activistpost--2019-01-11--Chinese Authorities Go After Citizens For Using VPNs Skirting Online Censorship

Chinese Authorities Go After Citizens For Using VPNs, Skirting Online Censorship

Two Chinese internet users are currently facing punishment for doing what an estimated 1-3% of people living in mainland China do every day: access the global internet.  Among other methods, many internet users in China depend on Virtual Private Networks (VPNs) to skirt or circumvent China’s “Great Firewall”, the robust filtering system that blocks sensitive information and overseas websites from China’s domestic network.  While VPN use is permitted in certain contexts — mainly for government agencies and large private companies — China’s vigorous internet control regime has in recent years put significant resources towards preventing internet users from using these and other similar tools.  In June 2017, the government enacted a Cybersecurity Law that codified a growing set of rules on internet use and content, strengthening internet operator responsibilities and duties, and demanding real-name registration of individual internet users. The legislation also addressed VPNs. It directly compelled Apple to take down VPN apps from its China app store, and it appears to have triggered multiple arrests of individuals selling unlicensed VPNs.  The new law does not explicitly address or criminalize the individual use of such technologies. And while it sends a clear signal about what types of technology off limits, many Chinese netizens continue to believe that using circumvention tools will not bring them trouble. But two new “administrative punishment” cases may change this.  In December, a Shaoguan resident was fined RMB 1000 (roughly USD $163) for setting up and using a VPN to access the internet. The Guangdong Public Security Enforcement Information Platform posted a report detailing his punishment.  Zhu Yunfeng, 30, was using Lantern Pro, a mobile app and circumvention tool that connects users to a decentralized network of nodes that can relay user traffic to any website, regardless of censorship barriers.  Unable to justify Zhu’s punishment under the new cybersecurity law, public security officials instead cited Articles 6 and 14 of the 1996 “Rules for Provisional Regulations of the Administration of International Networking of Computer Information in the People’s Republic of China”.  Article 6 stipulates that when connecting to an international network from within China, all computer devices must use infrastructure provided by state-licensed telecoms. Any individual or organization that is not state-licensed is forbidden from offering or building alternative information channels to access the international network. Although Lantern is a globally recognized circumvention tool, it does not have a state-issued license in China.  On January 4, a similar case unfolded in Chongqing, where Huang Chengcheng was summoned by police on the same charges as Zhu. But authorities have not disclosed the details of his case.  Both cases indicate that today, the very act of circumventing the internet through an unregistered channel is considered illegal.  Many netizens questioned why some people are authorized to circumvent the GFW, while others can be punished for doing the same. On Twitter, @tangyongtao1 asked why state-run media are allowed to circumvent the Great Firewall, pointing to Global Times’ editor-in chief Hu Xijin.  Does the regulation not apply to government officials? A Guangdong netizen was fined RMB 1000 yuan by the Shaoguan public security authority for illegal accessing the international network. Netizens were asking if circumventing the network to get access to Twitter is illegal, why Global Times’ Hu Xijin can hold an account on Twitter and interact with Chinese and foreign netizens on Twitter. Should he be punished as well? How about Xinhu, People’s Daily and CCTV? They all have Twitter accounts? — why some people enjoy privileges that are protected like national secrecy?  It is well known that Hu Xijin publishes his tweets using a mobile-based circumvention app, rather than via state-owned telecoms’ network as written in the regulation.  Prominent tech blogger William Long sought to hold Hu to the same standards as netizens in Guangdong and Chongqing:  The news may serve as a wake up call to Chinese netizens. On Weibo, in a news thread about the administrative decision, netizens expressed their frustration about the incident:  Some pointed out that the interpretation of the regulation was mistaken:


activistpost--2019-01-14--Ocasio-Cortez Green New Deal Astonishes Vast for Geoengineering No Oversight

Ocasio-Cortez’ Green New Deal Astonishes: Vast $$ for Geoengineering, No Oversight

Bestselling Third Wave Feminist, author and journalist, Naomi Wolf has spent most of her professional life as a darling of the Liberal establishment but she is its rare denizen who is more committed to the truth than to the approval of her peers.  Wolf’s latest venture is called the Daily Clout, which makes tabled legislation easier to understand for the average citizen. In this video, she breaks down the Green New Deal, promoted by Freshman Congresswoman Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez and so far supported by Elizabeth Warren, Cory Booker an Beto O’Rourke.  Wolf gives us an excellent analysis of the Green New Deal, which she suspects might be a dialectical setup where “You get the same old power elites owning everything,” complaining that some of its ideas are gifts to “private sector hyper-elite stakeholders, without any kind of oversight from the people of the nation.”  Reading the language of the 11-page Googledocs document, entitled, “DRAFT TEXT FOR PROPOSED ADDENDUM TO HOUSE RULES FOR 116TH CONGRESS OF THE UNITED STATES”, she tells us, “This is not legislation…this is not delivering a bill to you or a new law. It is delivering a new form of power…It sets the stage for draft legislation to be written by people who weren’t elected to do it.” In other words, the committee of appointees that this proposal forms will entirely circumvent the will of the American people.  The language of this proposal seeks to take over the entire economy and a specific statement, “To draw down greenhouse gases from the atmosphere and oceans,” refers to patented, experimental, carbon sequestration geoengineering technologies owned by venture capitalists in Silicon Valley.  Wolf has been reporting on “SCoPEx”, the Stratospheric Controlled Perturbation Experiment and she says the proposal’s language represents a gigantic allocation of the nation’s resources to these new, experimental technologies that are owned by non-transparent Silicon Valley companies like Intellectual Ventures.  She adds that this language: “To promote economic and environmental justice and equality,” indicates that, “It’s not just about saving the planet, it folds in very intensive proposals and programs in the name of economic equality. I like economic equality. I think our country needs more of it…but it hands over the resources, the allocations, the execution of ending those income disparities to this committee of these 15 people, who are not elected by you for this committee.  “What worries me about this, as an American,” Wolf says, “is that we have that language. It’s called the Constitution of the United States. It guarantees equality for all. So, Paragraph 6 basically re-writes the Constitution…I’m a feminist and I’m anti-racist but…it worries me that these 15 people are deciding what is ‘racial justice’, what is ‘gender justice’, what is ‘regional justice’, what is ‘economic justice’, what is ‘social justice’ – that’s not what we elected them for and that’s not the way our government is supposed to work.” Wolf says she wants some kind of Green New Deal “yesterday” but at the outset, she sees a great deal of problems with this proposal. What it looks like to me is that some Silicon Valley geoengineering firms want Ocasio-Cortez to tax the American people at up to 70% to pay them to spray us with chemtrails and to re-write the Constitution. No, thanks! This article was sourced from ForbiddenKnowledgeTV.net


activistpost--2019-01-28--Im Not Going to Enforce That Sheriffs Disobey New Anti-Gun Laws Refuse to Disarm Citizens

“I’m Not Going to Enforce That” — Sheriffs Disobey New Anti-Gun Laws; Refuse to Disarm Citizens

Klickitat County, WA — In reaction to the tragic shootings throughout 2018, Washington state has passed and is planning to pass a slew of new anti-gun bills that will make them one of the most regulated states in the country. But these bills are being met by resistance from an unlikely group. A handful of sheriffs is standing up to the “unconstitutional” nature of the bills and is promising disobedience.  Sheriff Bob Songer is one of these sheriffs who is outspoken about his resistance. During an interview with The Guardian, published over the weekend, Songer told the newspaper that the anti-gun legislation passed last November “is unconstitutional on several grounds. I’ve taken the position that as an elected official, I am not going to enforce that law.”  Songer—like every single sheriff and law enforcement officer in the country—swore an oath to uphold the Constitution, and now he’s overtly honoring it by protecting the Second Amendment.  Songer also cited ongoing litigation by the National Rife Association gun industry lobby and others which aims to demonstrate the laws violate both the second amendment and the state’s constitution. He also said that if other agencies attempted to seize weapons from county residents under the auspices of the new laws, he would consider preventively “standing in their doorway”. In November, the state’s voters handily passed an initiative, I-1639, which mostly targeted semi-automatic rifles. As of 1 January, purchasers of these weapons must now be over 21, undergo an enhanced background check, must have completed a safety course, and need to wait 9 days to take possession of their weapon. Also, gun owners who fail to store their weapons safely risk felony “community endangerment” charges. Feeling the wind at their backs after the ballot, gun campaigners and liberal legislators have now gone even further in the new legislative session. Bills introduced in the last week to Washington’s Democrat-dominated legislature look to further restrict firearms. Some laws would ban high capacity magazines and plastic guns made with 3D printers. Others would mandate training for concealed carry permits, and remove guns and ammo during and after domestic violence incidents.  The sheriff of Ferry County agrees with Songer and is also promising not to enforce the laws. Sheriff Ray Maycumber told The Guardian that he will resist the legislation as well.  Police officers standing up for the gun rights of the citizens they serve is rare, but it has happened before. In Connecticut in 2014, legislators passed into law highly restrictive gun control, gun bans, and bans on high capacity magazines.  The laws were so overreaching and unconstitutional that hundreds of law enforcement officers came together to resist it.  At the time, 250 law enforcement officers in Connecticut signed an open letter stating that they will not enforce the new anti-gun and magazine laws, which they considered to be a violation of the Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution.  Also, some entire towns—law enforcement officials and politicians alike—have moved to become “sanctuary cities” for gun rights in the wake of the recent anti-gun legislation sweeping the country.  As TFTP reported last year, in Effingham County, IL, the town board voted in April to order its employees not to enforce any laws that would “unconstitutionally restrict the Second Amendment” to the U.S. Constitution.  Effingham County State’s Attorney Bryan Kibler said the measure is meant to act as a warning shot to tell the state legislature that the county does not want unnecessary gun control measures, or for the sale of firearms to be jeopardized. The resolution states:  The Right of the People to Keep and Bear Arms is guaranteed as an Individual Right under the Second Amendment to the United States Constitution and under the Constitution of the State of Illinois, and; the Right of the People to Keep and Bear Arms for defense of Life, Liberty, and Property is regarded as an Inalienable Right by the People of Effingham County, Illinois, and the People of Effingham County, Illinois, derive economic benefit from all safe forms of firearms recreation, hunting, and shooting conducted within Effingham County using all types of firearms allowable under the United States Constitution.  As TFTP has reported, some sheriffs have even gone so far as to encourage citizens to arm themselves, noting that a well armed society is a safer society. “In light of recent events that have occurred in the United States and around the world I want to encourage citizens of Ulster County who are licensed to carry a firearm to PLEASE DO SO,” urged Sheriff Paul Van Blarcum of New York’s Ulster County in a Facebook post, after the Paris massacre in 2015. “I think it’s important to remind everybody with the way things are, you’ve got people coming in with long rifles just slaughtering people,” Van Blarcum told the Daily Freeman newspaper. He is hoping that next time an incident of that kind occurs, “there is an armed citizen around” to respond. Detroit Police Chief James Craig, agreed, and explaining that police cannot be everywhere all the time, he noted that “if you’re a terrorist, or a car-jacker, you want unarmed citizens.”  Indeed, as we have long contended here at the Free Thought Project, the only thing that stops a bad guy with a gun is a good guy with a gun. Sheriffs who continue to acknowledge this and stand up for the rights of citizens to protect themselves, deserve to be recognized. Please share this story in hopes that other law enforcement officers across the country may take similar stances—as true change comes when good people disobey bad laws. Matt Agorist is an honorably discharged veteran of the USMC and former intelligence operator directly tasked by the NSA. This prior experience gives him unique insight into the world of government corruption and the American police state. Agorist has been an independent journalist for over a decade and has been featured on mainstream networks around the world. Agorist is also the Editor at Large at the Free Thought Project, where this article first appeared. Follow @MattAgorist on Twitter, Steemit, and now on Minds.


activistpost--2019-02-03--Russian Anti-Fake News Bill Rushed Through Parliament Despite Vocal Opposition

Russian “Anti-Fake News” Bill Rushed Through Parliament Despite Vocal Opposition

The Russian State Duma is considering multiple bills of law that would further stifle free speech in Russia’s already heavily restricted internet environment.  One targets expressions of “willful disregard” towards the state. Another targets disinformation. All of them echo increasingly global concerns among governments about the political implications of disinformation — and unbridled criticism — on the internet. And all have been heavily criticized by Russian civil society groups, experts, users and even the government’s own ministers. Yet these bills promoting possible further crackdown on free speech still trudge on through the legislative system.  The first bill, a “sovereign internet” initiative, which is yet to reach the floor of the lower chamber of Russia’s bicameral parliament, seeks to establish state-regulated internet exchange points that would allow for increased monitoring and control over internet traffic moving into and out of the country.  One of the two bills co-authored by the controversial senator Andrey Klishas — who walked out of his own initiative’s committee hearing and refused to present it personally on the Duma’s floor — suggests new restrictions on “knowingly and maliciously disseminating false information of public importance.”  Under this law, individuals, officials or organizations accused of spreading fake news “disguised as genuine public announcements” which are found to promote public disorder or other serious disturbances could be fined for up to a million rubles (slightly above USD $15,000), unless they remove the violating content in a day’s time. The bill also provides measures through which Roskomnadzor, Russia’s media watchdog, will order ISPs to block websites hosting the offending content.  The bill passed its first reading in late January with flying colours, receiving 336 votes in its favor and only 44 against, thanks to the 2016 landslide which guaranteed the ruling United Russia party an absolute voting majority.  The “anti-fake news” bill will be reviewed again by the Duma in February, conditioned on the revision of some of its most contentious points. The bill pushed through by “Putin’s party” was met with a rare response of significant opposition, even among the normally acquiescent branches of Russia’s highly centralized and executive-biased power structure. The attorney general’s office, among others, criticized the bill’s vague definitions as potentially damaging to citizens’ civil rights.  The second bill, which came up for review alongside the fake news-busting proposal, is seen as being even more controversial. It seeks to punish “vulgar expressions of wilful disregard” towards “the state, its symbols and organs of its power” with fines of up to 5,000 rubles (around USD $76) and detention for up to 15 days. The bill also passed in the first reading on the same day, despite vocal criticism from both government members (Deputy Communications Minister Alexey Volin said that “calmly accepting criticism” was an obligation for state officials, adding that they weren’t “made of sugar”) and opposition parties.  A video clip from the Duma’s floor made the rounds on social media with a Liberal Democratic Party of Russia member berating his colleagues for having thin skins:  Many Russian journalists felt the bill was directly aimed at them. Sergey Smirnov, the editor-in-chief of Mediazona, an independent crowd-funded online news outlet focused on the abuses inside Russia’s justice system, wrote on his Telegram channel:  One of the bill’s authors Dmitry Vyatkin explained that criticism of individual officials wouldn’t be considered disrespectful towards the authorities under the new law. As for the fake news bill, he said the law could only be activated in cases where there was clear intent to endanger people’s lives or health or driving them to the streets en masse. Vyatkin also noted that the law wouldn’t affect journalistic investigations and reports. Obviously, it will affect journalistic investigations and reports, there can be no doubt about that. That’s why they’re voting for this bill. On top of that, if Komsomolskaya Pravda or Lifenews [pro-Kremlin tabloids] publish fake news that lead to murders, no one will bear any responsibility. And when they want to put the pressure on the BBC, they’ll find ten different absurd reasons. The BBC is currently being investigated by Roskomnadzor for supposedly violating Russian media laws — in a move that’s been openly described as a retaliation for a similar investigation of the Russian state-owned channel RT by officials in the UK. Smirnov’s quote also refers to of an infamous case where members of a murderous neo-Nazi gang were inspired by distorted or severely misreported news in the media to attack and kill ethnic minorities, human rights activists and journalists. Both bills are noteworthy in the global context, as their authors each have explicitly invoked “anti-fake news” laws and proposals in Western countries as inspiration. Andrey Klishas, the senator who co-authored both, cited Germany as an example in both cases, especially the German “Network Enforcement Act” or NetzDG — a law targeting online hate speech that drew criticism from human rights groups for its heavy-handed approach and vague definitions. Ironically, many of the recent “anti-fake news” bills and initiatives in Europe have been triggered by the fear of Russian disinformation. In recent years, repressive governments around the world, including Russia, Myanmar and Egypt, have used “fake news” as a pretext for clamping down on free speech. Top image caption and credit: Despite heated debates, two controversial pro-censorship bills were approved by the Russian parliament // duma.gov.ru under CC4.0 This article was sourced from Global Voices.


activistpost--2019-02-05--Signed By the Governor New Mexico Electronic Communications Privacy Act

Signed By the Governor: New Mexico Electronic Communications Privacy Act

Yesterday, New Mexico Governor Michelle Lujan Grisham signed a bill into law that limits the warrantless use of stingray devices to track people’s location and sweep up electronic communications, and more broadly protects the privacy of electronic data. The new law will also hinder the federal surveillance state.  Sen. Peter Wirth (D) filed Senate Bill 199 (SB199) on Jan. 8. Titled the “Electronic Communications Privacy Act,” the new law will help block the use of cell site simulators, known as “stingrays.” These devices essentially spoof cell phone towers, tricking any device within range into connecting to the stingray instead of the tower, allowing law enforcement to sweep up communications content, as well as locate and track the person in possession of a specific phone or other electronic device.  The bill requires police to obtain a warrant or wiretap order before deploying a stingray device, unless they have the explicit permission of the owner or authorized possessor of the device, or if the device is lost or stolen. SB199 includes an exception to the warrant requirement for emergency situations. Even then, police must apply for a warrant within 3 days and destroy any information obtained if the court denies the application.  On Jan. 24, the Senate passed SB199 by a 41-0 vote. On Jan. 30, the House concurred with a vote of 68-0. With the governor’s signature, the law will go into effect 90 days after adjournment of the legislature.  SB199 also bars law enforcement agencies from compelling a service provider or any person other than the owner of the device without a warrant or wiretap order. This includes actual communication content such as phone conversations, text messages and email, location information and other metadata such as IP addresses pertaining to a person or device participating in the communication.  A service provider may still share information voluntarily under the law. Law enforcement will have to destroy such information within 90 days unless it gets the consent of the owner or a court order.  Provisions in SB199 will severely limit sharing of any legally obtained data.  The legislation provides a legal remedy for anybody whose data is obtained in violation of the law.  A similar bill unanimously passed in both houses of the New Mexico legislature in 2017, but Gov. Susana Martinez vetoed the bill, saying she didn’t want to “burden law enforcement officials.” Martinez was term-limited out of office and Democrat Gov. Michelle Lujan Grisham replaced her in 2019.  The federal government funds the vast majority of state and local stingray programs, attaching one important condition. The feds require agencies acquiring the technology to sign non-disclosure agreements. This throws a giant shroud over the program, even preventing judges, prosecutors and defense attorneys from getting information about the use of stingrays in court. The feds actually instruct prosecutors to withdraw evidence if judges or legislators press for information. As the Baltimore Sun reported in April 2015, a Baltimore detective refused to answer questions on the stand during a trial, citing a federal non-disclosure agreement.  “Does this document instruct you to withhold evidence from the state’s attorney and Circuit Court, even upon court order to produce?” he asked.  As privacysos.org put it, “The FBI would rather police officers and prosecutors let ‘criminals’ go than face a possible scenario where a defendant brings a Fourth Amendment challenge to warrantless stingray spying.”  The experience of a Pinellas County, Florida, man further highlights the shroud of secrecy around the use of stingray devices, along with the potential for abuse of power inherent in America’s law enforcement community.  The feds sell the technology in the name of “anti-terrorism” efforts. With non-disclosure agreements in place, most police departments refuse to release any information on the use of stingrays. But information obtained from the Tacoma Police Department revealed that it uses the technology primarily for routine criminal investigations.  Some privacy advocates argue that stingray use can never happen within the parameters of the Fourth Amendment because the technology necessarily connects to every electronic device within range, not just the one held by the target. And the information collected by these devices undoubtedly ends up in federal databases.  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. In other words, stingrays create the potential for the federal government to track the movement of millions of Americans with no warrant, no probable cause, and without the people even knowing it.  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. The federal government encourages and funds stingrays at the state and local level across the U.S., thereby undoubtedly gaining access to a massive data pool on Americans without having to expend the resources to collect the information itself. By placing restrictions on stingray use, state and local governments limit the data available that the feds can access. In a nutshell, without state and local cooperation, the feds have a much more difficult time gathering information. Passage of SB199 strikes a major blow to the surveillance state and is a win for privacy. By allowing defendants to suppress information obtained in violation of the law, SB199 will hinder one practical effect of NSA spying in New Mexico. Reuters revealed the extent of such NSA data sharing with state and local law enforcement in an August 2013 article. According to documents obtained by the news agency, the NSA passes information to police through a formerly secret DEA unit known Special Operations Divisions and the cases “rarely involve national security issues.” Almost all of the information involves regular criminal investigations, not terror-related investigations. In other words, not only does the NSA collect and store this data, using it to build profiles, the agency encourages state and local law enforcement to violate the Fourth Amendment by making use of this information in their day-to-day investigations. This is “the most threatening situation to our constitutional republic since the Civil War,” Binney said. Michael Maharrey [send him email] is the Communications Director for the Tenth Amendment Center, where this article first appeared. He proudly resides in the original home of the Principles of ’98 – Kentucky. See his blog archive here and his article archive here. He is the author of the book, Our Last Hope: Rediscovering the Lost Path to Liberty. You can visit his personal website at MichaelMaharrey.com and like him on Facebook HERE.


activistpost--2019-02-07--Alabama Police Will Not Allow Poor Drivers To Leave The State

If you are too poor to pay a traffic ticket or a fine in Alabama the police will not let you leave the state.  You read that right, the Alabama Law Enforcement Agency will issue poor people “hardship drivers  licenses” but you cannot leave.  The mass media is falling all over themselves praising the new law, saying “this rule could help tens of thousands of people, over 20,000 alone had their licenses suspended just an for inability to pay for fines and fees that were assets to them,” said Dev Wakeley.  “They will be able to drive to work to school to medical appointments, to civic appointments or civic organization events as well as you know to go out and vote or if they need to do household chores or things of that nature,” says Captain Jon Archer of the Alabama Law Enforcement Agency. (Source)  Captain Archer confirms that poor people will not be allowed to leave Alabama.  Hardship drivers licenses exist in every state and are mostly used for minors and DUI offenders; they are not used to punish the poor.  An article in Alabama Today claims police have begun accepting applications to restore limited driving privileges to thousands of motorists who simply are too poor to pay their ticket.  According to Senate Bill 55 the police will only give poor people a hardship drivers license if they do not pose a risk to public safety.  Welcome to American policing where one’s inability to pay a ticket or a fine is now a risk to “public safety.”  Before Alabamians are allowed to drive again, Big Brother wants to know things like where you work and go to church. They also want to know the EXACT routes you will take to get there.


activistpost--2019-03-13--Kentucky Governor Signs Constitutional Carry Bill into Law

Kentucky Governor Signs “Constitutional Carry” Bill into Law

Kentucky Gov. Matt Bevin has signed a bill into law making it legal for state residents to carry firearms concealed without a license and also fostering an environment more hostile to federal gun control.  A coalition of 11 Republicans sponsored Senate Bill 150 (SB150). Under the new law, it is now legal to carry a firearm concealed in Kentucky without a license.  The state will continue to issue concealed carry licenses for those who wish to carry concealed in states that offer CCDW reciprocity.  SB150 passed the Senate by a 29-8 vote and cleared the House 60-37. With Gov. Bevin’s signature, the law will go into effect 90 after the conclusion of the legislative session.  Several “poison pill” amendments were proposed in the House to effectively kill the bill. Grassroots pressure was instrumental in holding legislators’ feet to the fire and moving the bill forward. Activist T.J. Roberts called the grassroots pressure “fundamental.”  Politicians do not support your fundamental liberty. The grassroots must put pressure on politicians to act in support of liberty. Multiple politicians wanted to kill this bill. Once they realized they would lose their job if they did kill the bill or poison it with anti-gun amendments, they fell in line.  Roberts said grassroots leaders are already looking at ways to build on the momentum.  While permitless carry bills do not directly affect federal gun control, the widespread passage of permitless conceal carry laws in states subtly undermines federal efforts to regulate guns. As we’ve seen with marijuana and industrial hemp, a federal regulation becomes ineffective when states ignore it and pass laws encouraging the prohibited activity anyway.  The federal government lacks the enforcement power necessary to maintain its ban, and people will willingly take on the small risk of federal sanctions if they know the state will not interfere. This increases when the state actively encourages “the market.” Less restrictive state gun laws will likely have a similar impact on federal gun laws. It will make it that much more difficult for the feds to enforce any future federal gun control, and increase the likelihood that states with few limits will simply refuse to cooperate with federal enforcement efforts. State actions such as the passage of SB150 lower barriers for those wanting to the option of defending themselves with firearms and encourages a “gun-friendly” environment that makes federal efforts to limit firearms that much more difficult. Michael Maharrey [send him email] is the Communications Director for the Tenth Amendment Center, where this article first appeared. He proudly resides in the original home of the Principles of ’98 – Kentucky. See his blog archive here and his article archive here. He is the author of the book, Our Last Hope: Rediscovering the Lost Path to Liberty. You can visit his personal website at MichaelMaharrey.com and like him on Facebook HERE


activistpost--2019-03-20--Signed by the Governor Arkansas Law to End Civil Asset Forfeiture

Signed by the Governor: Arkansas Law to End Civil Asset Forfeiture

On Monday, Governor Asa Hutchinson signed a bill that reforms Arkansas’ asset forfeiture laws to prohibit the state from taking a person’s property without a criminal conviction in most situations. Current law already takes a step toward shutting a loophole that would allow state and local police to circumvent the more stringent state asset forfeiture process by passing cases off to the feds.  Sen Bart Hester (R-Cave Springs) introduced Senate Bill 308 (SB308) on Feb. 12. The new law specifically ends civil asset forfeiture in most Arkansas cases and replaces it with a criminal procedure. Under the law, prosecutors cannot proceed with forfeiture without a criminal conviction in all but a handful of cases.  The Institute for Justice gave Arkansas asset forfeiture laws a D- grade, calling them “awful.”  The House passed SB308 by a 93-0 vote. The Senate previously approved the measure 35-0. With Gov. Hutchinson’s signature, the new law will go into effect 90 days after the legislature adjourns.  While some people believe the Supreme Court “ended asset forfeiture,” the recent opinion in Timbs v. Indiana ended nothing. Without further action, civil asset forfeiture remains. Additionally, as law professor Ilya Somin noted, the Court left an important issue unresolved. What exactly counts as an “excessive” in the civil forfeiture context?  Going forward, opponents of civil asset forfeiture could wait and see how lower federal courts will address this “over the next few years,” or they can do what a number of states have already taken steps to do, end the practice on a state level, and opt out of the federal equitable sharing program as well.  While the current asset forfeiture process in Arkansas desperately needs reforming, the state has already taken a step toward withdrawing from a federal program that allows state and local police to circumvent the state process. This will become key if SB308 becomes law.  This is particularly important in light of a policy directive issued in July 2017 by then-Attorney General Jeff Sessions for the Department of Justice (DOJ).  A federal program known as “Equitable Sharing” allows prosecutors to bypass more stringent state asset forfeiture laws by passing cases off to the federal government through a process known as adoption. The DOJ directive reiterates full support for the equitable sharing program, directs federal law enforcement agencies to aggressively utilize it, and sets the stage to expand it in the future.  Law enforcement agencies can circumvent more strict state forfeiture laws by claiming cases are federal in nature. Under these arrangements, state officials simply hand cases over to a federal agency, participate in the case, and then receive up to 80 percent of the proceeds. However, when states merely withdraw from participation, the federal directive loses its impact.  Until recently, California faced this situation. The state has some of the strongest state-level restrictions on civil asset forfeiture in the country, but state and local police were circumventing the state process by passing cases to the feds. According to a report by the Institute for Justice, Policing for Profit, California ranked as the worst offender of all states in the country between 2000 and 2013. In other words, California law enforcement was passing off a lot of cases to the feds and collecting the loot. The state closed the loophole in 2016.  Arkansas law prohibits the transfer of property to the feds without judicial approval.  (1) No state or local law enforcement agency may transfer any property seized by the state or local agency to any federal entity for forfeiture under federal law unless the circuit court having jurisdiction over the property enters an order, upon petition by the prosecuting attorney, authorizing the property to be transferred to the federal entity. (2) The transfer shall not be approved unless it reasonably appears that the activity giving rise to the investigation or seizure involves more than one (1) state or the nature of the investigation or seizure would be better pursued under federal law.  As the Tenth Amendment Center previously reported the federal government inserted itself into the asset forfeiture debate in California. The feds clearly want the policy to continue.  We can only guess. But perhaps the feds recognize paying state and local police agencies directly in cash for handling their enforcement would reveal their weakness. After all, the federal government would find it nearly impossible to prosecute its unconstitutional “War on Drugs” without state and local assistance. Asset forfeiture “equitable sharing” provides a pipeline the feds use to incentivize state and local police to serve as de facto arms of the federal government by funneling billions of dollars into their budgets. While current law does limit law enforcement’s ability to transfer forfeiture cases to the federal government by requiring a judicial order, it still leaves a loophole open to circumvent the requirement for a criminal conviction. There is no guarantee judges won’t rubber-stamp prosecutors’ requests. Arkansas should effectively withdraw from the federal equitable sharing program altogether. We can suggest the following language for a bill in the next legislative session: A local, county or state law enforcement agency shall not refer, transfer or otherwise relinquish possession of property seized under state law to a federal agency by way of adoption of the seized property or other means by the federal agency for the purpose of the property’s forfeiture under the federal Controlled Substances Act, Public Law 91 513-Oct. 27, 1970, under the federal Controlled Substances Act or other federal law. In a case in which the aggregate net equity value of the property and currency seized has a value of $50,000 or less, excluding the value of contraband, a local, county or state law enforcement agency or participant in a joint task force or other multijurisdictional collaboration with the federal government (agency) shall transfer responsibility for the seized property to the state prosecuting authority for forfeiture under state law. If the federal government prohibits the transfer of seized property and currency to the state prosecuting authority as required by paragraph (1) and instead requires the property be transferred to the federal government for forfeiture under federal law, the agency is prohibited from accepting payment of any kind or distribution of forfeiture proceeds from the federal government. This article was sourced from the Tenth Amendment Center.


activistpost--2019-03-20--Signed by the Governor Oklahoma Law Prohibits Denial of Firearms Ownership Based on Medical Marijua

Signed by the Governor: Oklahoma Law Prohibits Denial of Firearms Ownership Based on Medical Marijuana Use

Last Thursday, Oklahoma Gov. Kevin Stitt signed a bill into law that formalizes and expands the state’s medical marijuana program, further nullifying federal cannabis prohibition in effect.  Last summer, Oklahoma voters approved a measure legalizing medical marijuana in the state. A coalition of three Republicans introduced House Bill 2612 (HB2612) on Feb. 4 to create a regulatory structure and establish important patient protections for the state medicinal cannabis program.  The Oklahoma House passed HB2612 by a 93-5 vote. The Senate approved the measure 43-5. With Gov. Stitt’s signature, the bill will take effect 90 days after the legislature adjourns.  The new law creates the Oklahoma Medical Marijuana Authority and establishes a registry for qualified patients and their caregivers. It also creates a revolving fund to handle fees, taxes and fines related to the medical marijuana program.  The expanded patient protections written into HB2612 are significant. Under the law, “a medical marijuana patient or caregiver licensee shall not be denied the right to own, purchase or possess a firearm, ammunition, or firearm accessories based solely on his or her status as a medical marijuana patient or caregiver licensee.”  It also prohibits the state from denying a medical marijuana patient access to public assistance programs, including Medicaid, SNAP and WIC.  As Suzanne Sherman noted, the federal government has long claimed the power to restrict the right to keep and bear arms of medical marijuana patients:  If you purchase a firearm from an FFL, you will be presented with the Firearms Transaction Record form 4473, which you must, under penalty of perjury, answer fully and truthfully. You may see it for yourself HERE. Question 11(c) asks prospective gun purchasers if they are unlawfully using any controlled substances. You think, “Hey, I can answer ‘no,’ as marijuana is now legal in my state. Immediately following the inquiry is the following admonition (in bold letters): “Warning: The use or possession of marijuana remains unlawful under Federal law, regardless of whether it has been legalized or decriminalized for medicinal or recreational purposes in the state where you reside.” Not surprisingly, in 2016, the U.S. Ninth Circuit Court of appeals ruled that this restriction does not violate the Second Amendment.  Most states have adopted this federal ban on owning firearms for medical marijuana users, or simply help in its enforcement. For instance, police in Hawaii sent letters to medical marijuana patients who owned guns telling them they had 30 days to surrender their weapons.  While passage of HB2612 does not overturn the federal Gun Control Act of 1968, it does remove the state and local enforcement arm of that unconstitutional act as it applies to medical marijuana users in Oklahoma.  While medical marijuana has become widely accepted across the U.S., the federal government still claims it is illegal. As we’ve seen with immigration sanctuary cities, when state and local enforcement ends, the federal government has an extremely difficult time enforcing their acts.  Under the Controlled Substances Act (CSA) passed in 1970, the federal government maintains complete prohibition of marijuana. Of course, the federal government lacks any constitutional authority to ban or regulate marijuana 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.  Oklahoma’s medical marijuana program removes a layer of laws prohibiting the possession and use of marijuana, and passage of HB2612 expand that, but federal prohibition remains in place.  FBI statistics show that law enforcement makes approximately 99 of 100 marijuana arrests under state, not federal law. By curtailing state prohibition, Kentucky could sweep part of the basis for 99 percent of marijuana arrests. Furthermore, figures indicate it would take 40 percent of the DEA’s yearly annual 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 either. The lesson? The feds lack the resources to enforce marijuana prohibition without state assistance. The Sooner State joins a growing number of states simply ignoring federal prohibition, and nullifying it in practice. 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. In 2018, Michigan voters approved recreational marijuana and Vermont became the first state to fully legalize marijuana through a legislative act. With 33 states and the District of Columbia allowing cannabis for medical use, the feds find themselves in a position where they simply can’t enforce prohibition anymore. “The lesson here is pretty straightforward. 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,” Tenth Amendment Center founder and executive director Michael Boldin said. This article was sourced from The Tenth Amendment Center.


activistpost--2019-04-03--Signed as Law Utah Bans Warrantless Access to Information in the Cloud

Signed as Law: Utah Bans Warrantless Access to Information in the Cloud

Last week, Utah Gov. Gary Herbert signed a bill into law that requires police to get a warrant before accessing data stored in the “cloud.” The new law will not only increase privacy protections in Utah; it will also hinder the federal surveillance state.  Rep. Craig Hall (R-West Valley City) sponsored House Bill 57 (HB57). The new law prohibits law enforcement agencies from accessing electronic information or data transmitted to a “remote computing service” without a warrant based on probable cause in most situations. In effect, it will prohibit police from warrantlessly accessing information uploaded into the “cloud.”  The House passed HB57 by a 71-0 vote. The Senate approved the measure 23-0. With Herbert’s signature, the new law will go into effect May 14.  HB57 does provide some exceptions to the warrant requirement that will allow law enforcement agencies to obtain location information in the event of an emergency involving an imminent risk to an individual of death, serious physical injury, sexual abuse, live-streamed sexual exploitation, kidnapping, or human trafficking; or if a remote computing service inadvertently discovers information that appears to pertain to the commission of a felony, or of a misdemeanor involving physical violence, sexual abuse, or dishonesty. It also allows police to access stored or transmitted data from an electronic device, or electronic information or data transmitted by the owner of the electronic information or data to a remote computing service under a judicially recognized exception to the warrant requirement, or in connection with a report forwarded by the National Center for Missing and Exploited Children under 18 U.S.C. Sec. 2258A.  The new statute specifically excludes information obtained in violation of the law from judicial proceedings.  HB57 expands existing laws already on the books in Utah requiring police to get a warrant before accessing location information, stored data, and transmitted data from an electronic device. The current laws effectively ban the warrantless use of “stingrays.” These devices essentially spoof cell phone towers, tricking any device within range into connecting to the stingray instead of the tower, allowing law enforcement to sweep up communications content, as well as locate and track the person in possession of a specific phone or other electronic device. Current law also requires police to get a warrant before accessing electronic data from third-party providers. Enactment of HB57 will further limit the ability of law enforcement agencies to warrantlessly gather electronic information and data.  It has become standard practice for law enforcement agencies to upload warrantless surveillance data gathered at the state level to federal fusion centers operated by the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) and other federal agencies. Fusion centers serve as clearinghouses for all kinds of information shared between federal, state and local law enforcement agencies—including data gathered by surveillance cameras, drones, intercepted cellphone and email communications, social network spying, as well as ALPRs and other invasive modes of surveillance. The DHS funds and ultimately runs 79 fusion centers across the U.S. The DHS describes homeland security intelligence/information fusion as the ”…process of managing the flow of information to support the rapid identification of emerging terrorism-related threats requiring intervention by government and private-sector authorities.”  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 a broader federal system known as the “information sharing environment” or 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. When states limit the data and information law enforcement agencies can collect, it minimizes the amount of information and data that can end up in this federal information-sharing pipeline. Legislation such as HB57 practically hinders the operation and growth of the federal surveillance state. Simply put if the data is never gathered in the first place, it can’t be shared. In a nutshell, without state and local cooperation, the feds have a much more difficult time gathering information. Enactment of HB57 would strike another blow to the surveillance state and would be a win for privacy. Michael Maharrey [send him email] is the Communications Director for the Tenth Amendment Center, where this article first appeared. He proudly resides in the original home of the Principles of ’98 – Kentucky. See his blog archive here and his article archive here. He is the author of the book, Our Last Hope: Rediscovering the Lost Path to Liberty. You can visit his personal website at MichaelMaharrey.com and like him on Facebook HERE


activistpost--2019-04-03--State Passes Bill To Seize Guns Based on Entirely Unchallenged Accusations With NO Due Process

State Passes Bill To Seize Guns Based on Entirely “Unchallenged” Accusations, With NO Due Process

In February of 2018, after the tragic shooting in Parkland, FL, President Donald Trump took to national television to betray his oath to the Constitution and his supporters and famously said, “take the guns first, go through due process second.” While this was largely ignored by his base and downplayed in the media, since then—that’s exactly what’s been happening.  As politicians and anti-gun rights activists continuously chant, “we don’t want to take your guns,” behind the scenes — in only the year — politicians have been working overtime to limit your right to bear arms.  In just the first six months after the shooting in Parkland and the president’s statement, the Giffords Law Center to Prevent Gun Violence recorded a whopping 55 new gun control measures in 26 states. That number is now far greater as states pass “red flag” gun laws to literally do what Trump advocated for in Feb. 2018. They are taking the guns first and seeking due process second.  Colorado just became the 15th state to pass such a law and if it is signed by the governor—which it will be—Colorado citizens will be subject to laws which allow their guns to be seized without them having any say in it whatsoever.  Citizens who are targeted by the law will be deemed guilty first and only after their guns are taken, will they have a chance to defend themselves in court. This is the de facto removal of due process.  As Reuters reports, under the legislation, a family member or law enforcement officer could petition a judge to seize firearms from a person they think is a threat to themselves or others. The judge could then hold a hearing without the targeted person being present and grant a temporary order for 14 days.  Under the fifth and fourteenth amendments, due process clauses are in place to act as a safeguard from arbitrary denial of life, liberty, or property by the government outside the sanction of law.  In spite of what officials and the media claim, when a person is stripped of their constitutional rights, albeit temporarily, without being given the chance to make their own case based on what can be entirely arbitrary accusations, this is the removal of due process. This is exactly what is happening in Colorado.  This new law is so egregious that even the National Rifle Association (NRA) is speaking out, despite their silence in the face of other “red flag” laws.  “Unchallenged statements made by a petitioner before a judge … would be sufficient for law enforcement to enter that person’s home and confiscate their private property,” the  NRA said in a statement.  What’s more, the overwhelming majority of elected sheriffs in the state—50 out of 62—have been outspoken against this measure. According to Weld County Sheriff Steve Reams, this law also puts cops in danger because they’d be showing up unannounced to steal people’s guns despite no crime having been committed.  Despite the resistance from law enforcement, the bill’s head sponsor disagrees.  “This bill will give law enforcement and families the tools that they need to stop tragedies from constantly happening and save lives,” House Rep. Tom Sullivan (D) said.  Sullivan ran for state representative after he tragically lost his son in the Aurora mass shooting in 2012. While his son’s death is certainly tragic, laws like this one would likely not have prevented it.  We’ve seen this play out before already. Earlier this year, a tragedy unfolded in California as a deranged gunman, Kevin Douglas Limbaugh, walked up on an innocent woman, officer Natalie Corona, pulled out his guns and began shooting her repeatedly until she died. Limbaugh then fired several more shots at others before turning the gun on himself and taking his own life. Had more people been nearby, Limbaugh would’ve likely carried out a mass shooting.  Limbaugh’s case is important to bring up due to the fact that he was subject to California’s “red flag” laws in 2018. Limbaugh was given a high-risk assessment that ordered him to turn in his registered weapons to police, the only one being a Bushmaster AR-15. On November 9, Limbaugh turned in the weapon.  Despite being banned from possessing a weapon, he still obtained one illegally and used it to commit murder.  What’s more, there were already laws on the books that should’ve stopped Nikolas Cruz from ever getting a gun as well. But none of them worked.  Citing Cruz as the reason for advocating the erosion of the 2nd Amendment, the anti-gun activists are claiming he should’ve had his guns taken which would have prevented the tragedy. Sadly, however, they are ignoring the fact that he was accused of multiple felonies by multiple people—and should’ve never been able to purchase a gun in the first place—but law enforcement failed to act on any of it.  The reactionary nature of disarming Americans because deranged psychopaths kill people is dangerous and only serves to keep the guns out of the hands of law abiding citizens as the above two cases illustrate. Moreover, deranged psychopaths don’t even need guns to cause mass death. According to a 2015 study, even if all guns were removed from America, in a ten-year period, 355 people still would’ve been murdered in mass killings.  From 2006 to 2015, 140 people were murdered by arsonists in mass fires, 104 were stabbed in mass stabbings, and 92 people were beaten to death in mass killings. To reiterate, these are deaths in which four or more people were killed. “People sufficiently enraged to commit such crimes may also be motivated to find other ways,” criminologist James Alan Fox of Northeastern University points out. Now, Colorado citizens will be able to disarm their neighbors over a feud or send a SWAT team to an ex-husband’s home to take his guns over an argument—and all of it will be legal—due process and innocence be damned. Matt Agorist is an honorably discharged veteran of the USMC and former intelligence operator directly tasked by the NSA. This prior experience gives him unique insight into the world of government corruption and the American police state. Agorist has been an independent journalist for over a decade and has been featured on mainstream networks around the world. Agorist is also the Editor at Large at the Free Thought Project, where this article first appeared. Follow @MattAgorist on Twitter, Steemit, and now on Minds.


activistpost--2019-04-10--Oregons SB-978 Gun Control Bill Is So Hysterically Restrictive That PEPPER SPRAY Is a Felony

Oregon’s SB-978 Gun Control Bill Is So Hysterically Restrictive That PEPPER SPRAY Is a Felony

A new gun control bill introduced in the Oregon State Legislature added 45 pages of draconian amendments the night before the vote. SB978 passed the Judiciary Committee yesterday and now heads to the Oregon Senate.  It’s a good thing that some parts of this state have vowed to be 2A sanctuaries because Oregonians are going to need them. If the gun owners – and even pepper spray owners – in other parts of the state hope to defend themselves, they could be facing a vast new array of felony charges.  The battle for the right to bear arms is rapidly spreading across the country. In February, the House of Representatives passed two sweeping national bills.  New Mexico has passed 6 outrageous new laws that sheriffs are refusing to enforce, and sheriffs in Washington state are also rebelling. On the other stand, two states have introduced invasive laws requiring would-be gun owners to hand over access to years of personal social media.  What’s in the unconstitutional bill, you ask?  They want to raise the minimum age to buy a gun to 21 in certain cases.  Residents will be required to keep their guns locked up at all times that they are not being carried. These rules will render guns all but useless in the event a person needs to access them to protect themselves and their family.  A person who owns or possesses a firearm shall, at all times that the firearm is not carried by or under the control of   the person or an authorized person, secure the firearm: “(A) With an engaged trigger lock or cable lock that meets or exceeds the minimum specifications established by the Oregon Health Authority under section 10 of this 2019 Act;   “(B) In a locked container, equipped with a tamper-resistant lock, that meets or exceeds the minimum specifications established by the Oregon Health Authority under section 10 of this 2019 Act; or   “(C) In a gun room.   “(b) For purposes of paragraph (a) of this subsection, a firearm is not secured if a key, combination or other means of opening a lock or container is readily available to a person the owner or possessor has not authorized to carry or control the firearm.  Failure to follow these rules is a Class C Felony. Also, don’t get excited about the phrase “gun room” because your bedroom doesn’t count.  I know that the time I had to protect my daughter with a gun, if my firearm locked up, had on a trigger lock, and had to be loaded, it would have delayed my potential to do so to a horrific degree.  If your gun/guns are stolen, you must report it. Failure to do so is a Class B felony per weapon. And if the thief hurts or kills someone with the stolen firearm, the owner is liable for two years.  Any adult who transfers a firearm to a minor is responsible for any actions taken by that minor with the firearm. And if you want to take your kids shooting or hunting, they must be “directly supervised.”  And if a young person gets a hold of a parent’s gun, the parent is liable for the young person’s action. If the gun isn’t secured as per the rules above, then the adult is charged with even more crimes.  The next section deals with “ghost guns.” Pages 11-19 offer a lengthy list of rules, restrictions, requirements, and record-keeping for the transfer of antique guns, gun parts, and much more. If you have them, you’ll be a felon upon the passage of this bill.  And as everyone knows, registration is only one step away from confiscation. Here’s an article by Selco, explaining how gun confiscation could go down.  If this passes, gun owners who are not concealed-carry permit holders will have to jump through all sorts of hoops to transport a firearm in a vehicle, including locking it in a box in a “secure” area of the vehicle.  The next section deals with CC permits and the related fees, increasing them in another effort to put an undue burden on law-abiding citizens.  In this bill can find a massive list of restrictions regarding having a gun on the premises of or “near” public buildings. To me, this is the scariest part because it’s so incredibly arbitrary.  In section 25, Local Authority to Regulate Firearms in Public Buildings,” airports, ports, hospitals, schools, colleges, universities probate courts, city halls, homes of officials, and other “public buildings” – and even their grounds – can restrict not only guns but also the following:  Public places as defined in the bill need only to “post a sign, visible to the public, identifying all locations where   the affirmative defense described in ORS 166.370 (3)(g) is limited or precluded.”  And if you ignore the sign and get caught? You’re guilty of a Class C felony. Even if your gun is unloaded. Any person who intentionally possesses a loaded or unloaded firearm or any other instrument used as a dangerous weapon, while in or on a public building, shall upon conviction be guilty of a Class C felony. Go here to read the insanity in detail. Congresswoman Gabrielle Gifford’s anti-gun foundation was delighted with the bill even before the super-secret amendments were added. In a statement, spokeswoman Robin Lloyd said: “Gun violence hurts hundreds of Oregon families each year. The proposed provisions in the bills heard today are the critical next steps that Oregon should take to save lives. For example, homemade, untraceable ghost guns pose serious threats to law enforcement and communities impacted by gun violence. A commitment from lawmakers to stem the flow of these firearms will ensure criminals aren’t able to easily get their hands on an undetectable weapon. Today’s hearings highlight a serious commitment by the legislature to reduce the epidemic of gun violence in Oregon. I applaud Attorney General Rosemblum [sic] and the Oregon legislature for prioritizing these lifesaving measures.” SB 978-1 includes commonsense efforts to reduce gun violence like requiring safe storage of firearms, holding gun owners accountable to make sure kids don’t get their hands on a gun, requiring gun owners to report lost or stolen firearms, and providing increased regulation of 3D-printed guns and unfinished frames or receivers, parts used to produce ghost guns. (source) If it passes, it will spread. Gun control laws are like a virus – if they pass in one place they’ll spread to other places. And there’s little reason to believe that in this era of anti-gun hysteria, the legislature will strike down this unconstitutional bill. Thankfully, 13 of 36 Oregon sheriffs have already vowed to make their counties Second Amendment sanctuaries. But heaven forbid an Oregonian gets caught driving out of their 2A sanctuary county with a usable firearm. Daisy Luther is a coffee-swigging, gun-toting blogger who writes about current events, preparedness, frugality, voluntaryism, and the pursuit of liberty on her website, The Organic Prepper, where this article first appeared. She is widely republished across alternative media and she curates all the most important news links on her aggregate site, PreppersDailyNews.com. Daisy is the best-selling author of 4 books and lives in the mountains of Virginia with her two daughters and an ever-growing menagerie. You can find her on Facebook, Pinterest, and Twitter.


activistpost--2019-04-10--South Dakota Sued Over New Laws Aimed at Preventing Another Standing Rock

Civil liberties organizations and activists are pushing back against new laws which criminalize protests and free speech related to pipeline projects.  In late March, a coalition of Native activists, the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU), and the ACLU of South Dakota filed suit against the State of South Dakota in an effort to repeal recently passed state laws aimed at curbing “rioters” during the upcoming construction of the TransCanada Keystone XL pipeline. South Dakota Senate Bill 189 and SB 190 have created controversy due to the potential to prevent peaceful and legal protest of environmental projects.  Senate Bill 189, also known as the Riot Boosting Act, grants the state the authority to sue any individual or organization for what they call “riot-boosting,” or encouraging and/or participating in acts of force or violence. SB 190 sets up funding to pay for state, county, and local police to combat potential pipeline protesters. This means that any individual who is attending a protest or rally against the Keystone Pipeline (or other future pipeline) could become subject to civil or criminal penalties, whether they engage in violence or not. The plaintiffs in the suit argue that the language of the bill is vague and does not clearly define what type of conduct or speech is considered “riot-boosting” or encouraging a riot.  The Washington Times reports that South Dakota Gov. Kristi Noem has stated that the legislation will help shut down protests of the Keystone XL Pipeline and prevent a battle between protesters and police as was seen during the construction of the Dakota Access pipeline in North Dakota in 2016. The Times notes that Noem believes protesters were funded by “out-of-state liberal donors, such as George Soros.” South Dakota State Sen. John Wiik said the introduction of the new laws “stems from what happened up at Cannonball, North Dakota.”  Plaintiffs on the lawsuit include the NDN Collective, the Indigenous Environmental Network, the Sierra Club, Dakota Rural Action, Dallas Goldtooth of the Indigenous Environmental Network, and Nick Tilsen, President and CEO of the NDN Collective.  “Gov. Kristi Noem’s legislation is yet another way to promote Big Oil interests and prevent dissent by making protesters subject to legal action,” says Kim Pate, Vice President of NDN Collective.  The NDN Collective recently wrote that the broad language in SB 189 means that “anyone that contributes to a protest, whether through monetary donations, donations of supplies, or even through organizing a page on social media, can be held liable, and have civil and criminal penalties for supporting a protest that the state deems ‘violent‘.” Further, the law states that individuals or organizations can be held liable even if they are not on the ground in South Dakota. The NDN Collective also states that the law would allow TransCanada to redirect money seized from protesters and organization towards pipeline construction.  The ACLU of South Dakota has also condemned the new laws, stating, “We’re prepared to stand on the front lines and defend your right to peacefully protest and express your opinions freely.”


activistpost--2019-05-15--New Utah Law Bans Warrantless Access to Information in the Cloud

SALT LAKE CITY, Utah (May 15, 2019) – Yesterday, a law went into effect that requires police to get a warrant before accessing data stored in the “cloud.” The new law will not only increase privacy protections in Utah; it will also hinder the federal surveillance state.  Rep. Craig Hall (R-West Valley City) sponsored House Bill 57 (HB57). The new law prohibits law enforcement agencies from accessing electronic information or data transmitted to a “remote computing service” without a warrant based on probable cause in most situations. In effect, it will prohibit police from warrantlessly accessing information uploaded into the “cloud.”  The House passed HB57 by a 71-0 vote. The Senate approved the measure 23-0. The law went into effect on May 14.  HB57 does provide some exceptions to the warrant requirement that will allow law enforcement agencies to obtain location information in the event of an emergency involving an imminent risk to an individual of death, serious physical injury, sexual abuse, live-streamed sexual exploitation, kidnapping, or human trafficking; or if a remote computing service inadvertently discovers information that appears to pertain to the commission of a felony, or of a misdemeanor involving physical violence, sexual abuse, or dishonesty. It also allows police to access stored or transmitted data from an electronic device, or electronic information or data transmitted by the owner of the electronic information or data to a remote computing service under a judicially recognized exception to the warrant requirement, or in connection with a report forwarded by the National Center for Missing and Exploited Children under 18 U.S.C. Sec. 2258A.  The new statute specifically excludes information obtained in violation of the law from judicial proceedings.  HB57 expands existing laws already on the books in Utah requiring police to get a warrant before accessing location information, stored data, and transmitted data from an electronic device. The current laws effectively ban the warrantless use of “stingrays.” These devices essentially spoof cell phone towers, tricking any device within range into connecting to the stingray instead of the tower, allowing law enforcement to sweep up communications content, as well as locate and track the person in possession of a specific phone or other electronic device. Current law also requires police to get a warrant before accessing electronic data from third-party providers. Enactment of HB57 will further limit the ability of law enforcement agencies to warrantlessly gather electronic information and data.  It has become standard practice for law enforcement agencies to upload warrantless surveillance data gathered at the state level to federal fusion centers operated by the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) and other federal agencies. Fusion centers serve as clearinghouses for all kinds of information shared between federal, state and local law enforcement agencies—including data gathered by surveillance cameras, drones, intercepted cellphone and email communications, social network spying, as well as ALPRs and other invasive modes of surveillance. The DHS funds and ultimately runs 79 fusion centers across the U.S. The DHS describes homeland security intelligence/information fusion as the ”…process of managing the flow of information to support the rapid identification of emerging terrorism-related threats requiring intervention by government and private-sector authorities.”  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 a broader federal system known as the “information sharing environment” or 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.


activistpost--2019-05-30--Signed as Law Vermont Bill to Allow People to Expunge Some Marijuana Charges

Signed as Law: Vermont Bill to Allow People to Expunge Some Marijuana Charges

MONTPELIER, Vt. (May 30, 2019) –  Last week, Vermont Gov. Phil Scott signed a bill into law that will allow people with certain marijuana charges on their records to have them expunged. This law takes another small step toward nullifying federal cannabis prohibition in effect.  A bipartisan coalition of four representatives sponsored House Bill 460 (H460). The new law broadly reforms the state’s criminal records expungement process for various crimes. It includes a provision that will allow individuals convicted of marijuana crimes before cannabis was legalized to apply for expungement. Under the law, an individual will be able to apply for expungement if “the person was convicted of an offense for which the underlying conduct is no longer prohibited by law or designated as a criminal offense.”  With Gov. Scott’s signature, the law will go into effect Oct 1, 2019. Other aspects of the bill will take effect on July 1.  The new law will not only help people with prior marijuana arrests and convictions on their record get a new start, but it will also further undermine federal marijuana prohibition. As marijuana becomes more accepted and more states simply ignore the feds, the federal government is less able to enforce its unconstitutional laws.  In the past, we’ve seen some opposition to marijuana legalization bills because the new laws generally leave those previously charged and convicted unprotected. The passage of H460 demonstrates an important strategic point. Passing bills that take a step forward sets the stage, even if they aren’t perfect. Opening the door clears the way for additional steps. You can’t take the second step before you take the first.  Under the federal Controlled Substances Act (CSA) passed in 1970, the federal government maintains 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.  In 2018, Vermont became the first state to legalize marijuana through a legislative act. Medical marijuana has been legal in the state since 2004. Legalization in Vermont removes a large layer of laws prohibiting the possession and use of marijuana, but federal prohibition remains in place. 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.  The new law further undermines prohibition make it that much more difficult for the federal government to enforce it in Vermont.  Vermont joins a growing number of states simply ignoring federal prohibition, and nullifying it in practice.  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 passed a ballot measure legalizing cannabis for general use.


activistpost--2019-06-25--Illinois Just Became The 11th US State To Legalize Recreational Marijuana

This week, Illinois Governor J.B. Pritzker signed a bill that will legalize marijuana for recreational use throughout the state. Illinois will now be the 11th state in the US to legalize the substance for recreational use. The bill will allow residents of the state to purchase and possess up to one ounce of cannabis at a time. Non-residents will be limited to just 15 grams.  “Change is hard, but an essential tenet of good governance is recognizing the need to change the laws that have failed. In the past 50 years, the war on cannabis has destroyed families, filled prisons with nonviolent offenders and disproportionately disrupted black and brown communities,” Pritzker said during a press conference before he signed the bill.  “With this legislation, our state once again is a leader, putting forward the most equity-centric cannabis legalization in the nation,” he added.  The bill also goes a step further to expunge the criminal records for anyone who was arrested for purchasing or possessing 30 grams or less.  The new law will go into effect on January 1, 2020, and will allow adults over the age of 21 to purchase the plant from approved dispensaries. However, until then, possession will still be a crime in the state.  The governor initially projected that taxation of cannabis industry could generate $800 million to $1 billion a year, but more recent estimations suggest that $500 million annually is a more realistic number, and it could take the state at least 5 years to get to that point.  As with cannabis in most other legal US states, the sales will be taxed heavily. Consumers in Illinois can expect a tax of up to 34.75% on all of their purchases. The taxes will reportedly fluctuate depending on the potency of the product.  Money raised by the new taxes would first be dedicated to expunging about 770,000 minor cannabis-related cases, according to USA Today.  There were also provisions in the bill intending to prevent monopolization and corruption in the newly legal cannabis industry. For example, a conflict of interest provision bans state employees and their family members from being able to get a cannabis business license for at least two years.  The industry will also bring many new jobs to the state as it has in other areas where cannabis has been legalized.  A 2015 study, published in the journal, Scientific Reports, suggests that smoking cannabis is roughly 114 times safer than drinking alcohol. Ironically, out of all the drugs that were researched in the study, alcohol was actually the most dangerous, and it was the only legal drug on the list.  A study published last year by researchers at the University of Michigan has shown that cannabis use among teens and college students is increasing while alcohol and tobacco use is declining. In fact, for the first time ever, the rate of daily cannabis use has now surpassed the rate of daily cigarette use. This is a great discovery considering the fact that cigarettes and alcohol kill tens of thousands a year while marijuana kills no one.  Earlier this year, Truth Theory reported that The World Health Organization (WHO) has finally recognized cannabis as a medicine and has formally proposed that legislators take a “more rational” approach to drug laws.


activistpost--2019-06-28--Second in the Nation Somerville City Council Passes Facial Recognition Ban

Second in the Nation: Somerville City Council Passes Facial Recognition Ban

SOMERVILLE, Mass. (June 27, 2019) – The Somerville city council voted Thursday to ban the use of facial recognition by police investigations and city departments. Following San Francisco, it’s now the second U.S. city to outlaw the technology.  Somerville City Councilor Ben Ewen-Campen was the lead sponsor of the “Face Surveillance Full Ban Ordinance.” 9 of the 11 Somerville City Councilors sponsored the legislation, and it was approved by a 11-0 vote.  The new law refers to facial recognition as the “functional equivalent of requiring every person to carry and display a personal photo identification card at all times.” It forbids any “department, agency, bureau, and/or subordinate division of the City of Somerville” from using facial recognition software in public spaces.  In addition to a ban of active use by city departments, the ordinance outlaws use of data or evidence produced by facial recognition software systems in criminal investigations or legal proceedings.  Last month, San Francisco became the first in the nation to ban facial recognition. ACLU of Northern California called the vote historic.  “By passing this law, the city gave the community a seat at the table and acted decisively to protect its people from the growing danger of face recognition, a highly invasive technology that would have radically and massively expanded the government’s power to track and control people going about their daily lives. Supported by Bay Area voters, and a broad coalition of privacy, civil rights, and racial justice groups, this powerful measure will protect the safety and civil rights of all San Franciscans who deserve to live their lives without being targeted by dangerous high-tech surveillance. In the hands of the government, face surveillance would supercharge discriminatory policing, stifle civic engagement, and entangle people with ICE.”  The Tenth Amendment Center joined with a broad coalition of organizations including ACLU of Northern California, Color of Change, Council on American-Islamic Relations San Francisco Bay Area, The Greenlining Institute, Freedom of the Press Foundation, Media Alliance and Oakland Privacy in supporting the ordinance.  A similar measure will get a vote by the Berkeley City Council on July 9th and the Oakland City Council on July 16th.  The California State Legislature is also considering a facial recognition ban on police body cams. A bill introduced in the Michigan State Senate would ban all government use of facial recognition.  Local police have access to a mind-boggling array of surveillance equipment. As it now stands, many law enforcement agencies can obtain this high-tech, extremely intrusive technology without any approval or oversight. Police often operate highly intrusive surveillance technology in complete secrecy.  The federal government facilitates local surveillance through grants and other funding sources for this spy-gear, meaning local governments can keep their purchase “off the books.” Members of the community, and even elected officials, often don’t know their police departments possess technology capable of sweeping up electronic data, phone calls and location information.  In some cases, the feds even require law enforcement agencies to sign non-disclosure agreements, wrapping surveillance programs in an even darker shroud of secrecy. We know for a fact the FBI required the Baltimore Police Department to sign such an agreement when it obtained stingray technology. This policy of nondisclosure even extends to the courtroom, with the feds actually instructing prosecutors to withdraw evidence if judges or legislators press for information. As the Baltimore Sun reported, a Baltimore detective refused to answer questions about the department’s use of stingray devices on the stand during a trial, citing a federal nondisclosure agreement.  As privacysos.org put it, “The FBI would rather police officers and prosecutors let ‘criminals’ go than face a possible scenario where a defendant brings a Fourth Amendment challenge to warrantless stingray spying.”  Ordinances like the one introduced in San Francisco create a framework of oversight and transparency for surveillance programs. They also set the stage to limit surveillance by giving residents input into the process and allowing them to oppose and stop the purchase of spy-gear.  Passage of local ordinances not only protects the privacy of people in that area. They also undermine the federal surveillance state. The federal government funds much of the surveillance technology acquired by state and local law enforcement. In return, federal agencies tap into the data swept up by these agencies through information sharing agreements and fusion centers. Information gathered by your local police department often ends up permanently stored in federal databases. These create the backbone of the federal surveillance state.  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. In other words, stingrays create the potential for the federal government to track the movement of millions of Americans with no warrant, no probable cause, and without the people even knowing it.  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. By facilitating local surveillance, the federal government undoubtedly gains access to a massive data pool on Americans without having to expend the resources to collect the information itself. By requiring approval and placing the acquisition of spy gear in the public spotlight, local governments can take the first step toward limiting the surveillance state at both the local and national level. In a nutshell, without state and local cooperation, the feds have a much more difficult time gathering information. This represents a major blow to the surveillance state and a win for privacy. Passage of an ordinance in one locality may not seem significant. But when multiplied over hundreds of cities and counties across the United States, this strategy could seriously undermine federal surveillance programs. If local police can’t collect and share the data, it cannot end up in federal databases. Michael Boldin [send him email] is the founder of the Tenth Amendment Center., where this article first appeared. He was raised in Milwaukee, WI, and currently resides in Los Angeles, CA. Follow him on Twitter – @michaelboldin and Facebook. Subscribe to Activist Post for truth, peace, and freedom news. Follow us on Minds, Twitter, Steemit, and SoMee. Provide, Protect and Profit from what’s coming! Get a free issue of Counter Markets today.


activistpost--2019-07-04--Trinidad Tobago Set to Decriminalize Marijuana Joining Other Caribbean Islands

Trinidad & Tobago Set to Decriminalize Marijuana, Joining Other Caribbean Islands

In late 2018, Prime Minister Keith Rowley announced that the Trinidad and Tobago government would decriminalise marijuana as early as June 2019 — but with discussions continuing into July, the public is wondering what exactly this proposed law will entail and when it might come into effect.  If the legislation is passed, Trinidad and Tobago will join only a handful of other Caribbean countries that have decriminalised cannabis in an effort to reduce drug trafficking, lighten the load on the judicial system, ensure religious inclusion and help boost local economies.  The prime minister’s initial announcement came as a shock to many, as he had previously been adamant that marijuana law reform was not his priority. However, recent moves by regional territories like Jamaica and Antigua and Barbuda, as well as continual encouragement by the public and the Caribbean Community (CARICOM), seem to have influenced his Cabinet’s stance on the issue.  Many citizens regularly get arrested for marijuana possession in Trinidad and Tobago. While arrests don’t always result in incarceration, they do usually go hand-in-hand with a court appearance.  Under the country’s existing legislation, possession of marijuana is subject to a fine of TT $25,000 (approximately $3,690 USD) and a five-year prison term, both of which can be increased to twice the amount based on the quantity of marijuana found, as well as whether or not the accused has any prior convictions. In fact, you can be charged with possession even if found in a private space — such as a home or car — unless you can prove it was there without your knowledge.  Decriminalisation would mean that cannabis possession for personal use will not lead to penalties. The attorney general, Faris al-Rawi, has officially finished drafting legislation which he says contains specificities such as the amount allowed per person and details of production and distribution.  Decriminalisation, however, is not legalisation.  Even if the new legislation comes to pass, marijuana will still be illegal to consume in public spaces and the penalties for this will most likely remain high. In his first press conference about the issue, Prime Minister Rowley stressed that his government was only focusing on decriminalisation at the moment.  One major reason for the new legislation is its anticipated effect on local law enforcement and the justice system. By making a distinction between marijuana consumption and drug trafficking, the new law would, at the very least, unclog the backup in the courts by not prosecuting cases of personal consumption — and ideally assist in reducing trafficking levels.  Trinidad and Tobago continually feel the effects of drug trafficking on the islands and this distinction may allow law enforcement to focus more on drug traffickers and smugglers, with more time, money and resources allocated to snuffing out more nefarious criminal activity.  In 2013, the country’s chief justice, Ivor Archie, said the law should treat drug trafficking and drug consumption differently:  Similarly, Darius Figuera, a local criminologist, noted that decriminalisation would drastically alter the incidence of crimes related to marijuana, explaining that the rigidity of the existing laws have had little or no effect on marijuana demand for personal consumption:  Many economists think that decriminalising cannabis could have a major effect on the economy. A recent CARICOM report echoed this sentiment. Among other things, the paper highlights how countries should go about decriminalisation (or legalisation) within a regulated framework, the benefits of cannabis as a medicinal drug and how it could help boost many slow-moving regional economies.  Jamaica, for instance, is investing in the medical cannabis industry as part of its economic diversification and devoting more scientific research to the plant’s healing properties. Recent studies have suggested that the medical marijuana industry has the potential to be worth billions of dollars within the next few years.  High demand and low supply — especially for medical use — means that countries seeking medical cannabis will likely turn to countries with thriving marijuana import and export potential. Jamaican cannabis farmers are able to export their product to countries like Canada and certain US states, where there is a high demand for medical marijuana.  The other factor that makes it a high-demand product is that cannabis is able to grow more naturally in tropical climates like the Caribbean. While the Jamaican cannabis industry is still in its infancy, it has massive potential — leaving many Trinbagonians to wonder if they can also make their mark on a growing industry.  The push for law reform on marijuana is not a new concept to regional governments. The Caribbean’s Rastafarian community has continually asked for reform so that they can practise their religion without fear of arrest: Rastafarians believe that marijuana is the “tree of life” mentioned in the Bible; its use is ritualised by members of the faith to assist in meditation as the doorway to spirituality.  Rastafarians have had to grapple with the illegality of marijuana in Trinidad and Tobago for years. The group All Mansions Of Rastafari (AMOR) has put pressure on the government to not only decriminalise marijuana but to legalise it.  St. Kitts and Nevis decriminalised cannabis with this issue in mind.