Legislators tell Feds to "Back Off"

New speech, press, gun or ammunition limits 'altogether void'


Posted: February 05, 2009
12:00 am Eastern

By Bob Unruh
© 2009 WorldNetDaily

Lawmakers in New Hampshire are telling the federal government to back off because plans for a federal handgun license, "hate crimes" laws to regulate Christians' speech about their own religious beliefs on homosexuality, President Obama's youth corps for mandatory public service and the so-called "Fairness Doctrine" to "balance" talk radio are none of them constitutional.

Such plans by the bureaucrats and administrators in Washington, D.C., are "altogether void" and if mandated, "shall constitute a nullification of the Constitution for the United States," the lawmakers are warning.

The terse alarm is contained in House Concurrent Resolution 6, which has been introduced for debate. It affirms states' rights "based on Jeffersonian principles."

It's not the first such move in the United States. WND reported last year when state representatives in Oklahoma, steamed over a perceived increase in federal usurping of states' rights, approved Joint House Resolution 1089 on a 92-3 vote to reassert the state's sovereignty under the 10th Amendment and serve "notice to the federal government to cease and desist certain mandates."

According to DailyPaul.com, a website assembled in support of U.S. Rep. Ron Paul, Missouri, Washington and Arizona also have moved in the direction of reasserting states' rights.

The Tenth Amendment states, "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people," and also is being cited in the New Hampshire plan.

It states that New Hampshire people "have the sole and exclusive right of governing themselves as a free, sovereign, and independent State; and do, and forever hereafter shall, exercise and enjoy every power, jurisdiction, and right, pertaining thereto, which is not, or may not hereafter be, by them expressly delegated to the United States of America…"

That means, the resolution states, any "Act by the Congress of the United States, Executive Order of the President of the United States of American or Judicial Order by the Judicatories of the United States of America which assumes a power not delegated to the government … and which serves to diminish the liberty of the any of the several States or their citizens shall constitute a nullification of the Constitution for the United States of America by the government of the United States of America."

It lists as actions that the federal government would be prohibited from doing:

Establishing martial law or a state of emergency within one of the States comprising the United States of America without the consent of the legislature of that State.

Requiring involuntary servitude, or governmental service other than a draft during a declared war, or pursuant to, or as an alternative to, incarceration after due process of law.

Requiring involuntary servitude or governmental service of persons under the age of 18 other than pursuant to, or as an alternative to, incarceration after due process of law.

Surrendering any power delegated or not delegated to any corporation or foreign government.

Any act regarding religion; further limitations on freedom of political speech; or further limitations on freedom of the press.

Further infringements on the right to keep and bear arms including prohibitions of type or quantity of arms or ammunition.
New Hampshire Rep. Dan Itse, a sponsor of the resolution, said he wants New Hampshire to be among the states "standing up to the federal government, enforcing the Constitution."

He called the current status in the United States, with federal rules and regulations reaching into virtually every facet of a state citizen's life, "a usurpation by the federal judiciary of the people's right of self-government."

"What I see happening is a growing disregard for the rights of individuals and the rights of the states. At some point you have to draw the line," he told WND.

The resolution then, he said, is a warning.

"If you're in a marriage, and things are going rotten, it's not right just to all of a sudden hand the other party divorce papers. The right thing to do is say, 'there's a problem. Let's go to counseling.' This is in essence telling the general government if you continue down this road – you will have nullified the Constitution," he told WND.

He said New Hampshire lawmakers already have defied the federal government in approving a ban on the Real ID, a government program to stiffen identity procedures.

The New Hampshire resolution points out that New Hampshire was set up as "a free, sovereign and independent body-politic, or State" and when its residents ratified the U.S. Constitution they recommended: "That it be Explicitly declared that all Powers not expressly & particularly Delegated by the aforesaid are reserved to the several States to be, by them Exercised."

In a direct attack on federal authority the resolution states: "Whensoever the General Government assumes undelegated powers, its acts are unauthoritative, void, and of no force."

It cites the specific powers given the federal government in the Constitution: to deal with treason, counterfeiting and piracy.

At American Thinker, commentator Larrey Anderson wrote that the plan is pending in the legislature's State-Federal Relations and Veterans Affairs Committee, and also is supported by Rep. Paul Ingbretson, Rep. Tim Comerford, and Sen. William Denley.

"Interestingly, the authors of the New Hampshire Resolution took most of the language from the document commonly known as 'Jefferson and Madison's Kentucky Resolutions of 1798,'" he wrote. "The New Hampshire Resolution boldly defends the state's (and it citizen's) rights preserved under the 9th and 10th Amendments to the Constitution."

He noted a concurrent resolution lacks legal authority as a non-binding expression of the intentions of the legislature.

"Nevertheless, these four New Hampshire state legislators have shown much courage by introducing (or reintroducing) these precious principles that have been the bedrock of our republic," Anderson wrote. "Maybe HCR 6, the shot heard round little old New Hampshire, will inspire more Americans to realize the desperate need to free ourselves from an overreaching federal government. In which case, the shot heard round New Hampshire might become the next shot heard round the world."

Participants in the site's forum page said they were sending information on the resolution to lawmakers in Virginia, Mississippi, North Carolina, Michigan and other states. Several other participants said they wished their own lawmakers had such fortitude.

"At least one state gets it," said one forum participant. "We must free ourselves of that which I firmly believe wants to enslave us, our own government."

BLOGGER'S NOTE:

Maybe there is hope after all, perhaps people will begin to identify with the principal that it is not the people that work for the Government, but the Government that works for the people.

If thine eye deceives thee....

And Now, the Rest of the Story, or Rub Your Nose in this $%#

This article appeared in a list serv that I share with many of my colleagues.

I will not give credence to it's title or it's content

It highlights the reports of "abuse" by a trainer in New Jersey and similar complaints that have surfaced in New York City, all with incidents that predate either the Minnesota or the New York State bills' attempts to regulate dog trainers.

What I find difficult to believe is that if these reports are true, where is the proof? We insulate ourselves with the trust that these reports are accurate when it is clearly suggested in the case of the New York dog walker/trainer that there may be a hidden agenda, and of the 300 alleged THIRD PARTY reports, no clear evidence exists. Oh, I get it, GUILTY until proven INNOCENT. Gee, what was I thinking....

Huh?

As for the guy in New Jersey, I remember the stink over this a few months ago. A cattle prod was found. A slingshot and a PVC pipe were also found. Early reports suggest that one of these items were found at a colleague's home, not on the property of the target of these charges. If there were concerns 14 years ago as one of the charges suggests, and six since then, why was something not done sooner?

Oh, that's right, it was only important when it suited the proper agenda, like Daschle's taxes or the new head of the Federal Treasury Department and others of the 'New Administration". It only serves a purpose NOW. Not in 1995 when the first alleged crime was perpetrated.

His guilt is assumed, and if he is found so through DUE PROCESS and not the court of public opinion, then we as trainers in our secular community will be justly served as he and his ilk deserve proper punishment for their crimes. Or will we?

Will it be that we are no longer able to practice our craft unless we are supervised by the government to assure that "no harm was done"? Who will be the judge of what constitutes "harm", "inhumane" practices or "abuse"?

What about the owners deeply committed to their dogs who are not served by the government's proposals to endorse certain types of trainers and not others? Will they be forced to give up their dogs because they could not be trained with methods beyond the scope of their definition of approved? How full are the shelters in this country now? How full do you think they will get in the near future if it should come to pass that only "government approved" methods are used?

This is not an endorsement of "punching, hitting, kicking or hanging" dogs by any means. I think such tactics do constitute abuse and I do not personally know of a trainer in my acquaintance who would use such tactics.

It is not the METHOD that defines TRAINED, it is the END RESULT of the training itself. Physically abusing an animal does not constitute a method and defining abuse is the dichotomy. Collars don't abuse dogs, PEOPLE DO. TOOLS are not the issue, who wields the tool is. The banning of tools is the lowest common denominator in all of this and will only serve to be as effective as New York City's current gun control policy.

I see this as a personal vendetta mounted as a political agenda and offered up in a time and place where the controversy can be utilized to it's greatest effect.

The importance of knowing all the facts seems to escape most reporters these days; they are too wrapped up in currying favor amongst their own breed of lobbyists in the political hotbed that surrounds pets and the BILLIONS OF DOLLARS A YEAR their ownership generates in income for hundreds of thousands of people, businesses and, yup, you guessed it, politicians.

It is inconceivable to me how a party or parties can be so deluded by the fervent scree of a few individuals without the basis of FACT, only the emotion laden mutterings of a few misguided, uneducated bleeding hearts who think they know "inhumane" or "abusive" practices based solely on weak evidence and lots of speculation. And, as I said, perhaps a hidden agenda or two.

Tell me, who is more "abusive"?

Linda Kaim
www.lionheartk9.com

Minnesota Prepared to Enact New Dangerous Dog Act

On January 14th of the current year, District 66A Representative John Lesch ( rep.john.lesch@house.mn ) and Representative of District 64B Michael Paymar ( rep.michael.paymar@house.mn ) introduced a bill that would require owners or those individuals identified as owners of 'dangerous or potentially dangerous dogs" to participate in responsible dog ownership classes. Additional information on this bill indicates that yet again the government is insinuating itself into the affairs of the people without truly addressing the needs of the community at large.

Read more here: https://www.revisor.leg.state.mn.us/bin/bldbill.php?bill=H0115.0.html&session=ls86

You may have to copy and paste the above link.

I have taken the liberty of posting the whole sordid mess here:

H.F. No. 115, as introduced - 86th Legislative Session (2009-2010) Posted on Jan 14, 2009

1.1A bill for an act
1.2relating to dogs; requiring certain dog owners to take responsible dog owner
1.3classes and pass certain tests; requiring maintenance of a database; proposing
1.4coding for new law in Minnesota Statutes, chapter 347.
1.5BE IT ENACTED BY THE LEGISLATURE OF THE STATE OF MINNESOTA:

1.6 Section 1. [347.57] DEFINITIONS.
1.7 Subdivision 1. Applicability. The definitions in this section apply to sections
1.8347.57 to 347.67.
1.9 Subd. 2. Animal control authority. "Animal control authority" means an agency of
1.10the state, county, municipality, or other governmental subdivision of the state which is
1.11responsible for animal control operations in its jurisdiction.
1.12 Subd. 3. Class training manual. "Class training manual" means the materials used
1.13to train the facilitator and the materials used by facilitators to train the dog owner.
1.14 Subd. 4. Dog owner. "Dog owner" means the owner of a dog that has been declared
1.15dangerous or potentially dangerous.
1.16 Subd. 5. Facilitator. "Facilitator" means a person who teaches the responsible dog
1.17owner class and administers the test to the dog owner.
1.18 Subd. 6. Program manager. "Program manager" means the person who oversees
1.19and coordinates the responsible dog owner class, trains the facilitators, and handles
1.20recordkeeping of the classes.
1.21 Subd. 7. Responsible dog owner class. "Responsible dog owner class" means a
1.22class for owners of dogs that have been declared dangerous or potentially dangerous
1.23under section 347.50.

2.1 Sec. 2. [347.58] RESPONSIBLE DOG OWNER CLASS.
2.2(a) The owner of a dog that has been declared dangerous or potentially dangerous
2.3under section 347.50 must take and pass the responsible dog owner class lasting
2.4approximately four hours. A photo identification of the dog owner is required at the time
2.5of the class to confirm ownership of the dog. The dog owner must enroll in a class within
2.630 days of the dog being declared potentially dangerous or dangerous. The dog owner
2.7must attend the class at the next scheduled class date. The class is for the owner of the
2.8dog only; dogs are not allowed in the class.
2.9(b) Dog owners who own dogs that were previously declared dangerous must
2.10take the responsible dog owner class. The dog owner must attend the class at the next
2.11scheduled class date after the effective date of this section.
2.12(c) The Department of Public Safety must charge the dog owner a reasonable fee for
2.13attending the class.

2.14 Sec. 3. [347.59] PROGRAM MANAGER.
2.15(a) The program manager must be:
2.16(1) a veterinarian in good standing in Minnesota with a minimum of three years
2.17experience; or
2.18(2) a person with a minimum of five years experience working in an animal-related
2.19field, including knowledge and training of dog behavior and education of the public on
2.20dog behavior.
2.21(b) A background check must be performed on a person applying to be a program
2.22manager. The applicant must pass the background check without any violations prior to
2.23being appointed. No person who has been convicted of animal cruelty under Minnesota
2.24law or any other state law may be a program manager.
2.25(c) The Department of Public Safety shall employ the program manager and
2.26determine how much the program manager shall be paid for providing program manager
2.27services.

2.28 Sec. 4. [347.60] FACILITATOR.
2.29A facilitator must have a minimum of five years experience in dog training or in
2.30educating the public on dog behavior. A background check must be performed on a
2.31facilitator and a facilitator must pass the background check without any violations prior to
2.32that person being appointed and trained. No person who has been convicted of animal
2.33cruelty under Minnesota law or any other state law may be a facilitator. A facilitator must
2.34receive retraining by the program manager every three years to remain a facilitator.

3.1 Sec. 5. [347.61] TRAINING.
3.2Ongoing training must be provided by the program manager to facilitators, including
3.3updating the class training manual and teaching facilitators current information.

3.4 Sec. 6. [347.62] ANIMAL CONTROL AUTHORITY DUTIES.
3.5The animal control authority that declares a dog dangerous or potentially dangerous
3.6must provide the following information to the program manager and the Department of
3.7Public Safety:
3.8(1) name, address, and telephone number of the dog owner;
3.9(2) description of the dog;
3.10(3) a tracking number to identify the case; and
3.11(4) any other pertinent information.

3.12 Sec. 7. [347.63] NOTIFICATION.
3.13The program manager must send a written notification to the owners of dogs
3.14declared dangerous or potentially dangerous that they must register for a class within 30
3.15days, how to register for the class, and any other pertinent information.

3.16 Sec. 8. [347.64] CLASS TRAINING MANUAL; FORMS; CURRICULUM; TEST.
3.17(a) The class training manual and curriculum must address the basic needs of the
3.18dog, both behavioral and physical, and include education on dog care and dog behavior.
3.19The class training manual, forms, test, and curriculum must be prepared in consultation
3.20with a study commission and printed by the Department of Public Safety.
3.21(b) Upon completion of the responsible dog owner class, a facilitator must administer
3.22a multiple choice test to the dog owner and grade the test. A dog owner who fails the
3.23test must retake the test within two weeks.
3.24(c) If the owner of a dog declared dangerous fails the test twice, the animal control
3.25authority must seize the animal and provide for disposition of the animal pursuant to
3.26sections 347.54 and 347.541.
3.27(d) If the owner of a dog declared potentially dangerous fails the test twice, the
3.28animal control authority must make the determination as to disposition of the dog.
3.29(e) If a dog owner fails to register for a responsible dog owner class or fails to appear
3.30for the class and take the test, the dog owner must be considered as having failed the test.
3.31(f) A facilitator must provide a certificate of class completion to a dog owner upon
3.32successfully passing the test. A facilitator must forward a verification of completion or
3.33non-completion form and the tests to the program manager. The program manager must
4.1verify the information and forward it to the animal control authority and the Department
4.2of Public Safety.

4.3 Sec. 9. [347.65] LOCATION OF CLASS.
4.4Responsible dog owner classes must be offered to dog owners at locations
4.5determined by the program manager on a quarterly basis, as needed.

4.6 Sec. 10. [347.66] TRANSFER OF OWNERSHIP.
4.7If ownership of a dangerous or potentially dangerous dog is transferred to another
4.8person, the new owner must take a responsible dog owner class and pass the test.

4.9 Sec. 11. [347.67] STATEWIDE RECORDS; REPORTING; DATABASE.
4.10A database must be maintained by the Department of Public Safety containing
4.11records of all dogs in Minnesota declared potentially dangerous or dangerous, and
4.12owner information, including any convictions for violations of section 347.51; 347.515;
4.13347.56; 609.205, subdivision 4; or 609.226, subdivision 1 or 2; and any dogs owned
4.14by that person that have been ordered destroyed under section 347.56, as well as other
4.15information pertinent to enforcement of sections 347.50 to 347.565. The database must
4.16also contain information regarding the test results of the responsible dog owner class.
4.17The commissioner of public safety, in consultation with animal control professionals,
4.18must determine what information will be kept in this database. This database must be
4.19accessible, only for purposes of law enforcement, to all police and sheriff departments
4.20and other local government departments responsible for conducting or overseeing animal
4.21control operations in their jurisdictions, with the exception that private animal control
4.22authorities contracted to local government agencies may only access these records
4.23through, and with the permission of, those local government agencies. All Minnesota law
4.24enforcement agencies and animal control authorities must report in a timely manner to the
4.25Department of Public Safety any information required under this section.

4.26 Sec. 12. EFFECTIVE DATE.
4.27Sections 1, 3 to 6, 9, and 11 are effective the day following final enactment. Sections
4.282, 7, 8, and 10 are effective six months after that day.


*AUTHOR'S NOTE*

This bill was introduced one week prior to the State of New York bill that I had addressed last week.

It would seem to me that the lawmakers might want to consider enforcing their existing laws as opposed to this dreck which has absolutely no provisions for what constitutes responsible ownership, who makes that determination and who is responsible for the selection criterion for "Program Managers", "Facilitators" or what constitutes appropriate curricula?

A state pronouncement does not extol one with the necessary virtues of either the actual training of a dog, nor the skills necessary for the instruction of a dog's training.

What are these people smoking?