Texas Anti-Drone Bill Includes Civil and Criminal Penalties

HB83, filed by Representative Gooden, will nullify drones being implemented in Texas. This bill has been co-sponsored by Representative Stephenson.

HB83, would make it a Class C misdemeanor to capture images with a drone without a warrant or probable cause of a felony, or imminent danger. “Illegal use of unmanned vehicle or aircraft to capture image. (a) A person commits an offense if the person uses or authorizes the use of an unmanned vehicle or aircraft to capture an image without the express consent of the person who owns or lawfully occupies the real property captured in the image… A civil penalty of $1,000, subject to adjustment of the dollar amount under for each image of the plaintiff or of the real property owned or legally occupied by the plaintiff that is captured, possessed, disclosed, displayed, distributed, or otherwise used;”

This bill is different the the FAA regulation that calls it fair play for drone surviellance within 100 miles of the border. HB83 limits using a drone surveillance, “of real property or a person on real property that
is within 25 miles of the United States border for the sole purpose of enforcing border laws.”


Missouri Legislation Would Nullify Federal Gun “Laws”

Representative Funderburk introduced a Second Amendment Preservation Act, House Bill 436. This bill is cosponsored by many representatives including Representatives: Jones, Burlinson, Hicks, Rhoads, Ross, Miller, Parkinson, Remole, Anderson, Hurst, Bahr, Brown, Smith, Koenig, Curtman, Dugger, Morris, Sommer, Leara, Gatschenberger, Brattin, Schieffer, and Korman. Missouri is serious by upholding the federal government to its Constitutional responsibility to not infringe on the people’s right to bear arms. Previously, Representative Sommer had introduced HB 162, A Firearms Freedom Act and HB 181 and Interstate Commerce Act.

HB 436 states, “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, are specifically rejected by this state, and shall be considered null and void and of no effect in this state. 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; (g) Any act ordering the confiscation of firearms, firearm accessories, or ammunition from law-abiding citizens.”

This bill acknowledges that federal gun regulations have been around for decades. The Gun Control Act of 1934 set up the battle between the right to bear arms and state sovereignty. In Franklin E. Zimring article, Firearms and Federal Laws: The Gun Control Act of 1968 describes how this battle started. “The National Firearms Act of 1934, after the handgun registration provisions were deleted, was a concentrated attack on civilian ownership of machine guns, sawed-off shotguns, silencers, and other relatively rare firearms that had acquired reputations as gangster weapons during the years preceding its passage. Modeled on the Harrison Narcotics Act, the N.F.A. based its regulatory powers on a tax imposed on traffic in the weapons, thus generating federal jurisdiction for intrastate as well as interstate transactions. The tax rate, $200 per transfer, did not seem calculated to encourage extensive commerce in these weapon. The Act also provided for the immediate registration of all covered weapons, even if illegally owned a provision altered in 1968, after the United States Supreme Court held the 1934 provision to be an infringement on the constitutional privilege against self-incrimination.”


Texas to Stop Medicaid Expansion by State Constitutional Amendment?

Senator Donna Campbell has filed a Senate Joint Resolution (SJR) 5, “proposing a constitutional amendment relating to the rights of individuals to choose or decline to choose to purchase health insurance coverage. This bill has been co-sponsored by Senators Estes and Paxton.

Joint resolutions are different than bills. “Joint resolutions proposing amendments to the Texas Constitution require a vote of two-thirds of the total membership of each chamber for adoption… A joint resolution takes the same course through both chambers as a bill and is like a bill in all respects, except that, in the house, if it receives the required number of votes at any reading after the first reading, the resolution is passed. Three readings are required to pass a joint resolution in the senate. Joint resolutions passed by the legislature are not submitted to the governor for signing but are filed directly with the secretary of state. An amendment to the Texas Constitution proposed by an adopted joint resolution does not become effective until it is approved by Texas voters at a general election.”

By January 1st, 2014, the Medicaid Expansion will take full effect, expanding, “Medicaid coverage to all non-elderly individuals with incomes below 133 of the federal poverty level (FPL)- currently $14,404 for an individual and $24,353 a year for a family of three.” At the Medicaid website, it illustrates that, “States will receive their regular federal match rate for the newly covered populations beginning in 2014. For three years – from 2014 through 2016 – states will receive full federal financing that will cover the costs of expansion populations. Starting in 2017 and going forward states will receive a much higher federal matching rate for their expansion populations. These federal grants are really just taxpayers money that will increase in 4 years to cover 133% of population under the federal poverty level.”


New Hampshire Bill would ban Medicaid Expansion

HB 271, a bill to refuse Medicaid expansion, was introduced by Rep. William O’Brien and co-sponsored by Rep. Timothy Comerford.

This bill is short and sweet. HB271 states, “the commissioner shall not accept any federal moneys or in any way expand Medicaid pursuant to the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act of 2009.”

Boston.com issued an article from the Associated Press about a report from Health and Human Services (HHS). “It states, New Hampshire could save up to $114 million if it decides not to expand Medicaid under the new federal health care law, but it would lose $2.5 billion in federal aid toward health care for the state’s uninsured.”

That $2.5 billion in federal bribes to the state is taxpayer money. Tad DeHaven explains the meaning of these words in his article Federal Money to the State Isn’t ‘Free’. Currently New Hampshire has rejected making an exchange and refused federal funds to implement Obamacare with HB601 and SB148 when republicans were in control of the house. Representative O’Brien is worried about the excessive borrowing and spending from the federal government. He said, “when residents of New Hampshire hear about any federal spending, their take away should be that the federal government is moving us closer to a currency crisis and rampant inflation caused by excessive borrowing and spending.”


Kansas Bill Would Nullify TSA Groping

Kansas Rep. Brett  Hildabrand has introduced HB 2175 to fight against the unlawful search and seizures by the TSA.

This bill has garnered many co-sponsors including Representatives Bradford, Christmann, Claeys, Dierks, Esau, Garber, Goico, Grosserode, Hedke, Houser, Howell, McPherson, Montgomery,O’Brien, Petty, Read, Rothlisberg, Rubin, Todd, and Weber.

This bill amends the 2012 Kansas statutes. “Official misconduct is any of the following acts committed by a public officer or employee in the officer or employee’s public capacity or under color of the officer or employee’s office or employment.”

Section 7 states, “as part of a determination of whether to grant another person access to a publicly accessible venue or form of transportation, intentionally and without probable cause: (A) Touches the genitals, buttocks, anus or female breasts of such person, including touching through clothing; (B) removes a child younger than 18 years of age from the physical custody or control of such child’s parent or legal guardian, or a person standing in the stead of such child’s parent or legal guardian; (C) commits a violation of subsection (a) or (b) of K.S.A. 2012 Supp.21-5412, and amendments thereto; or (D) harasses, delays, coerces, threatens, intimidates, or denies or conditions such person’s accessibility because of such person’s refusal to consent to subsections (a)(7)(A), (a)(7)(B) or (a)(7)(C).”


New Hampshire Seeks to Establish Liberty Preservation Act, Nullify NDAA

HB 399, a Liberty Preservation Act, has been introduced by House Representative Dan Itse. The bill would nullify NDAA “indefinite detention” within the state.

Itse is no stranger to nullification, and in many ways has been one of the intellectual leaders of this movement growing in state houses around the country.

HB399 states, “The legislature finds that the enactment into law by the United States Congress of Sections 1021 and 1022 of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2012, Public Law Number 112-81, is inimical to the liberty, security, and well-being of the people of New Hampshire, and was adopted by the United States Congress in violation of the limits of federal power in United States Constitution.”

The bill also lists the peoples’ rights which are under attack with the 2012 NDAA from (a) Article I, Section 9, Clause 2’s right to seek writ of habeas corpus; (b) The First Amendment’s right to petition the government for a redress of grievances; (c) The Fourth Amendment’s right to be free from unreasonable searches and seizures; (d) The Fifth Amendment’s right to be free from charge for an infamous or capital crime until presentment or indictment by a grand jury; (e) The Fifth Amendment’s right to be free from deprivation of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; (f) The Sixth Amendment’s right in criminal prosecutions to enjoy a speedy trial by an impartial jury in the state and district where the crime shall have been committed; (g) The Sixth Amendment’s right to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; (h) The Sixth Amendment’s right to confront witnesses; (i) The Sixth Amendment’s right to counsel; (j) The Eighth Amendment’s right to be free from excessive bail and fines, and cruel and unusual punishment; and (k) The Fourteenth Amendment’s right to be free from deprivation of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law.”


Mississippi Bill Would Nullify NDAA

Senate Bill 2689 was introduced by Senator McDaniel of Mississippi to fight against the NDAA. Mississippi makes the 8th state to introduce legislation against NDAA so far this year. Currently the bill sits in the Senate Judiciary, Division A Committee.

“The Legislature of the State of Mississippi, condemns in no uncertain terms Sections 1021 and 1022 of the 2012 NDAA as they purport to (i) repeal the Posse Comitatus doctrine and authorize the President of the United States to utilize the Armed Forces of the United States to police the United States of America, (ii) indefinitely detain persons captured within the United States of America without charge until the end of hostilities as purportedly authorized by the 2001 Authorization for Use of Military Force, (iii) subject persons captured within the United States of America to military tribunals, and (iv) transfer persons captured within the United States of America to a foreign country or foreign entity.”

SB 2689 continues, “The State of Mississippi shall not provide material support or participate in any way with the implementation of Sections 1021 and 1022 of the National Defense Authorization Act of 2012 within the boundaries of this state. The Department of Public Safety is hereby directed to report to the Governor and the Legislature any attempt by agencies or agents of the United States Federal Government to secure the implementation of Sections 1021 and 1022 of the National Defense Authorization Act of 2012 through the operations of that or any other state department.”


Missouri Starts Fight for Intrastate Freedom

Missouri’s House Representative, Chrissy Sommer has filed a bill called the Intrastate Commerce Act or HB 181. This bill was filed along with HB 162 which is Missouri’s Firearms Freedom Act. These two bills go hand-in-hand. While the Firearms Freedom Act upholds the Federal Government to it limited Constitutional powers to not infringe on the the right to bear arms, the Intrastate Commerce Act of Missouri reaffirms that a state is in control of the commerce that happens within the state while the federal government is only limited to regulating the commerce between states.

This bill states, “All goods produced or manufactured, whether commercially or privately, within the boundaries of this state that are held, maintained, or retained within the boundaries of this state shall not be deemed to have traveled in interstate commerce and shall not be subject to federal law, federal regulation, or the authority of the Congress of the United States under its constitutional power to regulate commerce. This section shall apply to goods that are manufactured within this state from basic materials or parts. The authority of the Congress of the United States to regulate interstate commerce in basic materials or parts shall not include the authority to regulate goods manufactured within this state from such materials or parts.”

The Constitution states, “The Congress shall have power… to regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian tribes…The Congress shall have Power…to make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof.” Robert Natelson notes in The Original Constitution that there are misconceptions of the commerce clause in the Constitution, that the regulation of commerce is not exclusively enumerated to Congress and that commerce did not include everything under the sun. The states still have immense power to regulate commerce within their own state and even with foreign nations.

Natelson writes, “Federalists repeatedly represented that the Constitution would leave the states as the sole government regulators of the vast majority of human actives. They affirmed that the central government would have almost no role over…use of personal property outside commerce, wills and inheritance, business regulation and licensing, manufacturing” and others.

Also Natelson writes, “The Constitution banned states from imposing duties on imports or exports without the consent of Congress…otherwise, states were free to regulate commerce with foreign nations–and even to impose embargoes on goods from outside–subject to preemption by Congress or by federal treaties.”

The reason HB 181 and 162 go hand-in-hand is because the cry for gun control unleashes the federal government out of bounds of its limited duties. Senator Feinstein of California published legislation that is purely unconstitutional and infringes on the states rights to regulate commerce within its own boundaries.


Enemy of the State

In a published FOIA request, an Airman stationed in the UK was investigated after a mental breakdown caused by conflicting values of US military’s mission and her own political beliefs. She was found to sympathize with Bradley Manning, Julian Assange, and Wikileaks. She had admitted to communicating her political ideas with various organizations known for anti-war/anti-military sentiments on Twitter and to a UK journalist. She also attended the Julian Assange Trial. However, her own admission and tweets revealed that she was never asked to release any intelligence to these groups and denied volunteering any intelligence to any journalist or group. The US Airforce Office of Special Investigations filed a complaint report on matters alleging “Communicating with the Enemy.”

The Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ) Article 104: Communicating with the Enemy states:

“Any person who–
(1) aids, or attempts to aid, the enemy with arms, ammunition, supplies, money, or other things; or
(2) without proper authority, knowingly harbors or protects or gives intelligence to or communicates or corresponds with or holds any intercourse with the enemy, either directly or indirectly;
shall suffer death or such other punishment as a court-martial or military commission may direct.”

Who is the enemy in this document? Is it Julian Assange? Wikileaks? Journalists? Bloggers? Social media users? Those opposed to an unconstitutional and failed foreign policy? Anti-war organizations? The leaked document does not directly point to any person or organization but acknowledges who the Airman was in contact with and her activities surrounding her political beliefs. But, constitutionally speaking, who gets to determine the enemy?

The Constitution does not provide any structure to determine an enemy. An enemy could be those the US is at war with. Congress has the power to declare war but there is no framework as to what constitutes a declaration of war. In Federalist Paper number 3, it states, “The just causes of war, for the most part, arise either from violation of treaties or from direct violence.”


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.