Author Archive | Michael Boldin

Jefferson City, Mo (May 8, 2013) – Tonight, the Missouri State House voted to send Governor Jay Nixon what could arguably be the strongest defense against federal gun control measures in American history.  The vote was 116-38.

HB436, introduced by Representative Doug Funderburk in February, was initially passed by the House in April by a vote of 115-42.  Last week, the State Senate approved the bill with an amendment which did not change any of its nullification aspects. The vote there was 26-6.  The bill then needed one final vote in the house which happened just before 10pm local time this evening.

The votes in both the House and Senate are by a strong veto-proof majority.  Local activist Matt Radcliffe acknowledged as much when he said, “Governor Nixon can do nothing and it will automatically become law July 1st.  Or he can sign it into law. Or he can veto it then his veto will be overridden in the house and it will become law anyway!”

As law, HB436 would nullify virtually every federal gun control measure on the books – or planned for the future.   It reads, in part: Continue Reading →

Today, Kansas Governor Sam Brownback sent a letter in response to Eric Holder’s direct threat against the state for its new law, the 2nd Amendment Protection Act.  It reads, in part:

The State of Kansas is in receipt of your letter in which you place Kansas on notice regarding the view of the Obama Administration concerning the state’s Second Amendment Protection Act.

This first sentence of Brownback’s letter is the most important. Holder’s letter took the position that the new Kansas law is unconstitutional – without question. And because of Holder’s view that he is the decider of all that is constitutional or not in this country, he threatened the state – and thus the People – of Kansas.

Brownback showed quite a bit of savvy with that sentence. He absolutely brushed off Holder by pointing out that his letter only represented “the view of the Obama Administration…”

Just because Eric Holder claims that the Kansas law is unconstitutional, doesn’t make it so. And Holder’s claim that he had no idea about “fast and furious” probably doesn’t make that so either. Continue Reading →

On Thursday, Kansas Governor Sam Brownback received a letter from Federal Attorney General Eric Holder threatening action against the state should it enforce SB102 which Brownback signed into law last month.

The new law states, in part:

Any act, law, treaty, order, rule or regulation of the government of the United States which violates the second amendment to the constitution of the United States is null, void and unenforceable in the state of Kansas

The bill also provides for criminal penalties against federal agents who attempt to enforce specific federal laws on guns manufactured in the state of Kansas and sold within the state – as the state takes the position under the new law that the federal government does not “interstate commerce” authority over such items.

In his letter, Holder didn’t take too kindly to such a proposition.  He wrote:

“In purporting to override federal law and to criminalize the official acts of federal officers, SB102 directly conflicts with federal law and is therefore unconstitutional.”  

He continued, “Under the Supremacy Clause…Kansas may not prevent federal employees and officials from carrying out their official responsibilities.  And a state certainly may not criminalize the exercise of federal responsibilities.  Because SB102 conflicts with federal firearms laws and regulations, federal law supercedes this new statute; all provisions of federal laws and their implementing regulations therefore continue to apply.”

Let’s take Eric apart here. Continue Reading →

By using his veto on HB522, a bill that would have prohibited the state from assisting the federal government in any way with the “indefinite detention” provisions of the NDAA, Bullock has made his position quite clear. He not only supports indefinite detention, he wants to ENSURE that Montana resources are used to help carry it out.

Montana Governor Veto Statement of HB522 (04-22-13)

There is absolutely ZERO serious dispute about the fact that the federal government cannot “commandeer” the states to carry out its laws.  None. Even the Supreme Court has affirmed this multiple times.

Continue Reading →

On Wednesday, April 17, 2013, the White House drug czar, Gil Kerlikowske, announced his recognition of the nullification movement. “No state, no executive can nullify a statute that has been passed by Congress,” he said.  As reported by RawStory – and many other sources - Kerlikowske made this statement at the beginning of his speech to the National Press Club in an effort to say that federal laws on marijuana will prevail regardless of state-level efforts to legalize.

But, Facts on the ground show that the director of the White House Office of National Drug Control Policy is living some kind of lala land.   Gil, I’ve got news for you.  They states already ARE nullifying.

Fact:  18 states have already legalized marijuana, 16 for medical purposes only with Washington State and Colorado going the next step, full legalization.

Fact: Gil wouldn’t be wasting his time talking about how “states can’t” do this if it wasn’t having an effect.

Fact: Without state and local law enforcement cooperation, the feds are fighting a losing battle.

It’s not a matter of IF the states will fully and completely nullify the unconstitutional federal prohibition on marijuana.  It’s only a matter of when.

And to back it up even further, alcohol prohibition came crumbling down by a similar process.  By 1928, 28 states had stopped funding for alcohol prohibition enforcement and local police were sporadic in their enforcement efforts. In a 1925 address to Congress, Maryland’s Senator Bruce stated, “national prohibition went into legal effect upward of six years ago, but it can be truly said that, except to a highly qualified extent, it has never gone into practical effect at all.”  Continue Reading →

UPDATED WITH NEW HEARING DATE

On April 9th, the California Assembly Public Safety Committee voted unanimously in favor of Assembly Bill 351 (AB351), the California Liberty Preservation Act.    The bill has now been assigned to the Assembly Committee on Appropriations with a hearing and vote scheduled for May 15, 2013.

Introduced by Republican Assemblymember Tim Donnelly, AB351 is a strong stand against “indefinite detention” as supposedly authorized by the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) of 2012.  It declares such federal power to be unconstitutional and also requires the entire state to refuse to enforce or assist its implementation.  A broad coalition officially supported the legislation and moved the normally partisan, and strongly democratic, committee to support the republican-introduced legislation.

The appropriations committee is going to be an even tougher path, but an endless stream of strong, but respectful phone calls to committee members in favors is likely to give the bill a chance as passing.

ACTION ITEMS for California

1.  CALL the chair of the Appropriations Committee.  Thank him for scheduling a hearing on AB351, and politely encourage him to vote YES on AB351.

Mike Gatto (916) 319-2043

2.  CALL all the other members of the Appropriations Committee.  Strongly, but respectfully, urge each of them to vote YES on AB351.  Let them know you want a vote on PRINCIPLE and not party.

Diane Harkey - (916) 319-2073
Franklin Bigelow - (916) 319-2005
Raul Bocanegra - (916) 319-2039
Steven Bradford - (916) 319-2062
Ian Calderon - (916) 319-2057
Nora Campos - (916) 319-2027 Continue Reading →

TOPEKA, KS (April 16, 2013) – Today, Kansas Governor Sam Brownback signed into law Senate Bill 102 (SB102), formerly HB2199 – the 2nd Amendment Protection Act.  In the wake of increased federal interest in restricting the right to keep and bear arms, the new Kansas law is the most comprehensive nullification of such acts thus far.

The new law nullifies a wide range of federal attacks on the right to keep and bear arms in the State of Kansas.  It states, in part:

Any act, law, treaty, order, rule or regulation of the government of the United States which violates the second amendment to the constitution of the United States is null, void and unenforceable in the state of Kansas

In conjunction with Section 6a (quoted above), the bill defines what is meant by “the second amendment to the constitution of the United States,” and that it isn’t based off a decision of the supreme court.

The second amendment to the constitution of the United States reserves to the people, individually, the right to keep and bear arms as that right was understood at the time that Kansas was admitted to statehood in 1861, and the guaranty of that right is a matter of contract between the state and people of Kansas and the United States as of the time that the compact with the United States was agreed upon and adopted by Kansas in 1859 and the United States in 1861.

State and local agents would be prevented from enforcing any acts or actions that are “null, void and unenforceable in the state of Kansas.”  Based off this text, the state of Kansas would not be allowed to participate in any federal gun control measures that restrict the individual right to keep and bear arms as understood in 1861.   

As Judge Andrew Napolitano has said recently, such widespread noncompliance can make federal gun control laws “nearly impossible to enforce” (video here)  This mass noncompliance with an unconstitutional federal act is both constitutionally sound, and very effective.  Read more about it here.  A future legislative session could also address how to further prevent federal enforcement should these steps prove to not be effective enough.

A JOBS BILL TOO

Supporters of the legislation also see the legislation as a jobs bill in that is specifically includes language from Firearms Freedom Acts that have been passed in various states since 2009. Continue Reading →

Today, the California Public Safety Committee voted unanimously in favor of Assembly Bill 351 (AB351), the California Liberty Preservation Act.

Introduced by Republican Assemblymember Tim Donnelly, AB351 is a strong stand against “indefinite detention” as supposedly authorized by the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) of 2012.  It declares such federal power to be unconstitutional and also requires the entire state to refuse to enforce or assist its implementation.  A broad coalition officially supported the legislation and moved the normally partisan, and strongly democratic committee to support the republican-introduced legislation. AB351 was supported by the ACLU, Tenth Amendment Center, San Francisco 99% coalition, San Francisco Board of Supervisors, the Libertarian Party of California – and many others.

AB351 establishes the proper constitutional role by first citing the 10th Amendment as limiting the power of the federal government as to that which has been delegated to it and nothing more.

The Tenth Amendment to the United States Constitution authorizes the United States federal government to exercise only those powers specifically delegated to it in the United States Constitution.

It then declares the indefinite detention powers under NDAA to be unconstitutional:

Sections 1021 and 1022 of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2012 (NDAA) codifies indefinite military detention without charge or trial of civilians captured far from any battlefield, violating the United States Constitution and corroding our nation’s commitment to the rule of law

Most importantly, the bill requires the entire state apparatus, including all local governments, to refuse to implement the federal act, or any other federal act (such as AUMF) that might be cited to give the same power to the federal government:

It is the policy of this state to refuse to provide material support for or to participate in any way with the implementation within this state of any federal law that purports to authorize indefinite detention of a person within California.

This would make a HUGE dent in any effort to further restrict due process – and would be a big step forward for California.  It would also create shockwaves around the rest of the country. As Judge Andrew Napolitano has said recently, such widespread noncompliance can make a federal law “nearly impossible to enforce” (video here).   And in those limited situations where enforcement does occur, Rosa Parks has taught us all the power of “NO!”  Passage of AB351 would mark the beginning of the end of NDAA indefinite detention in California.

According to committee chair Tom Ammiano, Donnelly spoke “eloquently” in favor of the bill.  Donnelly not only reiterated that the Constitution delegates only limited powers to the federal government, but emphasized that violations of the constitution should be met with a firm NO from the state. Continue Reading →

Tonight, in the final hours of the Kansas state legislative session, the House and Senate voted to pass Senate Bill 102 (previously House Bill 2199) and send it to Governor Brownback for signature.
(Kansas residents are urged to CALL the Governor NOW and respectfully urge him to sign SB102 - 785-296-3232)

The House passed the bill by a vote of 96-24, and the Senate voted 35-4.  During the Senate vote, one Senator exclaimed, “Passage of SB102 means that 2nd and 10th Amendment are alive and well in Kansas.”

If signed into law, SB102 would nullify a wide range of federal attacks on the right to keep and bear arms in the State of Kansas.  It states, in part:

Any act, law, treaty, order, rule or regulation of the government of the United States which violates the second amendment to the constitution of the United States is null, void and unenforceable in the state of Kansas

In conjunction with Section 6a (quoted above), the bill defines what is meant by “the second amendment to the constitution of the United States,” and it isn’t based off a decision of the supreme court.

The second amendment to the constitution of the United States reserves to the people, individually, the right to keep and bear arms as that right was understood at the time that Kansas was admitted to statehood in 1861, and the guaranty of that right is a matter of contract between the state and people of Kansas and the United States as of the time that the compact with the United States was agreed upon and adopted by Kansas in 1859 and the United States in 1861.

State and local agents would be prevented from supporting any acts or actions that are “null, void and unenforceable in the state of Kansas.”  Based off this text, the state of Kansas would not be allowed to participate in any federal gun control measures that restrict the individual right to keep and bear arms as understood in 1861.    Continue Reading →

(TOPEKA, Kan. – (Mar. 14, 2013)  The Kansas 2nd Amendment Preservation Act got the approval of the full state house today and will move on to the state senate for concurrence.

HB2199 would nullify a wide range of federal attacks on the right to keep and bear arms in the State of Kansas.  It states, in part:

Any act, law, treaty, order, rule or regulation of the government of the United States which violates the second amendment to the constitution of the United States is null, void and unenforceable in the state of Kansas

Sponsored by 50 members of the state house, the bill passed by a wide margin today.  The final vote was 94-29.

UNENFORCEABLE

If passed into law, HB2199 would nullify virtually every federal restriction on the right to keep and bear arms in existence.  In conjunction with Section 6a (quoted above), the bill defines what is meant by “the second amendment to the constitution of the United States,” and it isn’t based off a decision of the supreme court. Continue Reading →