To Protect the Second Amendment, Pennsylvanians Rediscover the Tenth

After the flurry of new legislation introduced in the Pennsylvania General Assembly in 2013, gun owners should consider sprucing up their spring wardrobes with Tenth Amendment t-shirts and hats.

In mid-January, State Representative Daryl Metcalfe proposed the Right to Bear Arms Protection Act (HB 357) which nullifies all federal firearms laws adopted after December 31, 2012. HB 357, which provides criminal penalties for attempted enforcement of unconstitutional gun laws in Pennsylvania, amassed 67 co-sponsors in the last month.

Following closely on the heels of HB 357, State Representative Matt Gabler introduced the Firearms Freedom Act (HB 475) which prevents any federal regulation of firearms and ammunition manufactured and sold within Pennsylvania’s borders. Citing the 9th and 10th amendments as valid consideration for Pennsylvania entering in the union compact in 1787, HB 475 draws a line in the sand against federal laws that are offensive to intrastate commerce and Pennsylvania and federal constitutional guarantees of gun rights. HB 475 garnered 49 cosponsors in the last three weeks.

Despite the popularity of both pending nullification bills, several Republican and Democratic state legislators have refused to join as cosponsors, invariably citing the Supremacy Clause for the proposition that federal laws are supreme and only federal courts can say otherwise.

Details

Michigan Legislature Works For Firearms Freedom

Michigan is yet another state that is fighting for its residents’ right to keep and bear arms. Over a dozen State House members are co-sponsoring a Firearms Freedom Act that was introduced on Jan. 24.

House Bill 4099 is supported by Reps. MacMaster, Genetski, Lauwers, Rogers, McMillin, Somerville, Pettalia, Daley, Rendon, Kurtz, Haveman, Kelly and Johnson and is intended to stop the federal gun grabbers from controlling firearms made within the State of Michigan. Michigan joins Pennsylvania, Texas, Tennessee, South Carolina and a whole slew of other states that are battling back against federal gun control measures with legislation introduced during the 2013 session.

The bill asserts state sovereignty and affirms the natural rights of its citizens stating, “Amendment II of the constitution of the United States reserves to the people the right to keep and bear arms as that right was understood at the time that Michigan was admitted to statehood, and the guaranty of the right is a matter of contract between the state and people of Michigan and the United States as of the time that the compact with the United States was agreed upon and adopted by Michigan and the United States.”

Details

Bill Proposed To Keep Federal Hands Off Alabama-Produced Firearms

There has been a growing number of states recently looking to pass laws that nullify overreaching federal intrusions on Second Amendment rights with Alabama being one of the latest states looking to protect the natural rights of its citizens. Alabama Senate Bill 43 is called the ‘Firearms Freedom Act’ and it intends to ‘exempt from…

Details

Surprise: Law Professor Misinterprets Supremacy Clause

Have you ever read an article that you were not sure what stance the author takes on the subject but presents both sides of the argument at once? I had the distinguished experience recently when I was reading the article titled “Sheriffs, State Lawmakers Push Back on Gun Control” on the Newsmax website (see: http://www.newsmax.com/Newsfront/Gun-Control-Pushback/2013/01/17/id/471825). It was a little confusing until I got about half way through it and read a quote by Sam Kamin.

Sam is a constitutional law professor at the University of Denver. One would think that if someone was a law professor that they would actually know and understand the law. Or in this case, a constitutional law professor – who should then know and understand the constitution. It is highly unfortunate when people like Sam misspeak about a subject. Their title gives them some credibility so people think what they say is true because they are supposedly an “expert”. But, when they make a mistake it is still a mistake.

The Supremacy Clause of Article VI, Clause 2 reads:

This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in pursuance thereof; and all treaties made, or which shall be made, under the authority of the United States, shall be the supreme law of the land; and the judges in every state shall be bound thereby, anything in the constitution or laws of any state to the contrary notwithstanding.

Sam makes the comment that state legislatures can pass any laws they want but that the Supremacy Clause of the Constitution makes such actions unconstitutional. He further states that when there is a conflict between state and federal law, the federal government is supreme. Nothing could be farther from the truth. His blanket statement implies that the state laws are not necessary and state governments are not necessary because the federal government and its laws are supreme.

Details

Oklahoma Legislation Would Nullify Agenda 21

Senator Patrick Anderson has introduced a bill in the Oklahoma State Senate that combats the United Nations Agenda 21 and reaffirms the sovereignty of the American people against globalist and internationalist forces.

The bill as introduced, SB23, is for “prohibiting state and political subdivisions from implementing certain Agenda 21 policies supported by the United Nations.” The law, if passed, will ensure that the state of Oklahoma “shall not adopt or implement policy recommendations that deliberately or inadvertently infringe or restrict private property rights without due process.”

If this passes, it will be a big win for both Constitutionalists and supporters of liberty. Private property rights for Oklahomans would be strengthened while the process of representation for the American people will be protected from a pernicious outside influence.

The US federal government officially endorsed Agenda 21 in 1992 when President George H. W. Bush signed on to a treaty with 177 other countries that he personally described as ’mammoth’ at a U.N. meeting called the ’Earth Summit’ in Rio De Janeiro, Brazil. He triumphed this accomplishment as emblematic of a world coming together to maintain a safe, living environment for present and future generations. However, there is more to Agenda 21 than what these world leaders are willing to let on.

Details

Will Indiana Nullify Drones?

We are living in a world where our phone calls, our text messages, our emails, and our internet sites are being recorded and stored by the federal government. The surveillance state is growing. The next step in the destruction of 4th Amendment continues with the invasion of drones in US airspace. Drones are currently being used in Afghanistan, Pakistan, Yemen, Iraq, Libya, and Somalia to combat terrorist. CNN and RT have reported that the success rate for targeted strikes against high level targets is 2%. If life is regarded with no value and death is regarded so frivolous that it can be played like a video game, how will our government treat our privacy?

We are searched without warrants or probably cause. The burden of proof to determine innocence is placed on ourselves. There is no liberty living in a world that assumes you are already guilty. Our only answer is to nullify. And Indiana now has a great opportunity to do so.

SB0020 has been introduced by Senator Tomes. If passed, this bill will amend the Indiana Code concerning criminal law and procedure by nullifying the use of drones. SB0020 summary of the law reads as:

“Use of unmanned aerial vehicles. Provides that a person who knowingly or intentionally uses an unmanned aerial vehicle to monitor a person, property, or thing without the written consent of the subject of the monitoring commits a Class D felony. Provides that images or communications obtained through the use of an unmanned aerial vehicle are not admissible as evidence. Provides that a person who possesses an image or communications obtained through the use of an unmanned aerial vehicle commits a Class A misdemeanor. Prohibits the use of public money to purchase an unmanned aerial vehicle.”

This law prohibits law enforcement personel from being exempt as a person controlling or owning a UAV. Additionally, it criminalizes the collection of intercepted communications, like “wire, electronic, or oral communications; or the capture, collection, monitoring, or viewing of images.”

Details

Tennessee Bill would Ban Expansion of Medicaid Under Obamacare

According to recommendations from the Tenth Amendment Center, there are four major steps that states can take to play a part in the nullification of the Affordable Care Act, AKA Obamacare. (read about all four here)

So far, Tennessee has passed a Health Care Freedom Act and has rejected a state exchange, The third and first step, respectively. Senate Bill 1 (SB 0001) is a consideration of the second step in the nullification process: refusal to expand Medicaid.

SB 0001 was filed Nov.7 by Sen. Brian Kelsey and co-sponsored by Sen. Janice Bowling. Rep. Jeremy Durham said he will file the companion bill in the House.

SB 0001 states:

“Notwithstanding any provision of law to the contrary, the state shall not establish, facilitate, implement or participate in the expansion of the Medicaid program pursuant to the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, Public Law 111-148, as amended. SECTION 2. This act shall take effect upon becoming a law, the public welfare requiring it.”

The Medicaid website reports:

“Beginning in January 2014, individuals under 65 years of age with income below 133 percent of the federal poverty level (FPL) will be eligible for Medicaid. For the first time, low-income adults without children will be guaranteed coverage through Medicaid in every state without need for a waiver, and parents of children will be eligible at a uniform income level across all states.”

If SB 0001 passes, and Tennessee refuses to expand Medicaid, Tennessee will be one step away from full Obamacare nullification – passing a federal health care nullification act.

Action Items

Details

Federalism and the 10th: The State Reclamation Begins

The state governments are now beginning in earnest to do something about the encroaching federal government. Way back in 1994 when the “Republican Revolution” was taking place in Congress the Republican Governors Association (RGA) “adopted” a sort of “declaration of independence” for themselves.  From Congress we got the “Contract with America” and from the RGA…

Details

Federalism and the 10th: The States’ Great Awakening

In Part 1 of this series, I explained how our federalism works and how the powers were divided between the states and our national government. The details showed that the states were superior to the federal government on the hierarchy scale and that the 10th amendment protected that position whenever the federal government stepped outside…

Details