California Looking to Have Aliens Convict US Citizens

More stuff that stacked up in my notes pile…  California’s looking to have non-citizens serve on juries.

Jury duty long has been held up as a privilege of U.S. citizenship, along with voting and a few other civic actions.

But in move that is drawing controversy, California is considering extending the right to serve on a jury to legal immigrants who are not naturalized citizens. The California Assembly passed a bill on Thursday that would  allow non-citizens who are in the country legally to serve on jury duty.

Not a jury of your peers.

Assemblyman Bob Wieckowski, a Democrat, sponsored the bill, arguing that the state needs to broaden the pool of eligible jurors, and that fulfilling jury duty would help integrate immigrants.

United States Citizenship and Immigration Services, or USCIS, the branch that deals with naturalization, said that only U.S. citizens may serve on federal juries, but that some local jurisdictions in the nation allow non-citizens to be jurors. The same is true of voting, which at the federal level requires citizenship.

Local jurisdictions allowing aliens to vote on how you live in your country is absurd.  It surrenders sovereign franchise to aliens, whether they be illegal (which is the real point in Cali), or legal.  Legal permanent residents aren’t citizens.  They’re just living here, they aren’t Americans.  They haven’t so much as sworn any allegiance to the US, they’re just here on papers.

If they want to be Americans, then once they get citizenship they can enjoy the right to vote, and they can enjoy the right to serve on juries and convict or acquit their fellow citizens (though some may find that a dubious honor, given the time commitments).

Democratic lawmakers who voted for the bill said there is no correlation between being a citizen and a juror, and they noted that there is no citizenship requirement to be an attorney or a judge.

Yeah, actually there is.  A jury of one’s peers means having citizens of the country you reside in be your jurors.  That anyone can hire any attorney they want is no big deal, but that a judge, as a state official, could bear allegiance not to the US, but to a foreign nation, is frankly absurd.

The Democrat argument for it basically comes down to “we need them to serve on juries US citizens are too lazy to serve on”.

Noting that women were once kept off juries, Assembly Speaker John Perez, D-Los Angeles, said the judicial system should be changed to allow a person to be judged by their peers.

He then went on to talk about apples and oranges.

Paula Hannaford, an expert at the Center for Jury Studies, confirmed that California would be the only place — state or locality — in the country to allow non-citizens to serve jury duty.

Because non-citizens on jury duty is patently absurd.

Why not just have Incitatus on the jury?  There’s nothing that says horses can’t serve on juries.

Gun Grabber Tyrant Roundup 3/22/13

First off, New York is offering $500 bounties on those who think they have rights:

ALBANY, N.Y. –  Nearly a year before signing the nation’s most stringent gun control measure into law, New York Gov. Andrew Cuomo launched a hotline that allows state residents to report illegal gun owners in exchange for a $500 reward.

The measure is part of a four-pronged approach established by the governor’s office to reduce gun violence in urban communities, according to CBS6Albany.com.

Now that just about everything has been made illegal by the NY SAFE Act, the tyrants want you to turn in your neighbor – the only way they can get total control is through willing subjects who will help their masters eliminate all resistance.

The gun measure outlaws the purchase of any magazines that carry more than seven bullets, the nation’s most stringent limit. That would have put a severe limit on the sale of guns with industry-standard 10-bullet magazines when the provision of the law went into effect April 15.

10 rounds is not “industry standard”.  For modern rifles, 30 rounds is industry standard.  For modern pistols in .40 S&W, “standard” starts at 12 and goes up towards 17, for modern pistols in 9mm, “standard” starts around 13-15 rounds and goes up from there.  10 rounds is restricted.  7 rounds is further restricted.  All are infringements.

Next up, via HotAir, Bloomberg is back on the warpath and out for domination:

Democrats facing tough reelection races will either attract the ire of the National Rifle Association or prominent gun control activists such as New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg (I). A vote against the ban could spark primary challenges that could weaken Democrats in the general election…

“People are not going to say, ‘That’s a tough vote for them, let’s not do anything,’ ” said Josh Horwitz, executive director of the Coalition to Stop Gun Violence. “There is a feeling that to win this thing we need all the Democrats. That means people who are in tough races in 2014 don’t get passes. I would expect issue ads and advocacy for all senators.”

For those who forgot, Josh Horwitz is the guy who says you’re a violent insurrectionist if you own an AR15.

And speaking of senators, Feinstein’s AWB was dumped by Reid, who won’t put it up for a vote.  I didn’t bother doing a story since it’s a non-story.  It’d be like a WWII news story saying “Japanese decide not to invade mainland US today”.  It’s meaningless, and ignores that Feinstein has already stated she will never give up in her quest to make sure that you, the citizen, is a disarmed subject with a boot stamping on your face forever, while she stays armed to the teeth to guard against you.  And she’s an idiot.

The “big surprise”, whch wasn’t, is that Harry Reid is “reversing course” and willing to introduce a bill that requires “universal background checks”, which means mandatory registration of all firearms.  Because, of course, that’s what “universal background checks” require in order to function.  Joe Manchin and Chuck Shumer agreed on that a couple weeks ago.

The Huffington Post reports, “Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) will introduce gun control legislation Thursday night that includes a proposal for universal background checks, a high-ranking source told The Huffington Post.”

The liberal website adds:

“The news will cheer up gun control advocates who were left despondent days ago after Reid announced the baseline bill would not include a ban on assault weapons. That measure, which is sponsored by Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.), will be considered as an amendment, diminishing its chances of ending up in the final bill produced by the Senate. A provision that would ban the production and sale of high-capacity magazines will also be considered as an amendment, the source said.

I’ll reiterate this small point – they want to ban standard capacity magazines.  “High” is a relative term, and used only to indicate the next target.  In NY, “high” became 8 or more rounds in a magazine.

That’s the M1 Garand.  It has 8 round clips (not magazines).  It had fewer rounds than contemporary weapons like the M1 Carbine, the Enfield No1 Mk III, the 1941 Johnson, and numerous other rifles.  It was a tool of freedom used to liberate Europe and the Pacific from National Socialist and Imperial tyranny.  Now, the 8 rounds it holds are “high” capacity for imperial socialist tyrants in New York… and soon, in your neighborhood thanks to federal dictates.

And yes, they do want background checks as a way to register your guns as a prelude to confiscation:

Schumer has insisted on record-keeping for all private gun sales, saying the files are needed to keep the system effective. That led to stalemated talks with conservative leader Sen. Tom Coburn, R-Okla., who says the data would lead to federal records on gun owners.

If you want to arrest someone for a private sale you’ve outlawed, you have to keep track of all sales.  All guns must be known to the government.  And when they decide to drop down to 5 round magazines “FOR TEH CHILDRENZ!!!”, then they’ll know whose house to go to.

Outlining the first part of the plan, Cryan said the measure would limit the capacity of ammunition magazines from the current maximum of 15 to five.

They do want to ban everything.  They are out for domination.

Next up, the Hill says that some senators are feeling vulnerable because of all the talk of gun bans:

The Senate’s upcoming vote on the assault weapons ban is going to put vulnerable Democrats in a difficult spot.

Democrats facing tough reelection races will either attract the ire of the National Rifle Association or prominent gun control activists such as New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg (I). A vote against the ban could spark primary challenges that could weaken Democrats in the general election.

…

Reid said Tuesday the proposal would not muster 40 votes, and interviews with rank-and-file lawmakers show that seems accurate.

A wave of Democratic defections on the assault weapons ban would not sit well with gun-control and liberal advocacy groups. They warn Democratic senators who vote to kill one of President Obama’s biggest priorities will suffer political repercussions.

But Reid is going to “compromise” and only put the tip in with magazine bans.  Just the tip, baby.

And look who shows up in this story again:

“People are not going to say, ‘That’s a tough vote for them, let’s not do anything,’ ” said Josh Horwitz, executive director of the Coalition to Stop Gun Violence. “There is a feeling that to win this thing we need all the Democrats. That means people who are in tough races in 2014 don’t get passes. I would expect issue ads and advocacy for all senators.”

These people are professional agents for the advancement of tyranny.  They work solely to strip you of your rights.  That’s what they do, that’s all they do.  Their entire lives are dedicated to disarming you “for your own good”.  They’re the enlightened, anointed, brilliant ruling class who think that the litany of historical disarmaments and genocide in the long run, and the demonstrable history of individual victimhood from smaller oppressors like criminals all somehow won’t apply this time, because shut up and “you must want to kill children”.

Next up, Joe Biden uses Rule for Radicals #5 – Ridicule is your most potent weapon:

When you go to [gun] registration, it raises all the black helicopter crowd notion that what this is all about is identifying who has a gun so that one day the government can get up and go the house and arrest everyone who has a gun, and they’ll cite Nazi Germany and all that.

Ha ha ha, they’re so stupid.  Godwin’s law, ha ha ha.

The administration Biden is part of ran guns to the narcoterrorist cartels in Mexico, resulting in the murders of hundreds of Mexican citizens and two US federal law enforcement agents.  The Obama administration has engaged in behavior that is wildly criminal.  Let’s just get that out there once again.

The thing is, that’s mockery.  And it’s also a lie.  It’s akin to the “so have you stopped beating your wife yet?” question.  It mocks and simultaneously derides anyone who brings up actual actions that are being taken by state governments right now.

SACRAMENTO — The California Senate approved a $24-million expenditure on Thursday to speed the confiscation of guns from people who have been disqualified from owning firearms because of criminal convictions or serious mental illness.

The neat thing about this program is that you lose your property and rights even if you’ve done nothing.

They had better luck in nearby Upland, where they seized three guns from the home of Lynette Phillips, 48, who’d been hospitalized for mental illness, and her husband, David. One gun was registered to her, two to him.

“The prohibited person can’t have access to a firearm,” regardless of who the registered owner is, said Michelle Gregory, a spokeswoman for the attorney general’s office.

In an interview as agents inventoried the guns, Lynette Phillips said that while she’d been held involuntarily in a mental hospital in December, the nurse who admitted her had exaggerated the magnitude of her condition.

Todd Smith, chief executive officer of Aurora Charter Oak Hospital in Covina, where documents provided by Phillips show she was treated, didn’t respond to telephone and e-mail requests for comment on the circumstances of the treatment.

Phillips said her husband used the guns for recreation. She didn’t blame the attorney general’s agents for taking the guns based on the information they had, she said.

“I do feel I have every right to purchase a gun,” Phillips said. “I’m not a threat. We’re law-abiding citizens.”

No one was arrested. Most seized weapons are destroyed, Gregory said.

Ignore her situation for the time being, even though it may be an injustice of sorts, and look at her husband’s.  He lost his rights and property and has done nothing.

With mandatory registration, when they decide to come for your guns for “your own good” like the willing subject Phillips was, who didn’t blame the AG for taking her rights and property, they can.  With mandatory registration, the next ban they pass will result in door-to-door confiscations.  Not all at once, but slowly, and rights will disappear.

Finally, from American Thinker:

Universal Background Checks: the Liberal Holy Grail

Feinstein’s assault rifle ban has been removed from the Senate gun-control bill. While that is good news, it was recognized from the beginning as a bridge too far. What has survived, and may well become law, all in the spirit of bipartisan compromise, will actually be far worse.

The goals of the left have always been shrouded in deception and misrepresentation. Hide your true agenda behind a deceitful argument and then, after grabbing power, do what you really meant to do all along.

Read the whole thing.  It’s a breakdown and explanation of why “universal background checks” become mandatory confiscation.

Police Chiefs and Gun Control

Just today, Obama went out asking for police chiefs and law enforcement to support his assault on the Constitution.

WASHINGTON (AP) — President Barack Obama kept up pressure on Congress Monday to pass tough new gun legislation, seeking help from law enforcement leaders in three communities that have suffered the horrors of mass shootings.

At a White House meeting, Obama said that no group is more important in the gun debate and he said he recognizes the issue “elicits a lot of passion all across the country.” But Obama also said he believes Congress will respond to appeals from police.

“Hopefully if law enforcement officials who are dealing with this stuff every single day can come to some basic consensus in terms of steps that we need to take,” he said, “Congress is going to be paying attention to them, and we’ll be able to make progress.”

Law enforcement leaders are bureaucrat politicians.  They’re there to avoid liability and make decisions that will make sure they can retire.  They take their oaths less seriously than their desire to lord over and control populations, because they’re used to lording over and controlling a police force, and see “the public” as something else to be controlled – and all of that lording over and controlling makes for a stable element for them to retire from.

Law enforcement leaders often do things that are illegal as well.  One rather famous one was drug checkpoints inside the US in the case of Indianapolis v Edmond.  The short short version is you can’t go violating the 4th Amendment “in the general interest of crime control”.  Stopping everyone on the road and searching them for anything illegal may be effective, but it makes for a police state.  A police state, to a police administrator, is an okay thing.

Keep in mind police already get special rights when it comes to the Second Amendment, whether active or retired.  Some animals are more equal than others.  There are good reasons for those statutes, and in free states they mirror what citizens can already do.  In states ruled with iron fists, they give special privileges to the state enforcers.

Out in San Diego, the anti-rights police chief there says that the destruction of gun culture and massive gun confiscation can be done in a matter of a generation:

San Diego Police Chief, William Lansdowne said in an interview that the implementation of new gun laws will take guns off the streets of America within a generation.

According to San Diego 6, Lansdowne said that it may take a generation but guns will eventually be taken off the streets through new laws like Senator Dianne Feinstein’s proposed assault weapons ban:

“Chief Lansdowne, who plays an active role in the western region of the International Association of Chiefs of Police (IACP) association, said it may take a generation but guns will eventually be taken off the streets through new laws like Senator Diane Feinstein’s proposed assault weapons ban legislation. Some of the items his organization is addressing include; a ban on assault weapons, restricting high-capacity magazines, closing loopholes that allow firearm sales between private owners without background checks, and implementing much stricter background checks by using a comprehensive database.”

Ban modern guns, ban effective guns, ban citizens from selling to each other without begging permission of the state, and have the state simply deny everyone while tracking everyone for further confiscation.  Shall not be infringed is meaningless to this bureaucrat cop.

Lansdowne called for tougher gun laws in an interview with KPBS, and praised President Obama for his initiative on gun control.

“I could not be more supportive of the president for taking the position he has,” he said.

“I think it’s courageous with the politics involved in this process.  But I think it’s going to eventually make the country safer and certainly safer for my officers that have to respond to these calls.“

And there’s the key.  As a bureaucrat, he thinks this will make the mob he lords over and controls safer.  It puts the individual citizen at a disadvantage (especially the woman who now is given the “right” to fistfight her rapist).  It also ignores that the police are not responsible for your safety.  They can’t be everywhere at once, so they can’t be held accountable for your individual misfortune.  But they can make you into a criminal if you fight back; and they can make you into a criminal who can’t own tools of self defense; or someone who they will prosecute later for using those tools to defend yourself.  Police don’t stop crime.  To quote the intro to Law & Order, the police investigate crime and district attorneys prosecute the offenders.  Nowhere in there are you defended – you’re the body found by the jogger at the beginning of the episode.

The bureaucrat cop doesn’t care that the public is disarmed at all.  He isn’t disarmed.  You’re the one without the gun – not him.  If he’s in law enforcement for too long, he gets that jaded “everyone sucks” mindset, wherein the only people who matter are cops, and everyone else is going to be a criminal sooner or later.  That isn’t the purpose of the police in a free society.

Lansdowne believes that the shooting in Newtown, Connecticut weakened the gun lobby’s power and has opened the door for new gun control legislation.

“We broke the NRA,” Lansdowne said off-camera.

This would be the equivalent of him saying “within a generation, with Connor’s reforms, we should be able to stomp out any integrationist ideas…” and off-camera “we broke MLK”.  And yes, I will keep right on going there – gun control is racist.

Lansdowne’s position on gun control appears to be in the minority among sheriffs across the nation, however.

As CNSNews.com previously reported, sheriffs from Florida to California have stated publicly that they will not comply with any new gun control measures proposed by the federal government.

That’s the good news.  Sheriffs, unlike police chiefs, are ultimately accountable.  They have elections to own up to, and voters to be responsible to.  A police chief answers only to a mayor – and many mayors have used the Curley Effect to totally destroy their cities, leading to police chiefs who are simply their paramilitary functionaries.  Most places, it takes more work to destroy a county than it does to destroy a city.

Something else that police chiefs as well as outright politicians will say are things like this line:

Still, one murder is one too many. One illegal gun is one too many, too, because when someone is murdered in New York City — although that happens much less frequently than in the past — odds are an illegal handgun was used.

Mind you in NYC, an “illegal gun” pretty much means any gun that isn’t owned by the police or political cronies of the mayor.  But this is also a Broken Window Fallacy argument.

Due to all the peaceable people willing to surrender their rights for what they think will be safety, there are a lot more people who are harmed, hurt, assaulted, robbed, murdered, and raped because they lack tools to fight back.  But these crime statistics that would be prevented with defensive gun usage never materialize.  In the rest of the country, DGUs are overlooked because they are underreported – if a crime is deterred, there is nothing to report, and the citizen who deters it is unlikely to call the police just to be hassled for a DGU.

Taking the idea that “one murder is too many” into “so we must disarm all the citizens” means that there will be more murders.  And the “odds are an illegal handgun was used” statement is because virtually all handguns in NYC are illegal.  But Bloomberg and his lackeys, like all dictators, can never control a populace entirely.  Prison guards work very hard to do so and know that it can’t be done.  Bloomberg then takes the usual route of all dictators and claims it’s because his system isn’t implemented everywhere.  The problem is there’s still freedom somewhere, and he must destroy it.  Police chiefs already have a subjected population – their officers, and a subjected area – their city.

Actual officers’ groups often oppose gun control, as they are the ones answering the calls and going to see people who were unable to resist criminals.  A few police chiefs also understand this, but the vocal ones, and the ones calling for gun control yesterday, today, and tomorrow, are those that hate that they can’t control everyone (thus destroying all risks and making their life easy).

Thunderdome in California – Starting 2012

Via the American Interest:

Thunderdome in California?

Things are getting worse in San Bernardino. The city filed for bankruptcy earlier this year, but its financial situation has continued to deteriorate. And now with what promises to be a heated court battle over payments to the state pension fund in the offing, further cuts are likely.

Things are getting so bad that at a recent city council meeting, the city attorney advised residents to “lock their doors and load their guns” because the city could no longer afford to keep up a strong enough police force.

Aw yeah…

As money gets tight, cities have to choose between paying pensioners or paying for vital services. If California’s courts rule for the pensioners, they’ll be forcing a harsh reality on San Bernardino’s residents. Fighting for scraps in the ruins of a higher civilization?

Tupac called it for 2095 (not to say didn’t start earlier), and Rammstein called the apocalyptic beach party for 2012.

PRK Arms – What’s in a Name?

From Tina Korbe over at HotAir:

Listen to this advertisement and you’ll reasonably assume that what’s for sale is something forlorn, lonely, cute and cuddly … a stray puppy, perhaps.

“They’ve been mistreated and misunderstood for generations,” the ad begins. “Abusive owners have done severe damage and given these beautiful creatures a bad reputation.”

That’s how it’s supposed to sound. The owner of PRK Arms in Fresno, Calif., brainstormed this brilliant way to sell guns — and, so far, it’s worked. According to a news report from Fresno’s CBS 47 news, the gun shop has seen more business this holiday season than ever before. Among the many new customers are a surprising number of women, who are buying guns in record numbers, according to gun store owners.

The funny part is that in all of the comments, and throughout all of the story, nobody bothers to say what PRK means.  It’s a very, very common term within the firearms community, especially the online gun world:

In general, it references the extremely restrictive and nonsensical gun laws of California/Kalifornia/PRK/Kalifornistan that make gun ownership for good citizens extremely difficult.  Criminals and the wealthy and connected obviously don’t care.  The good law abiding citizen is oppressed while the criminal and the ruler live free.  “Not for sale in California” is a pretty standard thing to see on Gunbroker or Auction Arms (along with not for sale in NY, IL, HI, MA, MD, etc.).

And since Jerry Brown is once again Reichsmarshall of Kalifornia:

But by 2095 things should be sorted out:

>Obamacare Unconstitutional

>The Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, aka Obamacare, was just ruled unconstitutional.

The centerpiece of Obamacare is the individual mandate. For those who’ve been ignoring the news for a while, basically you are compelled by government to purchase health care, and if you opt out, you face fines. Unpaid fines to the government don’t result in the government going “shucks, we didn’t really mean it”, they result in jail time. Try it this year with the IRS.

They give you free health care in there, too.

J.B.H. wrote about the unconstitutionality of Obamacare a while back.

Jake Tapper from ABC asked Obama about the fine system and the president admitted he agreed fines for noncompliance were necessary.

And there are jail time penalties in the bill:

“H.R. 3962 provides that an individual (or a husband and wife in the case of a joint return) who does not, at any time during the taxable year, maintain acceptable health insurance coverage for himself or herself and each of his or her qualifying children is subject to an additional tax.” [page 1]

“If the government determines that the taxpayer’s unpaid tax liability results from willful behavior, the following penalties could apply…”

• Section 7203 – misdemeanor willful failure to pay is punishable by a fine of up to $25,000 and/or imprisonment of up to one year.

• Section 7201 – felony willful evasion is punishable by a fine of up to $250,000 and/or imprisonment of up to five years.”

But for now, a judge has ruled against Obamacare and the “buy it or go to jail” mandate – and invalidating the entire bill. Next step is the government going to the supreme court to push for it again.

Ultimately, the question is one of the scope of federal power and the ability for the government to stretch the commerce clause to encompass any absurd suppression of citizens’ rights.

This started in no small part under one of the last giant progressive presidents, FDR. Wickard v. Filburn. Filburn was a farmer who was growing extra wheat for himself to feed his livestock. The government had mandated the amount of wheat that could be grown in order to drive up the price of wheat and “help” farmers.

To begin with, it’s Keynesian economics, which are predicated on meddling by a bureaucrat who believes they know more than the person on the ground – and the bureaucrat ultimately using the government’s gun against the American person who rejects them. The price was low and that “hurt” farmers. But rather than support farmers growing as much wheat as possible by offering tax cuts for farmers or something – leading to more wheat and fewer hungry people, the government decided to limit the amount of wheat. Supply goes down, demand goes up. Of course, limiting the amount of food results in famines… but the bureaucrat in DC doesn’t feel it.

The fedgov is hurting people in California’s Central Valley right now. This time, rather than favor the price of wheat over farmers, they favor a fish over farmers.

The EPA hates Americans of Mexican descent. Obama hates brown people!

Anyhow, Filburn was growing wheat for himself, and the government (FDR’s supreme court), ruled that the government could regulate crops grown for private use, as they “influence the market”. The idea was that since Filburn wasn’t buying wheat at government-inflated prices, he could also not use his own land to grow wheat to feed his own livestock, as his act of not buying wheat influenced the price somewhere, no matter how miniscule.

Since he used his own land to grow his own wheat and not buy government wheat he was influencing the price of wheat by taking out his buying power. It’s like the government looking at the hooligan in the Broken Window Fallacy and going “we should smash some more windows!”

Filburn’s right to his own property and his own enterprise on his own land were violated. The government ruled that through the Commerce Clause that it could tell you what to do with your own assets. This is what Obamacare was doing until it was ruled invalid – except now rather than just growing your own wheat, Obamacare took it one step further. If you didn’t spend your money, you were subject to penalties.

The Commerce Clause is thus:
To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian tribes

What does this mean? According to SCOTUS in Gonzales V Raich, which illegalized home-grown marijuana:
The Commerce Clause emerged as the Framers’ response to the central problem giving rise to the Constitution itself: the absence of any federal commerce power under the Articles of Confederation. For the first century of our history, the primary use of the Clause was to preclude the kind of discriminatory state legislation that had once been permissible. Then, in response to rapid industrial development and an increasingly interdependent national economy, Congress “ushered in a new era of federal regulation under the commerce power,” beginning with the enactment of the Interstate Commerce Act in 1887 and the Sherman Antitrust Act in 1890.

What’s it really mean?
It was set up so that trading between states would be regular. So that if someone in Vermont wanted to sell something in Maine, they didn’t have to pay tariffs to cross New Hampshire. That’s about it. It was to keep Kansas from telling flights across the state they have to stop selling drinks at the state line. That was the purpose.

The purpose was not to tell a farmer that if he grew wheat for himself he’d go to jail, or to tell you that when you work for your money, you have to buy a healthcare plan or go to jail.

For those who would contend that not being a lawyer means that you, Joe, Jane, Pedro, Shaniqua or Vinh don’t have a voice, that’s nonsense. The Constitution was not written in some esoteric language. It’s pretty plain even now.

You don’t get from this:
To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian tribes

To this:
“H.R. 3962 provides that an individual (or a husband and wife in the case of a joint return) who does not, at any time during the taxable year, maintain acceptable health insurance coverage for himself or herself and each of his or her qualifying children is subject to an additional tax.” [page 1]

“If the government determines that the taxpayer’s unpaid tax liability results from willful behavior, the following penalties could apply…”

• Section 7203 – misdemeanor willful failure to pay is punishable by a fine of up to $25,000 and/or imprisonment of up to one year.

• Section 7201 – felony willful evasion is punishable by a fine of up to $250,000 and/or imprisonment of up to five years.”

Without a hefty load of BS between them. If you don’t spend you money the way the govt says, you got to jail. Nonsense.