Proof is in the Pot

Nullification works!

As Tenth Amendment Center founder and executive director Michael Boldin often says on Tenther Radio, the feds always need state and local law enforcement. Every drug raid ends with a DEA press release thanking state or local law enforcement for its cooperation.

The feds simply don’t have the resources or manpower to enforce all of their acts.

Judge Napolitano states, “State non-compliance makes federal enforcement almost nearly impossible.”

But don’t believe nullification works just because Michael Boldin says so! Don’t buy into it just because Judge Napolitano agrees.

The DEA says so too!

The Huffington Post reports that the DEA is trying desperately to justify its budget. How can they do their job if states won’t enforce their federal “laws?” Who will destroy the weed?

In California, several nullification bills addressing medical marijuana were signed into law. In 1996, Proposition 215, or the Compassionate Use Act, was enacted after a 56 percent state-wide vote in favor. This bill  allowed patients with a valid doctor’s recommendation, and the patient’s designated Primary Caregiver’s approval, to possess and cultivate marijuana for personal medical use. Since then, the program has been expanded to protect a growing system of collective and cooperative distribution.


Missouri House Passes Firearms Freedom Act by a Veto-Proof Majority

Moments ago, Missouri House Bill 170, the Firearms Freedom Act, passed out of the House by a wide margin.  It passed overwhelmingly with a strong veto-proof margin and will now move to the State Senate for concurrence.  The final tally was 117-41.

HB170, the Firearms Freedom Act, protects two aspects of the right to bear arms: 1. HB170 protects semi-automatic firearms, magazines, and accessories from being registered, restricted or banned; 2: HB170 protects manufacturers from the federal governments infringements and dealers from using a national background database.  It reads, in part:

“It shall be unlawful for any officer or employee of this state, or any political subdivision, or any federal firearms dealer licensed under 18 U.S.C. Section 923 to enforce or attempt to enforce any act, law, statute, rule, or regulation of the federal government created or effective on or after January 1, 2013, relating to a personal firearm, firearm accessory, or ammunition that is owned or manufactured commercially or privately in the state of Missouri and that remains exclusively within the boundaries of the state of Missouri.

2. Any official, agent, or employee of the federal government who enforces or attempts to enforce any act, order, law, statute, rule, or regulation of the federal government created or effective on or after January 1, 2013, upon a personal firearm, a firearm accessory, or ammunition that is owned or manufactured commercially or privately in the state of Missouri and that remains exclusively within the borders of the state of Missouri shall be guilty of a class D felony.

3. Any person in violation of a federal law created or effective on or after January 1, 2013, relating to the manufacture, sale, transfer, or possession of a firearm, a firearm accessory, or ammunition owned or manufactured and retained exclusively within the boundaries of the state of Missouri may request the attorney general to defend him or her for such violation.

4. Any federal law created or effective on or after January 1, 2013, rule, regulation, or order created or effective on or after January 1, 2013, shall be unenforceable in the state of Missouri if the law, rule, regulation, or order attempts to: (1) Ban or restrict ownership of a semi-automatic firearm or any magazine of a firearm; or (2) Require any firearm, magazine, or other firearm accessory to be registered in any manner.”  (emphasis added)

In short, any such federal “acts, laws, statutes, rules or regulations” that are already in effect or are passed in the future shall be nullified.  This would effectively create a safe-haven for firearms manufacturers who want to build products that are sold to residents in Missouri.     It also includes a statewide ban on any federal attempt to ban or restrict semi-automatics (including magazines and accessories)  This bill is a great companion for HB436, the 2nd Amendment Preservation Act, which already passed the House and is on its way to the Senate Floor in the coming days.


Lousiana 2nd Amendment Preservation Act Heading to the Floor.

Representative Jim Morse introduced HB5 this year in response to the newly sought “assault weapons” ban from Diane Feinstein and other threat to prohibit “weapons of war” from the White House Administration.

The Louisiana Preservation of Individual Gun Rights of Citizens Act protects semi-automatic firearms from federal regulation.

HB5 states,

Any federal law, rule, regulation, or executive order adopted or enacted on or after January 1, 2013, shall be unenforceable within the borders of the state of Louisiana if the law, rule, regulation, or executive order attempts to do any of the following:

(1) Ban or restrict the ownership or possession of a semi-automatic firearm, or any magazine, accessory, or ammunition for a semi-automatic firearm, as defined by federal law.

(2) Require that any semi-automatic firearm, magazine, accessory, or ammunition for a semi-automatic firearm be registered in any manner. The provisions of this Section shall only apply to semi-automatic firearms, magazines, accessories, and ammunition for such firearms which are owned or possessed within the state of Louisiana and remain exclusively within the borders of the state of Louisiana.”

The local and state police are prohibited from enforcing any federal law in violation.

“It shall be unlawful for any official, agent, or employee of the United States government to enforce or attempt to enforce a federal law, rule, regulation, or executive order which is unenforceable”

This law provides that,

“Whoever violates the provisions of this Section shall be fined not more than five thousand dollars, imprisoned with or without hard labor for not more than two years, or both.

The office of the attorney general of the state of Louisiana shall defend any Louisiana citizen who is charged with possession or ownership of a semi-automatic firearm, magazine, accessory, or ammunition for such firearm in violation of any federal law, rule, regulation, or executive order which is unenforceable”

This bill passed the House Committee on Administration of Criminal Justice with a vote of 8-6. This bill now heads to the floor for a vote on  April 23. In an article from The Advocate, Jim Morris said, “This is not only a timely bill, but proper bill to bring.”


Alaska REAL ID Nullification, Round Two.

In 2008, Alaska refused to implement REAL-ID with Senate Bill 202. This law states,

“A state agency may not expend funds solely for the purpose of implementing or aiding in the implementation of the requirements of the federal Real ID Act of 2005.”

DHS has been quietly working behind the scenes – trying to get states to implement REAL-ID through back door deals. One such deal has turned out to be a scandal in the state of Missouri. The Department of Revenue (DoR) in Missouri was caught red-handed. It was found that they were implementing sections of the real id act in defiance of a law banning it. They were also using DHS grants to scan biometric data pro, and storing that data to a 3rd party known for it’s workings with DHS, DoD, and the TSA. Click here for the full scandal.

As a result, the director of the DoR has stepped down. That’s not all, Representative Bahr has introduced legislation that would make it possible to fire any department director or deputy director caught “instances of misconduct, perjury before any committee of the general assembly, violation of any state statute, a conviction or plea of guilty for committing any crime, habitual drunkenness, willful neglect of duty, corruption in office, incompetency, or any offense involving moral turpitude or oppression in office.”

In Alaska,


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.


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.


Maine Legislation Would Nullify Unconstitutional Hemp Ban

Maine LD 525 is an Act to Promote Industrial Hemp. This bill, sponsored by Representative Harvell, is currently in the Committee on Agriculture, Conservation and Forestry.  If passed into law, it would authorize the growth and production of the plant within the state of Maine.

The federal government lacks the constitutional authority to regulate the production of hemp, or any agricultural product, within a state’s borders, but has banned it for decades.

Hemp is a major product worldwide, and is widely used in the United States in food products, clothing, oils and more.  It can be a competitor to the oil, cotton, and paper industries (and many more), which is a likely reason why the federal government refuses to budge on its view that no one in the US should produce it.  The results?  The United States is the world’s #1 importer of hemp.  The top 2 exporters are China and Canada.

However, the DEA stated in an FOIA request that they are “opposed to any consideration of hemp as a legitimate fiber or pulp product.” LD525 authorizes production in Maine, effectively nullifying the unconstitutional federal ban.


Anti-Drone Bills Pass out of Committees in Tennessee

Drone regulation in Tennessee moved a step closer to reality this week.

Both the House and Senate versions of the Freedom of Unwarranted Surveillance Act moves forward in Tennessee out of their respective committees. SB796 unanimously passed out of the Senate Judiciary Committee 9-0.  The House Civil Justice Committee recommended passage of HB591 if amended.

The bill prohibits the use of drones  by law enforcement agencies in Tennessee only under the following circumstances.

– Toe counter the high risk of terrorist attack by a specific person or organization.
– With a search warrant signed by a judge authorizing the use of a drone.
– With evidence of reasonable suspicion that there is an immediate threat such that “swift action is needed to prevent imminent danger to life.

The proposed amendments add two more exceptions for drone use.


New Jersey is Losing the Battle of State Sovereignty by Asking Permission

Currently, online gambling has been signed into New Jersey State law and will be effective in about 3-9 months after the state Division of Gaming Enforcement sets a start date. This bill will allow all games played at Atlantic City to be available in an online format to accessed in New Jersey, other states, and even foreign countries. This law isn’t the right way to express State Sovereignty. It’s not even a nullification bill at all.

In fact, the law goes through great lengths to prove that New Jersey has found enough loopholes into being compliant with federal law.

In October 2006, the United States Congress passed the Unlawful Internet Gambling Enforcement Act, 31 U.S.C. 5361 et seq., which generally prohibits the use of banking instruments, including credit cards, checks, and fund transfers, for interstate Internet gambling, essentially prohibiting online gambling by United States citizens, but which includes exceptions that permit individual states to create a regulatory framework to enable intrastate Internet gambling, provided that the bets or wagers are made exclusively within a single state under certain circumstances;

This law states right off the bat, the supremacy of this law belongs to the feds.

“Internet gaming in this State shall be subject to the provisions of, and preempted and superseded by, any applicable federal law. Internet gaming in this State shall be deemed to take place where a casino’s server is located in Atlantic City regardless of the player’s physical location within this State.”

Just like the Powerball lotto in many states, this law follows the federal regulations to a tee.

“Notwithstanding any other provision of pending before the Legislature as this bill, wagers may be accepted thereunder from persons who are not physically present in this State if the Division of Gaming Enforcement in the Department of Law and Public Safety determines that such wagering is not inconsistent with federal law or the law of the jurisdiction, including any foreign nation, in which any such person is located, or such wagering is conducted pursuant to an interstate compact to which this State is a party that is not inconsistent with federal law.”

This law includes taking bribes from the feds to distribute public service announcements on the dangers of gambling.


Tennessee Medicaid Expansion Amendment Becomes the New Bill in Both House and Senate

Two hearings took place today in Nashville regarding the Medicaid Expansion. Those bills include Senate Bill 804 sponsored by Senator Kelsey and House Bill 937 sponsored by Representative Durham. Earlier this morning Governor Haslam had stated that he would not expand Medicaid this year.

During the hearings, the amendment was being distributed. It had been formulated this afternoon after the Governors speech. This amendment rewrites the bill by stating that if the Governor decides that he (or future Governor) would like to expand the Medicaid provision of the Affordable Care Act, he will need the legislatures approval first.

House Bill 937, by Representative Durham, was heard in the House Insurance and Banking Subcommittee. The chairman received the amendment and was asking if this was his plan for the affordable care act since they didn’t have the amendment this morning?

Representative Durham, didn’t have the answer. He knew that Governor Haslam “didn’t want to proceed at this time. When you get into budget amendments, an issue that is such importance, the entire legislature should get to hear that. When you are talking about a 33 billion dollar state budget, I just feel if it is of such importance like Medicaid expansion then we should be hearing just that. So the bill wouldn’t make expansion legal. But if we are going to do it we will do it by a joint resolution. I want everyone to be heard on that”

The chairman was confused by the amendment since the amendment deletes the bill and replaces it with how Representative Durham stated. He wanted the attorney to explain it for the record.

The Attorney stated (she had no prior notice of this amendment), “From looking upon it, it looks as though this with drafting code 5824 saying the Governor would not allow him to make any decision or obligate Tennessee with regards to the expansion of Medicaid Program without approval by a joint resolution from the general assembly. This is how I’m reading it. This (the amendment) would make up the new bill since it is deleting everything after the caption.”