TAC Daily Digest

Arizona Senate Passes Bill to Ban Credit Card Codes that Track Gun Purchases

Mike Maharrey — Fri, 07 Mar 2025 23:23:17 +0000

PHOENIX, Ariz. (March 6, 2025) – The Arizona Senate passed a bill that would prohibit financial institutions operating in the state from using a credit card merchant code that enables the tracking of firearm and ammunition purchases.

The Second Amendment Financial Privacy Act would bar financial institutions operating in the state from requiring or incentivizing “the use of a merchant category code in a manner that distinguishes a firearm retailer from other retailers.” It would also bar financial institutions from assigning a merchant category code that distinguishes a firearm retailer from other retail businesses.

Introduced by Sen. Wendy Rogers, Senate Bill 1143 (SB1143) passed the Senate by a 17-12 vote on March 5.

Provisions in the bill would also prohibit any state or local government entity from knowingly keeping “any list, record or registry of privately owned firearms or the owners of the firearms” except during “the regular course of a criminal investigation” or if required by law.

To date, at least 14 states have banned the use of firearms merchant codes.

IMPACT ON FEDERAL PROGRAMS

In response to legislation like SB1143, the major credit card payment networks “paused” implementation of the firearms merchant code in March 2023.

In an email to Reuters, a Mastercard representative said such bills would cause “inconsistency” in how the code could be applied by merchants, banks, and payment networks. The more states that ban such codes, the more likely this program gets scrapped permanently.

In July 2024, Visa and Mastercard told USA Today that they were only using the firearms code in the states that require it by law.

Additionally, data collected from this merchant code would almost certainly end up in federal government databases.

In a nutshell, without the code, the feds can’t gather and compile information on firearms purchases. When the state limits surveillance and data collection, it means less information the feds can tap into. This represents a major blow to the surveillance state and a win for privacy.

BACKGROUND

Merchant Category Codes (MCCs) have their roots in the IRS. They were created to classify different types of businesses and to identify the goods and services they sell. This was sold as an improvement for better tax reporting, and is still touted, as CNBC put it, as a tool to help “prevent things ranging from fraud to human trafficking.” But as is so often the case, “it’s for your safety” morphed into “so we can control you.”

In September 2022, the International Standards Organization, based in Switzerland, approved a new merchant category code for firearm and ammunition merchants. Many of the bills passed specifically reference the code “5723.”

In effect, the firearms code is a de facto gun registry.

In the letter to payment card networks, federal lawmakers stated that the new Merchant Category Code for firearms retailers would be “. . .the first step towards facilitating the collection of valuable financial data that could help law enforcement in countering the financing of terrorism efforts,” expressing a clear government expectation that networks will utilize the new Merchant Category Code to conduct mass surveillance of firearms and ammunition purchases in cooperation with law enforcement.

The more states that ban such codes, the more likely this program gets scrapped permanently.

WHAT’S NEXT

SB1143 moves to the House. Once it receives a committee assignment, it will need to get a hearing and pass by a majority vote before moving forward in the legislative process.

The post Arizona Senate Passes Bill to Ban Credit Card Codes that Track Gun Purchases first appeared on Tenth Amendment Center.

Texas House Committee Passes Bill to Create Process to End State Enforcement of Some Federal Acts

Mike Maharrey — Fri, 07 Mar 2025 22:50:20 +0000

AUSTIN, Texas (March 7, 2025) – On Monday, a Texas Senate committee overwhelmingly passed a bill to create a process in state law to end state and local enforcement of some federal actions.

Sen. Phil King filed Senate Bill 707 (SB707). Under the proposed law, the Texas legislature would be empowered to pass a concurrent resolution declaring a “federal directive” unconstitutional and prohibiting a state or local government officer or employee from enforcing or assisting in the enforcement of the same.

Federal directives include federal laws, executive orders, and agency rules, policies, orders, or standards. Any federal directive that the legislature finds “infringes on a power or right reserved to the state by the Tenth Amendment to the United States Constitution; or prohibits or limits the ability of this state to provide for the health, safety, and welfare of the people of this state; or promote the prosperity of the people of this state” would be subject to such a resolution.

On March 3, the Senate State Affairs Committee reported the bill favorably by a 10-1 vote, moving it forward in the legislative process.

LEGAL BASIS

Under the Constitution, states have the legal authority to bar their agents from enforcing any federal action.

Based on James Madison’s advice for states and individuals in Federalist #46, a “refusal to cooperate with officers of the Union” represents an extremely effective method to stop federal overreach because most enforcement actions rely on help, support, and leadership from state and local governments.

This strategy of using a “refusal to cooperate” with federal enforcement has been reaffirmed under the long-standing and well-established legal principle known as the anti-commandeering doctrine.

As the 3rd Chief Justice, Oliver Ellsworth put it, “This Constitution does not attempt to coerce sovereign bodies, states, in their political capacity”

Simply put, the federal government cannot force states to help implement or enforce any federal act or regulatory program. The anti-commandeering doctrine is based primarily on five major Supreme Court cases dating back to 1842.

Printz v. U.S. serves as the cornerstone.

“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.”

The anti-commandeering doctrine affirms that state and local governments can refuse to enforce federal laws or regulatory programs, regardless of their constitutionality.

WHAT’S NEXT

SB707 can now move to the full Senate for further consideration.

The post Texas House Committee Passes Bill to Create Process to End State Enforcement of Some Federal Acts first appeared on Tenth Amendment Center.

To the Governor: Utah Bill Would Ban Warrantless Reverse-Keyword Search Surveillance

Mike Maharrey — Fri, 07 Mar 2025 22:28:54 +0000

SALT LAKE CITY, Utah (March 7, 2025) – Yesterday, the Utah Senate gave final approval to a bill that would bar reverse key-word searches without a warrant in most cases, sending the legislation to the Governor’s desk.

This is another advance in Utah’s step-by-step approach to protect privacy and limit the surveillance state. In 2023, Utah enacted a law banning warrantless geofence location tracking, Rep. Ryan Wilcox and Sen. Todd Weiler filed House Bill 273 (HB273) to add any search for “reverse keyword information” to that warrant requirement.

Reverse-keyword information is defined as “information that identifies an unnamed individual, by name or other unique identifier, who electronically searched for a particular word, phrase, character string, or website, or visited a particular website through a link generated by an electronic search for a particular word, phrase, character string, or website.” For instance, police could seek a list of all the people who searched for the word “bomb” within a given area.

In effect, reverse-keyword searches are a massive fishing expedition, subjecting hundreds, if not thousands, of innocent people to police scrutiny simply for conducting an internet search.

On March 6, the Senate passed HB273 by a 24-0 vote. It previously cleared the Senate by a 69-0 vote. The bill will now go to Gov. Spencer Cox’s desk for his consideration.

HB273 includes exceptions to the warrant requirement in a few prescribed situations, including to locate a 911 caller in an emergency as dictated by current statute and under “a judicially recognized exception to warrant requirements.”

The proposed law stipulates that in a reverse-keyword search warrant, “the court shall require that all electronic device data provided pursuant to the warrant be anonymized before the reverse-keyword information or reverse-location information is released to the law enforcement agency.”

Reverse keyword data would also be subject to the same retention, disclosure and destruction requirements as geofence location data.

IMPACT ON FEDERAL SURVEILLANCE PROGRAMS

The feds can share and tap into vast amounts of surveillance information gathered at the state and local level.

The feds provide grant money to local law enforcement agencies for a vast array of surveillance gear, including ALPRs, stingray devices, and drones, essentially encouraging and funding a giant nationwide surveillance net. It can then tap into the information via the Information Sharing Environment (ISE).

Fusion centers operate within the broader ISE. In effect, the network serves as a conduit for the sharing of information gathered by multiple agencies across the country, generally without a warrant. Known ISE partners include the Office of Director of National Intelligence which oversees 17 federal agencies and organizations, including the NSA.

By funding state and local surveillance programs, the feds can obtain warrantless data without having to expend the resources to collect it themselves. By restricting the collection of data at the state and local levels, legislation such as HB273 simultaneously limits the information available for the feds to access.

In a nutshell, without state and local cooperation, the feds have a much more difficult time gathering information. The passage of state laws and local ordinances banning and limiting reverse-keyword searches eliminates one avenue for gathering data. Simply put, data that doesn’t exist cannot be entered into federal databases.

WHAT’S NEXT

Gov. Spencer will have 20 days from the date the legislature adjourns to sign or veto HB273. If he takes no action, it will become law without his signature. The general session was scheduled to end March 7.

The post To the Governor: Utah Bill Would Ban Warrantless Reverse-Keyword Search Surveillance first appeared on Tenth Amendment Center.

3 Simple Steps to DESTROY the Constitution (They’re Already Doing It!)

Michael Boldin — Fri, 07 Mar 2025 21:32:59 +0000

Destroying the Constitution and liberty might be easier than you think. In this episode, learn exactly how it could happen – hypothetically speaking, of course. It only takes three simple steps, and by the end, you will hopefully see just how dangerously effective this method can be. Buckle up – this one hits close to home!

Path to Liberty: March 7, 2025

SHOW LINKS:
JOIN TAC

Show Archives

Episode – Necessary and Proper: The Big Lie That Unleashed Big Government

United States v. Miller (1939)

Episode – A Weapon to Destroy Freedom: Founders’ Forgotten Warnings

Thomas Jefferson – Letter to Abigail Adams (11 Sept 1804)

Lysander Spooner – A Defence for Fugitive Slaves (1850)

Thomas Jefferson – Kentucky Resolutions (10 Nov 1798)

Thomas Jefferson – Letter to Isaac H. Tiffany (4 Apr 1819)

MORE VIDEO SOURCES
Watch on Rumble

FOLLOW and SUPPORT TAC:

Become a Member: http://tenthamendmentcenter.com/members/
Email Newsletter: http://tenthamendmentcenter.com/register
RSS: http://feeds.feedburner.com/tacdailydigest

The post 3 Simple Steps to DESTROY the Constitution (They’re Already Doing It!) first appeared on Tenth Amendment Center.

Florida Bill Would Make Gold and Silver Legal Tender

Mike Maharrey — Thu, 06 Mar 2025 02:37:38 +0000

TALLAHASSEE, Fla. (Mar. 5, 2025) – A bill filed in the Florida House would officially recognize gold and silver as legal tender and repeal state taxes on their use and exchange. Passage into law would set the stage for the people themselves to undermine the Federal Reserve monopoly by introducing competition into the monetary system.

Rep. Doug Bankson and Rep. Monique Miller filed House Bill 999 (H999). Under the proposed law, “specie legal tender” would be recognized as legal tender for the “payment of debts, public charges, taxes, or dues.”

State agencies and political subdivisions would be authorized to accept gold or silver for the payment of taxes and fees “if the governmental entity consents to payment with gold or silver and possesses the regulatory authority and technical ability to accept gold or silver payments.”

Under the law, specie legal tender would include, “specie issued by the Federal Government at any time or any other specie recognized by this state or any other state pursuant to section 10, Article I of the United States Constitution.”

“Specie” is defined as coins minted from “refined gold or silver in any shape or form, as adopted by rule by the Chief Financial Officer, which is valued primarily based on the content of the gold or silver and not on its form and function.”

The passage of H999 would make Florida the sixth state to recognize gold and silver as legal tender, as they always should have been doing. Utah led the way, reestablishing constitutional money in 2011. Wyoming, Oklahoma, Arkansas, and Louisiana have since joined.

IN PRACTICE

Practically speaking, this would allow Florida residents to use gold or silver as money rather than as mere investment vehicles.

Passage of H999 would represent a big first step against the fiat-based Federal Reserve system by creating a foundation to pull the rug out from under it on the state and local levels. In essence, it would set the stage for the people themselves to undermine the Federal Reserve monopoly by introducing competition into the monetary system.

The next step would be for people to start taking advantage of the status of gold and silver as money by using both as such instead of Federal Reserve notes.

The effect has been most dramatic in Utah where the Specie Legal Tender Act opened the door for the development of a robust gold and silver economy in the state. With some legal hurdles cleared away by the state’s legal tender law, the United Precious Metal Association (UPMA) in partnership with Alpine Gold Exchange set up the state’s first “gold bank.”

The Act has also led to the creation of the Goldback, a local, voluntary medium of exchange. Goldbacks are notes made from fractions of an ounce of physical gold. The company created a process that turns pure gold into a spendable physical form for small transactions.

New Hampshire also boasts a thriving gold and silver economy. While the state does not officially recognize bullion as legal tender, this has not deterred thousands of residents from using it in private transactions. Because there are no state tax barriers on precious metals, a favorable tax climate – combined with a population willing to embrace sound money – has positioned New Hampshire as another model for others to follow.

GOLD CONTRACT CLAUSE

Beyond the provisions to make gold and silver legal tender, H999 includes language recognizing gold or silver contract clauses.

“Unless specifically provided by the State Constitution or general law or by contract, a person may not compel another person to tender specie or to accept specie as legal tender.”

In practice, including language acknowledging gold contract clauses means if parties voluntarily agree to be paid, or to pay, in gold and silver coin or bullion, Florida courts could not substitute any other thing, e.g. Federal Reserve Notes, as payment.

The principle behind a gold clause contract is simple. It requires that payment must be made in a specific amount of gold or its paper equivalent. For example, a mortgage might stipulate that repayment must be in the form of 30 ounces of gold. Gold clauses protect the parties to a contract from currency debasement, and incentivize the use of sound money.

REMOVING TAXES

H999 would effectively repeal all state taxes on the purchase or use of specie.

“Specie or specie legal tender may not be characterized as personal property for taxation or regulatory purposes. The purchase or sale of any type or form of specie does not give rise to any state tax liability. The exchange or conversion of one type or form of legal tender for another type or form of legal tender does not give rise to any state tax liability.”

In effect it would repeal the state’s capital gains tax on gold and silver bullion.

Taxes on precious metal bullion erect barriers to using gold and silver as money by raising transaction costs.

Florida is already one of 45 states that do not levy sales tax on gold and silver bullion. Exempting the sale of bullion from capital gains taxes takes another step toward treating gold and silver as money instead of commodities. Taxes on precious metal bullion erect barriers to using gold and silver as money by raising transaction costs.

Imagine if the IRS sent you a bill every time the dollar strengthened against the euro. That’s effectively what capital gains taxes on gold and silver do. As the precious metals prices go up due to the devaluation of the dollar, the government levies a tax on you. It is essentially a tax on the superior performance of gold and silver as money.

“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 of an Arizona bill that repealed capital gains taxes on gold and silver in that state. “Paper is not money, it’s fraud,” he continued.

BACKGROUND

The United States Constitution states in Article I, Section 10, “No State shall…make any Thing but gold and silver Coin a Tender in Payment of Debts.” Currently, all debts and taxes in most states are either paid with Federal Reserve Notes (dollars) which were authorized as legal tender by Congress, or with coins issued by the U.S. Treasury – very few of which have gold or silver in them.

The Federal Reserve destroys this constitutional monetary system by creating a monopoly based on its fiat paper currency. Without the backing of gold or silver, the central bank can easily create money out of thin air.
This not only devalues your purchasing power over time; it also allows the federal government to borrow and spend far beyond what would be possible in a sound money system. Without the Fed, the U.S. government wouldn’t be able to maintain all of its unconstitutional wars and programs. The Federal Reserve is the engine that drives the most powerful government in the history of the world.

State bills that facilitate and encourage the use of sound money create a playing field where people can push back against the Fed’s monetary malfeasance. Ultimately, it could create a scenario where people can drive out the “bad” fiat money with “good” sound money.

WHAT’S NEXT

H999 will be referred to a House committee where it will need to get a hearing and pass by a majority vote before moving forward in the legislative process.

The post Florida Bill Would Make Gold and Silver Legal Tender first appeared on Tenth Amendment Center.

Defend the Guard Act: Michigan Bills Would End Unconstitutional Deployments

Mike Maharrey — Thu, 06 Mar 2025 02:32:34 +0000

LANSING, Mich. (March 5, 2025) – Bills filed in the Michigan House would prohibit the state’s National Guard from being deployed into “active duty combat” unless Congress issues a declaration of war or calls the Guard into service for one of three constitutionally authorized purposes.

Rep. Steve Carra filed House Bill 4163 (HB4163) and Rep. Dylan Wegela filed House Bill 4164 (HB4164). Together, the bills would create the Michigan Defend the Guard Act. The law would prohibit the governor from releasing any unit or member of the Michigan National Guard into “active duty combat” unless the United States Congress passes “an official declaration of war” as required by Article I, Section 8, Clause 11 of the Constitution, or Congress “has taken an official action under Clause 15 of Section 8 of Article 1 of the Constitution of the United States.”

HB4164 would establish definitions within an existing Michigan statute. Specifically, it would define “active duty combat” as “participating in or performing any of the following active services in the service of the United States.”

An armed conflict.
A hazardous service relating to an armed conflict in a foreign country.
A duty through an instrumentality of war.

Residents of Michigan can take action to help the Defend the Guard Act move forward at this link.

IN EFFECT

Guard troops have played significant roles in all modern overseas conflicts. Since 9/11 National Guard members have supported more than 1.1 million overseas deployments. Military.com reports that “Guard and Reserve units made up about 45 percent of the total force sent to Iraq and Afghanistan, and received about 18.4 percent of the casualties.”

More specifically, Michigan National Guard troops have participated in missions in Iraq, Afghanistan, Syria, and elsewhere.

MILITIA CLAUSES

Article I, Section 8, Clauses 15 and 16 make up the “militia clauses” of the Constitution. Clause 16 authorizes Congress to “provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining the Militia.”

Through the Dick Act of 1903, Congress organized a portion of the militia into today’s National Guard, limiting the part of the militia that could be called into federal service rather than the “entire body of people,” which makes up the totality of the “militia.” Thus, today’s National Guard is governed by the “militia clauses” of the Constitution, and this view is confirmed by the National Guard itself.

Clause 15 delegates to Congress the power to provide for “calling forth the militia” in three situations only: 1) to execute the laws of the union, 2) to suppress insurrections, and 3) to repel invasions.

During state ratifying conventions, proponents of the Constitution, including James Madison and Edmund Randolph, repeatedly assured the people that this power to call forth the militia into federal service would be limited to those very specific situations, and not for general purposes.

For instance, during the Virginia ratifying convention, Madison asserted, “Congress ought to have the power to establish a uniform discipline throughout the states, and to provide for the execution of the laws, suppress insurrections, and repel invasions: these are the only cases wherein they can interfere with the militia.” [Emphasis added]

DECLARE WAR

The founding generation was careful to ensure the president wouldn’t have unilateral power to drag the United States into war. Instead, that power was delegated exclusively to the representatives of the people and the states – in Congress. James Madison made this clear in a letter to Thomas Jefferson.

“The constitution supposes, what the History of all Governments demonstrates, that the Executive is the branch of power most interested in war, & most prone to it. It has accordingly with studied care, vested the question of war in the Legislature.”

Article I, Section 8, Clause 11 of the Constitution delegates the power to “declare war” to Congress.

At the time the Constitution was ratified, the power to “declare” war was widely understood to mean changing the state of things from peace to war.

Most people today think that the term “war” in the Constitution only means an all-out war with another country. In their view, more limited military operations that fall short of total war don’t need congressional authorization. But as Constitutional scholar Rob Natelson noted, the founders didn’t make this distinction.

“Founding-Era dictionaries and other sources, both legal and lay, tell us that when the Constitution was approved, ‘war’ consisted of any hostilities initiated by a sovereign over opposition. A very typical dictionary definition was, ‘the exercise of violence under sovereign command against such as oppose.’” (Barlow, 1772-73). [Emphasis added]

When placed within the definition, all offensive U.S. military actions qualify as “violence under sovereign command.” Furthermore, military operations, whether for strategic, political, or humanitarian purposes, are always “over opposition.”

It’s also important to note a country can change the state of things from peace to war with a formal declaration, but it can also happen with the execution of military actions, however limited.

Simply put, any offensive measure requires congressional authorization, not just full-scale wars.

This is exactly how the Constitution was understood – and followed – by the first four presidents – Washington, Adams, Jefferson, and Madison.

Justice Joseph Story affirmed this limited role of the state militia in Martin v. Mott (1827).

“The power thus confided by Congress to the President is doubtless, of a very high and delicate nature. A free people are naturally jealous of the exercise of military power, and the power to call the militia into actual service is certainly felt to be one of no ordinary magnitude. But it is not a power which can be executed without a correspondent responsibility. It is, in its terms, a limited power, confined to cases of actual invasion or of imminent danger of invasion.”

DUTY

Congress has abrogated its responsibility and allowed the president to exercise almost complete discretion when it comes to war. Passage of the Defend the Act legislation would ban the state from helping Congress and the executive violate their duties to uphold the Constitution.

McGeehan served as an Air Force intelligence officer in Afghanistan and has sponsored similar legislation in his state since 2016.

“For decades, the power of war has long been abused by this supreme executive, and unfortunately our men and women in uniform have been sent off into harm’s way over and over,” he said. “If the U.S. Congress is unwilling to reclaim its constitutional obligation, then the states themselves must act to correct the erosion of constitutional law.”

Defend the Guard legislation has gained increasing traction each year. In 2024, the New Hampshire House, the Arizona Senate, and the Idaho Senate all passed Defend the Guard bills. None were signed as law.

While getting this bill over the finish line won’t be easy, and will face fierce opposition from the establishment, it certainly is, as Daniel Webster once noted, “one of the reasons state governments even exist.”

Webster made this observation in an 1814 speech on the floor of Congress where he urged actions similar to the Defend the Guard Act. He said, “The operation of measures thus unconstitutional and illegal ought to be prevented by a resort to other measures which are both constitutional and legal. It will be the solemn duty of the State governments to protect their own authority over their own militia, and to interpose between their citizens and arbitrary power. These are among the objects for which the State governments exist.”

WHAT’S NEXT

HB4163 and HB4164 were referred to the House Committee on Government Operations where they must get a hearing and pass by a majority vote before moving forward in the legislative process. Residents of Michigan can take action to help the Defend the Guard Act move forward at this link.

The post Defend the Guard Act: Michigan Bills Would End Unconstitutional Deployments first appeared on Tenth Amendment Center.

Constitutional Money Act Clears Missouri House Committee

TAC News — Wed, 05 Mar 2025 23:20:30 +0000

JEFFERSON CITY, Mo. (Mar. 5, 2024) – Yesterday, a House committee advanced a bill that would officially recognize gold and silver as legal tender, eliminate state capital gains taxes on both, and ban support for any federal confiscation schemes.

Rep. Bill Hardwick introduced House Bill 433 (HB433). Under the “The Constitutional Money Act,” gold and silver would be accepted as legal tender in physical or electronic form, and would be receivable in payment of all debts contracted for in the state of Missouri.

Rep. Michael Davis filed a similar bill, House Bill 630 (HB630). It includes the same language as HB433 – and both are a companion to Senate Bill 25 (SB25).

On Feb. 25, the House Government Efficiency Committee held a public hearing on both bills. This is an important first step in the legislative process. There were 60 witness application forms in support of the bills and only one in opposition. On Mar. 4, the committee approved the bills by a vote of 14-4, with HB433 now being the primary vehicle for further consideration in the full House.

Under the proposed law, the state would be required to accept gold and silver for the payment of public debts. Private debts could be settled in gold and silver at the parties’ discretion. The proposed law would also permit any entity doing business in this state to compensate its employees, in full or in part, in the dollar equivalent specie legal tender either in physical or in electronic transfer form.

The Director of the Department of Revenue would be tasked with “promulgating rules on the methods of acceptance of specie legal tender as payment for any debt, tax, fee, or obligation owed.”

The passage of the Constitutional Money Act would make Missouri the sixth state to recognize gold and silver as legal tender, as they always should have been doing. Utah led the way, reestablishing constitutional money in 2011. Wyoming, Oklahoma, Arkansas, and Louisiana have since joined.

IN PRACTICE

This would allow Missouri residents to use gold or silver in physical or electronic form as money rather than as mere investment vehicles.

Article I, Section 10 of the Constitution for the United States expressly prohibits states from [making] “any Thing but gold and silver Coin a Tender in Payment of Debts.” Virtually all debts in Missouri are either paid with Federal Reserve Notes (dollars) which were authorized as legal tender by Congress, or with coins issued by the U.S. Treasury – very few of which have gold or silver in them.

The Federal Reserve destroys this constitutional monetary system by creating a monetary monopoly based on its fiat paper currency. Without the backing of gold or silver, the central bank can easily create money out of thin air.

Passage of The Constitutional Money Act would represent a big first step against this fiat-based Federal Reserve system by creating a foundation to pull the rug out from under it on the state and local levels. In essence, it would set the stage for the people themselves to undermine the Federal Reserve monopoly by introducing competition into the monetary system.

The next step would be for people to start taking advantage of the status of gold and silver as money by using both as such instead of Federal Reserve notes.

The effect has been most dramatic in Utah where the Specie Legal Tender Act opened the door for the development of a robust gold and silver economy in the state. With some legal hurdles cleared away by the Act, the United Precious Metal Association (UPMA) in partnership with Alpine Gold Exchange set up the state’s first “gold bank.”

REMOVING TAXES

HB433 and HB630 would also exempt the sale of gold and silver bullion from the state’s capital gains tax.

Missouri is already one of 45 states that do not levy sales tax on gold and silver bullion. Exempting the sale of bullion from capital gains taxes takes another step toward treating gold and silver as money instead of commodities. Taxes on precious metal bullion erect barriers to using gold and silver as money by raising transaction costs.

“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 of an Arizona bill that repealed capital gains taxes on gold and silver in that state. “Paper is not money, it’s fraud,” he continued.

FEDERAL CONFISCATION SCHEMES

HB433 and HB630 include provisions prohibiting any state or local cooperation with federal actions to confiscate gold or silver or that interfere with a person’s right to use legal tender in Missouri.

“Under no circumstance shall the state of Missouri or any department, agency, court, political subdivision, or instrumentality thereof enforce or attempt to enforce any federal acts, laws, executive orders, administrative orders, rules, regulations, statutes, or ordinances infringing on the right of a person to keep and use specie legal tender and electronic currency as provided in this section.”

The provisions prohibiting the state from enforcing or implementing certain federal acts rest 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 – whether constitutional or not. The anti-commandeering doctrine is based primarily on five Supreme Court cases dating back to 1842.

Based on James Madison’s four-step blueprint for states and individuals to stop federal programs, using a “refusal to cooperate with officers of the Union” provides an extremely effective method to render federal laws unenforceable in practice because most enforcement actions rely on material support from the states.

WHAT’S NEXT

HB433 will now move to the House Rules committee, where it must pass by a simple majority before moving forward in the legislative process.

The post Constitutional Money Act Clears Missouri House Committee first appeared on Tenth Amendment Center.

Defend the Guard Act Passes Arizona Senate

Michael Boldin — Wed, 05 Mar 2025 22:19:16 +0000

PHOENIX, Ariz. (Mar. 5, 2025) – The Arizona Defend the Guard Act took a major step forward today, passing the state Senate by a vote of .

The legislation would prohibit the governor from releasing any unit or member of the Arizona National Guard into “active duty combat” unless Congress passed an “official declaration of war” as required by Article I, Section 8, Clause 11 of the Constitution, or if Congress takes “an official action pursuant to Article I, Section 8, Clause 15″ of the Constitution for the United States.

Sen. Wendy Rogers along with a large number of cosponsors filed the Arizona Defend the Guard Act as Senate Bill 1495 (SB1495). Today, the Senate passed the bill by a vote of 16-13, sending the measure to the House for further consideration. Residents of Arizona can take action to help the Defend the Guard Act move forward at this link.

“Active duty combat” is defined as performing the following services in the active federal military service:

Participating in an armed conflict.
Performance of a hazardous service in a foreign state.
Performance of a duty through an instrumentality of war

A similar bill has passed the Arizona Senate the last two years, but it has yet to clear the state House. Residents of Arizona can take action to help the Defend the Guard Act move forward at this link.

MILITIA CLAUSES

Article I, Section 8, Clauses 15 and 16 make up the “militia clauses” of the Constitution. Clause 16 authorizes Congress to “provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining the Militia.”

DECLARE WAR

Article I, Section 8, Clause 11 of the Constitution delegates the power to “declare war” to Congress.

At the time the Constitution was ratified, the power to “declare” war was widely understood to mean changing the state of things from peace to war.

It’s also important to note a country can change the state of things from peace to war with a formal declaration, but it can also happen with the execution of military actions, however limited.

Simply put, any offensive measure requires congressional authorization, not just full-scale wars.

This is exactly how the Constitution was understood – and followed – by the first four presidents – Washington, Adams, Jefferson, and Madison.

Justice Joseph Story affirmed this limited role of the state militia in Martin v. Mott (1827).

DUTY

West Virginia Rep. Pat McGeehan served as an Air Force intelligence officer in Afghanistan and has sponsored similar legislation in his state.

Webster made this observation in an 1814 speech on the floor of Congress where he urged actions similar to the Arizona Defend the Guard Act. He said, “The operation of measures thus unconstitutional and illegal ought to be prevented by a resort to other measures which are both constitutional and legal. It will be the solemn duty of the State governments to protect their own authority over their own militia, and to interpose between their citizens and arbitrary power. These are among the objects for which the State governments exist.”

IN EFFECT

More specifically, Arizona National Guard troops have participated in missions in Iraq, Afghanistan, and other countries.

WHAT’S NEXT

SB1495 will now move to the House, where it will first need to pass through the committee process before the full chamber has an opportunity to concur. Residents of Arizona can take action to help the Defend the Guard Act move forward at this link.

The post Defend the Guard Act Passes Arizona Senate first appeared on Tenth Amendment Center.

Alabama Senate Unanimously Passes Bill to Recognize Gold and Silver as Legal Tender

Mike Maharrey — Wed, 05 Mar 2025 20:10:23 +0000

MONTGOMERY, Ala. (March 5, 2025) – Yesterday, the Alabama Senate unanimously passed a bill to recognize gold and silver as legal tender. If encated, it would set the stage for the people to undermine the Federal Reserve monopoly by introducing competition into the monetary system.

Sen. Tim Melson filed Senate Bill 130 (SB130). Under the Alabama Legal Tender Act, “any refined gold or silver bullion, specie, or coin that has been stamped, marked, or imprinted with its weight and purity” would be recognized as legal tender in the state.

The passage of SB130 would make Alabama the sixth state to recognize gold and silver as legal tender, as they always should have been doing. Utah led the way, reestablishing constitutional money in 2011. Wyoming, Oklahoma, Arkansas, and Louisiana have since joined.

On March 4, the Senate passed SB130 by a 31-0 vote.

GOLD CONTRACT CLAUSE

Beyond the provisions to make gold and silver legal tender, SB130 includes language recognizing gold or silver contract clauses.

“No person shall be required to offer or accept any recognized legal tender … except as specifically provided for by contract or otherwise required by law.”

In practice, including language acknowledging gold contract clauses means if parties voluntarily agree to be paid, or to pay, in gold and silver coin or bullion, AlabamaFida courts could not substitute any other thing, e.g. Federal Reserve Notes, as payment.

IN PRACTICE

Passage of SB130 would represent another step against the fiat-based Federal Reserve system by creating a foundation to pull the rug out from under it on the state and local levels.

Alabama recently repealed both its sales tax and capital gains tax on gold and silver. The passage of SB130 would take another step, further opening the door for residents to use gold or silver as money rather than as mere investment vehicles.

In essence, it would set the stage for the people themselves to undermine the Federal Reserve monopoly by introducing competition into the monetary system.

The next step would be for people to start taking advantage of the status of gold and silver as money by using both as such instead of Federal Reserve notes.

BACKGROUND

This not only devalues your purchasing power over time; it also allows the federal government to borrow and spend far beyond what would be possible in a sound money system. Without the Fed, the U.S. government wouldn’t be able to maintain all of its unconstitutional wars and programs. The Federal Reserve is the engine that drives the most powerful government in the history of the world.

WHAT’S NEXT

SB130 now moves to the House for further consideration. It was referred to the House Financial Services Committee where it must get a hearing and pass by a majority vote before moving forward in the legislative process.

The post Alabama Senate Unanimously Passes Bill to Recognize Gold and Silver as Legal Tender first appeared on Tenth Amendment Center.

The Forgotten Boston Massacre Speech They Wanted to Silence

Michael Boldin — Wed, 05 Mar 2025 19:49:57 +0000

In 1771, James Lovell stood before a massive crowd in Boston to deliver a speech commemorating the first anniversary of the Boston Massacre on March 5, 1770. His oration left no room for compromise: warning against standing armies, defending the people’s right to bear arms, declaring freedom as a birthright, and rejecting Parliament’s authority over the colonies entirely. This episode explores James Lovell’s powerful speech, its aftermath, and a background story about Paul Revere’s role in the commemoration of the Boston Massacre.

Path to Liberty: March 5, 2025

SHOW LINKS:
JOIN TAC

Show Archives

Dave Benner – Today in History: The Massacre in Boston

JL Bell – “The Town make choice of a proper Person to deliver an Oration”

Stuart McManus – Late-Humanism and Revolutionary Eloquence: James Lovell and His 1771 Boston Massacre Oration

James Lovell – Massacre Day Oration (2 Apr 1771)

Blackstone – Commentaries on the Laws of England in Four Books, vol. 1

Thomas Jefferson – Summary View of the Rights of British America (1774)

Thomas Hutchinson – Letter to John Pownall (18 Apr 1771)

Dave Roos – History.com

Boston Gazette (11 Mar 1771)

Previous Massacre Day Episodes

John Hancock (1774)

Joseph Warren (1772)

Benjamin Church (1773)

Joseph Warren (1775)

MORE VIDEO SOURCES
Watch on Rumble

FOLLOW and SUPPORT TAC:

Become a Member: http://tenthamendmentcenter.com/members/
Email Newsletter: http://tenthamendmentcenter.com/register
RSS: http://feeds.feedburner.com/tacdailydigest

The post The Forgotten Boston Massacre Speech They Wanted to Silence first appeared on Tenth Amendment Center.

Defend the Guard Act Clears Montana House Panel

Michael Boldin — Wed, 05 Mar 2025 03:40:04 +0000

HELENA, Mont. (Mar. 4, 2025) – A Montana House committee approved a bill that would prohibit the state’s National Guard from being deployed into “active duty combat” unless Congress issues a declaration of war or calls the Guard into service for one of three constitutionally authorized purposes.

Rep. Lee Deming filed House Bill 404 (HB404). The Montana Defend the Guard Act would prohibit the governor from releasing any unit or member of the Montana National Guard into federal service, including “active duty combat” unless the United States Congress passes “a declaration of war” as required by Article I, Section 8, Clause 11 of the Constitution, or if Congress takes “an official action pursuant to Article I, section 8, clause 15, of the United States Constitution.”

Today, the House Energy, Technology and Federal Relations approved the measure by a vote of 8-6, sending it to the full House for further consideration.

“Active duty combat” is defined as performing the following services in the active federal military service of the United States:

Participation in an armed conflict.
Performance of a hazardous service relating to an armed conflict in a foreign state.
Performance of a duty through an instrumentality of war.

They would specifically allow for the federalization of Montana National Guard units for training, responding to domestic emergencies, homeland defense activities, and counter-drug operations within the U.S. and its territories.

Residents of Montana who support the legislation can take action to help it move forward at this link.

MILITIA CLAUSES

Article I, Section 8, Clauses 15 and 16 make up the “militia clauses” of the Constitution. Clause 16 authorizes Congress to “provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining the Militia.”

DECLARE WAR

Article I, Section 8, Clause 11 of the Constitution delegates the power to “declare war” to Congress.

At the time the Constitution was ratified, the power to “declare” war was widely understood to mean changing the state of things from peace to war.

It’s also important to note a country can change the state of things from peace to war with a formal declaration, but it can also happen with the execution of military actions, however limited.

Simply put, any offensive measure requires congressional authorization, not just full-scale wars.

This is exactly how the Constitution was understood – and followed – by the first four presidents – Washington, Adams, Jefferson, and Madison.

Justice Joseph Story affirmed this limited role of the state militia in Martin v. Mott (1827).

DUTY

West Virginia Rep. Pat McGeehan served as an Air Force intelligence officer in Afghanistan and has sponsored similar legislation in his state.

Webster made this observation in an 1814 speech on the floor of Congress where he urged actions similar to the Montana Defend the Guard Act. He said, “The operation of measures thus unconstitutional and illegal ought to be prevented by a resort to other measures which are both constitutional and legal. It will be the solemn duty of the State governments to protect their own authority over their own militia, and to interpose between their citizens and arbitrary power. These are among the objects for which the State governments exist.”

IN EFFECT

More specifically, Montana National Guard units have participated in missions in Iraq, Afghanistan, Kosovo, and other countries.

WHAT’S NEXT

HB404 will now move to the full house, where it will need to pass through 2nd and 3rd readings in order to move forward in the legislative process. Residents of Montana can take action to help it move forward at this link.

The post Defend the Guard Act Clears Montana House Panel first appeared on Tenth Amendment Center.

Arizona Senate Passes Bill to Block CBDC as Legal Tender and Money

TAC News — Wed, 05 Mar 2025 02:02:41 +0000

PHOENIX, Ariz. (Mar. 4, 2025) – On Monday, the Arizona Senate passed a bill that would expressly exclude a central bank digital currency (CBDC) from the definition of money and legal tender in the state, creating potentially significant roadblocks to its use as such in the state.

Sen. Jake Hoffman and Rep. Rachel Jones introduced Senate Bill 1095 (SB1095). The legislation would ban the use of CBDC as “legal tender” in the state:

“Federally recognized central bank digital currency may not be used as legal tender or be the subject or medium of payment of any contract, security or other similar instrument in this state.”

It would also amend the Arizona Uniform Commercial Code (UCC). Currently, “money” is defined as “a medium of exchange authorized or adopted by a domestic or foreign government,” and includes “a monetary unit established by intergovernmental organizations or agreements between countries.” SB1095 would add language to clarify that money “does not include a federally recognized central bank digital currency.”

On March 3, the Senate passed SB1095 by a vote of 17-12.

Arizona is not alone in excluding CBDC from the definition of money in the UCC. Similar legislation has already been signed as law in Arkansas, Indiana, Florida, South Dakota, Tennessee, and Utah.

IN PRACTICE

While it remains unclear exactly how it would play out, removing a CBDC from the definition of money and declaring it is not legal tender would throw up roadblocks if the federal government and its central bank try to implement one.

The UCC is a set of uniformly adopted state laws governing commercial transactions in the U.S. According to the Uniform Law Commission, “Because the UCC has been universally adopted, businesses can enter into contracts with confidence that the terms will be enforced in the same way by the courts of every American jurisdiction. The resulting certainty of business relationships allows businesses to grow and the American economy to thrive. For this reason, the UCC has been called ‘the backbone of American commerce.’”

Passage of this bill would, as noted by one opponent of the legislation, put a CBDC “into the bucket of ‘general intangibles’” – rather than money, and wouldn’t ban its use completely.

But it could still potentially gum up the works and make it difficult for the government to fully implement a CBDC.

Opponents of the strategy and supporters of CBDCs generally take the position that states can’t do anything to stop a CBDC, since – according to their view – under the supremacy clause “any federal law on this point will automatically override state law.”

We’ve heard this song and dance on other issues before. That’s what they said before California legalized medical marijuana in 1996. It didn’t quite turn out that way.

“Roadblock” is likely how this and other state-based strategies to oppose a CBDC will play out. This is part of James Madison’s four-step blueprint for how states and individuals can stop federal programs. Madison said “a refusal to cooperate with officers of the union” along with “the embarrassments created by legislative devices,” would “oppose, in any State, difficulties not to be despised.”

But whether these roadblocks will have any impact or not requires more than just mere state legislation. As can be seen so far with issues, whether a federal program is implemented or not ultimately gets down to the willingness of the people to participate, or not.

CENTRAL BANK DIGITAL CURRENCIES (CBDC)

The difference between a central bank (government) digital currency and peer-to-peer electronic cash such as bitcoin is that the value of the former is created, backed, and controlled by the government, just like traditional fiat currency.

In fact, a CBDC is nothing more than the digital offspring of paper fiat money with all the negative characteristics that come with it.

At the root of the move toward government-run digital currency is “the war on cash.” The elimination of cash creates the potential for the government to track every transaction you make. Officials could even “turn off” an individual’s ability to make purchases.

Economist Thorsten Polleit outlined the potential for Big Brother-like government control with the advent of a digital euro in an article published by the Mises Wire. As he put it, “the path to becoming a surveillance state regime will accelerate considerably” if and when a digital currency is issued.

In 2022, the Federal Reserve released a “discussion paper” examining the pros and cons of a potential US central bank digital dollar. According to the central bank’s website, there has been no decision on implementing a CBDC, but this pilot program reveals the idea is further along than most people realized.

While President Trump has promised not to implement a CBDC, it’s important to remember he won’t hold office forever and we can’t count on the goodwill of politicians to protect our liberty. States need to take steps against a CBDC now instead of scrambling if things move forward in the future.

As Thomas Jefferson advised, “It is better to keep the wolf out of the fold, than to trust to drawing his teeth and talons after he shall have entered.”

WHAT’S NEXT

SB1095 will now move to the House, where it will need to pass through the committee process in order to move forward to the full chamber.

The post Arizona Senate Passes Bill to Block CBDC as Legal Tender and Money first appeared on Tenth Amendment Center.

Arizona Senate Passes Bill to Decriminalize Suppressors and Prohibit State Enforcement of Federal Restrictions

TAC News — Tue, 04 Mar 2025 17:10:31 +0000

PHOENIX, Ariz. (Mar. 4, 2025) – Yesterday, the Arizona Senate passed a bill that would decriminalize firearm sound suppressors in the state. If passed into law, it would automatically prohibit state and local enforcement of federal regulations on suppressors under an existing Arizona law passed in 2021.

Sen. Wendy Rogers filed Senate Bill 1014 (SB1014). The legislation would remove “a device that is designed, made or adapted to muffle the report of a firearm,” from the state’s list of “prohibited weapons.” In effect, this would decriminalize the manufacture and possession of firearm sound suppressors, commonly referred to as “silencers,” in the state.

On Mar. 3, the Senate passed SB1014 by a 17-11 vote.

ENDING STATE ENFORCEMENT

Under the Arizona 2nd Amendment Firearm Freedom Act passed in 2021, the state and all of its political subdivisions are prohibited from “using any personnel or financial resources to enforce, administer or cooperate with any act, law, treaty, order, rule or regulation of the United States government that is inconsistent with any law” of the state of Arizona regarding the regulation of firearms.

Because SB1014 would eliminate state-level regulation of firearm sound suppressors, Arizona law would instantly classify federal suppressor regulations as “inconsistent” with state policy, making them unenforceable by any state or local agency.

No additional action would be required – Arizona officials would be prohibited from participating in any way, including investigations, arrests, or prosecutions related to federal suppressor laws.

FEDERAL REGULATIONS

Suppressors simply muffle the sound of a gun. They do not literally silence firearms. Nevertheless, the federal government heavily regulates silencers under the National Firearms Act.

The feds charge a $200 tax on the purchase of the devices. Buying one also requires months-long waits after filing extensive paperwork with the federal Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives.

Under current federal law, it is illegal to manufacture, sell, or possess a suppressor without going through this burdensome federal process.

IMPACT ON FEDERAL ENFORCEMENT

Federal enforcement efforts, including gun control, rely heavily on state participation. In fact, the federal government depends on state cooperation to enforce most of its laws and programs, including gun control. During the 2013 partial government shutdown, the National Governors’ Association noted, “states are partners with the federal government on most federal programs.”

“Partnerships don’t work too well when half the team quits,” Tenth Amendment Center director Michael Boldin said. “By withdrawing all resources and participation in federal gun control, states and even local governments can help bring these unconstitutional acts to their much-needed end.”

Fox News senior judicial analyst Judge Andrew Napolitano agreed. In a televised discussion on the issue, he noted that a single state taking this step would make federal gun laws “nearly impossible” to enforce.

This approach aligns with the anti-commandeering doctrine, which affirms that states are not obligated to use their resources to enforce federal acts or regulatory programs. By simply refusing to help enforce, states can nullify many federal actions in practice and effect.

LEGAL BASIS

Under the Constitution, states have the legal authority to bar their agents from enforcing federal gun control.

Based on James Madison’s advice for states and individuals in Federalist #46, a “refusal to cooperate with officers of the Union” represents an extremely effective method to bring down federal gun control measures because most enforcement actions rely on help, support, and leadership from state and local governments.

This strategy of using a “refusal to cooperate” with federal enforcement has been reaffirmed under the long-standing and well-established legal principle known as the anti-commandeering doctrine.

As the 3rd Chief Justice, Oliver Ellsworth put it, “This Constitution does not attempt to coerce sovereign bodies, states, in their political capacity”

Simply put, the federal government cannot force states to help implement or enforce any federal act or regulatory program. The anti-commandeering doctrine is based primarily on five major Supreme Court cases dating back to 1842.

Printz v. U.S. serves as the cornerstone.

The anti-commandeering doctrine affirms that state and local governments can refuse to enforce federal laws or regulatory programs, regardless of their constitutionality.

WHAT’S NEXT

SB1014 will move to the House where it must first get a committee hearing and pass by a majority vote before moving forward in the legislative process.

The post Arizona Senate Passes Bill to Decriminalize Suppressors and Prohibit State Enforcement of Federal Restrictions first appeared on Tenth Amendment Center.

Oklahoma Committee Advances Bill to Prohibit Credit Card Codes that Track Firearms Purchases

Michael Boldin — Tue, 04 Mar 2025 03:30:34 +0000

OKLAHOMA CITY, Okla. (Mar. 3, 2025) – A bill to ban financial institutions from using credit card merchant codes to track firearm and ammunition purchases cleared an Oklahoma Senate panel on Monday.

Senate Bill 16 (SB16), the Oklahoma Second Amendment Financial Privacy Act, would prohibit payment card networks from requiring or encouraging merchant category codes that distinguish firearm retailers from other businesses.

“A payment card network shall not require or incentivize the use of a merchant category code in a manner that distinguishes a firearm retailer from other retailers.”

Sponsored by Sen. Micheal Bergstrom, the bill also bars financial institutions from assigning such codes themselves. Additionally, it explicitly bans both government and private entities from maintaining any list or registry of privately owned firearms.

The Senate Business and Insurance Committee approved SB16 by a vote of 8-2, sending it to the full Senate for further consideration.

To date, at least 14 states have banned the use of firearms merchant codes.

IMPACT ON FEDERAL PROGRAMS

In response to legislation like SB16, the major credit card payment networks “paused” implementation of the firearms merchant code in March 2023.

In July 2024, Visa and Mastercard told USA Today that they were only using the firearms code in the states that require it by law.

Additionally, data collected from this merchant code would almost certainly end up in federal government databases.

BACKGROUND

In effect, the firearms code is a de facto gun registry.

The more states that ban such codes, the more likely this program gets scrapped permanently.

WHAT’S NEXT

SB16 will now be eligible for debate and vote in the full Senate.

The post Oklahoma Committee Advances Bill to Prohibit Credit Card Codes that Track Firearms Purchases first appeared on Tenth Amendment Center.

Arizona Senate Passes Bill for 100% Gold and Silver-Backed Currency and Bullion Depository

TAC News — Tue, 04 Mar 2025 02:53:57 +0000

PHOENIX, Ariz. (Mar. 3, 2025) – PHOENIX, Ariz. (Mar. 3, 2025) — The Arizona Senate has approved a bill to establish a 100% gold and silver-backed currency recognized as legal tender, supported by a state-run bullion depository.

Sponsored by Senators Jake Hoffman and Rachel Jones, Senate Bill 1096 (SB1096) passed the Senate with a vote of 17-12, and now moves to the House for further consideration.

100% GOLD AND SILVER-BACKED LEGAL TENDER

Under SB1096, Arizona would establish a fully backed gold and silver currency, recognized as legal tender. The measure requires the Arizona Department of Insurance and Financial Institutions to issue specie – defined as gold or silver coins minted to a standard shape, size, and purity – and establish a transactional currency backed 100% by physical gold or silver held in a state-run bullion depository.

The transactional currency would function as a representation of actual precious metals stored in the depository, allowing electronic transfers based on precise fractional troy ounce measurements. The depository would oversee all transfers, ensuring they remain fully backed by physical gold or silver.

As legal tender, both the physical specie and gold and silver-backed transactional currency could be used by individuals, businesses, and the state for debts, taxes, and everyday transactions – offering an alternative to inflationary fiat. The legislation states:

“A person or this state that holds the transactional currency may use that transactional currency as legal tender to pay a debt or may assign the transactional currency to another person or this state.”

By establishing a framework for sound money, SB1096 positions Arizona at the forefront of efforts to reduce reliance on the Federal Reserve’s fiat monetary system.

DEPOSITORY

The depository provisions are based on a similar law that was passed in Texas and signed into law by Gov. Abbott in 2015.

The bullion depository would serve as the “custodian, guardian and administrator of certain bullion and specie that may be transferred to or otherwise acquired by this state or an agency, a political subdivision or another instrumentality of this state.”

The proposed law specifies that the state treasurer “may deposit a portion of state monies in the depository in the form of bullion, and that bullion deposit is considered part of this state’s financial reserves.”

Private individuals and businesses would also be able to deposit bullion into the depository.

IMPACT

The passage of this legislation would create a sound money alternative to U.S. dollars in both physical and electronic form.

Using gold and silver-backed transactional currency, any person or entity would be able to do business using a debit card that seamlessly converts gold and silver to fiat currency in the background. Private individuals and businesses would be able to purchase goods and services using assets held in the Arizona Gold Depository in the same way they use dollars held in a bank today.

Gold and silver-backed transactional currency would give people a way to shield themselves from the rapid loss of purchasing power inherent in the fiat dollar.

BACKGROUND

State laws that facilitate and encourage the use of sound money create a playing field where people can push back against the Fed’s monetary malfeasance. Ultimately, it could create a scenario where people can drive out the “bad” fiat money with “good” sound money.

WHAT’S NEXT

SB1096 will now move to the House, where it will need to passed out of committee before moving forward in the legislative process.

The post Arizona Senate Passes Bill for 100% Gold and Silver-Backed Currency and Bullion Depository first appeared on Tenth Amendment Center.

Necessary and Proper: The Big Lie That Unleashed Big Government

Michael Boldin — Mon, 03 Mar 2025 19:24:23 +0000

“Undefined, unbounded, and immense power” – that’s what anti-federalists warned we’d eventually get under the Necessary and Proper Clause. Today, it’s easily one of the most twisted and abused parts of the Constitution. In this episode, learn about three key views of the clause: the modern view, which began with Alexander Hamilton and John Marshall; the strictly limited view from James Madison and Thomas Jefferson; and a middle ground from one of the clause’s authors, Edmund Randolph.

Path to Liberty: March 3, 2025

SHOW LINKS:
JOIN TAC

Show Archives

Brutus I (18 Oct 1787)

John Williams – New York Ratifying Convention (26 June 1788)

Old Whig II (17 Oct 1787)

Archibald Maclaine – North Carolina Ratifying Convention (28 July 1788)

Alexander Hamilton – Federalist 33 (3 Jan 1788)

James Wilson – Pennsylvania Ratifying Convention (4 Dec 1787)

James Madison – Federalist 44 (25 Jan 1788)

Brutus V (13 Dec 1787)

Alexander Hamilton – Opinion on the Constitutionality of an Act to Establish a Bank (23 Feb 1791)

Thomas Jefferson – Opinion on the Constitutionality of the Bill for Establishing a National Bank (15 Feb 1791)

James Madison – Speech on the Bank Bill (2 Feb 1791)

Edmund Randolph – Opinion on the Constitutionality of the Bank (12 Feb 1791)

Necessary and Proper – an Overview

Edmund Randolph – Virginia Ratifying Convention (17 June 1788)

Rob Natelson – The Agency Law Origins of the Necessary and Proper Clause

John Marshall -, 17 U.S. 316 (1819)

Edmund Randolph – Virginia Ratifying Convention (17 June 1788)

MORE VIDEO SOURCES
Watch on Rumble

FOLLOW and SUPPORT TAC:

Become a Member: http://tenthamendmentcenter.com/members/
Email Newsletter: http://tenthamendmentcenter.com/register
RSS: http://feeds.feedburner.com/tacdailydigest

The post Necessary and Proper: The Big Lie That Unleashed Big Government first appeared on Tenth Amendment Center.

Signed as Law: Wyoming Takes Limited Step to Hinder Usage of a CBDC

Mike Maharrey — Mon, 03 Mar 2025 18:14:37 +0000

CHEYENNE, Wyo. (Mar. 3, 2025) – Last week, Wyoming Gov. Mark Gordon signed a bill into law that takes a very small step toward limiting central bank digital currency (CBDC) in the state.

Rep. Daniel Singh filed House Bill 264 (HB264). The law prohibits any state agency from requiring payment in the form of CBDC for the payment of taxes or fees. It would also prohibit any state agency from using any public funds “to assist in any manner in the testing, adoption or implementation of a central bank digital currency.”

On Feb. 21, the Senate passed HB264 by a 29-2 vote and the House concurred with Senate amendment by a 49-3 vote. With Gordon’s signature, the new law goes into immediate effect.

A VERY SMALL STEP

It’s important to note that this is a very small step and it was possible for the state to take much more significant actions to block the implementation of a CBDC, as a number of other states have already done.

Arkansas enacted took a stronger step this year, joining Indiana, Florida, South Dakota, Tennessee, and Utah that passed similar bills last year.

Prohibiting state and local governments from accepting CBDC payments would throw up one roadblock to its implementation by limiting its use in the state. It would also signal to people in the state that a CBDC is to be avoided. But HB264 only prohibits state agencies from requiring payment in CBDC.

The original bill would have also barred state agencies from even accepting CBDC as payment, but this language was removed by an amendment in the Senate Minerals, Business and Economic Development Committee. While the law will take small steps to protect Wyoming residents from being forced to use central bank digital currency when doing business with the state, it will do little, if anything, to block federal implementation of a CBDC.

As passed, the law will not stop the state from accepting CBDC.

IN PRACTICE

In the spirit of James Madison’s blueprint for how states and individuals can stop federal programs, the enactment of HB264 would create minor “impediments” to the implementation of a CBDC in Wyoming. Madison said “a refusal to cooperate with officers of the union” along with “the embarrassments created by legislative devices,” would “oppose, in any State, difficulties not to be despised.”

It remains unclear how state efforts to hinder a CBDC would play out in practice, should the federal government attempt to implement one.

Opponents of the strategy and supporters of CBDC generally take the position that states can’t do anything to stop a CBDC, since – according to their view – under the supremacy clause “any federal law on this point will automatically override state law.”

We’ve heard this song and dance on other issues before. That’s what they said before California legalized medical marijuana in 1996. It didn’t quite turn out that way.

“Roadblock” is likely how this and other state-based strategies to oppose a CBDC will play out.

CENTRAL BANK DIGITAL CURRENCIES (CBDC)

The difference between a central bank (government) digital currency and peer-to-peer electronic cash such as Bitcoin is that the value of the former is created, backed, and controlled by the government, just like traditional fiat currency.

In fact, CBDC is nothing more than the digital offspring of paper fiat money with all the negative characteristics that come with it.

At the root of the move toward government digital currency is “the war on cash.” The elimination of cash creates the potential for the government to track every transaction you make. Officials could even “turn off” an individual’s ability to make purchases.

Economist Thorsten Polleit outlined the potential for Big Brother-like government control with the advent of a digital euro in an article published by the Mises Wire. As he put it, “the path to becoming a surveillance state regime will accelerate considerably” if and when a central bank digital currency is issued.

In 2022, the Federal Reserve released a “discussion paper” examining the pros and cons of a potential US central bank digital dollar. According to the central bank’s website, there has been no decision on implementing a digital currency, but this pilot program reveals the idea is further along than most people realized.

As Thomas Jefferson advised, “It is better to keep the wolf out of the fold, than to trust to drawing his teeth and talons after he shall have entered.”

The post Signed as Law: Wyoming Takes Limited Step to Hinder Usage of a CBDC first appeared on Tenth Amendment Center.

Defend the Guard Act: Vermont Bill Would End Unconstitutional Deployments

Mike Maharrey — Mon, 03 Mar 2025 17:53:34 +0000

MONTPELIER, Vt. (Mar. 3, 2025) – A bill filed in the Vermont House would prohibit the state’s National Guard from being deployed into “active duty combat” unless Congress issues a declaration of war or calls the Guard into service for one of three constitutionally authorized purposes.

Rep. Troy Headrick filed House Bill 355 (HB355). The Vermont Defend the Guard Act would prohibit the governor from releasing any unit or member of the Vermont National Guard into “active duty combat” unless the United States Congress passes “an official declaration of war” as required by Article I, Section 8, Clause 11 of the Constitution, or if Congress takes an action “pursuant to Article I, Section 8, Clause 15 of the U.S. Constitution.”

“Active duty combat” is defined as performing the following services under federal active duty:

Participation in an armed conflict.
Performance of hazardous services relating to an armed conflict in a foreign state.
Duties performed using instruments of war.

Residents of Vermont can take action to help the Defend the Guard Act move forward at this link.

IN EFFECT

More specifically, Vermont National Guard troops have participated in missions in Iraq, Afghanistan, Bosnia, and elsewhere.

MILITIA CLAUSES

Article I, Section 8, Clauses 15 and 16 make up the “militia clauses” of the Constitution. Clause 16 authorizes Congress to “provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining the Militia.”

DECLARE WAR

Article I, Section 8, Clause 11 of the Constitution delegates the power to “declare war” to Congress.

At the time the Constitution was ratified, the power to “declare” war was widely understood to mean changing the state of things from peace to war.

It’s also important to note a country can change the state of things from peace to war with a formal declaration, but it can also happen with the execution of military actions, however limited.

Simply put, any offensive measure requires congressional authorization, not just full-scale wars.

This is exactly how the Constitution was understood – and followed – by the first four presidents – Washington, Adams, Jefferson, and Madison.

Justice Joseph Story affirmed this limited role of the state militia in Martin v. Mott (1827).

DUTY

McGeehan served as an Air Force intelligence officer in Afghanistan and has sponsored similar legislation in his state since 2016.

WHAT’S NEXT

HB355 was referred to the House Committee on Government Operations and Military Affairs where it must get a hearing and pass by a majority vote before moving forward in the legislative process. Residents of Vermont can take action to help the Defend the Guard Act move forward at this link.

The post Defend the Guard Act: Vermont Bill Would End Unconstitutional Deployments first appeared on Tenth Amendment Center.

Tennessee Bill Would Recognize Gold and Silver as Legal Tender, Establish Bullion Depository

Mike Maharrey — Mon, 03 Mar 2025 16:44:34 +0000

NASHVILLE, Tenn. (Mar. 3, 2025) – A bill filed in the Tennessee Senate would officially recognize gold and silver as legal tender in the state and establish a bullion depository. Passage into law would set the stage for the people themselves to undermine the Federal Reserve monopoly by introducing competition into the monetary system.

Sen. Steve Southerland filed Senate Bill 985 (SB985). Under the proposed law, “gold and silver coinage must be accepted as legal tender, at their spot price, and must be receivable in payment of all debts, public or private, hereafter contracted in this state.”

The proposed law would also authorize any person or entity in the state to “sell gold or silver coins if each coin is labeled in a clear and intelligible manner with the weight and purity of the coin.”

Gold and silver accepted as payment by the state would be held in the state’s gold reserves “until all other funds in the reserve for revenue fluctuations have been expended.” Tennessee authorized state gold reserves in 2023.

The passage of SB985 would make Tennessee the sixth state to recognize gold and silver as legal tender, as they always should have been doing. Utah led the way, reestablishing constitutional money in 2011. Wyoming, Oklahoma, Arkansas, and Louisiana have since joined.

IN PRACTICE

Practically speaking, this would allow Tennessee residents to use gold or silver as money rather than as mere investment vehicles.

Passage of SB985 would represent a big first step against the fiat-based Federal Reserve system by creating a foundation to pull the rug out from under it on the state and local levels. In essence, it would set the stage for the people themselves to undermine the Federal Reserve monopoly by introducing competition into the monetary system.

The next step would be for people to start taking advantage of the status of gold and silver as money by using both as such instead of Federal Reserve notes.

BULLION DEPOSITORY AND BANKING SYSTEM

Provisions in SB985 would authorize the creation of a state bullion depository to “serve as the custodian, guardian, and administrator of certain bullion and specie that may be deposited with the depository by this state, a political subdivision, or another instrumentality of this state, or by a private individual, party, or other entity.” The depository would also facilitate “transactions and investments as authorized by rules adopted” by the commissioner of financial institutions.”

The legislation does not include details about how the depository would run. This would be established by rules promulgated by the treasurer.

The bill would also require the state treasurer to “establish a state reserve banking system to support state-chartered banks.” It remains unclear what this state banking system would look like in practice, but it could set the stage for a state banking system that is 100 percent backed by gold and silver.

BACKGROUND

WHAT’S NEXT

SB985 was referred to the Senate Commerce and Labor Committee where it must get a hearing and pass by a majority vote before moving forward in the legislative process.

The post Tennessee Bill Would Recognize Gold and Silver as Legal Tender, Establish Bullion Depository first appeared on Tenth Amendment Center.

Georgia Defend the Guard Act Clears Senate Committee

Michael Boldin — Fri, 28 Feb 2025 17:36:18 +0000

ATLANTA, Ga. (Feb. 28, 2025) – The Georgia Defend the Guard Act took an important first step forward today, passing a Senate committee yesterday, and now eligible for a vote in the full chamber.

Sen. Colton Moore filed Senate Bill 62 (SB62). If passed int law, the bill would prohibit the governor from releasing any unit or member of the Georgia National Guard into “active duty combat” unless Congress passes an “official declaration of war” as required by Article I, Section 8, Clause 11 of the Constitution, or if Congress takes “an official action pursuant to Article I, Section 8, Clause 15 of the United States Constitution.”

“Active duty combat” is defined as performing the following services while in active federal military service of the United States:

Participating in an armed conflict.
Carrying out a hazardous service in a foreign state.
Executing a duty through an instrumentality of war.

On Feb. 27, the Senate committee on Interstate Cooperation approved the measure with a “do pass” recommendation, making it eligible for a vote in the full Senate. Residents of Georgia can take action to help the Defend the Guard Act move forward at this link.

MILITIA CLAUSES

Article I, Section 8, Clauses 15 and 16 make up the “militia clauses” of the Constitution. Clause 16 authorizes Congress to “provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining the Militia.”

DECLARE WAR

Article I, Section 8, Clause 11 of the Constitution delegates the power to “declare war” to Congress.

At the time the Constitution was ratified, the power to “declare” war was widely understood to mean changing the state of things from peace to war.

It’s also important to note a country can change the state of things from peace to war with a formal declaration, but it can also happen with the execution of military actions, however limited.

Simply put, any offensive measure requires congressional authorization, not just full-scale wars.

This is exactly how the Constitution was understood – and followed – by the first four presidents – Washington, Adams, Jefferson, and Madison.

Justice Joseph Story affirmed this limited role of the state militia in Martin v. Mott (1827).

DUTY

West Virginia Rep. Pat McGeehan served as an Air Force intelligence officer in Afghanistan and has sponsored similar legislation in his state.

Webster made this observation in an 1814 speech on the floor of Congress where he urged actions similar to the Georgia Defend the Guard Act. He said, “The operation of measures thus unconstitutional and illegal ought to be prevented by a resort to other measures which are both constitutional and legal. It will be the solemn duty of the State governments to protect their own authority over their own militia, and to interpose between their citizens and arbitrary power. These are among the objects for which the State governments exist.”

IN EFFECT

More specifically, Georgia National Guard troops have participated in missions in Iraq, Afghanistan, Kosovo, Egypt, and other countries.

WHAT’S NEXT

The Senate Rules Committee will determine when SB62 is scheduled for a full Senate vote by placing it on the Rules Calendar. Once scheduled, the bill will be debated and must pass by a majority vote to advance in the legislative process. Residents of Georgia can take action to help the Defend the Guard Act move forward at this link.

The post Georgia Defend the Guard Act Clears Senate Committee first appeared on Tenth Amendment Center.

Missouri Bill Advances to Reestablish Second Amendment Preservation Act

Michael Boldin — Thu, 27 Feb 2025 20:22:20 +0000

JEFFERSON CITY, Mo. (Feb. 27, 2025) – The Missouri Second Amendment Preservation Act (SAPA) took a step forward as a House committee advanced a bill to refine its language, addressing federal court objections while maintaining the state’s prohibition on enforcing federal gun control.

SAPA, signed into law in 2021, prohibits the enforcement of numerous federal gun control measures deemed to “infringe on the right to keep and bear arms.” In early 2022, the U.S. Department of Justice sued to block the enforcement of SAPA, citing primarily, its effectiveness.

Since then, two federal courts have affirmed Missouri’s right to refuse to participate in federal gun control enforcement under the anti-commandeering doctrine. However, both courts rejected some of SAPA’s language asserting the unconstitutionality of federal gun laws, citing that as their basis for holding the entire act unconstitutional.

Rep. Bill Hardwick introduced House Bill 1175 (HB1175) to amend SAPA and address the federal courts’ objections. It has since garnered 14 co-sponsors. Under the proposed law, public officers and employees of the state and its political subdivisions would be prohibited from enforcing or attempting to enforce “any federal acts, laws, executive orders, administrative orders, rules, regulations, statutes, or ordinances regarding firearms, firearm accessories, or ammunition,” unless they were mirrored in state law.

On Feb. 26, the House General Laws Committee passed HB1175 by a vote of 9-4, making the bill eligible for debate and vote by the full House.

IMPACT

Withdrawing state support for federal gun control enforcement has already demonstrated a significant impact in Missouri. The ATF explicitly acknowledged this in its lawsuit against SAPA, noting that severed partnerships with state and local law enforcement have “severely impaired federal criminal law enforcement operations within the State of Missouri.”

Federal enforcement efforts, including gun control, rely heavily on state participation. The DOJ’s lawsuit and public statements confirm that SAPA has disrupted joint task forces, information-sharing, and other critical state-federal partnerships

For instance, the Missouri State Highway Patrol and multiple local law enforcement agencies withdrew officers from ATF task forces in response to SAPA’s provisions, forcing the federal government to operate without critical state-level resources.

The federal government depends on state cooperation to enforce most of its laws and programs, including gun control. During the 2013 partial government shutdown, the National Governors’ Association noted, “states are partners with the federal government on most federal programs.”

Partnerships don’t work too well when half the team quits. As Judge Andrew Napolitano observed, a single state withdrawing support could render federal gun control laws “nearly impossible” to enforce.

LEGAL BASIS

Under the Constitution, states have the legal authority to bar their agents from enforcing federal gun control.

Based on James Madison’s advice for states and individuals in Federalist #46, a “refusal to cooperate with officers of the Union” represents an extremely effective method to bring down federal gun control measures because most enforcement actions rely on help, support, and leadership from state and local governments.

This strategy of using a “refusal to cooperate” with federal enforcement has been reaffirmed under the long-standing and well-established legal principle known as the anti-commandeering doctrine.

As the 3rd Chief Justice, Oliver Ellsworth put it, “This Constitution does not attempt to coerce sovereign bodies, states, in their political capacity”

Printz v. U.S. serves as the cornerstone.

The anti-commandeering doctrine affirms that state and local governments can refuse to enforce federal laws or regulatory programs, regardless of their constitutionality.

PENALTIES

HB1175 retains SAPA’s provision imposing a $50,000 civil penalty per occurrence on political subdivisions or law enforcement agencies that employ officers who knowingly violate the law, allowing injured parties to seek legal or equitable remedies.

This applies to a law enforcement officer who gives “material aid and support to the efforts of another who enforces or attempts to enforce or participates in any way in the enforcement or implementation of any federal acts, laws, executive orders, rules, regulations, statutes, or ordinances regarding firearms, firearm accessories, or ammunition” as prohibited under the law.

WHAT’S NEXT

HB1175 will now be eligible to move to the full Hlouse, where it will need to pass by a majority vote before being transmitted to the Senate.

The post Missouri Bill Advances to Reestablish Second Amendment Preservation Act first appeared on Tenth Amendment Center.

Iowa Bills for 100% Gold & Silver-Backed Currency, State Reserves Move Forward

TAC News — Thu, 27 Feb 2025 19:54:36 +0000

DES MOINES, Iowa (Feb. 27, 2025) – An Iowa House subcommittee advanced two bills aimed at supporting and expanding the use of gold and silver as money in the state. One measure would establish a 100% gold and silver-backed transactional currency system, allowing people to conduct business using real money. The other would authorize the state to hold reserves in precious metals.

TRANSACTIONAL CURRENCY

House Bill 325 (HF325) introduced by Rep. Cindy Golding and seven cosponsors, would establish a transactional currency fully backed by gold and silver. Under this bill, the state treasurer would issue gold and silver specie and ensure a system for seamless transactions using sound money.

The bill defines “specie” as gold or silver coins with standardized shape, size, design, purity, and weight – suitable for use as currency or in retail and wholesale transactions.

“Transactional currency” refers to digital representations of actual gold and silver held in a secure depository, allowing for seamless electronic transfers.

Gold and silver fully backing the transactional currency would be securely stored in an approved bullion depository, such as a state-run facility or existing institutions like the Texas Bullion Depository.

The bill mandates that the state treasurer must ensure transactional currency can be used as legal tender for debts and be easily transferred electronically between individuals and states.

With gold and silver-backed transactional currency, people could use debit cards that automatically convert precious metals into dollars at the point of purchase. Individuals and businesses would be able to purchase goods and services using assets held in an approved depository in the same way they use dollars held in a bank today.

If passed, HF325 would enable people to buy, sell, and pay debts using gold and silver just as easily as they use dollars today, a practical alternative to Federal Reserve fiat.

Gold and silver-backed transactional currency would give people a way to shield themselves from the rapid loss of purchasing power inherent in the fiat dollar.

RESERVES

Rep. Taylor Collins filed House Bill 246 (HF246). The legislation would authorize but not require the state treasurer to invest certain state funds in “precious metals” defined as “gold, silver, or platinum, whether in coin, bullion, or another form.”

The treasurer could also allocate up to 5% of these funds to gold, silver, platinum, or certain cryptocurrencies, drawn from the general fund, cash reserve fund, and the Iowa economic emergency fund.

BACKGROUND

WHAT’S NEXT

HF246 and HF325 will now move to the full House State Government Committee where it must pass by a majority vote before moving to the full House.

The post Iowa Bills for 100% Gold & Silver-Backed Currency, State Reserves Move Forward first appeared on Tenth Amendment Center.

Arizona House Passes Measure to Decriminalize NFA-Restricted Firearms, End State Enforcement

Michael Boldin — Thu, 27 Feb 2025 16:43:33 +0000

PHOENIX, Ariz. (Feb. 27, 2025) – The Arizona House has approved a measure to let voters decide whether to decriminalize fully automatic weapons, sawed-off shotguns, and firearm sound suppressors. If approved at the ballot box, the law would automatically prohibit state and local enforcement of federal restrictions on the same under a 2021 Arizona statute.

Titled the “Shall not Be Infringed Act,” the resolution would initiate a ballot measure to remove fully automatic firearms (machine guns), short-barreled rifles and shotguns, and firearm sound suppressors (more commonly known as silencers) from the state’s list of “prohibited weapons.”

Rep. Alexander Kolodin filed House Concurrent Resolution 2037 (HCR2037). “If the right to bear arms shall not be infringed, how can we have a category of weapons that are prohibited?’’ said Kolodin. “As a citizen of this state, I find it insulting.’’

ENDING STATE ENFORCEMENT

Because HCR2037 would eliminate state-level regulation of firearm sound suppressors, machine guns, and sawed-off shotguns, Arizona law would instantly classify federal suppressor regulations as “inconsistent” with state policy, making them unenforceable by any state or local agency.

No additional action would be required – Arizona officials would be prohibited from participating in any way, including investigations, arrests, or prosecutions related to federal laws regulating these weapons and firearm accessories.

Kolodin confirmed this was the intent of the bill.

“What this bill says is, if the feds want to infringe on our Second Amendment rights, they can darn well pay for doing that themselves, and we’re not going to have Arizona law enforcement do it.”

On Feb. 26, the House passed the measure by a vote of 32-27. Previously, the House Judiciary Committee passed HCR2037 by a 6-3 vote, and the House Rules committee moved the legislation forward with a vote of 7-0. If also passed by the full Senate, the measure would bypass the governor and go directly to voters on the ballot at the next general election.

FEDERAL REGULATIONS

Under current federal law, it is illegal to manufacture, sell, or possess a sawed-off shotgun, a fully automatic weapon, or a firearm sound suppressor without going through this burdensome federal process.

The National Firearms Act (NFA) of 1934 heavily regulates fully automatic weapons and short-barreled shotguns, requiring them to be registered and imposing a $200 tax on their manufacture or transfer. The Firearm Owners’ Protection Act of 1986 banned private ownership of new machine guns manufactured after May 19, 1986.

Suppressors simply muffle the sound of a gun. They do not literally silence firearms. Nevertheless, the federal government heavily regulates silencers under the National Firearms Act as well, charging a $200 tax on the purchase of the devices. Buying one also requires months-long waits after filing extensive paperwork with the federal Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives.

IMPACT ON FEDERAL ENFORCEMENT

LEGAL BASIS

Under the Constitution, states have the legal authority to bar their agents from enforcing federal gun control.

Based on James Madison’s advice for states and individuals in Federalist #46, a “refusal to cooperate with officers of the Union” represents an extremely effective method to bring down federal gun control measures because most enforcement actions rely on help, support, and leadership from state and local governments.

This strategy of using a “refusal to cooperate” with federal enforcement has been reaffirmed under the long-standing and well-established legal principle known as the anti-commandeering doctrine.

As the 3rd Chief Justice, Oliver Ellsworth put it, “This Constitution does not attempt to coerce sovereign bodies, states, in their political capacity”

Printz v. U.S. serves as the cornerstone.

The anti-commandeering doctrine affirms that state and local governments can refuse to enforce federal laws or regulatory programs, regardless of their constitutionality.

WHAT’S NEXT

HCR2037 will now move to the Senate, where it will first need to pass out of committee before the full chamber has an opportunity to concur.

The post Arizona House Passes Measure to Decriminalize NFA-Restricted Firearms, End State Enforcement first appeared on Tenth Amendment Center.

Kentucky House Passes Bill to Place Some Limits on the Use of ALPRs

Mike Maharrey — Thu, 27 Feb 2025 01:42:14 +0000

FRANKFORT, Ky. (Feb. 26, 2025) – Last week, the Kentucky House passed a bill that would place some restrictions on the retention and sharing of automatic license plate reader (ALPR) data in the state.

Rep. John Hodgson and a bipartisan coalition of three cosponsors filed House Bill 20 (HB20). Under the proposed law, “entities” using ALPRs, including Kentucky law enforcement agencies, local government agencies, and homeowner’s associations, could only retain collected data for 60 days unless the data is being used in a criminal or insurance claim investigation, becomes subject to a subpoena duces tecum or preservation of evidence notification; or is being used for toll collection activities on highways and bridges.

HB20 would also prohibit sharing or selling ALPR data to any entity except a law enforcement agency, in response to a subpoena, or to the National Insurance Crime Bureau.

On Feb. 21, the House passed HB20 by a 90-1 vote.

HB20 includes provisions that would prohibit any government entity from requiring an ID chip embedded under the skin and bar private entities from placing tracking devices on automobiles.

A COG IN THE SURVEILLANCE STATE

ALPRs are high-speed cameras that can capture every license plate that passes. They can be installed in fixed locations, such as on utility poles and overpasses. ALPR systems can also be made mobile by attaching them to police vehicles.

These systems are capable of recording thousands of license plates every minute and storing the information in massive databases, along with date, time, and location information. Some ALPRs can even capture a photo of the driver of the vehicle.

And as the Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF) notes, ALPRs have a dark side.

“Taken in the aggregate, ALPR data can paint an intimate portrait of a driver’s life and even chill First Amendment-protected activity. ALPR technology can be used to target drivers who visit sensitive places such as health centers, immigration clinics, gun shops, union halls, protests, or centers of religious worship.”

BILLIONS OF SCANS

Records obtained by the EFF through open records requests encompassed information compiled by 200 law enforcement agencies that utilize ALPRs. The data revealed more than 2.5 billion license plate scans in just two years (2016 and 2017). In 2019 alone, 82 agencies in California collected more than 1 billion license plate scans using ALPRs. Yet according to EFF, 99.9 percent of this surveillance data was not actively related to an investigation when it was collected.

Perhaps more concerning, this gigantic sample of license plate scans reveals that 99.5 percent of this data was collected regardless of whether the vehicle or its owner was suspected of being involved in criminal activity. On average, agencies share this data with a minimum of 160 and up to 800 other agencies.

PUBLIC-PRIVATE PARTNERSHIPS

Government agencies often deploy ALPR systems, but they are increasingly partnering with private vendors that install and maintain the systems providing access to data on a subscription basis.

Law enforcement agencies entering into these partnerships can not only access local data gathered in their jurisdictions, but they can also tap into information gathered across the country.

And we are talking about massive amounts of information. DRN data claims its database contains more than 6.5 billion scans and that it adds 120 million data points each month.

ALPR systems run by Flock Safety have also proliferated across the U.S. The company claims more than 3,000 law enforcement agencies covering over 5,000 communities in the U.S. have installed their systems. If there are Flock cameras in your town, every law enforcement agency in the country that subscribes can tap into the local data.

IMPACT ON FEDERAL PROGRAMS

Limiting state and local use of ALPR systems and the storage of ALPR data at the state and local levels can also limit the growing federal surveillance state.

As reported in the Wall Street Journal, the DEA operates the National License Plate Reader Program (NLPRP). The system tracks the location of millions of vehicles through data provided by ALPRs operated on a state and local level. They’ve engaged in this for over a decade, all without a warrant. There wasn’t even public notice of the policy until 2019.

As confirmed by the NLPRP itself, state and local law enforcement agencies partner with the DEA. State and local authorities operate most of these tracking systems, often paid for by federal grant money. The DEA then taps into the local database to track the whereabouts of millions of people – for the “crime” of driving – without having to operate a huge network itself.

Since a majority of federal license plate tracking data comes from state and local law enforcement, laws banning or even restricting ALPR use are essential. As more states pass such laws, the result becomes more clear. No data equals no federal license plate tracking program.

The enactment of HB20 would put a dent in federal plans to continue location tracking via license plates. The less data that states make available to the federal government, the less ability it has to track people in Kentucky and elsewhere.

WHAT’S NEXT

HB20 will move to the Senate. Once it receives a committee assignment, it must get a hearing and pass by a majority vote before moving forward in the legislative process.

The post Kentucky House Passes Bill to Place Some Limits on the Use of ALPRs first appeared on Tenth Amendment Center.

Missouri House Committee Holds Hearing on Constitutional Money Act

Mike Maharrey — Thu, 27 Feb 2025 01:40:04 +0000

JEFFERSON CITY, Mo. (Feb. 26, 2024) – Yesterday, a House committee held a hearing on legislation that would officially recognize gold and silver as legal tender, eliminate state capital gains taxes on both, and ban support for any federal confiscation schemes.

Rep. Michael Davis filed a similar bill, House Bill 630 (HB630). It includes the same language as HB433 along with an additional provision to establish state gold and silver reserves.

The Director of the Department of Revenue would be tasked with “promulgating rules on the methods of acceptance of specie legal tender as payment for any debt, tax, fee, or obligation owed.”

The passage of HB433 or HB630 would make Missouri the sixth state to recognize gold and silver as legal tender, as they always should have been doing. Utah led the way, reestablishing constitutional money in 2011. Wyoming, Oklahoma, Arkansas, and Louisiana have since joined.

IN PRACTICE

The passage of HB433 or HB630 would allow Missouri residents to use gold or silver in physical or electronic form as money rather than as mere investment vehicles.

The next step would be for people to start taking advantage of the status of gold and silver as money by using both as such instead of Federal Reserve notes.

The effect has been most dramatic in Utah where the Specie Legal Tender Act opened the door for the development of a robust gold and silver economy in the state. With some legal hurdles cleared away by the Act, the United Precious Metal Association (UPMA) in partnership with Alpine Gold Exchange set up the state’s first “gold bank.”

REMOVING TAXES

HB433 and HB630 would also exempt the sale of gold and silver bullion from the state’s capital gains tax.

FEDERAL CONFISCATION SCHEMES

“Under no circumstance shall the state of Missouri or any department, agency, court, political subdivision, or instrumentality thereof enforce or attempt to enforce any federal acts, laws, executive orders, administrative orders, rules, regulations, statutes, or ordinances infringing on the right of a person to keep and use specie legal tender and electronic currency as provided in this section.”

WHAT’S NEXT

HB433 and HB630 will need to be brought up for a vote in the Government Efficiency Committee and passed by a simple majority before moving forward in the legislative process.

The post Missouri House Committee Holds Hearing on Constitutional Money Act first appeared on Tenth Amendment Center.

Arizona House Passes Bill to Stop State Enforcement of Long-Standing EPA Regulations

Mike Maharrey — Wed, 26 Feb 2025 21:42:55 +0000

PHOENIX, Ariz. (Feb. 26, 2025) – Today, the Arizona House passed a bill that would halt state and local enforcement of a number of long-standing EPA rules and regulations.

Rep. Lisa Fink and two cosponsors filed House Bill 2059 (HB2059). The proposed law would ban the state, its agencies, its political subdivisions, and their employees from using “any personnel or financial resources to enforce, administer or cooperate” with specified “federal actions or programs” regulating air, water, and natural resources.

The federal actions and programs that would no longer be enforced by the state include three specific provisions of the Clean Air Act of 1963, regulation of waters covered by the Federal Water Pollution Control Act Amendments of 1972, energy efficiency standards for new construction of housing authorized by the Energy Independence and Security act of 2007, The Mexican wolf reintroduction program pursuant to the Endangered Species Act of 1973, and The incidental take permit program pursuant to the Endangered Species Act of 1973.

On Feb. 26, the House passed HB2059 by a 32-27 vote.

The proposed law would not prohibit state agencies and their employees from complying with a court order.

HB2059 also addresses long-standing agency rule-making under the Chevron Doctrine, as it stipulates that in any proceedings to enforce compliance with the specified federal laws and EPA regulations, “the court shall decide all questions of law and questions of fact…without deference to any previous determination that may have been made on the question by a federal agency.”

Any state employee or agent found to have violated the proposed law would be subject to a $3,000 civil penalty on the first offense. Political subdivisions or state agencies in violation of the law would lose state funding.

EFFECTIVE

The federal government relies heavily on state cooperation to implement and enforce almost all of its laws, regulations, and acts – including EPA rules and regulations. By simply withdrawing this necessary cooperation, states and localities can nullify many federal actions in effect. As noted by the National Governors’ Association during the partial government shutdown of 2013, “states are partners with the federal government on most federal programs.”

Based on James Madison’s advice for states and individuals in Federalist #46, a “refusal to cooperate with officers of the Union” represents an extremely effective method to bring down EPA rules and regulations because most enforcement actions rely on help, support, and leadership from state and local governments.

Fox News senior judicial analyst Judge Andrew Napolitano agreed. In a televised discussion relating to federal gun control, he noted that a single state taking similar steps would make federal gun laws “nearly impossible” to enforce.

LEGAL BASIS

The provisions prohibiting the state from enforcing EPA rules and regulations rest 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 – whether constitutional or not. The anti-commandeering doctrine is based primarily on five 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.”

No determination of constitutionality is necessary to invoke the anti-commandeering doctrine. State and local governments can refuse to enforce federal laws or implement federal programs whether they are constitutional or not. A state could refuse to provide personnel or resources to the federal government just because it is Tuesday and it’s snowing.

WHAT’S NEXT

HB2059 will move to the Senate for further consideration. Once it receives a committee assignment, it must get a hearing and pass by a majority vote before moving forward in the legislative process.

The post Arizona House Passes Bill to Stop State Enforcement of Long-Standing EPA Regulations first appeared on Tenth Amendment Center.

Unconstitutional Laws? Nullification: THE Remedy They Don’t Want You to Know

Michael Boldin — Wed, 26 Feb 2025 19:17:52 +0000

Nullification is THE rightful remedy for ALL unconstitutional acts – that’s how Thomas Jefferson put it. But he was far from alone. In this episode, get the essential introduction to nullification, highlighting five core principles behind its foundation. This is absolutely crucial if we’re ever going to get back on the path to the constitution and liberty.

Path to Liberty: February 26, 2025

SHOW LINKS:
JOIN TAC

Show Archives

George Mason – Virginia Declaration of Rights (12 June 1776)

James Wilson – Pennsylvania Ratifying Convention (24 Nov 1787)

St. George Tucker – View of the Constitution of the United States (1803)

John Jay – An Address to the People of the State of New York (15 Apr 1788)

Thomas Jefferson – Kentucky Resolutions – Passed by by General Assembly (10 Nov 1798)

John Marshall – Marbury v Madison (1803)

James Otis Speech Against the Writs of Assistance (24 Feb 1761)

Thomas Jefferson – Summary View of the Rights of British America (1774)

Alexander Hamilton – Federalist 78 (28 May 1788)

Alexander Hamilton – Federalist 33 (3 Jan 1788)

Algernon Sidney – Discourses Concerning Government (1680)

Patrick Henry – Virginia Resolves (29 May 1765)

Declaration And Resolves Of The First Continental Congress (14 Oct 1774)

James Madison – Virginia Resolutions (21 Dec 1798)

Samuel Adams – Candidus, Boston Gazette (14 Oct 1771)

Thomas Jefferson’s Draft for the Kentucky Resolutions (Before 4 Oct 1798)

MORE VIDEO SOURCES
Watch on Rumble

FOLLOW and SUPPORT TAC:

Become a Member: http://tenthamendmentcenter.com/members/
Email Newsletter: http://tenthamendmentcenter.com/register
RSS: http://feeds.feedburner.com/tacdailydigest

The post Unconstitutional Laws? Nullification: THE Remedy They Don’t Want You to Know first appeared on Tenth Amendment Center.

Signed by the Governor: Wyoming Law Requires State to Hold Gold and Silver Reserves

TAC News — Wed, 26 Feb 2025 16:35:28 +0000

CHEYENNE, Wyo. (Feb. 26, 2025) – On Monday, Gov. Mark Gordon signed a bill into law requiring the state to hold gold and silver reserves, taking a significant step toward financial diversification and greater independence from the Federal Reserve’s monetary system.

Sen. Bob Ide filed Senate Bill 96 (SF96) with 10 cosponsors. Under the law, the state treasurer is required to hold not less than $10 million in specie and specie legal tender in the “permanent Wyoming mineral trust fund.” Specie is defined as a “coin having gold or silver content.”

SF96 states that gold and silver reserves will be held “for the purpose of diversifying the state’s investment portfolio, preserving capital and insuring against inflation, debt defaults, and other risks.”

The law will also give the state treasurer the authority to invest state funds in “precious metals leases or bonds payable in precious metals,” if warranted by market conditions.

The House approved the measure by a vote of 44-17, and the Senate concurred by a vote of 23-8. With Gov. Gordon’s signature, the law goes into effect Jan 1, 2026.

SF96 also includes provisions that require the department of revenue to conduct a study “analyzing the role of precious metals in augmenting, stabilizing and ensuring the economic security and prosperity of the state and the families, residents and businesses of the state.” The study would have to include a review of “methods for the state to begin accepting gold and silver as a payment medium.”

IMPACT

Wyoming is among five states that have legally recognized gold and silver as legal tender, as they always should have been doing. Utah led the way, reestablishing constitutional money in 2011. Oklahoma, Arkansas, and Louisiana have since joined.

Utah took a step-by-step approach, similar to the strategy being followed in Wyoming. A combination of at least four state laws, plus plenty of steps forward by businesses and individuals has built what is likely the most robust foundation for the advancement of gold and silver as money in the United States.

Holding funds in gold and silver would protect the state’s cash reserves from the ravages of inflation caused by the rapidly depreciating value of Federal Reserve notes. Since 2020, the purchasing power of the dollar has dropped by nearly 20 percent. In that same period, the price of both gold and silver skyrocketed, reflecting the devaluation of the dollar.

Adding gold and silver in reserve could also create a pathway for Wyoming to maintain financial independence should the U.S. dollar collapse, a very real possibility as the world moves away from the greenback as its reserve currency.

In fact, central banks around the world have been buying gold to limit their dependence on the U.S. dollar. According to the World Gold Council (WGC), central banks’ net gold purchases totaled 1,037 tons in 2023. It was the second straight year central banks around the world added more than 1,000 tons to their total reserves. According to the WGC, there are two main drivers behind central bank gold buying — its performance during times of crisis and its role as a long-term store of value.

It’s hardly surprising then that in a year scarred by geopolitical uncertainty and rampant inflation, central banks opted to continue adding gold to their coffers and at an accelerated pace.”

These factors are as relevant to Wyoming as they are to any country.

Tennessee authorized gold and silver reserves in 2023 and Utah did the same during the last legislative session.

BACKGROUND

Once things get to that point, Federal Reserve notes would become largely unwanted and irrelevant for ordinary people. Nullifying the Fed on a state-by-state level is what will get us there.

The post Signed by the Governor: Wyoming Law Requires State to Hold Gold and Silver Reserves first appeared on Tenth Amendment Center.

Idaho House Passes Bill to Recognize Gold and Silver as Legal Tender

TAC News — Tue, 25 Feb 2025 22:42:23 +0000

BOISE, Idaho (Feb. 25, 2025) – Today, the Idaho House overwhelmingly passed a bill to officially recognize gold and silver as legal tender in the state. If enacted, it would pave the way for Idahoans to challenge the Federal Reserve’s fiat by reintroducing competition into the monetary system.

Under the Idaho Constitutional Money Act of 2025, gold and silver coins and “specie” minted domestically would be recognized as legal tender in the state and would be “accepted for the satisfaction of debts under the laws of the state of Idaho or of the United States.”

Specie is defined in the bill as “stamped or imprinted coin having gold or silver content; or refined gold or silver bullion that is coined, stamped, or imprinted with its weight and purity and valued primarily based on its metal content and not its form.”

The legislation specifically declares, “The state may also elect to use gold and silver coin and specie in conducting its business.”

The House State Affairs Committee filed the legislation as House Bill 177 (H177). On Feb. 20, the Committee reported H177 out with a “do pass” recommendation. Today, the full house passed the measure with a vote of 66-3.

The enactment of H177 would make Idaho the sixth state to recognize gold and silver as legal tender, as they always should have been doing. Utah led the way, reestablishing constitutional money in 2011. Wyoming, Oklahoma, Arkansas, and Louisiana have since joined.

GOLD CONTRACT CLAUSE

Beyond the provisions to make gold and silver legal tender, H177 includes language recognizing gold or silver contract clauses.

“Unless expressly provided by statute or by contract, no person or other entity may compel another person or other entity to tender or accept gold or silver coin or specie unless agreed upon by the parties.”

In practice, including language acknowledging gold contract clauses means if parties voluntarily agree to be paid, or to pay, in gold and silver coin or bullion, Idaho courts could not substitute any other thing, e.g. Federal Reserve Notes, as payment.

IN PRACTICE

The bill’s legislative findings declare, “The Legislature hereby recognizes the right of Idahoans to conduct business in gold and silver coin and specie uninhibited at their own discretion as a right never delegated by the people of Idaho to any governmental institution.”

Practically speaking, this would allow Idaho residents to use gold or silver as money rather than as mere investment vehicles.

Passage of H177 would represent a big first step against the fiat-based Federal Reserve system by creating a foundation to pull the rug out from under it on the state and local levels. In essence, it would set the stage for the people themselves to undermine the Federal Reserve monopoly by introducing competition into the monetary system.

The next step would be for people to start taking advantage of the status of gold and silver as money by using both as such instead of Federal Reserve notes.

BACKGROUND

WHAT’S NEXT

H177 will now move to the Senate, where it will first need to pass out of committee before the full chamber has an opportunity to concur.

The post Idaho House Passes Bill to Recognize Gold and Silver as Legal Tender first appeared on Tenth Amendment Center.

Oklahoma Bills Move Forward to Expand Gold and Silver as Legal Tender

TAC News — Tue, 25 Feb 2025 18:08:01 +0000

OKLAHOMA CITY, Okla. (Feb. 25, 2025) – Today, a second Oklahoma House committee passed two bills that would significantly expand the types of gold and silver recognized as legal tender in the state, and establish a 100 percent gold and silver-backed transactional currency.

Rep. Cody Maynard and Sen. David Bullard filed House Bill 1199 (HB1199). This legislation would improve and expand the state’s recognition of gold and silver as legal tender. The duo also filed House Bill 1197 (HB1197) to establish a mechanism for a transactional currency backed 100 percent by gold and silver.

Today, the House Government Oversight Committee passed HB1197 by a vote of 13-3 and HB1199 by a vote of 12-4. On Feb. 11, the House Banking Financial Services and Pension Committee passed both bills by an 8-0 vote.

Both bills now move to the full House for debate and a vote.

GOLD AND SILVER AS LEGAL TENDER

In 2014, Oklahoma took the first step and declared gold and silver coins issued by the United States government are legal tender in the State of Oklahoma. HB1199 would significantly expand that definition of legal tender to include “other specie that an Oklahoma court rules to be within state authority to make or designate as legal tender.” This would set the stage to increase the types of gold and silver coins and bullion considered legal tender.

This is the approach that Utah took, and as a result, the state has built what is likely the most robust foundation for the advancement of gold and silver as money in the United States.

Language in HB1199 would also explicitly define legal tender as “a recognized medium of exchange for the payment of debts and taxes.” In effect, this would require the state to accept gold and silver for payment of taxes, fees, and other obligations.

Oklahoma is among five states that have legally recognized gold and silver as legal tender, as they always should have been doing. Utah led the way, reestablishing constitutional money in 2011. Wyoming, Oklahoma, Arkansas, and Louisiana have since joined.

REMOVING TAXES

Under HB1199, specie legal tender would be exempt from all forms of taxation.

“The purchase, sale, or exchange of any type or form of specie shall not give rise to any tax liability in this state.” This clause would also specifically repeal the state’s capital gains tax on gold and silver bullion.

Taxes on precious metal bullion erect barriers to using gold and silver as money by raising transaction costs.

Oklahoma is already one of 45 states that do not levy sales tax on gold and silver bullion. Exempting the sale of bullion from capital gains taxes takes another step toward treating gold and silver as money instead of commodities. Taxes on precious metal bullion erect barriers to using gold and silver as money by raising transaction costs.

“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 of an Arizona bill that repealed capital gains taxes on gold and silver in that state. “Paper is not money, it’s fraud,” he continued.

GOLD CONTRACT CLAUSE

HB1199 also specifies, “If a valid contract expressly designates a type or form of specie as tender, then an Oklahoma court asked to adjudicate the breach of such a contract shall require, as a remedy for the breach, the specific performance of tendering the type or form of specie specified in the contract.”

In practice, including this contract clause means if parties voluntarily agree to be paid, or to pay, in gold and silver coin or bullion, the Oklahoma courts could not substitute any other thing, e.g. Federal Reserve Notes, as payment.

TRANSACTIONAL CURRENCY

HB1197 would allow the state treasurer to issue a transaction card that enables Oklahoma residents to make purchases using gold and silver deposits held in a state-approved bullion depository. The treasurer’s office could either establish this depository or contract with public or private entities to operate it.

The bill specifies that gold and silver deposits, along with electronic transactions 100% backed by these metals, “shall be considered legal tender.”

If passed and implemented, this system would function much like a traditional debit card, seamlessly converting gold and silver holdings into fiat currency at the point of sale. Individuals and businesses could use it to make everyday purchases, just as they would with a bank account.

By enabling transactions backed by gold and silver, HB1197 would provide an alternative to the fiat dollar, offering a way to protect purchasing power from inflation and currency devaluation.

IN PRACTICE

Practically speaking, recognizing gold and silver as legal tender and creating a gold/silver-backed transactional currency would allow Oklahoma residents to use gold and silver as money rather than as mere investment vehicles.

Passage of HB1199 and HB1197 would represent another step against the fiat-based Federal Reserve system by creating a foundation to pull the rug out from under it on the state and local levels. In essence, it would set the stage for the people themselves to undermine the Federal Reserve monopoly by introducing competition into the monetary system.

The next step would be for people to start taking advantage of the status of gold and silver as money by using both as such instead of Federal Reserve notes.

The act also led to the creation of the Goldback, a local, voluntary medium of exchange. Goldbacks are notes made from fractions of an ounce of physical gold. The company created a process that turns pure gold into a spendable physical form for small transactions.

BACKGROUND

WHAT’S NEXT

HB1199 and HB1197 can now move to the House floor for further consideration.

The post Oklahoma Bills Move Forward to Expand Gold and Silver as Legal Tender first appeared on Tenth Amendment Center.

Signed as Law: South Dakota Bans Credit Card Codes that Track Gun Purchases

TAC News — Tue, 25 Feb 2025 17:21:36 +0000

PIERRE, S.D. (Feb. 25, 2025) – Gov. Larry Rhoden signed a bill into law yesterday banning financial institutions from using credit card codes to track firearm and ammunition purchases. The new law aims to protect privacy and also prevent the keeping of a gun registry.

Sen. Jim Mehlhaff and nine cosponsors filed Senate Bill 81 (SB81). The new law will bar financial institutions operating in the state from requiring “the use of a firearms code in a way that distinguishes a firearms dealer physically located in this state from a general merchandise retailer or a sporting goods retailer located in this state.”

Last month, the Senate passed the bill by a vote of 33-2. The House concurred with a vote of 68-0. With Gov. Rhoden’s signature, it goes into effect on July 1.

The law also prohibits financial institutions from discriminating against a firearms retailer by levying additional fees, denying lawful transactions, or taking any against a customer or merchant intended to suppress “lawful transactions involving firearms.”

Additionally, SB81 will prohibit any South Dakota governmental entity, their employees, or any person other than the owner or owner’s representative, from “knowingly and willfully” keeping “any list, record, or registry of privately owned firearms or the owners of those firearms.”

“South Dakota has seen strong growth of our firearm industry, and this bill will help that continue. I am grateful that both the bankers and the firearm industry came together on this issue,” said Rhoden in a press release on the signing of the measure.

To date, at least 14 states have banned the use of firearms merchant codes.

IMPACT ON FEDERAL PROGRAMS

In response to legislation like SB81, the major credit card payment networks “paused” implementation of the firearms merchant code in March 2023.

In July 2024, Visa and Mastercard told USA Today that they were only using the firearms code in the states that require it by law.

Additionally, data collected from this merchant code would almost certainly end up in federal government databases.

BACKGROUND

In effect, the firearms code is a de facto gun registry.

The more states that ban such codes, the more likely this program gets scrapped permanently.

The post Signed as Law: South Dakota Bans Credit Card Codes that Track Gun Purchases first appeared on Tenth Amendment Center.

Utah House Passes Bill to Affirm State and Federal Jurisdictional Boundaries

Mike Maharrey — Tue, 25 Feb 2025 04:22:01 +0000

SALT LAKE CITY, Utah (Feb. 24, 2025) – Last week, the Utah House passed a bill to affirm clear boundaries between state and federal jurisdiction.

Rep. Ken Ivory and Sen. Kevin Stratton filed House Bill 380 (HB380). The legislation would amend an existing declaration of state sovereignty in Utah law to include the presumption that the state has authority over all matters not delegated to the federal government.

“Jurisdiction over all governing subject matters arising within the state is presumed to reside with the state except as otherwise enumerated in the United States Constitution, as amended.”

The proposed law includes a declaration asserting the extent of state sovereignty.

“The state has general governing authority under the state’s inherent police power jurisdiction over all governing matters within the state affecting public welfare, safety, health, and morality, as recognized under the Tenth Amendment to the United States Constitution.”

The subject areas asserted within the state’s police powers jurisdiction include, “without limitation:”

(i) Natural resources;
(ii) Water resources and water rights;
(iii) Agriculture;
(iv) Education; and
(v) Energy resources

The proposed law would place the burden of overcoming the state presumption of jurisdiction on the federal government.

“The presumption of state jurisdiction … may only be overcome if the federal government demonstrates that jurisdiction over the subject matter in question is specifically enumerated to the federal government under the United States Constitution, as amended.”

HB380 directs the state Federalism Commission created by the Constitutional Sovereignty Act enacted last year to “engage in coordination with federal agencies and state entities regarding a jurisdictional conflict … and endeavor to facilitate a resolution of the jurisdictional conflict” under the direction of the Senate president and the House speaker.

On Feb. 20, the House passed HB380 by a 65-0 vote.

It remains unclear how the enactment of this legislation would play out in practice. There is no mechanism to require the federal government to observe the jurisdictional boundaries set by the state of Utah.

WHAT’S NEXT

HB380 will move to the Senate for further consideration. Once the Senate Rules Committee refers it to a standing committee, it must get a hearing and pass by a majority vote before moving forward in the legislative process.

The post Utah House Passes Bill to Affirm State and Federal Jurisdictional Boundaries first appeared on Tenth Amendment Center.

Arizona Defend the Guard Act Advances to Full Senate Vote

TAC News — Mon, 24 Feb 2025 22:29:31 +0000

PHOENIX, Ariz. (Feb. 24, 2025) – The Arizona Defend the Guard Act took a major step forward today, clearing a second Senate committee, sending the bill to a full Senate vote next.

Sen. Wendy Rogers along with a large number of cosponsors filed the Arizona Defend the Guard Act as Senate Bill 1495 (SB1495). On Feb. 17, it passed the Senate Military Affairs and Border Security Committee by a vote of 4-3. Today, the Senate Rules committee advanced the measure by a 4-3 vote, sending the bill to the full Senate for further consideration.

Residents of Arizona can take action to help the Defend the Guard Act move forward at this link.

“Active duty combat” is defined as performing the following services in the active federal military service:

Participating in an armed conflict.
Performance of a hazardous service in a foreign state.
Performance of a duty through an instrumentality of war

A similar bill has passed the Arizona Senate the last two years, but it has yet to clear the state House.

MILITIA CLAUSES

Article I, Section 8, Clauses 15 and 16 make up the “militia clauses” of the Constitution. Clause 16 authorizes Congress to “provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining the Militia.”

DECLARE WAR

Article I, Section 8, Clause 11 of the Constitution delegates the power to “declare war” to Congress.

At the time the Constitution was ratified, the power to “declare” war was widely understood to mean changing the state of things from peace to war.

It’s also important to note a country can change the state of things from peace to war with a formal declaration, but it can also happen with the execution of military actions, however limited.

Simply put, any offensive measure requires congressional authorization, not just full-scale wars.

This is exactly how the Constitution was understood – and followed – by the first four presidents – Washington, Adams, Jefferson, and Madison.

Justice Joseph Story affirmed this limited role of the state militia in Martin v. Mott (1827).

DUTY

West Virginia Rep. Pat McGeehan served as an Air Force intelligence officer in Afghanistan and has sponsored similar legislation in his state.

IN EFFECT

More specifically, Arizona National Guard troops have participated in missions in Iraq, Afghanistan, and other countries.

WHAT’S NEXT

SB1495 will now move to the full Senate, where it must pass by a majority vote before moving forward in the legislative process. Residents of Arizona can take action to help the Defend the Guard Act move forward at this link.

The post Arizona Defend the Guard Act Advances to Full Senate Vote first appeared on Tenth Amendment Center.

Marbury v. Madison Exposed: The Shocking Truth Behind Judicial Review

Michael Boldin — Mon, 24 Feb 2025 19:30:37 +0000

Almost everything in modern “constitutional law” is based on a myth that dates back to Chief Justice John Marshall and the 1803 case of Marbury v. Madison. According to the myth, Marshall not only CREATED the power of judicial review but also established judicial SUPREMACY – giving the courts ultimate authority over the other branches, the states, and even the people. In this episode, we smash that myth to pieces and reveal the true story behind Marbury.

Path to Liberty: February 24, 2025

SHOW LINKS:
JOIN TAC

Show Archives

USCourts.gov

Lesson Plan – The Enduring Legacy of Marbury v. Madison (1803)

Paulsen – The Irrepressible Myth of Marbury

Did the Founders expect the Courts to Declare Laws Unconstitutional?

Alexander Hamilton – Federalist 78 (28 May 1788)

James Wilson – Pennsylvania Ratifying Convention (1 Dec 1787)

Samuel Adams – Massachusetts Ratifying Convention (1 Feb 1788)

Oliver Ellsworth – Connecticut Ratifying Convention (7 Jan 1788)

George Nicholas – Virginia Ratifying Convention (16 Jan 1788)

George Mason – Virginia Ratifying Convention (17 June 1788)

Centinel No. XVI (26 Feb 1788)

John Dickinson – Philadelphia Conventino (15 Aug 1787)

John Dickinson – Fabius IV (19 Apr 1788)

Marbury v Madison (1803)

Maharrey – Nullification for Lawyers

Thomas Jefferson – Letter to Abigail Adams (11 Sept 1804)

Episode – Ignore the Court? The Real Checks and Balances in the Founders Constitution

Publius Huldah – Clearing up the confusion about Marbury v. Madison

Joshua Dunn – Teaching American History

MORE VIDEO SOURCES
Watch on Rumble

FOLLOW and SUPPORT TAC:

Become a Member: http://tenthamendmentcenter.com/members/
Email Newsletter: http://tenthamendmentcenter.com/register
RSS: http://feeds.feedburner.com/tacdailydigest

The post Marbury v. Madison Exposed: The Shocking Truth Behind Judicial Review first appeared on Tenth Amendment Center.

Iowa Bill Would Ban State Enforcement of Most Federal Gun Control

Mike Maharrey — Fri, 21 Feb 2025 22:24:23 +0000

DES MOINES, Iowa (Feb. 21, 2025) – A bill filed in the Iowa House would ban state and local enforcement of most federal gun control: past, present, and future. Passage into law would represent a major step toward ending the implementation of federal acts that infringe on the right to keep and bear arms within the state.

Rep. Jeff Shipley filed House Bill 428 (HF428). The Iowa Second Amendment Protection Act would take a broad approach to ending state and local enforcement of federal gun control measures.

The legislation would ban the state and its political subdivisions along with all public officers and employees from enforcing, attempting to enforce, or participating in the enforcement of “any federal act, executive order, administrative order, rule, regulation, statute, or ordinance regarding firearms, firearm accessories, or ammunition against any law-abiding citizen.”

It would also prohibit them from “acceding to a request” or “giving material aid or support” to the efforts of another in the enforcement of the same. Material aid or support “includes but is not limited to voluntarily giving or allowing others to make use of lodging, communications equipment or services including social media accounts, facilities, weapons, personnel, transportation, clothing, or other physical assets.”

This would include not just direct enforcement but also administrative actions like processing paperwork or handling enforcement-related communications.

The intent is clear: to ensure that Iowa law enforcement remains independent of federal gun control efforts by preventing both direct enforcement and indirect cooperation.

However, the legislation does allow Iowa law enforcement to accept assistance from federal agencies – but only when enforcing state laws.

PENALTIES

Any public agency or law enforcement agency that employs a law enforcement officer who knowingly violates the law would be liable to the injured party in a lawsuit subject to a civil penalty of $50,000.

Any law-abiding citizen injured by a violation of the law would have standing to sue for injunctive relief in a state district court.

Any agency that knowingly employs a person who previously acted as an official, agent, employee, or deputy of the federal government who knowingly commits an act violating the law would be subject to a civil penalty of $50,000.

IMPACT

Withdrawing state support for federal gun control enforcement has already demonstrated a significant impact in Missouri. The ATF explicitly acknowledged this in its lawsuit against the state’s Second Amendment Protection Act, noting that severed partnerships with state and local law enforcement have “severely impaired federal criminal law enforcement operations within the State of Missouri.”

LEGAL BASIS

In the federal lawsuit against Missouri, two federal courts have strongly affirmed Missouri’s right to refuse to participate in federal gun control enforcement under the anti-commandeering doctrine. However, both courts rejected some of the Act’s language asserting the unconstitutionality of federal gun laws, citing that as their basis for holding the entire act unconstitutional.

The Iowa SAPA avoids this same fate by avoiding the use of any of the language the federal courts found objectionable, while keeping the strong provisions banning state and local enforcement the courts affirmed.

As the anti-commandeering doctrine has long validated, under the Constitution, states have the legal authority to bar their agents from enforcing federal gun control.

Based on James Madison’s advice for states and individuals in Federalist #46, a “refusal to cooperate with officers of the Union” represents an extremely effective method to bring down federal gun control measures because most enforcement actions rely on help, support, and leadership from state and local governments.

This strategy of using a “refusal to cooperate” with federal enforcement has been reaffirmed under the long-standing and well-established legal principle known as the anti-commandeering doctrine.

As the 3rd Chief Justice, Oliver Ellsworth put it, “This Constitution does not attempt to coerce sovereign bodies, states, in their political capacity”

Printz v. U.S. serves as the cornerstone.

The anti-commandeering doctrine affirms that state and local governments can refuse to enforce federal laws or regulatory programs, regardless of their constitutionality.

WHAT’S NEXT

HF428 was referred to the House Judiciary Committee where it must get a hearing and pass by a majority vote before moving forward in the legislative process.

The post Iowa Bill Would Ban State Enforcement of Most Federal Gun Control first appeared on Tenth Amendment Center.

Defend the Guard Act: West Virginia Bill Would End Unconstitutional Deployments

Mike Maharrey — Fri, 21 Feb 2025 21:07:24 +0000

CHARLESTON, W.Va. (Feb. 21, 2025) – A bill filed in the West Virginia House would prohibit the state’s National Guard from being deployed into “active duty combat” unless Congress issues a declaration of war or calls the Guard into service for one of three constitutionally authorized purposes.

The West Virginia Defend the Guard Act would prohibit the governor from releasing any unit or member of the West Virginia National Guard into “active duty combat” unless the United States Congress passes “an official declaration of war” as required by Article I, Section 8, Clause 11 of the Constitution, or if Congress takes “an official action pursuant to Article I, § 8, Clause 15 of the United States Constitution.”

“Active duty combat” is defined as performing the following services in the active federal military service of the United States:

Participation in an armed conflict.
Performance of a hazardous service in a foreign state.
Performance of a duty through an instrumentality of war.

House Majority Leader, Del. Pat McGeehan along with six cosponsors filed House Bill 2591 (HB2591). It is a companion to SB468, filed a few days earlier. Residents of West Virginia can take action to help the legislation move forward at this link.

IN EFFECT

More specifically, West Virginia National Guard troops have participated in missions in Iraq, Afghanistan, Libya, Kosovo, and elsewhere.

MILITIA CLAUSES

Article I, Section 8, Clauses 15 and 16 make up the “militia clauses” of the Constitution. Clause 16 authorizes Congress to “provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining the Militia.”

DECLARE WAR

Article I, Section 8, Clause 11 of the Constitution delegates the power to “declare war” to Congress.

At the time the Constitution was ratified, the power to “declare” war was widely understood to mean changing the state of things from peace to war.

It’s also important to note a country can change the state of things from peace to war with a formal declaration, but it can also happen with the execution of military actions, however limited.

Simply put, any offensive measure requires congressional authorization, not just full-scale wars.

This is exactly how the Constitution was understood – and followed – by the first four presidents – Washington, Adams, Jefferson, and Madison.

Justice Joseph Story affirmed this limited role of the state militia in Martin v. Mott (1827).

DUTY

McGeehan served as an Air Force intelligence officer in Afghanistan and has sponsored similar legislation in his state since 2016.

WHAT’S NEXT

HB2591 was referred to the House Judiciary Committee where it must get a hearing and pass by a majority vote before moving forward in the legislative process. Residents of West Virginia can take action to help the bill move forward at this link.

The post Defend the Guard Act: West Virginia Bill Would End Unconstitutional Deployments first appeared on Tenth Amendment Center.

Idaho Committee Passes Gold and Silver Legal Tender Bill

Mike Maharrey — Fri, 21 Feb 2025 20:40:20 +0000

BOISE, Idaho (Feb. 21, 2025) – Yesterday, an Idaho House committee passed a bill that would officially recognize gold and silver as legal tender in the state. Passage into law would set the stage for the people themselves to undermine the Federal Reserve monopoly by introducing competition into the monetary system.

Under the Idaho Constitutional Money Act of 2025, gold and silver coins and specie minted domestically would be recognized as legal tender in the state and would be “accepted for the satisfaction of debts under the laws of the state of Idaho or of the United States.”

The legislation specifically declares, “The state may also elect to use gold and silver coin and specie in conducting its business.”

The House State Affairs Committee filed the legislation as House Bill 177 (H177). On Feb. 20, the Committee reported H177 out with a “do pass” recommendation.

The passage of H177 would make Idaho the sixth state to recognize gold and silver as legal tender, as they always should have been doing. Utah led the way, reestablishing constitutional money in 2011. Wyoming, Oklahoma, Arkansas, and Louisiana have since joined.

IN PRACTICE

Practically speaking, this would allow Idaho residents to use gold or silver as money rather than as mere investment vehicles.

The next step would be for people to start taking advantage of the status of gold and silver as money by using both as such instead of Federal Reserve notes.

GOLD CONTRACT CLAUSE

Beyond the provisions to make gold and silver legal tender, H177 includes language recognizing gold or silver contract clauses.

BACKGROUND

WHAT’S NEXT

H177 can now move to the full House for further consideration.

The post Idaho Committee Passes Gold and Silver Legal Tender Bill first appeared on Tenth Amendment Center.

Did We Betray the Founders? 5 Ignored Warnings Prove It

Michael Boldin — Fri, 21 Feb 2025 19:01:43 +0000

The Founders knew the path to tyranny – and how to avoid it. So how did the former “land of the free” become home to the largest government in history? In this episode, learn about five key warnings from the Founders that explain how we got here. Understanding them is the first step toward turning things around for good.

Path to Liberty: February 21, 2025

SHOW LINKS:
JOIN TAC

Show Archives

EPISODE – 5 Big Road Blocks to Liberty

Thomas Jefferson – Opinion on the Constitutionality of the Bill for Establishing a National Bank (15 Feb 1791)

James Otis, Jr – Freeborn American (27 Apr 1767)

John Adams – Novanglus III (6 Feb 1775)

John Dickinson – Letters from a Farmer in Pennsylvania No. VII (1767)

Samuel Adams – Valerius Poplicola, Boston Gazette (5 OCt 1772)

Benjamin Rush – Education Agreeable to a Republican Form of Government (1786)

Thomas Jefferson – Letter to Charles Yancey (6 Jan 1816)

Dr. Samuel Willard – Massachusetts Ratifying Convention (22 Jan 1788)

“Old” Abraham White – Massachusetts Ratifying Convention (16 Jan 1788)

Patrick Henry – Virginia Ratifying Convention (5 June 1788)

George Washington – Farewell Address (19 Sept 1796)

James Otis, Jr – (11 Jan 1762)

John Dickinson – Broadside against the Stamp Act (1765)

James Madison – Federalist 46

EPISODE – How to Enforce the Constitution: Whether the Government Likes it or Not

John Adams – Thoughts on Government (Apr 1776)

James Madison – Letter to Thomas Jefferson (13 May 1798)

Thomas Paine – Rights of Man, Part II (1792)

James Otis, Jr – Freeborn American (27 Apr 1767)

St George Tucker – View of the Constitution of the United States (1803)

John Hancock – Massacre Day Oration (5 Mar 1774)

MORE VIDEO SOURCES
Watch on Rumble

FOLLOW and SUPPORT TAC:

Become a Member: http://tenthamendmentcenter.com/members/
Email Newsletter: http://tenthamendmentcenter.com/register
RSS: http://feeds.feedburner.com/tacdailydigest

The post Did We Betray the Founders? 5 Ignored Warnings Prove It first appeared on Tenth Amendment Center.

Alabama Panel Advances Bill to Recognize Gold and Silver as Legal Tender

Mike Maharrey — Thu, 20 Feb 2025 00:37:16 +0000

MONTGOMERY, Ala. (Feb. 19, 2025) – A bill to recognize gold and silver as legal tender in Alabama cleared its first hurdle today. If passed into law, it would set the stage for the people to undermine the Federal Reserve monopoly by introducing competition into the monetary system.

Sen. Tim Melson filed Senate Bill 130 (SB130). Under the Alabama Legal Tender Act, “any refined gold or silver bullion, specie, or coin that has been stamped, marked, or imprinted
with its weight and purity” would be recognized as legal tender in the state.

Today, the Senate Committee on Banking and Insurance approved the measure, sending it to the full Senate for further consideration.

GOLD CONTRACT CLAUSE

Beyond the provisions to make gold and silver legal tender, SB130 includes language recognizing gold or silver contract clauses.

“No person shall be required to offer or accept any recognized legal tender … except as specifically provided for by contract or otherwise required by law.”

IN PRACTICE

Passage of SB130 would represent another step against the fiat-based Federal Reserve system by creating a foundation to pull the rug out from under it on the state and local levels.

Alabama recently repealed both its sales tax and capital gains tax on gold and silver. The passage of SB130 would take another step further opening the door for residents to use gold or silver as money rather than as mere investment vehicles.

In essence, it would set the stage for the people themselves to undermine the Federal Reserve monopoly by introducing competition into the monetary system.

The next step would be for people to start taking advantage of the status of gold and silver as money by using both as such instead of Federal Reserve notes.

BACKGROUND

WHAT’S NEXT

SB130 will now move to the full Senate, where it must pass by a majority vote before moving forward in the legislative process.

The post Alabama Panel Advances Bill to Recognize Gold and Silver as Legal Tender first appeared on Tenth Amendment Center.

To the Governor: Wyoming Passes Bill to Require State to Hold Gold and Silver Reserves

TAC News — Wed, 19 Feb 2025 23:31:37 +0000

CHEYENNE, Wyo. (Feb. 19, 2025) – Today, the Wyoming House and Senate gave final approval to a bill requiring the state to hold gold and silver reserves, taking a significant step toward financial diversification and greater independence from the Federal Reserve’s monetary system. The bill now moves to Gov. Mark Gordon’s desk.

Sen. Bob Ide filed Senate Bill 96 (SF96) with 10 cosponsors. Under the proposed law, the state treasurer would be required to hold not less than $10 million in specie and specie legal tender in the “permanent Wyoming mineral trust fund.” Specie is defined as a “coin having gold or silver content.”

SF96 states that gold and silver reserves would be held “for the purpose of diversifying the state’s investment portfolio, preserving capital and insuring against inflation, debt defaults, and other risks.”

The proposed law would also give the state treasurer the authority to invest state funds in “precious metals leases or bonds payable in precious metals,” if warranted by market conditions.

Today, the House approved the measure by a vote of 44-17, and the Senate concurred by a vote of 23-8.

SF96 also includes provisions that would require the department of revenue to conduct a study “analyzing the role of precious metals in augmenting, stabilizing and ensuring the economic security and prosperity of the state and the families, residents and businesses of the state.” The study would have to include a review of “methods for the state to begin accepting gold and silver as a payment medium.”

IMPACT

It’s hardly surprising then that in a year scarred by geopolitical uncertainty and rampant inflation, central banks opted to continue adding gold to their coffers and at an accelerated pace.”

These factors are as relevant to Wyoming as they are to any country.

Tennessee authorized gold and silver reserves in 2023 and Utah did the same during the last legislative session.

BACKGROUND

Once things get to that point, Federal Reserve notes would become largely unwanted and irrelevant for ordinary people. Nullifying the Fed on a state-by-state level is what will get us there.

WHAT’S NEXT

SF96 will now move to the Governor’s desk, where he must sign or veto the bill within 3 days of transmittal (excluding Sunday), or it becomes law without his signature.

The post To the Governor: Wyoming Passes Bill to Require State to Hold Gold and Silver Reserves first appeared on Tenth Amendment Center.

North Dakota House Passes Bill to Invest State Funds in Gold and Silver

Mike Maharrey — Wed, 19 Feb 2025 18:47:51 +0000

BISMARCK, N.D. (Feb 19, 2025) – On Monday, the North Dakota House passed a bill that would require the state to invest funds in precious metals, potentially strengthening its financial stability, insulating against inflation, and reducing reliance on the Federal Reserve’s fiat currency system.

Rep. Daniel Johnston filed House Bill 1183 (HB1183). Under the proposed law, the state treasurer would be required to invest at least 1 percent of all funds deposited in the state treasury in gold and silver.

“Gold and silver investments by the state treasurer under this section must be held directly by the state treasurer as bullion or coins in a secure facility or on behalf of the state through a qualified custodian, exchange traded product, or other investment instrument.”

HB1183 also includes provisions that would require the treasurer to conduct a study of “the costs and benefits of investing state funds in gold and silver.”

After failing to garner a constitutional majority in the first vote in the full House on Feb. 14, HB1183 was brought up for reconsideration on Feb. 17 and passed by a 54-35 vote.

IMPACT

Adding physical gold and silver in reserve could also create a pathway for North Dakota to maintain financial independence should the U.S. dollar collapse, a very real possibility as the world moves away from the greenback as its reserve currency. The state would not enjoy this benefit if it opted to invest in “paper gold” through exchange-traded products since it would not have access to physical metal.

Central banks around the world have been buying gold to limit their dependence on the U.S. dollar. According to the World Gold Council (WGC), central banks’ net gold purchases totaled 1,037 tons in 2023. It was the second straight year central banks around the world added more than 1,000 tons to their total reserves. According to the WGC, there are two main drivers behind central bank gold buying — its performance during times of crisis and its role as a long-term store of value.

It’s hardly surprising then that in a year scarred by geopolitical uncertainty and rampant inflation, central banks opted to continue adding gold to their coffers and at an accelerated pace.”

These factors are as relevant to Wyoming as they are to any country.

Tennessee authorized gold and silver reserves in 2023 and Utah did the same during the last legislative session.

BACKGROUND

Once things get to that point, Federal Reserve notes would become largely unwanted and irrelevant for ordinary people. Nullifying the Fed on a state-by-state level is what will get us there.

WHAT’S NEXT

HB1183 will now move to the Senate. It was referred to the Senate Industry and Business Committee where it must get a hearing and pass by a majority vote before moving forward in the legislative process.

The post North Dakota House Passes Bill to Invest State Funds in Gold and Silver first appeared on Tenth Amendment Center.

Montana House Committee Passes Sheriff’s First Act

Mike Maharrey — Wed, 19 Feb 2025 04:13:53 +0000

HELENA, Mont. (Feb. 18, 2025) – Yesterday, a Montana House committee passed a bill that would require federal government agents to notify the sheriff before making an arrest or conducting a search in a Montana county.

Lee Deming filed House Bill 439 (HB439). Under the proposed law, any federal employee or agent who is not designated a Montana peace officer by state law would be prohibited from making an arrest or conducting a search or seizure, without “providing notice of the action to the sheriff or a designee of the sheriff” of the county where the action would take place.

The bill would allow for a federal arrest or search and seizure without notice if the subject of the action is an employee of the sheriff’s office or an elected county or state officer, or if there is probable cause that the subject of the action has “close connections” with the sheriff. In these cases, the federal agent would be required to inform the state attorney general of the action.

The bill does not include any penalties for violation of the law.

On Feb. 17, the House Judiciary Committee passed HB439 by a 12-8 vote.

WHAT’S NEXT

HB439 can now move to the full House for further consideration.

The post Montana House Committee Passes Sheriff’s First Act first appeared on Tenth Amendment Center.

Arizona Measure to Decriminalize NFA-Restricted Firearms and End State Enforcement Passes Unanimously

Michael Boldin — Tue, 18 Feb 2025 21:33:02 +0000

PHOENIX, Ariz. (Feb. 18, 2025) – An Arizona House committee has unanimously passed a measure to let voters decide whether to decriminalize fully automatic weapons, sawed-off shotguns, and firearm sound suppressors. If approved at the ballot box, the law would automatically prohibit state and local enforcement of federal restrictions on the same under a 2021 Arizona statute.

Rep. Alexander Kolodin filed House Concurrent Resolution 2037 (HCR2037). Titled the “Shall not Be Infringed Act,” the legislation would initiate a ballot measure that would remove fully automatic firearms (machine guns), short-barreled rifles and shotguns, and firearm sound suppressors (more commonly known as silencers) from the state’s list of “prohibited weapons.”

On Feb. 13, the House Judiciary Committee passed HCR2037 by a 6-3 vote. Yesterday, the House Rules committee moved the legislation forward with a vote of 7-0.

ENDING STATE ENFORCEMENT

Kolodin confirmed this was the intent of the bill.

FEDERAL REGULATIONS

IMPACT ON FEDERAL ENFORCEMENT

LEGAL BASIS

Under the Constitution, states have the legal authority to bar their agents from enforcing federal gun control.

Based on James Madison’s advice for states and individuals in Federalist #46, a “refusal to cooperate with officers of the Union” represents an extremely effective method to bring down federal gun control measures because most enforcement actions rely on help, support, and leadership from state and local governments.

This strategy of using a “refusal to cooperate” with federal enforcement has been reaffirmed under the long-standing and well-established legal principle known as the anti-commandeering doctrine.

As the 3rd Chief Justice, Oliver Ellsworth put it, “This Constitution does not attempt to coerce sovereign bodies, states, in their political capacity”

Printz v. U.S. serves as the cornerstone.

The anti-commandeering doctrine affirms that state and local governments can refuse to enforce federal laws or regulatory programs, regardless of their constitutionality.

WHAT’S NEXT

HCR2037 will now move to the House floor where it must pass by a majority vote before moving forward in the legislative process.

The post Arizona Measure to Decriminalize NFA-Restricted Firearms and End State Enforcement Passes Unanimously first appeared on Tenth Amendment Center.

Arizona Defend the Guard Act Clears First Senate Committee

TAC News — Tue, 18 Feb 2025 17:37:23 +0000

PHOENIX, Ariz. (Feb. 18, 2025) – The Arizona Defend the Guard Act took a major step forward yesterday, clearing a Senate committee in the first round of the legislative process. The bill moves forward, with a full Senate vote on the horizon.

Sen. Wendy Rogers along with a large number of cosponsors filed the Arizona Defend the Guard Act as Senate Bill 1495 (SB1495). The legislation would prohibit the governor from releasing any unit or member of the Arizona National Guard into “active duty combat” unless Congress passed an “official declaration of war” as required by Article I, Section 8, Clause 11 of the Constitution, or if Congress takes “an official action pursuant to Article I, Section 8, Clause 15″ of the Constitution for the United States.

On Feb. 17, SB1495 passed the Senate Military Affairs and Border Security Committee by a vote of 4-3.

“Active duty combat” is defined as performing the following services in the active federal military service:

Participating in an armed conflict.
Performance of a hazardous service in a foreign state.
Performance of a duty through an instrumentality of war

A similar bill has passed the Arizona Senate the last two years, but it has yet to clear the state House.

MILITIA CLAUSES

Article I, Section 8, Clauses 15 and 16 make up the “militia clauses” of the Constitution. Clause 16 authorizes Congress to “provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining the Militia.”

DECLARE WAR

Article I, Section 8, Clause 11 of the Constitution delegates the power to “declare war” to Congress.

At the time the Constitution was ratified, the power to “declare” war was widely understood to mean changing the state of things from peace to war.

It’s also important to note a country can change the state of things from peace to war with a formal declaration, but it can also happen with the execution of military actions, however limited.

Simply put, any offensive measure requires congressional authorization, not just full-scale wars.

This is exactly how the Constitution was understood – and followed – by the first four presidents – Washington, Adams, Jefferson, and Madison.

Justice Joseph Story affirmed this limited role of the state militia in Martin v. Mott (1827).

DUTY

West Virginia Rep. Pat McGeehan served as an Air Force intelligence officer in Afghanistan and has sponsored similar legislation in his state.

IN EFFECT

More specifically, Arizona National Guard troops have participated in missions in Iraq, Afghanistan, and other countries.

WHAT’S NEXT

SB1495 will now move to the Senate Rules committee, where it must get a hearing and pass by a majority vote before moving forward in the legislative process.

The post Arizona Defend the Guard Act Clears First Senate Committee first appeared on Tenth Amendment Center.

Montana Committee Passes Bill to Make Gold and Silver Legal Tender, End Taxes on Both

Mike Maharrey — Tue, 18 Feb 2025 16:57:22 +0000

HELENA, Mont. (Feb. 18, 2025) – Yesterday, a Montana House committee passed a bill that would officially recognize gold and silver as legal tender and repeal state taxes on the metals. Passage into law would set the stage for the people themselves to undermine the Federal Reserve monopoly by introducing competition into the monetary system.

Rep. Tom Millett filed House Bill 382 (HB382). Under the proposed law, “specie legal tender,” defined as “gold or silver coin that is issued by the United States” would be recognized as legal tender for payment of both public and private debts. The legislation would also empower “a court of competent jurisdiction” to declare other gold and silver coins and bullion not issued by the U.S. as legal tender.

The bill includes provisions specifically excluding central bank digital currency (CBDC) from serving as legal tender.

On Feb. 17, the House Business and Labor Committee passed HB382 by a 12-8 vote with some minor amendments.

The passage of HB382 would make Montana the sixth state to recognize gold and silver as legal tender, as they always should have been doing. Utah led the way, reestablishing constitutional money in 2011. Wyoming, Oklahoma, Arkansas, and Louisiana have since joined.

IN PRACTICE

Practically speaking, this would allow Montana residents to use gold or silver as money rather than as mere investment vehicles.

Passage of HB382 would represent a big first step against the fiat-based Federal Reserve system by creating a foundation to pull the rug out from under it on the state and local levels. In essence, it would set the stage for the people themselves to undermine the Federal Reserve monopoly by introducing competition into the monetary system.

The next step would be for people to start taking advantage of the status of gold and silver as money by using both as such instead of Federal Reserve notes.

GOLD CONTRACT CLAUSE

Beyond the provisions to make gold and silver legal tender, HB382 includes language recognizing gold or silver contract clauses.

“Except as expressly provided by contract, a person may not compel any other person to tender or accept specie legal tender.”

In practice, including language acknowledging gold contract clauses means if parties voluntarily agree to be paid, or to pay, in gold and silver coin or bullion, Montana courts could not substitute any other thing, e.g. Federal Reserve Notes, as payment.

REMOVING TAXES

Under HB382, “A transaction involving the exchange of one form of legal tender for another form of legal tender is not subject to individual income tax as provided in 15-30-2120 and is not subject to any sales tax, including sales taxes that may be approved on or after the effective date of this act.”

This would effectively repeal all state taxes on gold and silver specie.

The bill would also specifically repeal the state’s capital gains tax on gold and silver bullion.

Taxes on precious metal bullion erect barriers to using gold and silver as money by raising transaction costs.

Montana is already one of 45 states that do not levy sales tax on gold and silver bullion. Exempting the sale of bullion from capital gains taxes takes another step toward treating gold and silver as money instead of commodities. Taxes on precious metal bullion erect barriers to using gold and silver as money by raising transaction costs.

NO HELP FOR THE FEDS

HB382 includes provisions prohibiting the state from seizing “legal tender” including gold and silver coins from their rightful owners.

The legislation would also bar state and local agencies from enforcing “federal acts, laws, executive orders, administrative orders, rules, regulations, statutes, or ordinances infringing on the right of a person to keep and use specie legal tender” unless ordered by a state district court.

Based on James Madison’s advice for states and individuals in Federalist #46, a “refusal to cooperate with officers of the Union” represents an extremely effective method to bring down federal gun control measures because most enforcement actions rely on help, support, and leadership from state and local governments.

This provision is based on the well-established anti-commandeering doctrine. Simply put, the federal government cannot force states to help implement or enforce any federal act or regulatory program. The anti-commandeering doctrine is based primarily on five major Supreme Court cases dating back to 1842.

BACKGROUND

WHAT’S NEXT

HB382 can now move to the full House for further consideration.

The post Montana Committee Passes Bill to Make Gold and Silver Legal Tender, End Taxes on Both first appeared on Tenth Amendment Center.

Defend the Guard Act: West Virginia Legislation Would End Unconstitutional Deployments

Mike Maharrey — Tue, 18 Feb 2025 13:43:34 +0000

CHARLESTON, W.Va. (Feb. 18, 2025) – A bill filed in the West Virginia Senate would prohibit the state’s National Guard from being deployed into “active duty combat” unless Congress issues a declaration of war or calls the Guard into service for one of three constitutionally authorized purposes.

Sen. Chris Rose filed Senate Bill 468 (SB468). The West Virginia Defend the Guard Act would prohibit the governor from releasing any unit or member of the West Virginia National Guard into “active duty combat” unless the United States Congress passes “an official declaration of war” as required by Article I, Section 8, Clause 11 of the Constitution, or if Congress takes “an official action pursuant to Article I, § 8, Clause 15 of the United States Constitution.”

“Active duty combat” is defined as performing the following services in the active federal military service of the United States:

Participation in an armed conflict.
Performance of a hazardous service in a foreign state.
Performance of a duty through an instrumentality of war.

IN EFFECT

More specifically, West Virginia National Guard troops have participated in missions in Iraq, Afghanistan, Libya, Kosovo, and elsewhere.

MILITIA CLAUSES

Article I, Section 8, Clauses 15 and 16 make up the “militia clauses” of the Constitution. Clause 16 authorizes Congress to “provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining the Militia.”

DECLARE WAR

Article I, Section 8, Clause 11 of the Constitution delegates the power to “declare war” to Congress.

At the time the Constitution was ratified, the power to “declare” war was widely understood to mean changing the state of things from peace to war.

It’s also important to note a country can change the state of things from peace to war with a formal declaration, but it can also happen with the execution of military actions, however limited.

Simply put, any offensive measure requires congressional authorization, not just full-scale wars.

This is exactly how the Constitution was understood – and followed – by the first four presidents – Washington, Adams, Jefferson, and Madison.

Justice Joseph Story affirmed this limited role of the state militia in Martin v. Mott (1827).

DUTY

West Virginia Rep. Pat McGeehan served as an Air Force intelligence officer in Afghanistan and has sponsored similar legislation in his state.

WHAT’S NEXT

SB468 was referred to the Senate Military Committee where it must get a hearing an pass by a majority vote before moving forward in the legislative process.

The post Defend the Guard Act: West Virginia Legislation Would End Unconstitutional Deployments first appeared on Tenth Amendment Center.

Arkansas Bill Would Prohibit Credit Card Codes to Track Firearms Purchases

Mike Maharrey — Mon, 17 Feb 2025 21:19:58 +0000

LITTLE ROCK, Ark. (Feb. 17, 2025) – A bill introduced in the Arkansas House would prohibit financial institutions operating in the state from using a credit card merchant code to enable the tracking of firearm and ammunition purchases.

Rep. Aaron Pilkington and Sen. Clint Penzo filed House Bill 1443 (HB1443). Under the Second Amendment Financial Privacy Act, financial institutions and payment networks operating in Arkansas would be prohibited from “requiring the usage of a firearms code in a way that distinguishes a firearms retailer from general merchandise retailers or sporting goods retailers located in this state.”

Payment systems would also be barred from “discriminating” against a firearm retailer through any of the following actions.

Declining a lawful payment card transaction based solely on the assignment or nonassignment of a firearms code to the firearms retailer or transaction;
Limiting or declining to do business with a customer, potential customer, or merchant based on the assignment or nonassignment of a firearms code to any previous lawful transaction involving the customer or merchant;
Charging a higher transaction or interchange fee to a merchant or for a lawful transaction based on the assignment or nonassignment of a firearms code;
Otherwise taking any action against a customer or merchant that is intended to suppress lawful commerce involving firearms, firearm accessories or components, or ammunition, which action is based solely or in part on the customer’s or merchant’s business involving firearms, firearm accessories or components, or ammunition.

Language in the bill expressly prohibits government entities from keeping a list or registry of privately owned firearms except in the course of a criminal investigation.

To date, at least 14 states have banned the use of firearms merchant codes.

IMPACT ON FEDERAL PROGRAMS

In response to legislation such as HB1443 the major credit card payment networks “paused” implementation of the firearms merchant code in March 2023.

In July 2024, Visa and Mastercard told USA Today that they were only using the firearms code in the states that require it by law.

Additionally, data collected from this merchant code would almost certainly end up in federal government databases.

BACKGROUND

In effect, the firearms code is a de facto gun registry.

The more states that ban such codes, the more likely this program gets scrapped permanently.

WHAT’S NEXT

HB1443 was referred to the House Committee on Insurance and Commerce where it must get a hearing and pass by a majority vote before moving forward in the legislative process.

The post Arkansas Bill Would Prohibit Credit Card Codes to Track Firearms Purchases first appeared on Tenth Amendment Center.

West Virginia Bill Would End Civil Asset Forfeiture and Restrict Federal Loophole

Mike Maharrey — Mon, 17 Feb 2025 21:14:13 +0000

CHARLESTON, W.Va. (Feb. 17, 2025) – A bill introduced in the West Virginia House would end civil asset forfeiture in the state and take significant steps to close a federal loophole that allows law enforcement to bypass state restrictions.

Del. Chuck Horst and 10 cosponsors filed House Bill 2383 (HB2383). The legislation would repeal the state’s civil asset forfeiture process and replace it with a criminal procedure. Under the new process, forfeiture could only occur after “the state secures a conviction of a crime … and the state establishes by a preponderance of the evidence that the property is an instrumentality of, or proceeds derived directly from, the crime for which the state secured a conviction.”

HB2383 would also address the “policing for profit” motive inherent in civil asset forfeiture by requiring forfeiture proceeds to be deposited into various state funds. Under current law, police departments in West Virginia can keep up to 100 percent of forfeiture proceeds.

HB2383 would also take significant steps toward closing a federal loophole that allows state and local law enforcement to bypass West Virginia’s stricter asset forfeiture laws through a federal program known as “Equitable Sharing.”

In 2020, the state took the first step toward reforming its forfeiture process by implementing strict reporting requirements.

FEDERAL LOOPHOLE

The Equitable Sharing program enables law enforcement to transfer cases to federal authorities via a process called “adoption,” allowing prosecutors to sidestep state limits and seize property under federal law.

Under these arrangements, state or local police investigate a case on their own and then simply hand it over to a federal agency for prosecution. Even though the feds initially didn’t participate in the investigation, they handle the prosecution under federal law – and then give up to 80 percent of the take to the state law enforcement agency that helped them out.

This allows state and local police to cash in on asset forfeiture even if state law prohibits it.

Adoption accounts for about 30 percent of equitable sharing cases and about 15 percent of the total value forfeited under equitable sharing. The rest, and the vast majority, happens through state-federal joint task forces.

Language in HB2383 would take significant steps to close the loophole by banning adoption unless the seized property includes U.S. currency that exceeds $20,000. It would also limit forfeiture through federal task forces by requiring state prosecution unless the seized property includes U.S. currency that exceeds $20,000.

It’s difficult to say exactly how many cases would be eligible for transfer with that $20,000 cash threshold because only 21 states report forfeiture data. But based on analysis by the Institute for Justice, the vast majority of cases fall below that amount.

The median currency forfeiture averages just $1,276 across the 21 states with available data. Minnesota has the most transparent reporting. According to an IJ lawyer, only seven of the 3,873 cases reported in 2023 included proceeds above $50K.

NECESSARY

While some people believe the Supreme Court “ended” asset forfeiture, its opinion in Timbs v. Indiana ended nothing. The court merely held that the Eighth Amendment provisions prohibiting “expressive fines” apply to the state through the incorporation doctrine.

Without further action, state and federal law enforcement can still use the civil asset forfeiture process with few limits. Additionally, as law professor Ilya Somin noted, the Court left an important issue unresolved. What exactly counts as “excessive” in the civil forfeiture context?

“That is likely to be a hotly contested issue in the lower federal courts over the next few years. The ultimate effect of today’s decision depends in large part on how that question is resolved. If courts rule that only a few unusually extreme cases qualify as excessive, the impact of Timbs might be relatively marginal.”

Somin has been proved correct. Six years later, the SCOTUS decision still hasn’t limited asset forfeiture.

The passage of legislation that specifically limits or completely ends state participation in equitable sharing takes concrete steps toward ending it instead of waiting for more court cases.

WHAT’S NEXT

HB2383 was referred to the House Judiciary Committee where it must get a hearing and pass by a majority vote before moving forward in the legislative process.

The post West Virginia Bill Would End Civil Asset Forfeiture and Restrict Federal Loophole first appeared on Tenth Amendment Center.

Minnesota Bill Would Take First Step in Limiting Government Use of Facial Recognition Surveillance

Mike Maharrey — Mon, 17 Feb 2025 21:11:55 +0000

ST. PAUL, Minn. (Feb. 17, 2025) – A bill filed in the Minnesota Senate would place some limits on government use of facial recognition surveillance.

Sen. Eric Lucero filed Senate Bill 1242 (SF1242). While the proposed law would not end government use of facial recognition in Minnesota, it would take a first step and set the foundation by placing limits on the technology and preventing ongoing surveillance using facial recognition.

The legislation would prohibit government agencies, including state and local law enforcement, from engaging in “ongoing surveillance” using facial recognition technology without a court order in most situations. Ongoing surveillance is defined as “the use of facial recognition technology to engage in a sustained effort to track the physical movements of an identified individual through one or more public places where the movements occur over a period of time greater than 72 hours, whether in real time or through application of the technology to historical records.”

The law would allow police to engage in ongoing surveillance without a court order if “exigent circumstances and compelling law enforcement needs make it impractical to obtain a covered court order,” but agencies would still be required to obtain a court order within 48 hours of initiating surveillance.

The proposed law would require court-authorized facial recognition to be “conducted in a way to minimize the acquisition, retention, and dissemination of information about the individuals other than those for whom there was probable cause to seek the covered court order.” It would also require a trained officer to review the facial recognition data before any law enforcement agency acted on the results.

IMPACT ON FEDERAL PROGRAMS

With facial recognition technology, police and other government officials can track individuals in real time. These systems allow law enforcement agents to use video cameras and continually scan everybody who walks by. According to the report, several major police departments have expressed an interest in this type of real-time tracking. Documents revealed agencies in at least five major cities, including Los Angeles, either claimed to run real-time face recognition off of street cameras, bought technology with the capability, or expressed written interest in buying it.

A 2019 report revealed that the federal government has turned state driver’s license photos into a giant facial recognition database, putting virtually every driver in America in a perpetual electronic police lineup. The revelations generated widespread outrage, but the story wasn’t new. The federal government has been developing a massive facial recognition system for years.

The FBI rolled out a nationwide facial recognition program in the fall of 2014, intending to build a giant biometric database with pictures provided by the states and corporate friends.

In 2016, the Center on Privacy and Technology at Georgetown Law released “The Perpetual Lineup,” a massive report on law enforcement use of facial recognition technology in the U.S. You can read the complete report at perpetuallineup.org. The organization conducted a year-long investigation and collected more than 15,000 pages of documents through more than 100 public records requests. The report paints a disturbing picture of intense cooperation between the federal government, and state and local law enforcement to develop a massive facial recognition database.

“Face recognition is a powerful technology that requires strict oversight. But those controls, by and large, don’t exist today,” report co-author Clare Garvie said. “With only a few exceptions, there are no laws governing police use of the technology, no standards ensuring its accuracy, and no systems checking for bias. It’s a wild west.”

In all likelihood, the federal government heavily involves itself in helping state and local agencies obtain this technology. The feds provide grant money to local law enforcement agencies for a vast array of surveillance gear, including ALPRs, stingray devices, and drones. The federal government essentially encourages and funds a giant nationwide surveillance net and then taps into the information via the Information Sharing Environment (ISE).

By funding state and local surveillance programs, the feds can obtain warrantless data without having to expend the resources to collect it themselves. By restricting the collection of data at the state and local levels, legislation such as SF1242 simultaneously limits the information available for the feds to access.

In a nutshell, without state and local cooperation, the feds have a much more difficult time gathering information. The passage of state laws and local ordinances banning and limiting facial recognition eliminates one avenue for gathering facial recognition data. Simply put, data that doesn’t exist cannot be entered into federal databases.

WHAT’S NEXT

SF1242 was referred to the Senate Judiciary and Public Safety Committee where it must get a hearing and pass by a majority vote before moving forward in the legislative process.

The post Minnesota Bill Would Take First Step in Limiting Government Use of Facial Recognition Surveillance first appeared on Tenth Amendment Center.

Michigan Bill Would Establish 100% Backed Gold and Silver Transactional Currency and Bullion Depository

Mike Maharrey — Mon, 17 Feb 2025 21:10:07 +0000

LANSING, Mich. (Feb. 17, 2025) – A bill filed in the Michigan House would establish a transactional currency backed 100 percent by gold and silver, along with a bullion depository. If enacted, the legislation would create the infrastructure to facilitate the everyday use of sound money, while also offering safe storage for precious metals.

Rep. Alabas Farhat and two cosponsors filed House Bill 4086 (HB4086). The legislation would establish the Michigan Bullion Depository as a safe storage facility for precious metals. The depository would “serve as the custodian, guardian, and administrator of certain bullion and specie that are transferred to or otherwise acquired by this state.” Individuals and businesses would also be able to set up accounts at the depository.

The depository provisions are based on a similar law that was passed in Texas and signed into law by Gov. Abbott in 2015.

TRANSACTIONAL CURRENCY BACKED BY GOLD OR SILVER

Under HB4086 the state treasurer would be required to “establish and provide for the issuance of gold and silver specie,” defined as “a precious metal stamped into coins of uniform shape, size, design, content, and purity, suitable for or customarily used as currency, as a medium of exchange, or as the medium for purchase, sale, storage, transfer, or delivery of precious metals in retail or wholesale transactions.” The depository would be the sole issuer of this physical specie.

The treasurer would also be required to “establish and issue a digital currency based on gold and silver that represents a particular fraction of a troy ounce of gold or silver, as applicable, held in trust as provided by this article.” This digital currency would be known as the “Michcoin.” The treasurer would be required to ensure the holder of this digital currency could “use the specie as legal tender in payment of debt and readily transfer the specie to another person.”

The digital currency would be 100 percent backed by reserves in the depository.

In effect, individuals and businesses would be able to transact business electronically using currency backed by gold and/or silver held in the depository.

IMPACT

The passage of this legislation would create a sound money alternative to U.S. dollars in both physical and electronic form.

Using gold and silver-backed transactional currency, any person or entity would be able to do business using a debit card that seamlessly converts gold and silver to fiat currency in the background. Private individuals and businesses would be able to purchase goods and services using assets held in the Michigan Gold Depository in the same way they use dollars held in a bank today.

Gold and silver-backed transactional currency would give people a way to shield themselves from the rapid loss of purchasing power inherent in the fiat dollar.

BACKGROUND

WHAT’S NEXT

HB4086 was referred to the House Committee On Communications and Technology where it must get a hearing and pass by a majority vote before moving forward in the legislative process.

The post Michigan Bill Would Establish 100% Backed Gold and Silver Transactional Currency and Bullion Depository first appeared on Tenth Amendment Center.