Albany resolution against NDAA indefinite detention is a great first step, even though it does not ban indefinite detention as one organization has claimed.Details
Tenth Amendment Center national communications director Mike Maharrey spends an hour chatting about the Tenth Amendment, decentralization and nullification with Mike Paczesny and Kristan Harris on The Rundown Live out of Milwaukee.
On July 29, Oregon Governor John Kitzhaber (D) signed the Anti-Drone Spying bill (HB2710) into law.
The new law will require law enforcement to obtain a warrant for drone use in all but a few cases.
Provides that drones may be used by law enforcement agency for purpose of surveillance of persons only pursuant to a warrant or in emergency circumstances. Provides that law enforcement agencies may use drones to intercept communications only as provided under laws relating to wiretaps other interceptions of communications. Requires destruction of images and other information acquired by use of drone within 30 days.
The bill also outlaws weaponized drones.
Representative John Huffman (R ) said, “I feel that we were able to craft our bill to get ahead of the curve and ensure people’s rights were protected — but also to let Insitu and other companies in the industry know that we are willing to work with them.”
The House passed its version of the bill 52-7 on April 15. The Senate passed the amended version 23-5 on June 10th. The differences between the two bills were resolved in committee, and it was sent to the governor for his signature.
While the exceptions for drone use raise legitimate concerns, as things existed, Oregonians had no protections against drone surveillance. Law enforcement agencies in Oregon could use drones any time, anywhere, with absolutely no parameters. Under the new law, drone use will be extremely limited and circumscribed.Details
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
As we’ve reported previously: in August, Herndon, KS Mayor Kenny Chartier sent an email to “[every] municipality, city and town in the state of Kansas [with] an e-mail address,” urging them to pass ordinances similar to Herndon’s in support of the Second Amendment Protection Act, which was signed into law by Governor Brownback in April. Three cities have since answered that call: Muscotah, Easton, and most recently, Strong City.
At their September 10 meeting, the Strong City city council passed the Right to Bear Arms Ordinance into law with a margin of 5-0.
“No agency of the City of Strong City, KS, or person in the employ of the City of Strong City, KS shall enforce, provide material support for, or participate in any way in the enforcement of any act, law, treaty, order, rule or regulation of the government of the United States regarding personal firearms, firearm accessories, or ammunition within the Boundary of this City of Strong City, KS.” —Right to Bear Arms Ordinance, Strong City, KSDetails
Alex Jones hosts Michael Boldin, executive director of the Tenth Amendment Center, to talk about California’s new law resisting NDAA indefinite detention. They discuss James Madison’s advice on how to stop federal power – including NSA spying – and cover some of the recent developments in the 10th Amendment and Nullification movement around the country.…Details
Calling nullification dangerous assumes what we have now is the nice stable norm. Clearly it isn’t. In fact, we have a federal government completely untethered from its constitutional limits. It does what it wants. When it wants. To whomever it wants.Details
Scott Walker is at it again. The governor of Wisconsin, who has previously publicly stated his intention to resist Obamacare, had his state’s Department of Natural Resources reject federal requests to close portions of parks in the wake of the federal government’s shutdown. The Wisconsin DNR also reopened a boat launch that the federal government…Details
“ANY act, law, treaty, order, rule or regulation of the government of the United States which violates the Second Amendment to the Constitution of the United States is null, void and unenforceable in the State of Kansas.” -Second Amendment Protection Act [emphasis added] So echoed the city of Easton, KS on September 3rd with the…Details
As reported by Nick Hankoff at the California Tenth Amendment Center today, AB351, the California Liberty Preservation Act has been signed into law by Governor Jerry Brown:
Assembly Bill 351, commonly called the California Liberty Preservation Act, has been signed into law by Governor Jerry Brown making it statewide policy to refuse compliance with federal attempts to enforce “indefinite detention” made famous by the National Defense Authorization Act of 2012 (NDAA). What began as a marginal issue with little legislative support has unified Californians of all persuasions and brought attention to the proper role the people and their states play in a constitutional republic.
AB351 now makes it state policy to reject “indefinite detention” powers from the federal government. It reads, in part:
It is the policy of this state to refuse to provide material support for or to participate in any way with the implementation within this state of any federal law that purports to authorize indefinite detention of a person within California. [emphasis added]
This language of AB351 goes far beyond what has been considered in most other states, which focus solely on indefinite detention powers under the 2012 National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA), and nothing else. Donnelly’s legislation broadened the scope by recognizing that indefinite detention should not be complied with no matter what federal law is used to justify it. Donnelly confirmed this broad scope, “AB351 will prevent California from implementing indefinite detention for any reason.”
This can 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.Details