” State legislators around the country have introduced more than 200 bills aiming to nullify regulations and laws coming out of Washington, D.C., as they look to rein in the federal government.
The legislative onslaught, which includes bills targeting federal restrictions on firearms, experimental treatments and hemp, reflects growing discord between the states and Washington, state officials say.
“ You have a choice,” said Kentucky state Rep. Diane St. Onge (R). “To sit back and not do anything or say anything and let overregulation continue — or you have the alternative choice to speak up about it and say, ‘We know what you are doing or intend to do and we do not think that it is constitutional and we as a state are not going to stand for it.’ ”
Last month, St. Onge introduced H.B. 13 to nullify federal gun control laws within Kentucky state lines. Similar legislation has been introduced in seven other states.
“ This law is saying the sheriff and those under him do not have to follow federal regulations,” she said.
Friction between the states and the federal government dates back to the nation’s earliest days. But there has been an explosion of bills in the last year, according to the Los Angeles-based Tenth Amendment Center, which advocates for the state use of nullification to tamp down on overzealous regulation.
“ People are becoming more and more concerned about the overreach of the federal government,” said center spokesman Mike Maharrey. “They feel the federal government is trying to do too much, it’s too big and it’s getting more and more in debt.” “
Nullification is gaining steam as this article in The Hill shows
” The Federal Aviation Administration on Tuesday issued permits to use drones to monitor crops and photograph properties for sale, marking the first time permission has been granted to companies involved in agriculture and real estate.
The exemptions to the current ban on commercial drone flights were granted to Advanced Aviation Solutions in Star, Idaho, for “crop scouting,” and to Douglas Trudeau of Tierra Antigua Realty in Tucson, Arizona.
Advanced Aviation Solutions plans to use its 1.5-pound, fixed-wing eBee drone to make photographic measurements of farm fields, determine the health of crops and look for pests. The aim is to save farmers time walking through fields. The drone also can carry sensors that pick up information invisible to the naked eye, which can help determine which fields need watering.”
Will this latest licensing effort by the Feds morph into yet another example of cronyism and reward towards favored , connected corporations ? Of course . Notice that the film industry was one of the first to gain their exemption from the State .
CNS News has more
” A 57-year-old ban on silencers, the noise-suppressing devices that are used to muffle the sound of a gunshot, could be lifted this week.
The Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission will meet this Thursday in Key Largo to discuss the issue. Advocates say the rule change would be good for a hunter’s health. According to hunters, manufacturers, and the National Rifle Association, a suppressor can protect a hunter’s hearing from the loud bang that is heard while hunting in the field or shooting at a gun range. It would also allow sportsmen to shoot near residential areas without disturbing residents. “
” Every Fourth of July there are stories about idiotic things that people do while celebrating Independence Day. This year’s story is probably going to be about drones and fireworks.
The proliferation of consumer drones (also known as quadcopters or remote controlled helicopters) has generated countless news stories about irresponsible things that people do with their new toys. Those stories have prompted many to call for new laws, but most of the unsafe conduct we witness occurring with these toys is already arguably covered by existing laws. Consider the video posted by Jos Stiglingh, that’s sure to give amateur drone operators a few bad ideas. The video, filmed with a GoPro Hero 3 Silver, shows the view from a DJI Phantom 2 quadcopter flying in and above a fireworks show.”
There is no doubt that the video afforded by the drone flight through the fireworks is spectacular and there is certainly a measure of risk to the drone from the exploding shells , but having worked for several professional fireworks companies I must state the the tone that the Forbes author adopts towards the end of his piece is a bit alarmist as regards the danger posed to the pyro-technicians and spectators …
” There’s no doubt that the HD video is stunning. It’s also dangerous and likely unlawful (at least if it occurred in the United States). The flight is unsafe as the existence of the drone in the airspace above the fireworks display creates an increased risk of hazardous debris (from the fireworks or the drone) falling into spectator areas. There is also the remote possibility that a firework colliding with a drone may divert the pyrotechnic downward into spectator areas, causing it to detonate where it otherwise should not. The drone in this video made it safely through the fireworks, but put a few more drones in the air and you’re also bound to have a mid-air collision. All of these factors show how this operation was unsafe. While this drone operator escaped getting hit with a firework, there’s no way he could have planned that. Avoiding the explosions was luck, not skill. “
First and foremost one must consider that these grand pyrotechnic displays are not shot straight up , nor are they aimed to explode over the tops of the audience’s heads . That would be ludicrous in the extreme . All displays are set up with the express understanding that any given lift charge could fail thus enabling a product of anywhere from 3″ to 12″ to explode at any altitude , including in the tube itself . For that very reason all displays are set up far from the audience and aimed over an area , often water , that is uninhabited .
All fireworks displays are carefully set up with the idea that dangerous debris will fail from the sky and an obliterated 5 pound drone is unlikely to cause any harm to anything other than the owner’s bank account . Just another example of State control , this time propagated with the help of Forbes .
Read more at Forbes
” A civilian tries to call out the police on their “above the law” hypocrisy by attempting to pull over and cite an officer driving down the road without his seat belt on. The cop scoffs at the underling’s attempts, but it is a valiant effort nonetheless.
The seat belt requirement is nothing short of another tax on driving and it should be completely up to the individual whether or not they would like to wear their seat belt. Yes seat belts save lives, but this does not grant the state the right to violate your person or property to mandate that you wear one.”
This video is a year and a half old but we must commend the citizen for his efforts , futile as they were . Read more at the Free Thought Project .
” Flex Your Rights is a non-profit institution that educates citizens about their constitutional rights and how to exercise them. We the The Libertarian Republic spend a lot of time informing the public about abuses of authority by police. Now we’d like you to spend a half hour of your time learning how to defend yourself by understanding and asserting your civil rights.”
Thanks to The Libertarian Republic
Published on Apr 30, 2012
” MORE INFO ON DEALING WITH POLICE ……
Know-Your-Rights DVDs: http://flexyourrights.org/shop
Official Facebook Page: http://facebook.com/FlexYourRights
Get Flex Your Rights Emails: http://flexyourrights.org/subscribe
Got questions about dealing with cops? We got answers:http://flexyourrights.org/faq “
” Since federal law specifically addressing the issuance of concealed carry licenses does not yet exist in the U.S., individual states are left with the task of regulating concealed carry laws within their own borders.
Over the past few decades, most states in the country have gradually shifted their carry laws to become less restrictive. Despite fewer restrictions, legally carrying a concealed firearm remains vastly different from one state to another—and in some cases, one town to another. The diversity of laws naturally creates ambiguity around the entire topic of concealed carry legislation.
Aside from background checks, training requirements and application fees, states are generally classified into one of four categories based on how they issue licenses.
Permitless/Unrestricted – Also commonly known as “Constitutional Carry,” individuals can carry a concealed firearm without obtaining a license or permit.
Shall-Issue – Permits are required to carry a concealed handgun, but the granting authority has no discretion over the issuance of permits. The granting authority shall issue a permit if an applicant meets distinct criteria in the law.
May-Issue – The granting authority may issue a permit at their discretion, and usually require “good cause” or a “significant reason” to carry a firearm.
No-Issue/Restricted – Individuals cannot obtain a license to legally carry a concealed firearm.”
Read the rest at Guns & Ammo