Tenth Amendment Center: Today in History: Articles of Confederation Adopted

From Tenth Amendment Center

...from Tenth Amendment Center

On Mar. 1, 1781, the states adopted the Articles of Confederation, putting into operation the first constitution of the United States.

Primarily written by prominent Pennsylvania lawyer John Dickinson, the Articles of Confederation was an attempt to establish a confederated union in the United States. Prior to the Articles of Confederation, the Continental Congress had little power to create actual policy, and most decisions came in the form resolutions. Even still, real political power rested with the American states individually.

While the document was approved by the delegates in 1777, it did not go into effect until 1781 because of a notable holdout. Maryland refused to ratify the Articles as long as Virginia maintained a huge western land claim. When Virginia agreed to a western cession of land that including areas north of the Ohio, which later became the Northwest Territory, Maryland agreed to enter the union and the Articles went into operation.

Under the Articles, each state retained “its sovereignty, freedom, and independence, and every power, jurisdiction, and right, which is not by this Confederation expressly delegated to the United States, in Congress assembled.” In the Confederation, the states entered into “a firm league of friendship with each other” for the purposes of “their common defense, the security of their liberties, and their mutual and general welfare.” The framework intended to collectivize foreign policy, commerce, and war for the first time.

The government was funded through a requisition system, wherein requisitions – taxes apportioned by state population – were assigned to the individual states. While some states paid the allocated sums, some states were delinquent or did not pay at all. Because the Articles lacked a real enforcement mechanism, enforcement of the requisitions was entirely up to the state governments.

In addition, there was no regulatory power of trade between the states. During this timeframe, states enacted high measures of protectionism to support domestic manufactures. Some states, such as Pennsylvania and New York, also maintained a substantial economic advantage over others by taxing goods leaving ports of commerce.

The Articles expressly permitted paper money on both a state and national level. During the 1780s, a paper money calamity unfolded in the states. The Continental currency had become worthless and the states passed debtor-friendly paper money laws that inflated the currency and punished creditors. This created widespread economic ruin, as wealth holdings were subjected to the cruelest imaginable tax.

Almost all significant powers of the government under the Confederation – including war, treaties and alliances, coinage, and requisitions – required the approval of nine states. Embracing true federal axioms, each state was represented in Congress by a single vote, regardless of the number of delegates sent to Congress. State quorums required two delegates, and no state could be represented by more than seven members.

By 1787, many were willing to concede that the lack of a law enforcement mechanism, insufficient taxing power, and the nine-state barrier to policy, and the 13-state requirement to amend the constitutional system were facets that required possible adjustment. A convention was called to convene in May, which later became known as the Philadelphia Convention, with the purpose of proposing amendments to the Articles of Confederation.

Dave Benner
March 01, 2018 at 03:02PM

Tenth Amendment Center: Podcast: The Second Amendment Wasn’t For Hunters

From Tenth Amendment Center

...from Tenth Amendment Center

The recent school shooting in Florida has reignited the debate on guns.

In this episode of Thoughts from Maharrey Head, I wade into the fray and tackle a common myth related to the Second Amendment – this strange idea that it was never intended to allow people to own military weapons. Actually, that’s exactly what it was intended to do.

Take a listen and I’ll explain.

You can subscribe to Thoughts from Maharrey Head for free on iTunes. Just click HERE.

SHOW NOTES AND LINKS

The Second Amendment – Shall Not Infringe

The 2nd Amendment Militia

An Examination into the Leading Principles of the Federal Constitution

“Forty years ago, when the resolution of enslaving America was formed in Great Britain, the British Parliament was advised by an artful man, (Sir William Keith) who was governor of Pennsylvania, to disarm the people; that it was the best and most effectual way to enslave them; but that they should not do it openly, but weaken them, and let them sink gradually, by totally disusing and neglecting the militia. [Here Mr. Mason quoted sundry passages to this effect.] Why should we not provide against the danger of having our militia, our real and natural strength, destroyed? The general government ought, at the same time, to have some such power. But we need not give them power to abolish our militia.” – George Mason, Virginia ratifying convention

“[W]hereas, to preserve liberty, it is essential that the whole body of the people always possess arms, and be taught alike, especially when young, how to use them; nor does it follow from this, that all promiscuously must go into actual service on every occasion. The mind that aims at a select militia must be influenced by a truly anti-republican principle; and when we see many men disposed to practice upon it, whenever they can prevail, no wonder true republicans are for carefully guarding against it.” – Letters from a Federal Farmer

Mike Maharrey
March 01, 2018 at 02:52PM

Tenth Amendment Center: Florida Senate Committee Passes Bill to Expand Healthcare Freedom

From Tenth Amendment Center

...from Tenth Amendment Center

TALLAHASSEE, Fla. (March 1, 2018) – On Tuesday, a third and final Florida Senate committee unanimously passed a bill that would help facilitate healthcare freedom outside of government regulatory schemes.

Sen. Tom Lee (R-Brandon) prefiled Senate Bill 80 (SB80) on Aug. 9. The legislation specifies that direct primary care agreements (sometimes called medical retainer agreements) do not constitute insurance, thereby freeing doctors and patients from the onerous requirements and regulations under the state insurance code. The bill also stipulates that a primary care provider or an agent of a primary care provider is not required to obtain a certificate of authority or license under the Florida Insurance Code to market, sell, or offer to sell a direct primary care agreement.

SB80 also includes provisions defining direct primary care agreements and establishing modest requirements.

On Tuesday, the Senate Appropriations Committee passed SB80 by a 20-0 vote. It previously passed the Senate Health Policy Committee 8-0 and the Senate Banking and Insurance Committee 10-0.

A Similar bill passed the House in January.

According to Michigan Capitol Confidential, by removing a third party payer from the equation, medical retainer agreements help both physicians and patients minimize costs. Jack Spencer writes:

“Under medical retainer agreements, patients make monthly payments to a physician who in return agrees to provide a menu of routine services at no extra charge. Because no insurance company stands between patient and doctor, the hassles and expense of bureaucratic red tape are eliminated, which have resulted in dramatic cost reductions. Routine primary care services (and the bureaucracy required to reimburse them) are estimated to consume 40 cents out of every dollar spent on insurance policies, so lower premiums for a given amount of coverage are another potential benefit.”

This represents the kind of cost control Obamacare promised but failed to deliver. In 2015, Tom Woods interviewed a Kansas doctor who utilizes the direct primary care model. Dr. Josh Umbehr’s practice demonstrates the cost savings possible when doctors are unfettered from the bureaucratic health insurance system.

Under Obamacare, regulations define such programs as a primary care service and not a health insurance plan, and current IRS policy treats these monthly fee arrangements just like another health plan.

A FIRST STEP

At this point, it doesn’t look like Republicans will repeal or even reform Obamacare, and the changes to the ACA proposed by the GOP would have arguably made things worse. Even with the penalty for not buying health insurance repealed by the Republican tax plan, all other Obamacare rules and regulations remain in place. Regardless, state actions can help completely bring down the Affordable Care Act, or any national healthcare plan the Congress comes up with in the future.

Oftentimes, supporters of Obamacare criticize opponents for not having any alternative. Direct primary care offers one.

These direct patient/doctor agreements allow a system uncontrolled by government regulations to develop. It makes doctors responsive to patients, not insurance company bureaucrats or government rule-makers. Allowing patients to contract directly with doctors via medical retainer agreements opens the market. Under such agreements, market forces will set price for services based on demand instead of relying on central planners with a political agenda. The end result will be better care delivered at a lower cost.

By incentivizing creative healthcare solutions, the market will naturally provide better options, such as the Surgery Center of Oklahoma, This facility operates completely outside of the insurance system, providing a low-cost alternative for many surgical procedures.

A more open healthcare marketplace within a state will help spur de facto nullification the federal program by providing an affordable alternative. As patients flock to these arrangements and others spurred by ingenuity and market forces, the old system will begin to crumble.

Passage of SB80 would take the first step toward healthcare freedom in Florida and would create a stepping stone to further action to nullify the onerous Affordable Care act. Once in place, Floridians could take further steps to fully extricate themselves from Obamacare for good.

For more information on a plan to nullify the PPACA, click HERE.

WHAT’S NEXT

SB80 Now moves to the Senate floor for debate and a vote.

 

 

Mike Maharrey
March 01, 2018 at 02:44PM

Tenth Amendment Center: Obamacare: Will States do the Job that Congressional Republicans Have Failed to Do?

From Tenth Amendment Center

...from Tenth Amendment Center

For years, Republicans in Congress promised they would get rid of Obamacare. We’re still waiting. Now it’s looking more and more like pressure and concrete action from the states might just accomplish with D.C. politicians wouldn’t.

In January, Idaho Gov. Butch Otter and Lt. Gov. Brad Little signed an executive order authorizing insurance companies doing business in the state to offer less costly plans that do not comply with all of the Obamacare mandates and requirements. Little said the executive order “effectively ends Obamacare for many Idahoans.” I went even further, arguing that the move would take a big step toward nullifying the unconstitutional Affordable Care Act in the state. Not a lot of people seem to disagree with this assessment.

But the big question was whether or not insurance companies would step up and actually offer plans in defiance of Obamacare regulations.

The answer to the question appears to be yes.

According to a Fox News report, Blue Cross of Idaho plans to begin offering new Obamacare non-compliant options as early as April.

“What Idahoans want is a stable, functional market,” Blue Cross of Idaho CEO Charlene Maher, said in a statement. “The current marketplace is not affordable for middle-class families. … Our Freedom Blue plans bring more choices and lower prices to consumers.”

Under the new rules outlined by Idaho Department of Insurance Director Dean Cameron in January, insurers can now cap their own costs at $1 million a year per individual and can charge customers separate out-of-pocket maximums for different services. insurers can also offer plans that deny coverage for pre-existing conditions for up to 12 months unless the customer had continuous prior coverage. Insurers will no longer be required to cover pediatric dental or vision care. Although they must offer at least one plan with maternity and newborn coverage, other plans can exclude those benefits. Under the new rules, insurance carriers can also charge people more for these stripped-down plans based on where they live, their health history and their age.

These noncompliant plans will not qualify for any Obamacare subsidies. Any company doing business in Idaho still must offer ACA compliant policies.

In effect, the Idaho Department of Insurance has simply stopped enforcing certain aspects of Obamacare. It will no longer penalize carriers for offering plans that don’t comply with federal law – as long as they comply with state law. This would leave enforcement of ACA mandates completely in the hands of the federal government.

It remains unclear if the feds will challenge Idaho’s move. According to an email written by the insurance commissioner, there is concern that the federal Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services could penalize insurance providers as much as $100 per insured, per day for noncompliant plans. Whether the agency could effectively investigate, impose and collect this fine with its limited resources and no state cooperation remains questionable. Blue Cross of Idaho is apparently willing to take that chance.

In fact,  the Trump Administration may not even want to challenge the state’s move. There are some indications that it will not. Little told Fox News he doubts anyone other than Department of Health and Human Services has legal standing to challenge the policy, and that such a move by the Trump administration seems unlikely, given the federal government is also moving to offer more low-cost plans.

Officials in other states are reportedly watching with interest. South Dakota Gov. Dennis Daugaard told Fox News he likes what Idaho is doing.

“I know that prior to the ACA we had a lot of different health products available in the marketplace. And I think the national government, through the ACA, tried to set some minimal standards. In some ways, that’s good for the consumers, but in other ways it limits choice. So, if Idaho is trying to provide more choice points that provide less coverage for less cost, again if it’s another item on the menu that consumers can choose with awareness, then I see that as a good thing.”

If other states follow Idaho’s lead, it will become even more difficult for the federal government to impose its will. We’ve seen a similar dynamic unfold with marijuana legalization. As more and more states simply ignore federal prohibition, federal enforcement actions become less viable. They simply lack the personnel and resources. The feds also don’t have the political will to crack down hard when public opinion strongly opposes them. We’ve seen this over the last few years as more and more people have embraced legalization. Would Trump really be willing to push back hard against states trying to create economically sustainable alternatives to Obamacare mandates?

Obamacare was predicated on state cooperation. By ending state actions that support the ACA and refusing to enforce any of its mandates, a state can make it nearly impossible to run Obamacare within its borders. The federal government never intended to run the healthcare system alone, and ultimately, it can’t do it without state help. We’ve already seen the difficulties created for the Act by the number of states that simply refused to set up exchanges for the federal government.

“The federal government can barely manage running a website,” Tenth Amendment Center Executive Director Michael Boldin said.

This follows James Madison’s advice for states and individuals in Federalist #46. He advised a “refusal to cooperate with officers of the Union” when states engage in unwarrantable acts.

Judge Andrew Napolitano noted that if a number of states were to refuse to participate with the ACA in a wholesale fashion, that multi-state action would “gut Obamacare.”

it will gut ObamaCare because the federal government does not have the resources or the wherewithal […] to go into each of the individual states.”

This strategy rests on a well-established legal principle known as the anti-commandeering doctrine. Simply put, the federal government cannot force states to help implement or enforce any federal act or program. The anti-commandeering doctrine is based primarily on four Supreme Court cases dating back to 1842. Printz v. U.S. serves as the cornerstone.

“We held in New York that Congress cannot compel the States to enact or enforce a federal regulatory program. Today we hold that Congress cannot circumvent that prohibition by conscripting the States’ officers directly. The Federal Government may neither issue directives requiring the States to address particular problems, nor command the States’ officers, or those of their political subdivisions, to administer or enforce a federal regulatory program. It matters not whether policy making is involved, and no case by case weighing of the burdens or benefits is necessary; such commands are fundamentally incompatible with our constitutional system of dual sovereignty.”

How all of this plays out remains to be seen. But if multiple states begin to simply ignore Obamacare, refuse to enforce it and create frameworks for better healthcare delivery within their borders, Obamacare will ultimately collapse like the house of cards it is.

Mike Maharrey
March 01, 2018 at 05:47AM

Tenth Amendment Center: Michigan Senate Passes Bill to Ban “Material Support or Resources” for Warrantless Federal Surveillance

From Tenth Amendment Center

...from Tenth Amendment Center

LANSING, Mich. (Feb. 28, 2018) – Today, the Michigan Senate unanimously passed a bill that would ban “material support or resources” for warrantless federal surveillance programs. This represents an essential step states need to take at a time when the federal government seems unlikely to ever end unconstitutional spying on its own.

Rep. Martin Howrylak (R-Troy) introduced House Bill 4430 (HB4430) last spring. The legislation would prohibit the state and its political subdivisions from assisting, participating with, or providing “material support or resources, to a federal agency to enable it to collect, or to facilitate in the collection or use of a person’s electronic data” unless one of five conditions apply:

(a) The person has given informed consent.
(b) The action is pursuant to a warrant that is based upon probable cause and particularly describes the person, place, or thing to be searched or seized.
(c) The action is in accordance with a legally recognized exception to warrant requirements.
(d) The action will not infringe on any reasonable expectation of privacy the person may have.
(e) This state or a political subdivision of this state collected the electronic data or metadata legally.

The Senate Judiciary Committee added exceptions (d) and (e) to address concerns that state executive agencies would not be able to share data legally collected in the course of everyday operations with federal agencies. For instance, the state department of education often shares data with the federal DoE.With the amended language, the executive branch department offered their support for the bill and it unanimously passed committee.

The Senate passed HB4430 by a 37-0 vote. The bill previously passed the House 107-1.

“If the federal government continues its mass warrantless surveillance programs, it should get no help carrying them out from the State of Michigan,” Howrylak said. “My bill will certify that the State of Michigan will not assist the federal government in any data collection unless it is 100 percent consistent with the U.S. Constitution.”

FISA REAUTHORIZATION

Despite concerns about warrantless surveillance in the wake of Edward Snowden’s revelations, Congress has done nothing to rein in NSA spying. In January, Congress reauthorized the FISA Sec. 702.

As Andrew Napolitano explained, “the FISA-created process permits a secret court in Washington to issue general warrants based on the government’s need to gather intelligence about national security from foreigners among us. It pretends that the standard is probable cause of foreign agency, but this has now morphed into the issuance of general warrants whenever the government wants them.” A typical FISA warrant authorizes government surveillance on all landlines, mobile devices and desktop computers in a given area. While the process was created to monitor foreign agents, it sweeps up reams of data belonging to Americans.

Before approving a six-year extension of Section 702, the House voted to kill an amendment that would have overhauled the surveillance program and addressed some privacy concerns. Provisions in the amendment would have required agents to get warrants in most cases before hunting for and reading Americans’ emails and other messages that get swept up under the program.

Just one day after Trump signed the extension into law, news came out about the infamous FISA memo. This memo was available to members of the House Intelligence Committee prior to the vote to reauthorize FISA. None of this information was made available to Congress at large. Most telling, every single Republican member of the House Intelligence Committee voted to reauthorize Sec. 702, and in a heartwarming show of bipartisanship, six of the nine Democratic representatives on the committee joined their colleagues.

This is yet another indication we can’t count on Congress to limit its spy-programs.

PRACTICAL EFFECT

The feds share and tap into vast amounts of information gathered at the state and local level through a program known as the “information sharing environment” or ISE. In other words, these partnerships facilitate federal efforts to track the movements of, and obtain and store information on, millions of Americans. This includes monitoring phone calls, emails, web browsing history and text messages, all with no warrant, no probable cause, and without the people even knowing it.

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.

Because the federal government relies heavily on partnerships and information sharing with state and local law enforcement agencies, passage of HB4430 could potentially hinder warrantless surveillance in the state. For instance, if the feds wanted to engage in mass surveillance on specific groups or political organizations in Michigan, it would have to proceed without state or local assistance. That would likely prove problematic.

State and local law enforcement agencies regularly provide surveillance data to the federal government through ISE and Fusion Centers. They collect and store information from cell-site simulators (AKA “stingrays”), automated license plate readers (ALPRs), drones, facial recognition systems, and even “smart” or “advanced” power meters in homes.

Passage of HB4430 could set the stage to end this sharing of warrantless information with the federal government. It would also prohibit state and local agencies from actively assisting in warrantless surveillance operations.

By including a prohibition on participation in the illegal collection and use of electronic data and metadata by the state, HB4430 would also prohibit what NSA former Chief Technical Director William Binney called the country’s “greatest threat since the Civil War.”

The bill would ban the state from obtaining or making use of electronic data or metadata obtained by the NSA without a warrant.

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.

NSA FACILITIES

The original definition of “material support or resources” included providing tangible support such as money, goods, and materials and also less concrete support, such as “personnel” and “training.” Section 805 of the PATRIOT Act expanded the definition to include “expert advice or assistance.”

Practically-speaking, the legislation would almost certainly stop the NSA from ever setting up a new facility in Michigan.

In 2006, the agency maxed out the Baltimore-area power grid, creating the potential, as the Baltimore Sun reported, for a “virtual shutdown of the agency.” Since then, the NSA aggressively expanded in states like Utah, Texas, Georgia and elsewhere, generally focusing on locations that can provide cheap and plentiful resources like water and power.

For instance, analysts estimate the NSA data storage facility in Bluffdale, Utah, will use 46 million gallons of water every day to cool its massive computers. The city supplies this water based on a contract it entered into with the spy agency. The state could turn off the water by voiding the contract or refusing to renew it. No water would effectively mean no NSA facility.

What will stop the NSA from expanding in other states? Bills like HB4430. By passing this legislation, Michigan would become much less attractive for the NSA because it would not be able to access state or local water or power supplies. If enough states step up and pass the Fourth Amendment Protection Act, we can literally box them in and shut them down.

LEGAL BASIS

HB4430 rests on a well-established legal principle known as the anti-commandeering doctrine. Simply put, the federal government cannot force states to help implement or enforce any federal act or program. The anti-commandeering doctrine is based primarily on four Supreme Court cases dating back to 1842. Printz v. US serves as the cornerstone.

“We held in New York that Congress cannot compel the States to enact or enforce a federal regulatory program. Today we hold that Congress cannot circumvent that prohibition by conscripting the States’ officers directly. The Federal Government may neither issue directives requiring the States to address particular problems, nor command the States’ officers, or those of their political subdivisions, to administer or enforce a federal regulatory program. It matters not whether policy making is involved, and no case by case weighing of the burdens or benefits is necessary; such commands are fundamentally incompatible with our constitutional system of dual sovereignty.”

WHAT’S NEXT

HB4430 now must go back to the House for concurrence with the Senate amendment.

Mike Maharrey
February 28, 2018 at 10:24AM

Tenth Amendment Center: Wyoming Senate Passes Bill to Exempt Cryptocurrency from Property Taxes; Encourage Use and Help Undermine Federal Reserve Monopoly on Money

From Tenth Amendment Center

...from Tenth Amendment Center

CHEYENNE, Wyo. (Feb. 28, 2018) – Yesterday, the Wyoming Senate passed a bill to exempt cryptocurrency from property taxes. The proposed law would expand the of use digital currency and help undermine the Federal Reserve’s monopoly on money.

A bipartisan coalition of six senators and representatives introduced Senate Bill 111 (SF111) on Feb. 14. The legislation would exempt “virtual currencies” from state property taxes. The bill defines “virtual currencies” as “any type of digital representation of value that is used as a medium of exchange, unit of account or store of value and is not recognized as legal tender by the United States government.”

Passage of SF111 would move toward making virtual currencies, such as Bitcoin (BTC), Bitcoin Cash (BCH), Ethereum (ETH), Litecoin (LTC) and Zcash (ZEC), on par with paper currency, gold, silver, other coins, bank drafts, certified checks and cashiers checks. In other words, the proposed law would treat cryptocurrency like money for tax purposes.

On Feb. 16, the Senate Revenue Committee passed SF111 by a 3-1 vote. On Feb. 21, the Senate Rules Committee approved the measure 5-0. Yesterday, the full Senate passed the bill unanimously, 30-0.

Removing tax penalties for holding or using cryptocurrency would open the door for its broader use. When you tax something, you get less of it. When you remove taxes, you will get more of the activity.

Cryptocurrencies are really nothing more than digital money. We don’t tax money, so there is no reason a state should tax Bitcoin and other virtual currencies.

“We ought not to tax money – and that’s a good idea. It makes no sense to tax money,” former U.S. Rep. Ron Paul said during testimony in support an Arizona bill that repealed capital gains taxes on gold and silver in that state.

Passage of SF111 into law would take an important first step toward generating currency competition. If other forms of money, whether it be cryptocurrencies or gold and silver, gain a foothold in the marketplace against Federal Reserve notes, people will be able to choose them over the central bank’s rapidly-depreciating paper currency. The freedom of choice expanded by SF111would help allow Wyoming residents to secure the purchasing power of their money.

In a paper published at the Mises Institute, Constitutional tender expert Professor William Greene said when people in multiple states start using gold and silver instead of Federal Reserve Notes, it would effectively nullify the Federal Reserve and end the federal government’s monopoly on money.

“Over time, as residents of the state use both Federal Reserve notes and silver and gold coins, the fact that the coins hold their value more than Federal Reserve notes do will lead to a “reverse Gresham’s Law” effect, where good money (gold and silver coins) will drive out bad money (Federal Reserve notes). As this happens, a cascade of events can begin to occur, including the flow of real wealth toward the state’s treasury, an influx of banking business from outside of the state – as people in other states carry out their desire to bank with sound money – and an eventual outcry against the use of Federal Reserve notes for any transactions.”

Once things get to that point, Federal Reserve notes would become largely unwanted and irrelevant for ordinary people.

Cryptocurrencies open up another pathway to this same goal.

WHAT’S NEXT

SF111 now moves to the House, where it will first need to pass out of the committee process before moving forward.

Mike Maharrey
February 28, 2018 at 10:12AM

Tenth Amendment Center: Minnesota Bill Takes on Federal Militarization of Police

From Tenth Amendment Center

...from Tenth Amendment Center

ST. PAUL, Minn. (Feb. 28, 2018) – A bill introduced in the Minnesota Senate would bar state and local law enforcement agencies from acquiring “military grade weapons” through federal military surplus programs.

Sen. Jerry Newton (D-Coon Rapids) introduced Senate Bill 2615 (SF2615) on Feb. 22. The legislation would prohibit a Minnesota state or local unit of government or a law enforcement agency from acquiring military-grade weapons pursuant to a military equipment surplus program operated by the federal government. SF2615 defines military grade weapons as “militarily equipped vehicles and aircraft, weapons, and other objects designed to primarily have a military purpose or offensive capability, and ammunition.”

The provisions of SF2615 would apply to military equipment available both through the well-known 1033 program, along with any other military surplus program operated by the federal government.

The proposed law would likely require additional steps to create a process to determine specifically what equipment falls under the definition of “military grade.”

FEDERAL SURPLUS AND GRANT MONEY

Through the federal 1033 Program, local police departments procure military grade weapons, including automatic assault rifles, body armor and mine-resistant armored vehicles – essentially unarmed tanks. Police departments can even get their hands on military helicopters and other aircraft.

Police can also get military equipment through the Department of Homeland Security via the (DHS) “Homeland Security Grant Program.” In 2013, DHS gave more than $900 million in counterterrorism funds to state and local police. According to a 2012 Senate report, this money has been used to purchase tactical vehicles, drones, and even tanks with little obvious benefit to public safety. And, according to ProPublica, “In 1994, the Justice Department and the Pentagon-funded a five-year program to adapt military security and surveillance technology for local police departments that they would otherwise not be able to afford.”

In August 2017, President Trump issued an executive order that gave a push to local police militarization. Trump’s action rescinded an Obama-era policy meant to provide greater transparency and oversight around the Department of Defense 1033 program and other federal resources that provide military weapons to local police.

Passage of SF2615 would take the first step toward limiting police militarization by prohibiting Minnesota police departments from getting military equipment from both programs.

COMMAND AND CONTROL

Arming ‘peace officers’ like they’re ready to occupy an enemy city is totally contrary to the society envisioned by the founders. They’ve turned ‘protect and serve’ into ‘command and control.’

In the 1980s, the federal government began arming, funding and training local police forces, turning peace officers into soldiers to fight in its unconstitutional “War on Drugs.” The militarization went into hyper-drive after 9/11 when a second front opened up – the “War on Terror.”

Making it more difficult for local police to acquire this military-grade gear will make them less likely to cooperate with the feds by removing some of the incentives for partnerships. Passage of SF2615 would take a first step toward limiting police militarization in Minnesota.

WHAT’S NEXT

SF2615 was referred to the Senate Judiciary and Public Safety Finance and Policy Committee. It will need to by a majority vote before moving forward in the legislative process.

Mike Maharrey
February 28, 2018 at 08:31AM