Author Archive | William Kennedy

What?

Too harsh?

I’ll let you decide.

“Not to put too fine a point on this, but there’s nothing to discuss — state lawmakers can’t pick and choose which federal laws they’ll honor”  or so says Steve.

Well I guess it’s settled then, “there’s nothing to discuss.” Nullification is a no no.

What — you don’t buy his argument?

Well, neither do I.

On seeing his article, I was drawn to the picture of Abraham Lincoln standing in front of a Union Army tent with the caption “The last time we had a debate over nullification.” Continue Reading →

HOUSE BILL 518 states that:

A personal firearm, a firearm accessory, or ammunition that is manufactured commercially or privately in North Carolina and that remains exclusively within the borders of North Carolina is not subject to federal law, federal taxation, or federal regulation, including registration, under the authority of the United States Congress to regulate interstate commerce. It is declared by the North Carolina General Assembly that those items have not traveled in interstate commerce.

Furthermore, it states that:

The authority of the United States Congress to regulate interstate commerce in basic materials does not include authority to regulate firearms, firearms accessories, and ammunition made within North Carolina borders from those materials. Firearms accessories that are imported into North Carolina from another state and that are subject to federal regulation as being in interstate commerce do not subject a firearm to federal regulation under interstate commerce because the firearm accessory is attached to or used in conjunction with a firearm in North Carolina.

The bill goes on the thoroughly describe materials and manufacturing of a firearm, firearm accessory, or ammunition that is manufactured commercially or privately its sale and the rules and regulations of North Carolina. But the main crux of the bill is that if it is manufactured, sold and remains within the borders of North Carolina it does not fall under the jurisdiction of the federal government’s Interstate Commerce clause.

HOUSE BILL 518 makes it a misdemeanor for public officials and dealers who “enforces or attempts to enforce any order, law, rule, or regulation of the United States government relating to a personal firearm, firearm accessory, or ammunition that is manufactured commercially or privately in North Carolina”.

And finally, the State Attorney General “may defend a citizen of North Carolina 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 manufactured.”

I would propose that the North Carolina Legislature make a one-word change that would go a long way to ensuring that the citizens are not put in a difficult position of requiring that they obey state law by violating a federal “law”. That one word change would be “shall” defend them instead of “may” defend them.

The state is to quote Madison “duty bound” to defend its citizens from unconstitutional actions of the federal government, if they don’t they have renounced their sovereignty. Continue Reading →

Supervisor Michael Moyer introduced the Second Amendment Preservation Resolution, which expresses deep regret over those lost to gun violence, but reaffirms the rights of law-abiding citizens.

“WHEREAS the People and the Board of Supervisors of East Coventry Township, Chester County, Pennsylvania, while saddened and sympathetic to those people who have suffered tragedies related to the misuse of firearms are also deeply concerned that these tragic events will be used as excuses to infringe upon the constitutionally guaranteed individual right to keep and bear firearms, firearms accessories or ammunition; all of which infringements are in violation of the 2ND Amendment to the Constitution of the United States and Article 1, Section 21 “Right to Bear Arms” of the Pennsylvania Constitution.”

This Second Amendment Preservation Resolution lays out the constitutionality of protecting our rights from unconstitutional laws and regulations, and explains why they need to be resisted by employees of the municipality, along  with the county and the state. Continue Reading →

In an article on the WRAL.com website entitled “Gun proposal highlights nullification debate,” there were several statements made concerning nullification I would like to address.

First let me say that I’ll address the merits of House Bill 246 , “The Gun Rights Amendment,” in a latter posting, but one quick point. As an amendment, it will not be voted on till 2014. Those that will take away our gun rights aren’t going to wait that long. We need protection NOW!

But to the statements made concerning nullification, Rep. Pittman is correct when he said, “The states created the federal government, not the other way around, and the federal government needs to learn once again to be servants of the states and not our masters”

It is also reported, “Pittman said many of his constituents believe in nullification – that a state can simply refuse to comply with federal law.”

I believe the first part is true, “many of his constituents believe in nullification,” but I think that the later part is not what Rep. Pittman said or believes. A state can only refuse to comply IF that “law” does not follow the Constitution listed under the enumerated powers granted the federal government by the states and the people.

But Rep. Rick Glazier, D-Cumberland statements concerning nullification are typical of “constitutional law professors,” and most lawyers, concerning nullification. They seem to know everything about case law decided by the Supreme Court, but know nothing about the Constitution its writers and its ratification.

Here is a quick analysis of incorrect statements made in this article concerning nullification. Continue Reading →

Representative Jim Morris  has sponsored a bill in the Louisiana State House that “Prohibits the enforcement of federal restrictions regarding the ownership or possession of semi-automatic firearms.”

HB5 would amend the Louisiana Code concerning firearms. The text of the bill simply states that it is:

“to prohibit the enforcement of any federal law in the state of Louisiana which attempts to either ban the ownership or possession of certain types of firearms, or impose registration requirements for such firearms; to provide for criminal penalties; to provide for duties of the attorney general; and to provide for related matters.”

“The Louisiana Legislature hereby finds and declares that the right to keep and bear arms is constitutionally protected by both the federal and state constitutions.”

If passed, this bill would nullify any federal gun control bill that would limit the citizens of Louisiana access to semi-automatic firearms, ammunition and accessories. A section from this bill reads:

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.

B. 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.

If federal agents or employees try to enforce any federal “law” regarding semi-automatic firearms written after Jan.1^st it will considered to be a felony in Louisiana. Continue Reading →

Louisiana Representative Joseph Lopinto introduced  a bill to protect ”A Louisiana manufactured firearm, firearm accessory, or ammunition that is manufactured commercially or privately in Louisiana pursuant to the provisions of this Part and which remains within the borders of Louisiana is not subject to federal law or federal  regulation, including registration, under the authority of congress to regulate interstate commerce.”

HB45 would revise Louisiana statutes by adding “Section 1. Part V of Chapter 9 of Title 40 of the Louisiana Revised Statutes of 1950, comprised of R.S. 40:1821 through 1833, is hereby enacted to read as follows:”

(1) The Louisiana Legislature recognizes the authority of the United States Congress to regulate matters of commerce between states, and also recognizes that Article VI, Section 2 of the Constitution of the United States proclaims that such laws made under the authority of the United States shall be the supreme law of the land.

(2) The Tenth Amendment of the Constitution of the United States provides that, “[t]he powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.” Continue Reading →

There is a saying that history repeats itself.

H.1428 “Commonwealth of Massachusetts Liberty Preservation Act” is a prime example of that adage. This bill, introduced by Representative John D. Keenan, is reminiscent of the Massachusetts Personal Liberty Act of 1855, which protected the right of runaway slaves to a writ of habeas corpus and from being forcibly removed from the state.

In 1855, Massachusetts laid out a clear case why the Federal Fugitive Slave laws were unconstitutional and those same reasons apply to the new threat to our liberties posed by the federal government. Justified as a security measure, the federal government under the 2012 National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) allows the military, under orders of the President, to detain forcibly anyone in the United States without charges, lawyer, trial or a writ of habeas corpus indefinitely.

The text of H.1428 lists multiple provisions in the U.S. and Massachusetts Constitutions that limit the federal government from exercising powers it does not have. Here is a list, but you can go to the bill itself to see how each applies: Continue Reading →

Against a backdrop of recent national and state polls, it is becoming more and more evident that people are tired of the dictates from the federal government and are embracing the idea of nullification. And nothing has moved states as far and fast toward states returning to federalism and Constitutional governance as the use and possession of marijuana.

“… 72% of Americans oppose the Federal government arresting marijuana users in Colorado and Washington, according to a recent Reason-Rupe poll. 68% of respondents also said the Feds should not arrest those who grow marijuana in Colorado and Washington, and 64% of respondents said the same for those who sell marijuana. All of these activities are still illegal under Federal law, but the citizens of these states don’t care. Neither, apparently, do about 2/3 of Americans.” — Beyond The GOP

And in North Carolina, the numbers are continuing to reflect the national trend as shown by a recent poll conducted by Public Policy Polling, where 58 percent of state residents support legalization of medical marijuana.

So, is the time right for North Carolina Representatives Alexander, Harrison; (Primary Sponsors) and Rep. Brandon; to file a bill to legalize medical marijuana. Rep. Alexander believes so and he thinks this bill is an improvement on the one that was filled in 2011 and languished in the N.C. House Rules Committee.

House Bill 84 Enact Medical Cannabis Act would allow the use of marijuana for medical treatment of such conditions as nerve damage, glaucoma, nausea and HIV/AIDS among others. The text of the bill simply states that: Continue Reading →

Introduction of a bill by Senator David Haley in the Kansas State Senate would legalize cannabis for specific medical purposes. Passage would reverse state law and stop state prosecutions for possession by those with a medical prescription.

SB 9 would amend Kansas Codes concerning cannabis. The text of the bill simply states that it is:

“AN ACT enacting the cannabis compassion and care act; providing for the legal use of cannabis for certain debilitating medical conditions; providing for the registration and functions of compassion centers; authorizing the issuance of identification cards; establishing the compassion board; providing for administration of the act by the department of health and environment; amending K.S.A. 79-5210 and repealing the existing section.”

Haley has stated it’s an issue of basic compassion. “This becomes a pretty common-sense approach to that, especially when the alternative is to crowd our jails and prisons with people who only wanted to alleviate personal pain,” he says. The bill would allow doctors to prescribe marijuana for conditions including glaucoma, hepatitis C, and pain and nausea associated with cancer treatment.

Since the federal government relies heavily on the sates to enforce their laws and regulations this bill through non-compliance would effectively nullify federal marijuana laws.
In 2005, the Supreme Court ruled against medical marijuana in the states in the case Gonzalez vs Raich. The attorneys general of Alabama, Louisiana, and Mississippi, three strongly anti-drug states from the usually conservative South, filed a brief supporting Raich on the grounds of states’ rights. Already, 18 states have marijuana laws on the books – 2 of which are full legalization and not just for medical purposes – leading to an effective nullification of unconstitutional federal laws and regulations on that plant. Continue Reading →