Gun Owners of America Endorses the 2nd Amendment Preservation Act

The effort to nullify federal violations of the 2nd Amendment just got a big boost from “the only no compromise gun lobby,” Gun Owners of America. When this organization calls on you to support a bill protecting your right to keep and bear arms, you can be sure that it’s the real deal.

Yesterday morning, GOA sent out an action alert in support of the Florida 2nd Amendment Preservation Act – a model bill drafted by the Tenth Amendment Center to nullify federal violations of the 2nd Amendment.  The bill – which is ready to introduce not just in Florida, but in every state – can be found HERE.

Here’s an excerpt:

B. All federal acts, laws, orders, rules or regulations regarding firearms, firearms accessories, and ammunition are a violation of the 2nd Amendment

SECTION 2 PROHIBITION ON PARTICIPATION IN FEDERAL VIOLATIONS OF THE 2ND AMENDMENT

A. The Legislature of the State of _______________ declares that all federal acts, laws, orders, rules, regulations – past, present or future – in violation of the 2nd Amendment to the Constitution of the United States 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 this state, 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.

Since a vast majority of federal enforcement actions require the leadership, help and/or assistance of state or local governments, agents and resources – widespread refusal to enforce or participate in enforcement will severely cripple federal efforts.

Judge Andrew Napolitano confirmed this by saying that such noncompliance over an entire state would make federal gun laws “nearly impossible to enforce.”  James Madison advised the same in Federalist #46 when he said that one of the four things you should do on a state level to stop federal acts (either unconstitutional or merely unpopular), is a “refusal to cooperate with officers of the Union.”

Details

Efforts to Legalize Hemp In Kentucky Bring Together Activists, Lawmakers and Business Leaders

Mention hemp and it will likely evoke images of long-haired hippies in sandals banging drums and burning incense. But more likely than not, you will find today’s major players in the full-court press to legalize industrial hemp wearing suits and ties, not tie-dye T-shirts.

In fact, the coalition driving the hemp movement in Kentucky features prominent business leaders, farmers and political figures, including state Agriculture Commissioner James Comer.

Comer began pushing for legalization within a month of taking office in 2011. His efforts paid off when the Kentucky legislature passed SB50 last March. The law legalizes industrial hemp farming in the Bluegrass State, but the federal government must first lift its ban before farmers can begin planting the crop.

“I have long believed that industrial hemp had great potential as a profitable crop for Kentucky farmers. Hemp is used to produce paper, clothing, cosmetics, construction materials, automobile parts, foods, and thousands of other products. We know that hemp grows well in Kentucky and elsewhere in the U.S.,” Comer said. “Kentucky was the leading hemp-producing state in the mid-19th century, and we ramped production up to record levels for the war effort in the 1940s. We should be growing hemp, and making hemp products in Kentucky and the United States. I will do everything in my power to make hemp legalization a reality.”

In fact, a recent Department of Justice memo declaring it will not challenge marijuana legalization in Washington and Colorado could pave the way for hemp production in Kentucky, although Attorney General Jack Conway disagrees with that assessment.

A February 1938 article in Popular Mechanics dubbed industrial hemp the “New Billion-Dollar Crop. “ After years of declining production, the magazine predicted a renaissance with the invention of a machine that removed the fiber-bearing cortex from the stalk, opening the door for low cost production of products ranging from rope to paper.

Details

#NullifyNSA Campaign is Now Underway

#NullifyNSAWelcome to #NullifyNSA – the movement dedicated to restoring the 4th amendment and bringing an end to the destruction of your privacy rights!

We are a grassroots organization working to turn off the NSA’s illegal spying program once and for all.

Because of the vast nature of the Orwellian snooping machine, it takes a tremendous amount of resources to maintain it. Aside from destroying our environment by depleting our precious natural resources, this also leaves Big Brother vulnerable to decentralized political resistance.

The feds cannot force state and local governments to do their bidding. This notion is so uncontroversial that the Supreme Court has even agreed multiple times. This gives us an opportunity to hit Big Brother through legislation at the state and local levels. By stopping local and state governments from aiding and abetting the NSA’s unconstitutional behavior, we can make it impossible – or at the very least far more difficult – for them to spy on us.

In the case of the Utah data center, it is bigger than several Pentagons. Thus, it takes an astounding 1.7 million gallons of water per day to maintain the facility. Most of that water comes from a political subdivision of the state of Utah. That means we can cut the NSA off. Many other NSA centers have similar agreements with local and state governments. They can be cut off as well.

And that’s not all we are up to.

Details

Oxford, Mass Passes Strong Non-Binding Resolution Against Indefinite Detention

Just days after Albany, New York passed a resolution as a statement of intent against indefinite detention, the Town of Oxford, Massachusetts followed up with another.

Under Massachusetts home rule law, a local community organized as a town preserves the open town meeting or the representative town meeting as their governing body rather than by the vote of an elected body like a town council.  On Wednesday, by popular vote, the People of Oxford approved – nearly unanimously – a strong resolution primarily drafted by People Against the National Defense Authorization Act (P.A.N.D.A).

NO LEGAL EFFECT

Like the one passed in Albany, the resolution in Oxford is not legally-binding – it is a mere statement of opinion and intent.  It holds no force of law over the activities of town employees, or anyone else for that matter.  But, it is a strong first step towards resisting and eventually nullifying indefinite detention (and other) unconstitutional federal powers within the Town, and the state of Massachusetts.  As noted in our report on the Albany resolution, a non-binding resolution – with no force of law – is an important step because it follows James Madison’s blueprint to resist federal acts within the states.    There are 4 steps which James Madison advised for us to take to stop federal powers, and such a resolution is an important piece of that puzzle.  (learn more below)

Details

Companies Ask For NSA Transparency, DOJ Rejects Them

For there is nothing hidden that will not be disclosed, and nothing concealed that will not be known or brought out into the open. – Jesus Christ

The U.S. Department of Justice denied a request by tech companies Google, Microsoft, Yahoo, Facebook, and Linkedln to allow them to disclose more information about the frequency with which they are contacted by the U.S. government to give up user data under the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act. (More info here)

The DOJ claims that giving these companies the ability to tell the public more about requests from federal organizations like the NSA would pose a risk to national security.

Of course.

So, letting Americans know about its own government spying on them would set us up for real trouble huh? How about the threat to national security posed by the government itself? Shouldn’t the Constitution and transparency be more important? After all, you are four times more likely to be killed by a lightning bolt than by a terror attack.

Patrick Henry understood that government must remain transparent.

“The liberties of a people never were, nor ever will be, secure, when the transactions of their rulers may be concealed from them.”

Details

Step Two: California vs NDAA Indefinite Detention

Now that the dust has settled a bit after Jerry Brown signed AB351 into law, it’s important to ask, what’s next?

If you thought the work was done and California would be “indefinite-detention” free, you thought wrong. The passage of the California Liberty Preservation Act was an important first step towards the nullification of federal indefinite detention practices in the state, but not the last one.

This advice from Samuel Adams probably sums it up best:

“Instead of sitting down satisfied with the efforts we have already made, which is the wish of our enemies, the necessity of the times, more than ever, calls for our utmost circumspection, deliberation, fortitude, and perseverance.”

The enemies of liberty will not rest, and neither can we.

CALIFORNIA LIBERTY PRESERVATION ACT

AB351 now makes it “state policy” to reject “indefinite detention” powers from the federal government.   It reads, in part:

Details

NullifyNSA: Michael Boldin on the Scott Horton Show

Michael Boldin, founder and executive director of the Tenth Amendment Center, discusses the states’ rights approach to fighting NSA spying on Americans; the unlikely coalition that pushed through the NDAA-defying California Liberty Preservation Act (AB-351); and using anti-commandeering court precedents to withhold water and power from NSA data centers in Utah and Texas.

Details

Why Doesn’t the Tenth Amendment Center Endorse Political Candidates?

politicianMany of the liberty-minded and tea party groups in Tennessee and across the country are gearing up for the 2014 elections. Groups and coalitions are forming up to “beat this guy” or “elect that gal.” This is all well and good. Getting good people who understand constitutional principles into office and keeping them there is a noble and important endeavor.

Not surprisingly, the Tenth Amendment Center gets constant requests to endorse candidates, or join coalitions to choose candidates to run for a particular office. A few months ago, a Tennessee state politician offered the Tenth Amendment Center $1,000 to support a campaign for federal office. Needless to say, the offer was flatly refused.

The Tenth Amendment Center does not endorse candidates or politicians, and it never will.

Here’s why.

People aren’t infallible.

First, people disappoint. With rare exceptions, even politicians that start out with the best of intentions and a commitment to their principles become corrupted over time with access to power. It’s a given that no human being is perfect or infallible. That’s why we maintain our allegiance to the ideals and principles of the Constitution – never politicians.

While we work with a elected officials to accomplish our goals, we are adamant about maintaining our objectivity and independence. Suppose a politician runs a good Tenth Amendment bill, then turns around and does something incredibly stupid. An endorsement implies that we support all aspects of a politician’s policy initiatives. But by maintaining our objectivity, we can praise elected officials when they do the right things, and call out politicians when they stray.  Keeping our distance from campaigns keeps us from getting caught in the predicament of having to ignoring bad behavior because of an endorsement.

Chasing every barking dog…

Details