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

#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

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

State Governors Admit Feds Need State Help With Most Federal Programs

This so-called government shutdown has provided a lot of political theater and more than its fare-share of silliness. But state governors reaffirmed a very important fact in the midst of the lunacy.

The federal government depends on states to get things done.

The National Governors Association sent a panicked letter to congressional leadership on Monday, begging them to avoid a shutdown. In this email, the governors affirm something we’ve been saying for a long time – the feds need the states.

States are partners with the federal government in implementing most federal programs. A lack of certainty at the federal level from a shutdown therefore translates directly into uncertainty and instability at the state level. [Emphasis added]

Did you catch that?  Most federal programs.

That means the states have a great deal of power!

States can refuse to serve as cooperative partners and SHUT THINGS DOWN!

Details

Domino Effect: Hemp Nullification on the Way Up After Feds Back Down

Nullification is a funny thing.

We can’t always tell where or when the next domino will fall, but trends matter.

When it comes hemp cultivation, the federal government isn’t having an effect on the states; rather it’s the states having an effect on each other, and in turn influencing the federal government!

Last year’s legalization of marijuana in Colorado and Washington is the gift that keeps on giving.

Last August, Eric Holder’s Department of Justice essentially backed down in the face of marijuana legalization by popular vote in both states, saying it would not challenge the new state laws.  It’s nearly impossible to enforce these types of prohibitions without local and state support, so in an effort to prevent further embarrassment, the feds issued a stand down order for prosecutors in Colorado and Washington. Now it’s not just Coloradans and Washingtonians taking advantage of this turn in events since the feds abandoned ship. Advocates of industrial hemp see the DOJ announcement as an open door for state production of the crop.

Details

Yes, Usually it’s Partisan; Get Over It

One criticism leveled against nullification is that it is usually a “partisan thing.”

In other words, most of the proponents of nullifying Obamacare are Republicans.  Also, a vast majority of proponents of nullifying the war on drugs are Democrats.

This is a true statement.

With most nullification efforts now underway, the effort is partisan.  This is not a real argument against the movement; it is simply an observation.  In reality, any effort, with certain exceptions, will of necessity be partisan. (As it will be nullifying an act of the federal government controlled at the time by one party or the other).

Of course, these same critics would hold up the Patriot Act (passed by a Republican, and sustained now for five years by a Democrat) as some shining example of good governance.  To these people, the fact that an act passed Congress, the Senate, and was signed by the president, gives automatic legitimacy, as long as some of the people who passed the bill were on both sides of the “aisle.”  They would have you believe that the acts of Congress all represent the consensus  of the nation at large.

But what is consensus?

Details