Uncategorized | Tenth Amendment Center
TAC Blog: News and Updates from the Nullification Movement
Tue, 12 Nov 2024 23:13:04 +0000
en-US
hourly
1
Uncategorized | Tenth Amendment Center
32
32
yes
Uncategorized | Tenth Amendment Center
false
podcast
Uncategorized | Tenth Amendment Center
Iowa Bill Would Take Step Against a Potential Central Bank Digital Currency
Sun, 11 Feb 2024 21:17:43 +0000
The legislation would prohibit state governmental agencies from accepting a payment using central bank digital currency. It would also bar them from participating in any test of central bank digital currency.
The post Iowa Bill Would Take Step Against a Potential Central Bank Digital Currency appeared first on Tenth Amendment Center.
]]>
DES MOINES, Iowa (Feb. 11, 2024) – A bill filed in the Iowa House would take a small step toward limiting the impact of any potential future central bank digital currency (CBDC).
Rep. Charlie Thomson introduced House Bill 2358 (HF2358) on Feb. 7. The legislation would prohibit state governmental agencies from accepting a payment using central bank digital currency. It would also bar them from participating in any test of central bank digital currency.
The bill is similar to a law passed in Alabama in 2023.
IN PRACTICE
In the spirit of James Madison’s blueprint in Federalist #46, the enactment of HF2358 would create “impediments” to the implementation of a CBDC in Iowa. Madison said “a refusal to cooperate with officers of the union” along with “the embarrassments created by legislative devices,” would “oppose, in any State, difficulties not to be despised.”
Other states have also taken steps to push back against the use of CBDCs. Florida and Indiana both enacted laws that remove a central bank digital currency (CBDC) as money in the state Uniform Commercial Code (UCC).
How such legislation will play out in practice against a CBDC, should the federal government attempt to implement one, is unknown.
Opponents of the legislation generally take the position that states can’t do anything to stop a CBDC, since – according to their view – under the supremacy clause “any federal law on this point will automatically override state law.”
We’ve heard this song and dance on other issues before.
In the ramp-up to the 1996 vote on Proposition 215 in California, voters were repeatedly told that legalization of marijuana, even for limited medical purposes, was a fruitless effort, since, under the supremacy clause, any such state law would be automatically overridden by the Controlled Substances Act of 1970 (CSA). At best, opponents told Californians, the state would end up in a costly, and losing court effort.
But despite those warnings, Californians voted yes, setting in motion the massive state-level movement we see today, where a growing majority of states have legalized what the federal government prohibits. Ultimately, the federal government will likely have to back down, even if just to save face, because it has become impossible to fully enforce its federal prohibition over this massive state and individual resistance.
A similar situation has played out in response to the REAL ID Act of 2005, already 17 years late on full implementation because a significant number of states have decided not to participate, or in some cases, just provide residents with a choice to opt out. There, federal officials have confirmed that state-level roadblocks to implementation are the primary reason for the continuing delays.
“Roadblock” is likely the way this legislation to oppose a CBDC could play out, and it’s part of James Madison’s four-step blueprint for how states can stop federal programs.
But, as can be seen so far with issues like marijuana and the REAL ID Act, whether a federal program is implemented or not ultimately gets down to the number of roadblocks put up by states, and the willingness of the people to participate, or not.
CENTRAL BANK DIGITAL CURRENCIES (CBDC)
Digital currencies exist as virtual banknotes or coins held in a digital wallet on your computer or smartphone. The difference between a central bank (government) digital currency and peer-to-peer electronic cash such as bitcoin is that the value of the digital currency is backed and controlled by the government, just like traditional fiat currency.
Government-issued digital currencies are sold on the promise of providing a safe, convenient, and more secure alternative to physical cash. We’re also told it will help stop dangerous criminals who like the intractability of cash. But there is a darker side – the promise of control.
At the root of the move toward government digital currency is “the war on cash.” The elimination of cash creates the potential for the government to track and even control consumer spending.
Imagine if there was no cash. It would be impossible to hide even the smallest transaction from the government’s eyes. Something as simple as your morning trip to Starbucks wouldn’t be a secret from government officials. As Bloomberg put it in an article published when China launched a digital yuan pilot program in 2020, digital currency “offers China’s authorities a degree of control never possible with physical money.”
The government could even “turn off” an individual’s ability to make purchases. Bloomberg described just how much control a digital currency could give Chinese officials.
The PBOC has also indicated that it could put limits on the sizes of some transactions, or even require an appointment to make large ones. Some observers wonder whether payments could be linked to the emerging social-credit system, wherein citizens with exemplary behavior are ‘whitelisted’ for privileges, while those with criminal and other infractions find themselves left out. ‘China’s goal is not to make payments more convenient but to replace cash, so it can keep closer tabs on people than it already does,’ argues Aaron Brown, a crypto investor who writes for Bloomberg Opinion.”
Economist Thorsten Polleit outlined the potential for Big Brother-like government control with the advent of a digital euro in an article published by the Mises Wire. As he put it, “the path to becoming a surveillance state regime will accelerate considerably” if and when a digital currency is issued.
In 2022, the Federal Reserve released a “discussion paper” examining the pros and cons of a potential US central bank digital dollar. According to the central bank’s website, there has been no decision on implementing a digital currency, but this pilot program reveals the idea is further along than most people realized.
WHAT’S NEXT
HF2358 was referred to the House Commerce Committee where it must get a hearing and pass by a majority vote before moving forward in the legislative process.
The post Iowa Bill Would Take Step Against a Potential Central Bank Digital Currency appeared first on Tenth Amendment Center.
]]>
Florida 2nd Amendment Financial Privacy Act Signed as Law
/2023/05/florida-2nd-amendment-financial-privacy-act-signed-as-law/
Fri, 12 May 2023 23:29:47 +0000
/?p=41834
he 2nd Amendment Financial Privacy Act prohibits a payment settlement entity, merchant acquiring entity, or a third-party settlement organization from assigning a merchant category code or otherwise classifying a merchant that is a seller of firearms or ammunition separately from general merchandise retailers or sporting goods retailers.
The post Florida 2nd Amendment Financial Privacy Act Signed as Law appeared first on Tenth Amendment Center.
]]>
TALLAHASSEE, Fla. (May 12, 2023) – Today, Florida Governor Ron DeSantis signed a bill into law that prohibits financial institutions operating in the state from using a credit card merchant code that would enable the tracking of firearm and ammunition purchases.
Sen. Daniel Burgess (R) filed Senate Bill 214 (S214) on Jan. 17. The 2nd Amendment Financial Privacy Act prohibits a payment settlement entity, merchant acquiring entity, or a third-party settlement organization from assigning a merchant category code or otherwise classifying a merchant that is a seller of firearms or ammunition separately from general merchandise retailers or sporting goods retailers.
Under the law, the Florida Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services is empowered to investigate violations of this provision and bring an administrative action seeking to impose an administrative fine on violators.
In response to legislation like S214, the major credit card payment networks have “paused” implementation of the firearms merchant code. In an email to Reuters, a Mastercard representative said such bills would cause “inconsistency” in how the code could be applied by merchants, banks and payment networks. The more states that ban such codes, the more likely this program gets scrapped permanently.
In September 2022, the International Standards Organization, based in Switzerland, approved a new merchant category code for firearm and ammunition merchants. In the letter to payment card networks, federal lawmakers stated that the new Merchant Category Code for firearms retailers would be “. . .the first step towards facilitating the collection of valuable financial data that could help law enforcement in countering the financing of terrorism efforts,” expressing a clear government expectation that networks will utilize the new Merchant Category Code to conduct mass surveillance of constitutionally protected firearms and ammunition purchases in cooperation with law enforcement.
The legislative findings in S214 state, “The new merchant category code may result in credit card companies reporting law-abiding citizens to a law enforcement agency based on overbroad definitions of suspicious activity and the creation of a de facto gun registry and watchlists of law-abiding citizens.”
On March 23rd, the full Senate took up the measure, passing it by a vote of 27-11. The House concurred with a vote of 83-32. With DeSantis’ signature, the law goes into effect on July 1, 2023.
IMPACT ON FEDERAL SURVEILLANCE
As the legislative findings warn, data collected from this merchant code would almost certainly end up in federal government databases.
Concern about the misuse of federal firearms databases isn’t just paranoia. The Taliban has reportedly used a firearm ownership database created by the U.S. government to track down gun owners and confiscate firearms in Afghanistan. This goes to show that even if you trust the people creating the database, it can fall into the wrong hands. In other words, the very existence of a database is a danger.
The feds can share and tap into vast amounts of information gathered at the state and local level through fusion centers and a system known as the “information sharing environment” or ISE.
Fusion centers were sold as a tool to combat terrorism, but that is not how they are being used. The ACLU pointed to a bipartisan congressional report to demonstrate the true nature of government fusion centers: “They haven’t contributed anything meaningful to counterterrorism efforts. Instead, they have largely served as police surveillance and information sharing nodes for law enforcement efforts targeting the frequent subjects of police attention: Black and brown people, immigrants, dissidents, and the poor.”
Fusion centers operate within the broader ISE. According to its website, the ISE “provides analysts, operators, and investigators with information needed to enhance national security. These analysts, operators, and investigators…have mission needs to collaborate and share information with each other and with private sector partners and our foreign allies.” In other words, ISE serves as a conduit for the sharing of information gathered without a warrant. Known ISE partners include the Office of Director of National Intelligence which oversees 17 federal agencies and organizations, including the NSA. ISE utilizes these partnerships to collect and share data on the millions of unwitting people they track.
In practice, local data collection using ALPRs, stingrays, drones and other spy technologies create the potential for the federal government to obtain and store information on millions of Americans including phone calls, emails, web browsing history, location history, and text messages, all with no warrant, no probable cause, and without the people even knowing it.
In a nutshell, without state and local assistance, the feds have a much more difficult time gathering information. When the state limits surveillance and data collection, it means less information the feds can tap into. This represents a major blow to the surveillance state and a win for privacy.
The post Florida 2nd Amendment Financial Privacy Act Signed as Law appeared first on Tenth Amendment Center.
]]>
Minnesota House Passes Bill to Legalize Marijuana Despite Federal Prohibition
/2023/04/minnesota-house-passes-bill-to-legalize-marijuana-despite-federal-prohibition/
Wed, 26 Apr 2023 15:25:18 +0000
/?p=41714
Under the bill as approved by the House, a person over 21 would be allowed to possess up to two ounces of marijuana in public and 1.5 pounds at home, with lower limits for cannabis concentrates (8 grams) or THC edibles (800 milligrams of THC). It would also allow members of the public to home grow up to eight plants.
The post Minnesota House Passes Bill to Legalize Marijuana Despite Federal Prohibition appeared first on Tenth Amendment Center.
]]>
St. Paul, Minnesota (Apr. 26, 2023) – On Tuesday, the Minnesota House passed a bill to legalize marijuana for recreational use despite federal prohibition on the same..
Rep. Zack Stephenson (D) and 18 other Democrat legislators filed House Bill 100 (HF100) on Jan. 5. Under the bill as approved by the House, a person over 21 would be allowed to possess up to two ounces of marijuana in public and 1.5 pounds at home, with lower limits for cannabis concentrates (8 grams) or THC edibles (800 milligrams of THC). It would also allow members of the public to home grow up to eight plants.
The legislation — which has the culmination of hours of testimony and 16 committee hearings — would also automatically expunge low-level cannabis convictions and set up an expungement board to consider felony offenses as well. A new Office of Cannabis Management would be created to regulate the cannabis retail market and issue licenses, while cannabis sales would be taxed at eight percent.
None of this, of course, is legal under federal law.
On late Tuesday evening, the House passed the bill by a vote of 71-59 on almost complete partisan lines.
EFFECT ON FEDERAL PROHIBITION
Under the federal Controlled Substances Act (CSA) passed in 1970, the federal government maintains a complete prohibition of marijuana. Of course, the federal government lacks any constitutional authority to ban or regulate cannabis within the borders of a state, despite the opinion of the politically connected lawyers on the Supreme Court. If you doubt this, ask yourself why it took a constitutional amendment to institute federal alcohol prohibition.
The legalization of low-THC medicinal cannabis removed a small layer of laws prohibiting the possession and use of marijuana in the state even though federal prohibition remains in effect. The creation of a broader medical marijuana system would wipe more state prohibition laws from the books. This is significant because FBI statistics show that law enforcement makes approximately 99 of 100 marijuana arrests under state, not federal law. When states stop enforcing marijuana laws, they sweep away most of the basis for 99 percent of marijuana arrests.
Furthermore, figures indicate it would take 40 percent of the DEA’s yearly budget just to investigate and raid all of the dispensaries in Los Angeles – a single city in a single state. That doesn’t include the cost of prosecution. The lesson? The feds lack the resources to enforce marijuana prohibition without state assistance.
A GROWING MOVEMENT
Colorado, Washington state, Oregon and Alaska were the first states to legalize recreational cannabis, and California, Nevada, Maine and Massachusetts joined them after ballot initiatives in favor of legalization passed in November 2016. Michigan followed suit when voters legalized cannabis for general use in 2018. Vermont became the first state to legalize marijuana through a legislative act in 2018. Illinois followed suit in 2019. New Jersey, Montana and Arizona all legalized recreational marijuana through ballot measures in the 2020 election. In 2021, New York, New Mexico, Virginia and Connecticut legalized marijuana through legislative action, and Rhode Island legalized cannabis for adult use in 2022. With Missouri and Maryland legalizing marijuana in November, there are now 37 states allowing cannabis for medical use, and 21 legalizing for adult recreational use.
The lesson here is pretty straightforward. As Tenth Amendment Center Executive Director Michael Boldin noted, “When enough people say, ‘No!’ to the federal government, and enough states pass laws backing those people up, there’s not much the feds can do to shove their so-called laws, regulations, or mandates down our throats.”
WHAT’S NEXT
HF100 has been transmitted to the Senate, where a companion bill is already set for floor action later this week. A joint panel of lawmakers will likely meet in a conference committee to sort out differences before the session ends next month.
The post Minnesota House Passes Bill to Legalize Marijuana Despite Federal Prohibition appeared first on Tenth Amendment Center.
]]>
Florida Senate Passes Bill to Prohibit Using Credit Card Information to Track Firearms Purchases
/2023/03/florida-senate-passes-bill-to-prohibit-using-credit-card-information-to-track-firearms-purchases/
Fri, 24 Mar 2023 16:04:20 +0000
/?p=41467
The 2nd Amendment Financial Privacy Act would prohibit a payment settlement entity, merchant acquiring entity, or a third-party settlement organization from assigning a merchant category code or otherwise classifying a merchant that is a seller of firearms or ammunition separately from general merchandise retailers or sporting goods retailers.
The post Florida Senate Passes Bill to Prohibit Using Credit Card Information to Track Firearms Purchases appeared first on Tenth Amendment Center.
]]>
TALLAHASSEE, Fla. (March 24, 2023) – Yesterday, the Florida Senate passed a bill that would prohibit financial institutions operating in the state from using a credit card merchant code that would enable the tracking of firearm and ammunition purchases.
Sen. Daniel Burgess (R) filed Senate Bill 214 (S214) on Jan. 17. The 2nd Amendment Financial Privacy Act would prohibit a payment settlement entity, merchant acquiring entity, or a third-party settlement organization from assigning a merchant category code or otherwise classifying a merchant that is a seller of firearms or ammunition separately from general merchandise retailers or sporting goods retailers.
Under the proposed law, the Florida Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services would be empowered to investigate violations of this provision and bring an administrative action seeking to impose an administrative fine on violators.
In September 2022, the International Standards Organization, based in Switzerland, approved a new merchant category code for firearm and ammunition merchants. In the letter to payment card networks, federal lawmakers stated that the new Merchant Category Code for firearms retailers would be “. . .the first step towards facilitating the collection of valuable financial data that could help law enforcement in countering the financing of terrorism efforts,” expressing a clear government expectation that networks will utilize the new Merchant Category Code to conduct mass surveillance of constitutionally protected firearms and ammunition purchases in cooperation with law enforcement.
The legislative findings in S214 state, “The new merchant category code may result in credit card companies reporting law-abiding citizens to a law enforcement agency based on overbroad definitions of suspicious activity and the creation of a de facto gun registry and watchlists of law-abiding citizens.”
On March 15, the Senate Rules Committee passed S214 by a 14-5 vote. The Senate Commerce and Tourism Committee previously approved the measure by a 7-2 vote and the Senate Banking and Insurance Committee previously passed the bill by a 9-3 vote.
Yesterday, the full Senate took up the measure, passing it by a vote of 27-11.
IMPACT ON FEDERAL PROGRAMS
As the legislative findings warn, data collected from this merchant code would almost certainly end up in federal government databases.
Concern about the misuse of federal firearms databases isn’t just paranoia. The Taliban has reportedly used a firearm ownership database created by the U.S. government to track down gun owners and confiscate firearms in Afghanistan. This goes to show that even if you trust the people creating the database, it can fall into the wrong hands. In other words, the very existence of a database is a danger.
The feds can share and tap into vast amounts of information gathered at the state and local level through fusion centers and a system known as the “information sharing environment” or ISE.
Fusion centers were sold as a tool to combat terrorism, but that is not how they are being used. The ACLU pointed to a bipartisan congressional report to demonstrate the true nature of government fusion centers: “They haven’t contributed anything meaningful to counterterrorism efforts. Instead, they have largely served as police surveillance and information sharing nodes for law enforcement efforts targeting the frequent subjects of police attention: Black and brown people, immigrants, dissidents, and the poor.”
Fusion centers operate within the broader ISE. According to its website, the ISE “provides analysts, operators, and investigators with information needed to enhance national security. These analysts, operators, and investigators…have mission needs to collaborate and share information with each other and with private sector partners and our foreign allies.” In other words, ISE serves as a conduit for the sharing of information gathered without a warrant. Known ISE partners include the Office of Director of National Intelligence which oversees 17 federal agencies and organizations, including the NSA. ISE utilizes these partnerships to collect and share data on the millions of unwitting people they track.
In practice, local data collection using ALPRs, stingrays, drones and other spy technologies create the potential for the federal government to obtain and store information on millions of Americans including phone calls, emails, web browsing history, location history, and text messages, all with no warrant, no probable cause, and without the people even knowing it.
In a nutshell, without state and local assistance, the feds have a much more difficult time gathering information. When the state limits surveillance and data collection, it means less information the feds can tap into. This represents a major blow to the surveillance state and a win for privacy.
WHAT’S NEXT
S214 now moves to the House for further consideration, where the companion bill (H221) is currently moving forward through the committee process.
The post Florida Senate Passes Bill to Prohibit Using Credit Card Information to Track Firearms Purchases appeared first on Tenth Amendment Center.
]]>
Arizona Senate Passes Defend the Guard Act
/2023/03/arizona-senate-passes-defend-the-guard-act/
Tue, 21 Mar 2023 23:00:16 +0000
/?p=41438
Titled the Defend the Guard Act, the legislation would prohibit the governor from releasing any unit or member of the Arizona National Guard into “active duty combat” unless specific constitutional requirements are met
The post Arizona Senate Passes Defend the Guard Act appeared first on Tenth Amendment Center.
]]>
PHOENIX, Ariz. (March 21, 2023) – Today, the Arizona Senate narrowly passed the Defend the Guard Act, a bill to require the governor to stop unconstitutional foreign combat deployments of the state’s National Guard troops. Passage into law would take a big step toward restoring the founders’ framework for a state-federal balance under the Constitution.
Sen. Wendy Rogers (R) and three fellow Republicans introduced Senate Bill 1367 (SB1367) on Jan. 31. Titled the Defend the Guard Act, the legislation would prohibit the governor from releasing any unit or member of the Arizona National Guard into “active duty combat” unless specific constitutional requirements are met:
The United States Congress passes an official declaration of war or takes an official action pursuant to article I, section 8, clause 15, United States Constitution, that calls on the National Guard to expressly execute the laws of the union, repel an invasion or suppress an insurrection.
“Active duty combat” is defined as performing the following services in the active federal military service of the United States:
Participation in an armed conflict;
Performance of a hazardous service in a foreign state; or
Performance of a duty through an instrumentality of war.
“Official declaration of war” is defined as “an official declaration of war made by the United States Congress pursuant to Article I, Section 8, Clause 11 of the United States Constitution.”
Last month, the Senate Military Affairs and Public Safety Committee approved the Arizona Defend the Guard Act by a vote of 4-3. On March 6, the Senate Rules committee also passed SB1367 by a 4-3 vote. Today, the full Senate approved SB1367 by a vote of 16-13-1.
IN PRACTICE
National Guard troops have played significant roles in all modern overseas conflicts, with over 650,000 deployed since 2001. Military.com reports that “Guard and Reserve units made up about 45 percent of the total force sent to Iraq and Afghanistan, and received about 18.4 percent of the casualties.” More specifically, Arizona National Guard troops have participated in missions in Iraq, Afghanistan and other countries.
Since none of these missions have been accompanied by a Constitutional declaration of war, nor were they in pursuance of any of the three conditions set forth in Article 1 Sec. 8, the Defend the Guard Act would have prohibited those deployments.
BACKGROUND
Article I, Section 8, Clauses 15 and 16 make up the “militia clauses” of the Constitution. Clause 16 authorizes Congress to “provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia.” Through the Dick Act of 1903, Congress organized the militia into today’s National Guard, limiting the part of the militia that could be called into federal service rather than the “entire body of people,” which makes up the totality of the “militia.” Thus, today’s National Guard is governed by the “militia clauses” of the Constitution, and this view is confirmed by the National Guard itself.
Clause 15 delegates to Congress the power to provide for “calling forth the militia” in three situations only: 1) to execute the laws of the union, 2) to suppress insurrections, and 3) to repel invasions.
During state ratifying conventions, proponents of the Constitution, including James Madison and Edmund Randolph, repeatedly assured the people that this power to call forth the militia into federal service would be limited to those very specific situations, and not for general purposes, like helping victims of a disease outbreak or engaging in “kinetic military actions.”
RETURNING TO THE CONSTITUTION
The founding generation was careful to ensure the president wouldn’t have the power to drag the United States into endless wars. James Madison made this clear in a letter to Thomas Jefferson.
The constitution supposes, what the History of all Governments demonstrates, that the Executive is the branch of power most interested in war, & most prone to it. It has accordingly with studied care, vested the question of war in the Legislature.
Congress has abrogated its responsibility and allowed the president to exercise almost complete discretion when it comes to war. The passage of Defend the Guard legislation would pressure Congress to do its constitutional duty.
West Virginia Rep. Pat McGeehan served as an Air Force intelligence officer in Afghanistan and has sponsored similar legislation in his state.
“For decades, the power of war has long been abused by this supreme executive, and unfortunately our men and women in uniform have been sent off into harm’s way over and over,” he said. “If the U.S. Congress is unwilling to reclaim its constitutional obligation, then the states themselves must act to correct the erosion of constitutional law.”
Passage of Defend the Guard would also force the federal government to only use the Guard for the three expressly-delegated purposes in the Constitution, and at other times to remain where the Guard belongs, at home, supporting and protecting their home state.
While getting this bill passed won’t be easy and will face fierce opposition from the establishment, it certainly is, as Daniel Webster once noted, “one of the reasons state governments even exist.”
Webster made this observation in an 1814 speech on the floor of Congress where he urged actions similar to the Oklahoma Defend the Guard Act. He said, “The operation of measures thus unconstitutional and illegal ought to be prevented by a resort to other measures which are both constitutional and legal. It will be the solemn duty of the State governments to protect their own authority over their own militia, and to interpose between their citizens and arbitrary power. These are among the objects for which the State governments exist.”
WHAT’S NEXT
SB1367 will now move to the House for further consideration. It will first need to pass through the committee process before the full Chamber can concur. Residents of Arizona are strongly urged to contact their state representative to firmly request that they support the bill (locate contact info here)
The post Arizona Senate Passes Defend the Guard Act appeared first on Tenth Amendment Center.
]]>
Oklahoma House Committee Passes Bill Banning Enforcement of Future Federal Gun Control
/2023/03/oklahoma-house-committee-passes-bill-banning-enforcement-of-future-federal-gun-control/
Wed, 01 Mar 2023 19:44:58 +0000
/?p=41245
The legislation would add some much-needed updates to a “Second Amendment Sanctuary” law enacted in 2021 that – in practice – created a sanctuary for absolutely nothing.
The post Oklahoma House Committee Passes Bill Banning Enforcement of Future Federal Gun Control appeared first on Tenth Amendment Center.
]]>
OKLAHOMA CITY, Okla. (March 1, 2023) – On Monday, an Oklahoma House committee passed a bill that would prohibit state and local enforcement of some future federal gun control. Enactment of this bill into law would take a step toward stopping federal acts that infringe on the right to keep and bear arms within the state.
Rep. David Hardin (R) introduced House Bill 2063 (HB2063) on Feb. 6. The legislation would add some much-needed updates to a “Second Amendment Sanctuary” law enacted in 2021 that – in practice – created a sanctuary for absolutely nothing.
The current law declares certain federal acts relating to firearms to be an “infringement” and makes it “the duty of the courts and law enforcement agencies of this state to protect the rights of law-abiding citizens to keep and to bear arms within the borders of this state and to protect these rights from the infringement provided under the provisions of this act.” Lacking any specific actions or prohibitions on actions for police or courts to follow, it’s almost certain they will take no action at all, instead deferring to the federal courts on any question of constitutionality.
HB2063 would give the law some impact in practice and effect by amending it with specific prohibitions on the enforcement of some future federal gun control.
Under the proposed law, a peace officer, state employee, or employee of a political subdivision would be prohibited from enforcing, assisting in the enforcement of, or otherwise cooperating in the enforcement of a “federal ban” on firearms, firearm accessories, or ammunition. Employees of the state and its political subdivisions would also be barred from expending public funds or allocating public resources for the same.
HB2063 specifically defines a “federal ban” as “a federal law, executive order, rule or regulation that is enacted, adopted, or becomes effective on or after November 1, 2023, or a new and more restrictive interpretation of a law that existed on November 1, 2023, that infringes upon, calls in question or prohibits, restricts, or requires individual licensure for or registration of the purchase, ownership, possession, transfer, or use of any firearm, any magazine or other ammunition feeding device, or other firearm accessory.”
The proposed law would also prohibit the state from retaliating against any sheriff or police officer that refuses to obey or enforce “any order which violates the Second Amendment of the Constitution of the United States, Section 26 of Article II of the Constitution of Oklahoma or the peace officer oath of a peace officer.”
It remains unclear who would determine what constitutes a violation of the U.S. or Oklahoma constitutions, although, under their Oath, Sheriffs should make that determination to the best of their ability, refusing to enforce measures they believe violate those constitutions rather than waiting for a court to tell them what they should stop doing.
On Feb. 27, the House State Powers Committee passed HB2063 by a 7-2 vote.
EFFECTIVE
The federal government relies heavily on state cooperation to implement and enforce almost all of its laws, regulations and acts – including gun control. By simply withdrawing this necessary cooperation, states and localities can nullify many federal actions in effect. As noted by the National Governors’ Association during the partial government shutdown of 2013, “states are partners with the federal government on most federal programs.”
Based on James Madison’s advice for states and individuals in Federalist #46, a “refusal to cooperate with officers of the Union” represents an extremely effective method to bring down federal gun control measures because most enforcement actions rely on help, support and leadership from state and local governments.
Fox News senior judicial analyst Judge Andrew Napolitano agreed. In a televised discussion on the issue, he noted that a single state taking this step would make federal gun laws “nearly impossible” to enforce.
“Partnerships don’t work too well when half the team quits,” said Michael Boldin of the Tenth Amendment Center. “By withdrawing all resources and participation in federal gun control, states and even local governments can help bring these unconstitutional acts to their much-needed end.”
LEGAL BASIS
The state of Oklahoma can legally bar state agents from enforcing federal gun control. Refusal to cooperate with federal enforcement rests on a well-established legal principle known as the anti-commandeering doctrine.
Simply put, the federal government cannot force states to help implement or enforce any federal act or program. The anti-commandeering doctrine is based primarily on five Supreme Court cases dating back to 1842. Printz v. U.S. serves as the cornerstone.
“We held in New York that Congress cannot compel the States to enact or enforce a federal regulatory program. Today we hold that Congress cannot circumvent that prohibition by conscripting the States’ officers directly. The Federal Government may neither issue directives requiring the States to address particular problems, nor command the States’ officers, or those of their political subdivisions, to administer or enforce a federal regulatory program. It matters not whether policy making is involved, and no case by case weighing of the burdens or benefits is necessary; such commands are fundamentally incompatible with our constitutional system of dual sovereignty”
No determination of constitutionality is necessary to invoke the anti-commandeering doctrine. State and local governments can refuse to enforce federal laws or implement federal programs whether they are constitutional or not.
WHAT’S NEXT
HB2063 will move to the House floor for further consideration.
The post Oklahoma House Committee Passes Bill Banning Enforcement of Future Federal Gun Control appeared first on Tenth Amendment Center.
]]>
Articles of Confederation: An Introduction
/2023/03/articles-of-confederation-an-introduction/
Wed, 01 Mar 2023 19:09:03 +0000
/?p=41237
March 1, 1781 - the Second Continental Congress put into effect the Articles of Confederation as the law of the land, making it the first Constitution for the United States. The Articles have been mostly thrown in the dustbin of history, but doing so skips over essential, foundational principles of the Founders and Old Revolutionaries.
The post Articles of Confederation: An Introduction appeared first on Tenth Amendment Center.
]]>
March 1, 1781 – the Second Continental Congress put into effect the Articles of Confederation as the law of the land, making it the first Constitution for the United States. The Articles have been mostly thrown in the dustbin of history, but doing so skips over essential, foundational principles of the Founders and Old Revolutionaries.
Path to Liberty: Mar 1, 2023
Subscribe: Apple | Spotify | Podbean | Google | Stitcher | TuneIn | RSS | More Platforms Here
SHOW LINKS:
JOIN TAC
Show Archives
Today in History: Articles of Confederation Come into Force
Every “Constitutional Conservative” Should Understand the Articles of Confederation
Articles of Confederation – Full Text
Patrick Henry – Virginia Ratifying Convention
Totally Dissolved: The Lee Resolution and Independence
Common Sense: The Most Brilliant Pamphlet in History?
Today in History: First Draft of the Articles of Confederation Introduced
Constitutional Genealogy: Benjamin Franklin’s First Articles of Confederation
Bill of Rights Institute – Albany Plan
The Albany Plan of Union: Another Predecessor to the Constitution
Jefferson’s Annotated Copy of Franklin’s Proposed Articles
Benjamin Franklin’s Articles of Confederation
MORE VIDEO SOURCES
Watch on Odysee
Watch on Rumble
Watch on Twitter
Watch on Sovren
Watch on Minds
Watch on Gab TV
Watch on Facebook
Watch on Bitchute
Watch on LinkedIn
FOLLOW and SUPPORT TAC:
Become a Member:
Email Newsletter:
RSS:
The post Articles of Confederation: An Introduction appeared first on Tenth Amendment Center.
]]>
Tenth Amendment Center
Articles of Confederation: An Introduction
full
37:49
Amendments to California Fourth Amendment Protection Act Needed to Give It Effect
/2022/11/amendments-to-california-fourth-amendment-protection-act-needed-to-give-it-effect/
Wed, 30 Nov 2022 12:03:10 +0000
/?p=40410
It's difficult to come up with a scenario in which the law as chaptered would have any practical effect. That’s not to say there isn’t one, but it would become operative only in a very narrow range of circumstances. The California legislature can make a few simple fixes to the law to give it practical effect.
The post Amendments to California Fourth Amendment Protection Act Needed to Give It Effect appeared first on Tenth Amendment Center.
]]>
SACRAMENTO, Calif. (Nov. 30, 2022) – In 2014, California Gov. Jerry Brown signed a bill into law that created a foundation to prohibit state participation in federal warrantless surveillance. Now is the time for the California state legislature to take the next step. A few simple amendments would make the law effective in practice.
Then-State Sen. Ted Lieu (D) introduced SB828 in the wake of the Edward Snowden revelations on NSA spying. As overwhelmingly passed in the California Senate, the bill banned the state from participating in, or providing material support or resources to any federal agency engaged in the “illegal and unconstitutional collection of electronic data or metadata, without consent, of any person not based on a warrant that particularly describes the person, place, and thing to be searched or seized.”
The Senate version passed 29-1 and set the stage to turn off state resources to agencies engaged in illegal spying.
But the bill ran into some speed bumps in the Assembly. Sources close to the Tenth Amendment Center indicated that the California Sheriffs Association lobbied heavily behind the scenes in opposition to the bill. An assembly committee ultimately amended the legislation to include language that creates an extremely high threshold before the state can take action to refuse cooperation with the NSA or other agencies engaged in illegal spying.
Under the law as enacted:
“The state shall not provide material support, participation, or assistance in response to a request from a federal agency or an employee of a federal agency to collect the electronically stored information or metadata of any person if the state has