not participate in that case. So how did it happen that I was cited? In 2010 the University of Pennsylvania Journal of Constitutional Law published my article on the original meaning of a constitutional provision relevant to the decision. The provision is Article I, Section 4—which the Court called the “Elections Clause,” but is more accurately entitled the “Times, Places and Manner Clause.” The Clause provides that the states may regulate the “Times, Places and Manner of holding Elections for Senators and Representatives,” but that Congress may override most of these regulations.

In the article, I discuss exactly what the Founders meant by the phrase “Times, Places and Manner of holding Elections,” and how Congress’s power over its own elections should be interpreted.

The recent case involved whether Arizona’s requirement that voters show proof of citizenship when registering to vote violated federal law. The Court had to decide how widely to read a federal statute and how widely to read Congress’s authority under the Times, Places and Manner Clause.

Details

Alaska Becomes Second State to Pass Nullification of Indefinite Detention

JUNEAU, Alaska – Federal kidnapping in Alaska just got a lot harder.

Last Friday, Alaska Gov. Sean Parnell signed a sweeping nullification bill providing  broad protections against indefinite detention, violations of the Second Amendment and blocking implementation of a federal identification program in The Last Frontier.

HB69 prohibits “state and municipal agencies from using assets to implement or aid in the implementation of the requirements of certain federal statutes, regulations, rules, and orders that are applied to infringe on a person’s right to bear arms or right to due process or that implement or aid in the implementation of the federal REAL ID Act of 2005.”

“The people of Alaska got a three-for-one in this bill. This is the most sweeping nullification legislation ever signed into law. The Alaska legislature, along with Gov. Parnell, obviously take Madison’s assertion that states are ‘duty bound, to interpose for arresting the progress of the evil’ seriously.” The new law will make violations of the Second Amendment and DC-sanctioned kidnapping nearly impossible in Alaska, and it throws yet another roadblock in the path of an unconstitutional national ID program. The people of Alaska should be proud of the courage shown by their representatives,” Tenth Amendment Center national communications director Mike Maharrey said.

The federal government depends on state resources to enforce its laws. By pulling the rug out from under the feds, and denying state and local assistance to federal agents, Alaska effectively nullified indefinite detention, along with unconstitutional federal firearms regulations. (You can read an in-depth analysis of the Second Amendment protections offered by HB69 HERE.)

Alaska becomes the second state to refuse cooperation with federal kidnapping under the National Defense Authorization Act, following Virginia’s lead last year. And the new law takes it a step further, protecting the people of Alaska from indefinite detention under any other purported federal authority past or present, such as the Authorization for Use of Military Force.

A state or municipal agency may not use or authorize the use of an asset to implement or aid in the implementation of a requirement of an order of the President of the United States, a federal regulation, or a law enacted by the United States Congress that is applied to deny a person a right to due process, or a protection of due process, that would otherwise be available to the person under the Constitution of the State of Alaska or the Constitution of the United States.

Details

Local 2nd Amendment Protection Resolutions Spreading Like Wildfire in Alabama

During the recent legislative session, the Alabama Senate created quite a stir when it passed a Second Amendment Preservation act that would have nullified unconstitutional federal gun laws in the Heart of Dixie. This was a great first step, but the Alabama House lacked the resolve to get the bill passed, and hopes of blocking violations of the Second Amendment at the state level died for the year with the end of the legislative session.

But that doesn’t mean Alabama citizens have to just sit around and wait for next year. Government bodies at the local level can step into the fray to get things done.

Two Alabama cities and one county did just that. The cities of Russellville and Red Bay both fall within Franklin County, and all three local governments recently passed similar resolutions supporting the right to keep and bear arms, and encouraging gun manufactures to set up shop in their area.

The resolutions find their legal justification in the Second Amendment to the United States Constitution and Article I: Section 26 of the Alabama State Constitution that states “every citizen has a right to bear arms in defense of himself and the state.”

The resolutions have six clauses, all encouraging gun manufacturing within their jurisdiction, both to maintain the defense of the citizens and for economic prosperity for their local communities.

“The council and I wanted to expressly show support for the Second Amendment,” Red Bay Mayor Bobby Forsythe said.

Details