The City of Campbell enacted an ordinance in January that would ban the sale of guns within city limits. The law had
a fair amount of critics. Ohioans for Concealed Carry (OFCC) warned Campbell that the law was in violation of Ohio state law and a lawsuit would soon be coming their way if it was not soon repealed.

The libertarian-conservative Freeborn decided to launch his own campaign and up the pressure on the anti-gun City Council by organizing a rally in support of gun rights outside Campbell City Hall. In an interview with The New American, Freeborn explained how he envisioned the rally. “I wanted to organize this rally to not only protest their sales ban but also to promote gun rights. It was about being for something, not just against something.”

When Varg and a friend from YAL first met the Campbell City Administrator, they were assured that they would get their permit to hold a rally and no fees would be charged. Over the following weekend, the rally was heavily promoted at area events and via the Internet, which garnered them a lot of attention. As Freeborn explained, the rally went “viral” and soon city officials changed their tune. When Freeborn’s friend returned for the permit, the City Administrator now said the request for a rally would need to be in writing. Shortly after Freeborn provided them with a written request, the City Administrator told Freeborn that they would have to pay for three to four police officers to provide security for the event. This was five days before the planned event! Freeborn was shocked, “We heavily promoted it and then they said you have to pay us $2,000 to hold the event.” After a pretty heated exchange over the phone, Freeborn went back to City Hall to meet with officials and was able to negotiate the fee down to $480.

CLICK HERE TO READ THE REST OF THE ARTICLE

The only one I could see the left getting upset about is the civillian disarmament one. It’s truly sad how so many publications that were rightly critical of George W. Bush’s violation of the Bill of Rights are now setting their sights on similar critics in the Age of Obama.

You know the world has turned upside down when the neoconservative, anti-civil liberties publication National Review is coming to the Oath Keepers’ defense!

SB11 is part of a series of similiar Firearms Freedom Acts (FFA) that have also been passed in Montana and Tennessee and introduced in other states. The FFA openly challenges the federal contention that it has the authority to regulate firearms under the interstate commerce clause of the U.S. Constitution, by declaring that any firearms made and retained in-state are beyond the authority of Congress under its constitutional power to regulate commerce among the states.

Utah State Senator Margaret Dayton explained the motivation behind SB11 and other 10th Amendment legislation. “The federal overreach is out of control…. That tyrannical overreach is what we’re trying to stop with this bill … [and the passage of SB11] illustrates the universal yearning for freedom and shows the people still feel the spark that inspired our ancestors at Lexington and Valley Forge. My hope is that the march toward tyranny can be turned back with our votes.”

Opponents of the bill and similar state sovereignty legislation argue that such legislation would never be found to be constitutional by federal courts. According to retired University of Utah law professor John Flynn, “It would really be quite ridiculous of the [Supreme Court] to even take a case like this…. You’d have huge impact across the federal code.” Flynn considers SB11 and similar legislation “asinine” because they ignore Supreme Court precedent that interprets the interstate commerce clause into an almost unlimited grant of regulatory power to Congress.

CLICK HERE TO READ THE REST OF THE ARTICLE

<object width=”480″ height=”385″><param name=”movie” value=”http://www.youtube.com/p/22A98BA5EE910F29&hl=en_US&fs=1″></param><param name=”allowFullScreen” value=”true”></param><param name=”allowscriptaccess” value=”always”></param><embed src=”http://www.youtube.com/p/22A98BA5EE910F29&hl=en_US&fs=1″ type=”application/x-shockwave-flash” width=”480″ height=”385″ allowscriptaccess=”always” allowfullscreen=”true”></embed></object>

What surprises me most about such an argument is not just that it’s obviously historically inaccurate but that the ones making it profess to believe in Godly limited government. What individual who is actually familiar with the modern day, mass-murdering leviathan based out of D.C. can actually believe such nonsense?

I was aware that Madison later changed his tune on nullification, Mr. Ressa, as your quotes from the 1830′s, more than 40 years after the ratification of the Constitution show. I chose not to delve into that fact in this short intro to nullification because it’s quite beside the point. Madison was notoriously inconsistent in what he espoused and what he later claimed to mean. Look at his opposition to a national bank only to charter the 2nd one when President. He was against it before he was for it.

What is important is that Madison and other proponents of the Constitution told the public that there would be horizontal and vertical checks and balances in order to get the Constitution ratified. The ratifiers’ subjective understanding of what the Constitution would be, which you can determine from the assurances by proponents like Madison and Hamilton as well as the debates at the state ratifying conventions, is what is important. The ratifiers are the ones who gave the Constitution its legal effect not the writings of Madison 40 years later. I see you’ve researched this subject a lot, Mr. Ressa, so I simply ask you research a little more into the writings of historian Kirk Wood. Please check out the following before you so easily dismiss the constitutional power of the states to nullify unconstitutional laws.

http://www.tenthamendmentcenter.com/2009/12/03/kirk-wood-nullification-a-constitutional-history/

You fear the states checking federal power via nullification might lead to anarchy. In reality, we all now know the opposite leads to federal tyranny.

This is the first FFA in the nation where federal officials could be criminally prosecuted for trying to enforce federal firearms laws. While that might sound good to some, the states need to be cautious about appearing as the aggressor. One false move could tarnish the state sovereignty movement and forever damage the cause in the court of public opinion. The key to successfully using nullification is to expose the federal government as the aggressive, unconstitutional usurper, and states would be wise to not directly confront them.

My extremely talented associate at the Tenth Amendment Center, Josh Eboch, wrote the following in the comment section:

However, I for one would like to see federal agents arrested if they are so arrogant as to attempt to disregard state firearms laws. Many of them need a swift kick in the ass, and a bold move like that could help fuel the public debate over the proper balance between federal and state authority.

I still think the key to winning in the court of public opinion is by appearing as the wronged party. If we take the Gandhi route and let the Feds be the aggressors, we illustrate how drunk with power they’ve become. I fear that if we act more aggressively, we run the risk of fitting the “fringe agitator” stereotype that the establishment is trying so desperately to pin on us. Josh feels otherwise.

So, fellow tenthers, what do you think? Should 10th Amendment legislation take a more agressive or passive tone?

“If only D.C. were more like Bejing!”

In an article that could have easily been entitled “Abolish the States,” Harold Meyerson of The American Prospect, laments the ways the states have prevented the bureaucrats in D.C. from centralizing even more power. Why? Because the states aren’t draining wealth from their citizens fast enough as the feds! Read along as he enviously writes about the centralized structure of the Chinese!

But other major nations don’t have federal systems … They have states and municipalities, to be sure, but either the responsibility for funding most functions of government resides with the national government, or, as in Japan, state and local governments are not required to run annual balanced budgets. In China, which probably has had the most robust recovery of any major nation, taxes and spending for everything are set in Beijing (including the lower tax rates for provinces in which manufacturing for export is the main economic activity).

A brief review of this man’s article shows the contradictory viewpoints between centralizers and tenthers when it comes to the economy. Centralizers believe wealth is created only from government force while tenthers have faith that individuals and mutually beneficial transactions can create more wealth than a bureaucrat could ever dream up. One thing Meyerson is right about is that if you give the feds a monopoly on spending power, they’ll spend like no one else in the world.

The U.S. government does not have any money of its own. Unlike you and me, the feds have never earned a dime. All the money that the feds continue to happily spend comes from three sources:

1) What they take away through the threat of force from me and you via taxation.
2) What they borrow from others under the guise that it will be paid back by your children and your childrens’ children.
3) What they produce out of thin air via inflation of the money supply, thereby reducing the value of our life savings.

So, please, centralists, don’t try to spin it like the benevolent feds are producing something of value by bankrupting us and future generations. The true struggle will be trying to sway the average voter who accepts the premise that there IS such a thing as a federal free lunch.

The Mount Vernon Statement and Ed Meese

[A]n “energetic” government doesn’t mean a war-mongering government or a government that can lock people up without trial or charges (or, for that matter, torture). But that hasn’t stopped the very worst of the leadership of the neo-conservative “war on terror” supporters from endorsing the document. Among those who have endorsed the Mount Vernon Statement are Kathryn J. Lopez of National Review, Edwin Feulner, Jr. of the Heritage Foundation, and Former Attorney General Ed Meese. Of these, Ed Meese is perhaps the most hypocritical of the bunch. Click here for the rest…