Arizona Amendment – A State’s Rights ‘Blooming Ocotillo’ enema for ‘da feds’

‘First proposed in 1966 [2006] and named after Columbia University [The United States Constitution] sociologistfs [ liberty lovers ]Richard Andrew Cloward and Frances Fox Piven [Michael Boldin and Mike Maharrey], the cityhankescavecreekCloward-Piven Strategy[Tenth Amendment Strategy] seeks to hasten the fall of capitalism [a cadre of federal usurpers] by overloading the government bureaucracy with a flood of impossible demands [state's rights legislation], thus pushing society [the federal government] into crisis and economic collapse [forcing them to stand down].’

Somebody once said – “what’s good for the goose is good for the gander”, and to that end Chester Crandell and Judy Burges – Senator’s, Arizona Assembly along with co-sponsors Al Melvin and Brenda Barton – have ratcheted up the ante by proposing SCR 1016.  What is SCR 1016 ?

PROPOSING AN AMENDMENT TO THE CONSTITUTION OF ARIZONA; AMENDING ARTICLE II, SECTION 3, CONSTITUTION OF ARIZONA; RELATING TO THE REJECTION OF UNCONSTITUTIONAL FEDERAL ACTIONS.

This Bill passed the Senate [16Y-12N] on March 4, 2013 and has been sent to the House for consideration.

This proposed Amendment to the Arizona Constitution recognizes that -

” The Constitution of the United States is the supreme law of the land TO WHICH ALL GOVERNMENT, STATE AND FEDERAL, IS SUBJECT.”

The bold type is their Constitution’s Article 2, Section 3 as it exist today; the rest is the part that’s being added.  ‘To which all government…” should be of significant interest if one believe’s ‘the law of the land‘ should apply to all equally.

Details

Iowa legislation to prevent unmanned ‘hawk eyes’ – predator style

Iowa Senator Kent Sorenson, along with five other Republican colleagues [ Rick Bertrand, Dennis Guth, Brad Zaun, Sandra Greiner, Nancy Boettger ] introduced SF 276 on February 27,2013.  Iowa becomes the 21st state to introduce legislation designed to reject drone spying.

“An Act relating to the use of an unmanned aircraft system” specifically precludes UAV’s from being used by the authorities under the jurisdiction of Iowa, but does not address any such privacy violation’s perpetrated by the federal government.  This Bill was referred to the Judiciary Committee on Feb. 27.

Key areas:
” 1. A state agency or an agency of a political subdivision of the state having jurisdiction over criminal law enforcement shall not utilize an unmanned aircraft system prior to July 1, 2015.”

“3. Under no circumstances shall a weaponized unmanned aircraft system be deployed by or its use facilitated by an agency of the state or an agency of…..”

SF 276 does allow the use of UAV’s for limited purposes:

Details

Iowa legislator jumps on nullification train with bill to protect 2nd Amendment

Led by Tom Shaw, with co-sponsors Jason Schultz, Dwayne Alons, Ralph Watts, Greg Heartsill, Jake Highfill, Mark Brandenburg, and John Landon, the Iowa House gets its’ first look at HF 170.  Iowa joins a tsunami of other State’s in an effort to protect the 2nd Amendment Rights of Iowan’s.

HF 170 is not as potent as similar legislation in neighboring State’s, but it does make it very clear that these legislator’s believe the federal government is over-stepping the constraints placed on it by The Constitution.

 “An Act relating to firearms including the ownership and manufacture of firearms, firearm accessories, and ammunition..”

is a great start in that it utilizes the broadest definition with the language –  “firearm”.  Additionally it contains 3 other critical facets:

[1]  “A public servant in this state or a firearm dealer who sells a firearm in this state shall not enforce or attempt t0 to enforce any federal order….”

[2]  “An official, agent, or employee of the federal government who enforces or attempts to enforce any federal order, law, or regulation relating to firearms, firearm accessories, or ammunition owned or manufactured commercially or privately in this state and that remains exclusively within this state is guilty of a class “D” felony….”

Details

Nebraska – LB 602 to nullify Fed’s overreach on firearms

Senator Dave Bloomfield along with co-sponsors [Hansen;  Kintner;  Larson;  Murante;   Schilz;  Watermeier] introduced LB602 on January 23. 2013.  LB 602 takes the same tactical approach as model 2nd Amendment Preservation legislation available through The Tenth Amendment Center.   The Bill is currently in the Judiciary Committee.

Some 15 States have now introduced legislation under the ‘firearm’s freedom act‘ banner, but this one takes a very strategic Constitutional stance.

Exhibit A:

Sec. 2. The Legislature finds and declares that the authority for the Nebraska Firearms Freedom Act is the following: (1) The Tenth Amendment to the United States Constitution which guarantees to the states and their people all powers not granted to the federal government…”

LB602 continues by citing:

“The Ninth Amendment to the United States Constitution which guarantees to the people rights not granted in the Constitution…”

“The regulation of intrastate commerce which is vested in the states under the Ninth and Tenth Amendments…”

“The Second Amendment to the United States Constitution which reserves to the people the right to keep and bear
arms…..”

“Article I, section 1, of the Constitution of Nebraska which clearly secures to Nebraska citizens, and prohibits government interference with, the right of individual….”

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

Details

Mississippi Bills Would Nullify Federal Attacks on the 2nd Amendment

Mississippi Senator Joey Fillingane becomes the latest to join several other Senate and House members to introduce legislation designed to nullify un-Constitutional edicts from his elected peers in Washington.  His Bill SB 2768 mimics, to a large degree, 4 other Bills from the Senate [ SB 2761 - SB2748 - SB 2529 - SB 2519 ] as well as HB 1013.  These Bills were all introduced on January 21, 2013.

SB 2768, like most of the others, is significant in 3 areas:

[1] Prevents:  “no public servant as defined in Section 25-1-103,  or dealer selling any firearm in this state shall enforce or attempt to enforce any act, law, statute, rule or regulation of the United States government relating to a personal firearm,  firearm accessory or ammunition that is owned or manufactured commercially or privately in Mississippi and that remains exclusively within the borders of Mississippi.”

[2] Punishes:any official, agent or employee of the United States government who enforces or attempts to enforce any act, order, law, statute, rule or regulation of the United States government upon a personal firearm, a firearm accessory or ammunition that is owned or manufactured commercially or privately in Mississippi and that remains exclusively within the borders of Mississippi shall be guilty of a felony and, upon conviction, shall be subject to imprisonment for not less than one (1) year and one (1) day nor more than five (5) years, a fine of not more than Five Thousand Dollars ($5,000.00), or both.

[3] Protects: “The Attorney General may defend a citizen of Mississippi who is prosecuted by the United States Government for violation of a federal law relating to the manufacture, sale, transfer or possession of a firearm, a firearm accessory or ammunition owned or manufactured and retained exclusively within the borders of Mississippi.

Details

Oklahoma House Bill would nullify NDAA “indefinite detention”

Representative Mike Ritze (R) of the Oklahoma House has introduced HB 1487, to nullify NDAA “indefinite detention” powers.  His legislation is the latest in an avalanche of similar Bills being introduced all across America.  The National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) of 2012 is being subjected to severe scrutiny by Americans as well as those who represent them at each State level.

Of particular interest is Section 1021 which in part reads:

“[a] person who was a part of or substantially supported al-Qaeda, the Taliban, or associated forces that are engaged in hostilities against the United States or its coalition partners, including any person who has committed a belligerent act or has directly supported such hostilities in aid of such enemy forces;”

[For the record - "any person" means you.]

HB 1487 includes the following: (paraphrasing)

Section 1 “No state agency or other unit or subdivision of state government, employee…… shall knowingly aid an agency of the armed forces of the United States in the detention of any Oklahoma citizen…..”

As with other similar Bills, and for reasons explained in a moment, the one word that could legally alter the intent of the legislation is  - “if”

Details

Oklahoma Senate Considers bill to Nullify Obamacare

On Monday February 4, 2013, Patrick Anderson [Senator, District 19] will have the First Reading of  SB 93.  This Bill is a direct frontal assault to the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, as well as the Health Care and Education Reconciliation Act of 2010.  SB 93 is based The Tenth Amendment Center’s model legislation for nullification, and would be a powerful deterrent if enacted.

When a piece of legislation begins with:

“1. The people of the several states comprising the United States of America created the federal government…”

Is then followed by:

“2. The Tenth Amendment to the United States Constitution defines the total scope of federal powers……”

And buttressed with:

“3. The assumption of power that the federal government has made by enacting the “Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act” (Public Law 111-148, March 23, 2010) and “Health Care and Education Reconciliation Act of 2010″ (Public Law 111-152, March 30, 2010) is nowhere expressly granted by the United States Constitution and interferes with the right of the people of the State of Oklahoma to regulate health care as they see fit.”

Then concludes:

“2A.  The Legislature of the State of Oklahoma declares that the federal laws known as the “Patient Protection and affordable Care Act” (Public Law 111-148) and the “Health Care and Education Reconciliation Act of 2010″ (Public Law 111-152), signed by President Barack Obama on March 23 and 30, 2010, are not authorized by the Constitution of the United States and violate its true meaning and intent as given by the founders and ratifiers, and are hereby declared to be invalid in the State of Oklahoma, 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.”

Details

Oklahoma House bill would Nullify the Drones

Republican Paul Wesselhoft, Oklahoma House of Representatives, has introduced HB 1556  [Oklahoma Unmanned Aerial Surveillance Act] and it will be Referred to Committee  when the legislature convene’s Feb. 4, 2013.  This Bill targets the warrant-less use of unmanned aerial surveillance drones in the state of Oklahoma.  

Oklahoma is part of a growing number of states to introduce similar legislation designed to thwart the ubiquitous onslaught against ‘the people’s right to privacy‘.

HB 1556 can be basically broken down into 3 categories:

THE GOOD
[1]    Section 3(A) - “it shall be unlawful to operate an unmanned aircraft system for or in connection to surveillance within the   state.”

It then goes on to spell out the legal use of drones:  3B(1) a warrant has been issued;  3B(2) missing persons search;  3B(3) firefighting or other emergency services agency;  3B(4) anyone asking to be a surveillant;  3B(5) an innocuous use of drones in public lands or properties.

Any use of drones by law enforcement would require a warrant.  Even the legal uses enumerated above would require sworn statements within 24 hours of use as to the grounds for and intent of said use.  Additionally, HB 1556 has a few teeth for those who violate as well as those being violated.  Violator’s are subject to misdemeanor penalties [$500-$5000 fine/up to 1 year in jail], and allows for an aggrieved party to pursue civil action with potential claims as high as $50,000 per violation.

Details

“The Power and Glory” of Honorable Men – Utah Sheriffs’ Association

On January 17, 2013 the Utah Sheriffs’ Association penned the 21st Century version of:

We hold these truths to be self-evident...”

This stunningly succinct five paragraph letter is a testament to the virtues inherent with true men of honor.  Countless thousands have taken the Oath of Office to ‘protect and defend the Constitution of the United States‘, but few really understand its meaning.  An even safer bet would be to say that a large majority of said  ‘oath takers‘  have barely taken more than a cursory glance at the document to which they attest.  Rest assured that 28 of the 29  Sheriff’s of Utah do not fall in that category.  As part of their conclusion, they affirm:

Details

New Mexico – Rep. Nora Espinoza ‘Unloads’ On Federal Overreach Of Amendment II

New Mexico joins a rapidly growing list of States stepping up to the Nullification plate.

Recently introduced legislation by Representative Espinoza looks to protect citizens of the ‘Land of Enchantment’ state from the long arm of   ‘the un-Constitutional’ law.   Representative Nora Espinoza has introduced  H.B. 114.

“AN ACT RELATING TO FIREARMS; PROHIBITING THE ENFORCEMENT OF FEDERAL FIREARM LAWS; PROVIDING FOR THE DEFENSE OF NEW MEXICO RESIDENTS BY THE ATTORNEY GENERAL; PROVIDING PENALTIES.”

H.B. 114 applies criminal charges for federal agents who vioalte the 2nd Amendment within the State of New Mexico:

An official, agent or employee of the United States government who enforces or attempts to enforce any act, order, law, statute, rule or regulation of the United States government upon a personal firearm or firearm accessory, or upon ammunition, that is owned or is manufactured commercially or privately in New Mexico, and that remains exclusively within the borders of New Mexico, is guilty of a third degree felony and shall be punished by a fine of not more than five thousand dollars ($5,000) or by imprisonment for a definite term not to exceed three years or both.

There is a unique facet to this legislation in that it opposes ALL those federal laws “created OR effective ON or after July 1, 2013″.  New Mexico joins many other states where legislation is being/has been introduced to protect the Constitutional rights of its’ citizens. This Bill was introduced on January 16 and is currently in the House Consumer and Affairs Committee.

Details