Full California Assembly to Vote on Rejecting NDAA “Indefinite Detention”

SACRAMENTO, Cal. (May 24, 2013) – Today, the California Assembly Appropriations Committee gave a “Do-Pass” approval to a bill that could render toothless the federal “indefinite detention” powers under the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA).  The bill, by ASM Tim Donnelly was previously passed unanimously by the Public Safety Committee and is expected to get a vote in the full state assembly in the coming week.

California residents are strongly encourage to contact their state representative immediately to request a YES vote on AB351.  (contact info here)

If passed into law, AB351 would require that the state refuse to enforce or assist in the enforcement of indefinite detention as may have been authorized by either the 2012 NDAA or the 2001 Authorization to Use Military Force (AUMF).   It reads, in part:

“no agency of the State of California, no political subdivision of this state, no employee of an agency, or a political subdivision, of this state acting in his or her official capacity, and no member of the California National Guard on official state duty shall knowingly aid an agency of the Armed Forces of the United States in any investigation, prosecution, or detention of a person within California pursuant to

(A) Sections 1021 and 1022 of the NDAA,
(B) the federal law known as the Authorization for Use of Military Force (Public Law 107-40), enacted in 2001”

This would make a HUGE dent in any federal effort to detain without due process in California.  As Judge Andrew Napolitano has said recently, such widespread noncompliance can make a federal law “nearly impossible to enforce” (video here). Quite simply, the federal government is going to have an extremely difficult time – at best – carrying out indefinite detention in California without the assistance of California.

Weighing in on the bill, Tenth Amendment Center communications director Mike Maharrey noted the impact it would have if passed into law.  “Passage of AB351 would mark the beginning of the end of indefinite detention in California.  In those limited situations where federal enforcement still does occur in the face of massive refusal by the state, Rosa Parks proved it: “No” can change the world.”

Details

Susquehanna County Resists Federal Gun Grab

Susquehanna County, Pennsylvania is the latest local community to take a stand against the Police State. They recently passed a 2nd Amendment Preservation Resolution that stands against the Feds trampling upon the Constitution in their neck of the woods.

The resolution affirms the natural rights of people saying that “any federal act, bill, law, rule or executive order that in any way infringes on our Second Amendment rights by attempting to reduce the private ownership of any firearm, magazine or ammunition shall be unenforceable in Susquehanna County.”

As Judge Andrew Napolitano has said recently, widespread noncompliance can make a federal law “nearly impossible to enforce” (video here)

The passing of this resolution also marks a rare instance where bipartisanship within government works to the benefit of the American people. The resolution was introduced by Republican Commissioner Michael Giangrieco and supported by Democratic Commissioner MaryAnn Warren, as well as the whole committee. It was passed unanimously.

Details

North Carolina Introduces Bill to Regulate Usage of Drones

The Preserving Privacy Act of 2013, introduced into the North Carolina General Assembly by Representative Setzer, regulates the usage of drones strictly for the purpose of conducting warranted searches.

The introduction of this bill is rather timely in light of the increased scrutiny on drones after Rand Paul’s Senate filibuster.

“It shall be unlawful for any person or municipal, county, or State law enforcement agency to use a drone for the purpose of gathering evidence or other information or data pertaining to criminal conduct or conduct in violation of a statute or rule,” subsection (b) of the bill reads. “A person or municipal, county, or State law enforcement agency may use a drone for purposes other than gathering evidence or other information or data pertaining to criminal conduct or conduct in violation of a statute or rule, but any information or data acquired from the use of the drone shall not be disclosed and shall be inadmissible in any criminal, civil, or administrative proceeding.”

If a drone is needed to prevent imminent harm to life, serious damage to property, or the imminent escape of a suspect, H.B. 312 exempts from regulation any municipal, county, or state law enforcement agency with authorization from a search warrant.

The bill requires that:

Details

North Dakota Bill Would Protect People from Drone Spying

A bill introduced in the North Dakota State House of Representatives looks to protect the privacy of its residents from the police state by making a set of guidelines for the use of unmanned drones in surveillance by law enforcement.

House Bill 1373 was introduced by Reps. Becker, Anderson, Beadle, Heilman, Hofstad, Monson, Rohr, Toman, Hanson and Sen. Sitte. It was first read on Jan. 21 and referred to the Judiciary Committee where no action has presently been taken.

The bill comes in response to the growing national concern over predator drones, the controversial machines used to drop bombs onto people in foreign lands, coming to American skies en masse. Public safety concerns abound after repeated instances of crashes both domestic and abroad. Another troubling bit of information is that the Air Force maintains the right to spy on and collect data from drone missions about American citizens without so much as a warrant for up to 90 days as long as they claim it wasn’t intentional.

The text of HB 1373 states that “except as provided in section 4 of this Act, a law enforcement agency may not use an unmanned aircraft for surveillance of a person within the state or for the surveillance of personal or business property located within the borders of the state to gather evidence or other information pertaining to criminal conduct.” Section 4 of the Act gives law enforcement the right to use drones for weather-related catastrophes, exigent circumstances requiring reasonable suspecion to prevent immediate danger to life or bodily harm and national border patrol.

Details

Will Kansas Interpose to Protect Residents Against NDAA?

April 3, 2012: It’s official. The people of Kansas are serious about protecting their natural rights, and won’t be led into the shackles of tyranny without a fight. Because, as reported at “Occupy 316”, members of Occupy Wichita recently recognized the 2012 NDAA passage for what it was, and staged a demonstration outside Senator Pat Roberts’ office – complete with detainees, a prison cell and private security personnel. (Senator Roberts was one of the Kansas Senators who voted Yes on NDAA, along with fellow Senator Jerry Moran, and Representatives Lynn Jenkins, Kevin Yoder and Mike Pompeo).

And as reported by Michael Boldin in the Tenth Amendment Center article “Cherokee County Rejects NDAA”, the people of this county didn’t wait around until their citizens began disappearing off the streets, but took preemptive action, unanimously passing a resolution in opposition to the NDAA.

But now, with the help of leaders like Kansas Rep. Charlotte O’Hara (Dist.  27), Kansas government may have an opportunity through HR 6021 to interpose (via nullification) on behalf of the people. For example, HR6021 makes clear that, “The NDAA contains provisions repugnant to, and destructive of, the constitutions and Bill of Rights of the United States of America, and this state, directly violating the U.S. Constitution’s Article I, Section 9 [Habeas Suspension Clause], Article III, Section 2, Clause 2 [Trial by jury of all crimes except impeachment], Article III, Section 3 [Treason Clause], Article IV, Section 4 [guarantee of a Republican Form of government] the 4th Amendment [Protection against unreasonable search and seizure] 5th Amendment [Right to grand jury indictment and due process], 6th Amendment [Right to speedy and public trial], 8th Amendment [Protection against cruel and unusual punishments], and 14th Amendment [Equal protection], as well as infringes on the entirety of the Bill of Rights and basic structure of the Constitution, making We the People insecure in the exercise of any of our Rights and Powers…

Because of the above injuries and usurpations of the Constitution, HR6021 states that the NDAA provisions are not only establishing an absolute tyranny over the states, but “are nearly identical to many of the long train of abuses and usurpations that compelled our forefathers to take up arms and to separate from Great Britain, as enumerated in The unanimous Declaration of the thirteen united States of America, of July 4, 1776: Now, therefore, Be it resolved by the House of Representatives of the State of Kansas: That for the above and forgoing reasons, this Legislature expresses its belief that the National Defense Authorization Act for fiscal year 2012 (NDAA) is unconstitutional in authorizing the President to use war powers, the “law of war,” and/or martial law in the United States and its territories over any person…

Appreciate your right to free speech? Speak up!

Details

Pennsylvania Legislature Overwhelmingly Passes Real ID Nullification. Governor’s Signature Next?

Last October, the Pennsylvania Senate voted unanimously to refuse to comply with the Bush era Federal Real ID law by passing SB354. Today, the House concurred, passing it by a vote of 189-5. Senator Mike Folmer (R, district 48) announced passage on his Facebook page,

“I am especially pleased my Senate Bill 354 to exempt Pennsylvania from the mandates of the federal REAL ID law was passed by the full House 189 – 5. If signed by the Governor, Pennsylvania would be the largest state to opt out.”

This legislation states,

Neither the Governor nor the Department of Transportation or any other Commonwealth agency shall participate in the REAL ID Act of 2005 or regulations promulgated thereunder.

and if Governor Corbett signs it, it will take affect in 60 days.

Details

Will Pennsylvania Nullify Health Mandates?

After having been reviewed multiple times since January 31st 2011, the Pennsylvania Senate passed Senate Bill 10 (SB10) by a vote of  29-19.  The bill is a joint resolution proposing an amendment to the Constitution of Pennsylvania which would prohibit any government from requiring the Pennsylvanians to buy health insurance. It states, in part –

“no law shall be enacted requiring a person to obtain or maintain health insurance coverage”

Pennsylvania Senate District 25’s Joseph B. Scarnati is the prime sponsor of the bill which still requires a vote by the General Assembly’s House of Representatives. Once fully passed by both houses, it can be placed on the ballot for a statewide referendum.

Already, ten states have passed similar bills, commonly referred to as the Health Care Freedom Act. With the current SCOTUS review of Obamacare, this action along with many others currently in process in other states, sends a clear message that Americans are not content with the Federal Government encroaching on their liberties.

The amendment, if approved by the people of Pennsylvania, would also prevent the federal government from imposing fines or penalties against people who don’t buy insurance — up to 2.5 percent of household income.

Details

Food Freedom for New Hampshire?

The mood of  New Hampshire’s  legislature concerning an overstepping federal government is clearly illustrated in NH HB1650. In no uncertain terms, the representatives of the people of New Hampshire have made clear their thoughts on the role of the United States Government,  declaring that Uncle Sam is bounded by the U.S. Constitution, and that when it decides to step outside these limits, it is unlawful  and of no effect. The bill has provisions which would make it a criminal act for its violation:

439-A:5 Penalty.

I. Any public servant of the state of New Hampshire as defined by RSA 640:2 that enforces or attempts to enforce a federal act, order, law, statute, rule, or regulation upon a foodstuff labeled “Made in New Hampshire,” that is produced commercially or privately in New Hampshire, and that remains within the state of New Hampshire shall be guilty of a class B misdemeanor.

Details

Abrupt end to Kentucky regular session kills sovereignty bills

The 2011 regular session of the Kentucky State Legislature came to an abrupt end Wednesday, killing any hope of passing one of the several state sovereignty bills still pending.

Senate President David Williams (R-Burkesville) ended the session 12 days early, a political move related to the ongoing budget battle and deadlock over how to resolve Medicare shortfalls.

Gov. Steve Beshear immediately called for a special session to begin next week. But lawmakers can only take up legislation included in the governor’s call during special session, and it appears Beshear will limit the session to the passing the budget and raising the high school dropout age, one of his pet issues.

That leaves several state sovereignty bills dead in the water.

Details