CA AB 351 2 nullify indefinite detentionUNANIMOUSLY passed From Assembly now call Senate!

[sailingaway]

and they just passed a law to put a $50 background check fee on ammo.

But even if every state is only willing to nullify 'their' view of bad stuff, it gives nullification itself support.


Tenth amendment center says the vote was unanimous 59 to 0

http://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com/files/2013/05/ca-assembly-ndaa-vote.jpg


http://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com/2013/05/on-indefinite-detention-california-assembly-tells-washington-dc-not-here/

http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?411988-Action-Alert-GOING-2-FULL-ASSEMBLY-AB351-CA-NDAA-%93Indefinite-Detention-%94-NULLIFICATION


If passed into law, AB351 would make 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 broadens 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.”

I suspect they didn't want to pin it to a bill this administration signed, but as long as they pass it...

http://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com/2013/05/on-indefinite-detention-california-assembly-tells-washington-dc-not-here/#.UalXqdK87Tp

[sailingaway]

now contact the Senate to pass it!

Contacts here: http://findyourrep.legislature.ca.gov/

[osan]

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]


Whoopdee friggin' doo. If such detentions were in fact such a moral outrage to these paragons of rectitude, why have they not stated that any such actions taken on the part of any federal instrument would be actively countervailed and the perpetrators charged with conspiracy to attempt human rights violations? Why are they not saying they would investigate and charge every last stinking rat in the chain of command who was involved, up to and including the POTUS?

The only right answer here is to face such people with overwhelming firepower, apprehend, detain, charge, try, convict, and cage for not a nano-second less than one full decade at hard labor in a place where large, lonely men of questionable sexual orientation would show them the world nightly. This passive-aggressive deal is meaningless fluff, even if it brings some official attention to the notion of nullification.

I would not get too excited about this, especially coming from the same wankers who, as you pointed out, just slapped a $50 tax on ammo purchases.

Do we really need to roll the eyes here?