Georgia’s Jury Nullification Act

Representative Charles Gregory has prefiled HB25, known as the Fully Informed Jury Act of 2013.

This act states, “In a criminal jury trial, the court shall permit the defendant or his or her counsel to argue for jury nullification in its role as the judges of the law and the facts pursuant to Article I, Section I, Paragraph XI of the Constitution.” Article I, Section I, Paragraph XI of the Georgia Constitution deals with the right to trial by jury, number of jurors, and the selection and compensation. If the Fully Informed Jury Act passes, then the Georgia Constitution would be amended to include jury nullification as a responsibility of the court.

Jury nullification has had a long tradition extended prior to American History. During colonial times, jury nullification was successfully used and juries informed of their right.

In 1734, Peter Zenger, a writer for The New York Weekly Journal was being prosecuted for seditious libel by the Royal Governor of New York. Retold in a Mises journal article “The court instructed the jury that truth was no defense. Defense counsel Andrew Hamilton, however, urged the jury to reach their own conclusions about this legal issue.” The jury came back with a not guilty verdict.

Details

Alaska Updating their Firearms Freedom Act

Representative Chenault, along with cosponsors Representatives Millett, Johnson, and Wilson, have introduced HB069 that builds on their previous Firearms Freedom act of 2010 HB 186.

Currently HB069 is assigned to the House Judiciary Committee.

HB069 has minor changes to the previous Firearms Freedom Act of 2010. This bill removes the “made in Alaska” stamp requirement from HB 186. Instead, Alaska will have to acknowledge all legally obtained firearms possessed in the state of Alaska as not subject to any federal acts, laws, or regulations.

HB069 states, “A personal firearm, a firearm accessory, or ammunition that is possessed in this state or manufactured commercially or privately in this state and that remains in the state is not subject to federal law or federal regulation, including registration, under the authority of the United States Congress to regulate interstate commerce as those items have not traveled in interstate commerce.”

The bill continues, “The authority of the United States Congress to regulate interstate commerce in basic materials does not include authority to regulate firearms, firearm accessories, and ammunition possessed in this state or made in this state from those materials. Firearm accessories that are imported into this state from another state and that are subject to federal regulation as being in interstate commerce do not subject a firearm to federal regulation under interstate commerce because they are attached to or used in conjunction with a firearm in this state.”

Details

Texas Senate Continues the Stand Against the TSA

The Post-9/11 era ushered in a new wave of theatrical security labeled the Transportation Security Administration. This government agency, which seems to have hired more criminals than they caught, has worked with impunity with no regard to the unconstitutional search and seizure of personal property. With a zero success rate in capturing terrorists, the TSA has instead irratiated, humiliated, molested, and stole from the customers of air travel, all the while completed funded by you the tax payer.

Senator Patrick has filed SB 20. This bill is a companion bill to the Texas State House bill HB 80 introduced by Representative Simpson.

This piece of legislation reads, “A person who is a public servant commits an offense if the person: while acting under color of the person’s office or employment:

Details

Colorado NDAA Nullification Introduced

House Representative Jared Wright has introduced House Bill 1045 which prohibits any assistance by the state of Colorado in enforcing Section 1021 provisions of the 2012 National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA). This bill has been assigned to the State, Veterans and Military Affairs House Committee.

Section 1021 of the NDAA which sets up a “legal” framework for the federal government to kidnap and detain anyone under the Authorization of the Use of Military Force. It expands the battlefield to the United States and to US citizens.

HB 1045 states, “This section…shall not provide aid to an agency of the armed forces of the United States in any investigation, prosecution, or detention of any person pursuant to section 1021 of the Federal “National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2012″.. if such aid would place the entity in violation of any provision of the United States Constitution, The Colorado Constitution, or any law of this state.”

This bill prohibits aid to the federal government from any agency of the state, political subdivision, Colorado state employee, or any member of the Colorado National Guard.

Details

South Carolina Bill Would Nullify all Presidential Executive Orders Against the Right to Keep and Bear Arms

Senator Davis has filed SB 224 which is a Joint Resolution to Nullify Executive Orders infringing upon the second amendment, and the right to keep and bear arms. This Joint Resolution has been referred to the Senate Committee of Judiciary.

SB 224 states, “Any federal executive order restricting, abridging, or otherwise infringing upon the free exercise of a citizen’s second amendment right to keep and bear arms is unconstitutional and shall not be enforced by any federal, state, or local law enforcement agency within South Carolina.”

Senator Davis referenced District of Columbia v. Heller. This Supreme Court held that, “the Second Amendment protects an individual’s right to possess firearms and that the city’s total ban on handguns, as well as its requirement that firearms in the home be kept nonfunctional even when necessary for self-defense, violated that right.”

Also, Senator Davis hold that Executive Orders are not a way to skirt Congress and enact laws. The purpose of executive orders are “to direct and manage the operation of the executive branch of the federal government.”

Details

Wyoming to Preserve the Second Amendment?

In response to current threats from the Federal Government on banning firearms, firearms accessories and ammunition, States are beginning to take action to hold the Federal Government to its constitutional limits under the 2nd Amendment. “A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.”

Wyoming Rep. Kendell Kroeker has sponsored and introduced HB0104. the Firearms Protection Act. Representatives Baker, Burkhart, Jaggi, Miller, Piiparinen, Reeder and Winters and Senators Dockstader and Hicks have co-sponsered this bill.

Wyoming’s Firearms Protection Act, is “an act relating to firearms; providing that any federal law which attempts to ban a semi-automatic firearm or to limit the size of a magazine of a firearm or other limitation on in this state shall be unenforceable in Wyoming; providing a penalty; and providing for an effective date.” This act nullifies all federal laws made after Jan. 1, 2013.

“We need the second amendment because it is the protection for all of our other rights. Without it, those rights have no protection,” Kroeker said.

Details

Will Missouri Say NO to the Drone Surveillance State?

The escalation of the surveillance state is happening with the induction of drones in US airspace. Petitioning the government for our privacy is not working. In response, State Representative Guernsey pre-filed a bill in December to nullify drone surveillance in the state of Missouri. Representative Guernsey’s bill, HB 46 Preserving Freedom from Unwarranted Surveillance Act is the line in the sand.

This bill requires a warrant for any drone surveillance use in monitoring people for alleged criminal conduct. “No person, entity, or state agency shall use a drone or other unmanned aircraft to gather evidence or other information pertaining to criminal conduct or conduct in violation of a statute or regulation except to the extent authorized in a warrant.” Law enforcement is defined as, “”Law enforcement agency”, any state, county, or municipal law enforcement agency in the state. The term law enforcement agency shall not include the Missouri department of corrections, or any state, county, or municipal fire department.”

It also proposes to stop even general surveillance by the use of a drone. “No person, entity, or state agency shall use a drone or other unmanned aircraft to conduct surveillance of any individual, property owned by an individual, farm, or agricultural industry without the consent of that individual, property owner, farm or agricultural industry.”

The bill does not mention storage of surveillance, but is a step in the right direction, according to supporters. Unmanned Aerial Vehicles (UAV) are considered part of an Unmanned Aerial System (UAS) which includes a ground station, operator, and equipment to store collected surveillance.

Even though the legislation only includes state and local law enforcement agencies in its prohibition of drone use, Tenth Amendment Center executive director Michael Boldin says the bill still has ramifications at the federal level because of Washington’s strong advocacy of drone use.

Details

Will Indiana Nullify Drones?

We are living in a world where our phone calls, our text messages, our emails, and our internet sites are being recorded and stored by the federal government. The surveillance state is growing. The next step in the destruction of 4th Amendment continues with the invasion of drones in US airspace. Drones are currently being used in Afghanistan, Pakistan, Yemen, Iraq, Libya, and Somalia to combat terrorist. CNN and RT have reported that the success rate for targeted strikes against high level targets is 2%. If life is regarded with no value and death is regarded so frivolous that it can be played like a video game, how will our government treat our privacy?

We are searched without warrants or probably cause. The burden of proof to determine innocence is placed on ourselves. There is no liberty living in a world that assumes you are already guilty. Our only answer is to nullify. And Indiana now has a great opportunity to do so.

SB0020 has been introduced by Senator Tomes. If passed, this bill will amend the Indiana Code concerning criminal law and procedure by nullifying the use of drones. SB0020 summary of the law reads as:

“Use of unmanned aerial vehicles. Provides that a person who knowingly or intentionally uses an unmanned aerial vehicle to monitor a person, property, or thing without the written consent of the subject of the monitoring commits a Class D felony. Provides that images or communications obtained through the use of an unmanned aerial vehicle are not admissible as evidence. Provides that a person who possesses an image or communications obtained through the use of an unmanned aerial vehicle commits a Class A misdemeanor. Prohibits the use of public money to purchase an unmanned aerial vehicle.”

This law prohibits law enforcement personel from being exempt as a person controlling or owning a UAV. Additionally, it criminalizes the collection of intercepted communications, like “wire, electronic, or oral communications; or the capture, collection, monitoring, or viewing of images.”

Details