LITTLE ROCK, AR., Mar. 16, 2015 – Any new federal gun control measure would be effectively blocked in Arkansas if a bill filed last week passes into law.
Introduced by Rep. David Meeks, House Bill 1601 (HB1601) would prohibit state and local agents from participating in “the enforcement or effectuation of any federal act, law, order, rule, or regulation issued, enacted, or promulgated on or after the effective date of this act regarding a personal firearm, firearm accessory, or ammunition”.
The bill also prohibits the use of “assets, state funds, or funds allocated by the state to local entities, in whole or in part, to engage in activity that aids a federal agency, federal agent, or corporation providing services to the federal government in the enforcement or any investigation under the enforcement of a federal act, law, order, rule, or regulation issued regarding a personal firearm, firearm accessory, or ammunition.”
In short, if the federal government attempts any further restriction on the right to keep and bear arms, whether by acts of congress, or unilateral moves by the ATF or the President, they’ll find no aid or support in Arkansas.
EFFECTIVE
Based on James Madison’s advice for states and individuals in Federalist #46, a “refusal to cooperate with officers of the Union” is an extremely effectively method to bring down federal gun control measures because most enforcement actions rely on help, support and leadership in the states.
HB1601 would leave the federal government to implement and enforce any such federal gun control measures on its own, with no state cooperation whatsoever. While the state of Arkansas would not actively interfere with federal enforcement efforts, its lack of participation and refusal to provide resources would effectively block such laws within Arkansas’ border. The federal government simply doesn’t have the resources to enforce these kinds of bans on its own.
The way this could play out, said David Kopel, an adjunct constitutional law professor at the University of Denver, is that if the federal government were to ban...
More Amazing Animated Gifs HEREAnimated Gif Collection #2 HERE
Who Was Malcolm X?
- Civil rights activist and Nation of Islam member
- Called for black separatism
- Exhorted blacks to combat racism “by any means necessary,” including violence
- Said: “History proves that the white man is a devil.”
- Vociferous anti-Semite
- Was murdered by 3 Nation of Islam members in February 1965
See also: Nation of Islam
Born as Malcolm Little on May 19, 1925 in Omaha, Nebraska, Malcolm X was the son ofEarl Little, a preacher who avidly supported the black nationalist Marcus Garvey. The Little family moved to Milwaukee in 1926, and then to Lansing, Michigan in 1928. Malcolm's father died in 1931, most likely by falling under the wheels of a streetcar he was attempting to board while drunk. When Malcolm's mother was committed to a mental institution six years later, the boy went to live with family friends who also resided in Lansing. Hewas expelled from West Junior High School for misbehavior at the age of thirteen. In 1939 he enrolled at Mason High School (in Mason, Michigan), where he was the only black student on campus, excelled academically, and was voted class president.
But Malcolm dropped out of school at age 15 and went to live with his older half-sister, Ella, in Boston. He subsequently took jobs as a shoe shiner and kitchen worker but soon fell into a life of crime. In February 1946 he was sentenced to 10 years in prison for burglary.
During his time behind bars, Malcolm voraciously read books he borrowed from the prison library. In about April 1948, his brother, who had recently joined the Nation of Islam (NOI), visited Malcolm in prison and extolled the virtues of that organization. Malcolm promptly immersed himself in the teachings of NOI leader Elijah Muhammad, who advocated black separatism from an irredeemably racist and oppressive white society.
By the time he was paroled in 1952, Malcolm was a devoted NOI member. Three weeks after...
FOR MONTHS, PRIVACY advocates have been pointing to flaws in CISA, the new reincarnation of the cybersecurity bill known as CISPA that Congress has been kicking around since 2013. But today that zombie bill lurched one step closer to becoming law.
The Senate Intelligence Committee passed the Cybersecurity Information Sharing Act, or CISA, by a vote of 14 to one Thursday afternoon. The bill, like the failed Cybersecurity Information Sharing and Protection Act that proceeded it, is designed to encourage the sharing of data between private companies and the government to prevent and respond to cybersecurity threats. But privacy critics have protested that CISA would create a legal framework for companies to more closely monitor internet users and share that data with government agencies.
After Thursday’s vote, Senator Ron Wyden—the only member of the Senate’s intelligence committee to vote against the bill—repeated those privacy concerns in a public statement. “If information-sharing legislation does not include adequate privacy protections then that’s not a cybersecurity bill—it’s a surveillance bill by another name,” he wrote. “It makes sense to encourage private firms to share information about cybersecurity threats. But this information sharing is only acceptable if there are strong protections for the privacy rights of law-abiding American citizens.”
Wyden’s exact concerns about the final bill aren’t yet clear: A dozen amendments to the bill were made in a closed-door session just before it was put to a vote, and those amendments haven’t yet been...
