PDA

View Full Version : Richard A. Hamblen Challenges the Feds to Uphold Constitutional Rights


drbob
09-02-2009, 10:15 PM
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VTTYyO_8N9M

http://www.esnips.com/web/HamblenvsUnitedStates

http://www.facebook.com/topic.php?topic=15199&post=123582&uid=2207081116#/topic.php?uid=2207081116&topic=15199

^ facebook thread if you're a KYLOMG group member.

This man is trying to force the federal court system make a decision regarding the taxation of NFA weapons, but specifically machine guns. At least that's how I understand it. I posted this because I don't think this case has much publicity in the gun community yet, and my forum search for "hamblen" came up empty.

This guy remanufactured 9 MGs "'from demilled to ATF specs parts kits readily available on the open market.'" <-----(his words) Specifically, he built:

Three M1919A4 Brownings chambered for 7.62 NATO, four G3 select fire rifles in 7.62 NATO, and two MG42/MG1 chambered for 7.62 NATO.

Discuss. I strongly suggest seeing the entire video because it was difficult for me to type a complete summary.

dantodd
09-02-2009, 11:09 PM
I guess that's one way to get a quick ruling on the legality of MGs under Heller.

I hope his lawyer's name doesn't start with a G.

Maestro Pistolero
09-02-2009, 11:09 PM
Interesting case. He has real live, state-sanctioned militia credibility. This may be one to watch.

nobody_special
09-03-2009, 10:34 AM
If he loses (and he will), that means the federal government has effectively disarmed the states.

Interesting.

dantodd
09-03-2009, 10:37 AM
If he loses (and he will), that means the federal government has effectively disarmed the states.

Interesting.

And made sure that there can't be a future case dismantling NFA proscriptions against us as well as ensuring that there will be no new MGs permitted to be transferred with an NFA tax stamp. Basically it puts us right where we are now. It's really unfortunate because if he was willing to wait (probably a decade or more) we might be able to get MGs back sometime in the future once people realize there is no blood in the street when law-abiding citizens are armed.

Flopper
09-03-2009, 10:42 AM
And to think I actually believed we had a chance at reopening the registry. . . it doesn't matter how many competent, intelligent people we have on our side, because there are plenty of morons just itching at the opportunity to screw it all up.

Glock22Fan
09-03-2009, 10:56 AM
I guess that's one way to get a quick ruling on the legality of MGs under Heller.

I hope his lawyer's name doesn't start with a G.

I can think of two gun attorneys that start with G. One good, indeed excellent, and one markedly less so.

dantodd
09-03-2009, 11:01 AM
I can think of two gun attorneys that start with G. One good, indeed excellent, and one markedly less so.

Oooops.... lol. I am confident the good one wouldn't take this case.

FS00008
09-03-2009, 11:59 AM
Y'all should read the fb thread...

Maestro Pistolero
09-03-2009, 12:03 PM
Y'all should read the fb thread...

What's the FB thread?

drbob
09-03-2009, 12:13 PM
"What's the FB thread? "

http://www.facebook.com/topic.php?uid=2207081116&topic=15199&ref=mf#topic_top

Texas Boy
09-03-2009, 12:22 PM
He certainly doesn't come across as a nut trying to screw it up for everybody in his youtube video. He appears to have legitimate standing and a good argument. Unfortunately, I think the timing is a bit pre-mature for such a case. As Hamblen points out in his own speech, there is a real danger the SCOUTS will simply refuse to hear the case - which is bad for him, but really doesn't change the current state of affairs.

I wish him the best of luck.

dantodd
09-03-2009, 12:23 PM
As Hamblen points out in his own speech, there is a real danger the SCOUTS will simply refuse to hear the case.


I believe that would be the best possible outcome.

Texas Boy
09-03-2009, 12:42 PM
I believe that would be the best possible outcome.

Unfortunately, I agree. The chance of SCOUTS hearing the case and ruling in our favor is slim to none at this point in time.

Texas Boy
09-03-2009, 12:53 PM
BTW - there is a thread on AR15.com - http://www.ar15.com/forums/topic.html?b=1&f=5&t=922106&page=1

about midway down the first page a former TNSG member gives a very good overview of the organization. Hamblen was certainly pushing the envelope and looking for a fight. Knowing more, I hope his case fades away before it causes damage. He is well intended, presents a good argument, and ultimately I agree with his cause, but his chance of success is zip.

Glock22Fan
09-03-2009, 12:58 PM
"What's the FB thread? "

http://www.facebook.com/topic.php?uid=2207081116&topic=15199&ref=mf#topic_top


I've not read a Face Book page in my life, and I'm not planning to start now. The same goes for Twitter and I almost always avoid You Tube.

FS00008
09-03-2009, 1:09 PM
You should seriously read the thread. It's set up much like this forum on that specific series of pages.

Maestro Pistolero
09-03-2009, 1:10 PM
I've not read a Face Book page in my life, and I'm not planning to start now. The same goes for Twitter and I almost always avoid You Tube.

Why? I can understand not wanting to get bogged down in networking sites, but YouTube?

htjyang
09-03-2009, 1:15 PM
I'm afraid Mr. Hamblen is simply the Gary Gorski of Tennessee. I found him posting on a Ron Paul forum where he seems interested in re-fighting the Civil War (http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showpost.php?p=2267033&postcount=12). Even though I think his militia argument does have merit, this is hardly the time to be demanding machine guns. Does Hamblen not recognize how precarious the Heller vote was? Does he not recognize that Obama is busily reinforcing the ranks of liberals so that they can continue to rule against 2nd Amendment rights for the next 20-30 years?

Once again, we're confronted with the stereotypical lone nut who is more enthusiastic than realistic and threatens to take everybody else down the cliff with him. My concern is that in light of the Justice Department's brief in Heller where they expressed their fear that the NFA might not survive a strict scrutiny test, the Supreme Court might take up cases like Mr. Hamblen's and deliberately rule that either the 2nd Amendment is only subject to intermediate scrutiny, or that machine guns are special and subject to only rational basis test in order to placate DoJ. Either way, the Hamblens and Gorskis of the world, in their over-zealousness, threaten to ruin everybody else.

wash
09-03-2009, 1:16 PM
I'll agree, avoiding youtube is hard to justify unless you are on dialup or something.

Kharn
09-03-2009, 2:27 PM
Hamblen also chose to make MGs that have not been regularly issued by the US military for over 40 years, if ever. He made G3s, 1919s and MG42/51s saying his unit did not have enough firepower, the TN state guard only has a few surplus M16A1s. If he'd drilled and milled a few AR15s to M16 spec, he might have had a chance.

Oh, and he was convicted in 2006, he's already done his time. He's now fighting to have his record expunged.

FS00008
09-03-2009, 2:32 PM
The point is that he made MGs that are chambered in standard US Army caliber. I don't think it matters whether or not they were US military issue to be honest.

Also he's not a Gorski IMHO. I will wait to pass judgment until Gene, Bill, Ivan, or any of the other right people weigh in instead of the newbs.

Maestro Pistolero
09-03-2009, 2:43 PM
Logically the guy's on somewhat solid ground. Politically, he's screwed and his timing sucks. Plus he wasn't, as far as I know, specifically authorized to build machine guns by the state of Tennessee for the Militia.
Now, if Montana or another state decides to raise it's militia as a state-sanctioned unit, and starts issuing or otherwise authorizing MGs for that purpose, I think there may be a chance of forcing the Feds to yield.

bwiese
09-03-2009, 2:44 PM
Now is absolutely the wrong time to fight about NFA MGs etc.

RichardAHamblen
09-03-2009, 4:35 PM
OK, it's open season. Anyone want to ask me anything, I am here. Please do a little research before you speak, though. I always like to hear opposing views.

As for timing, Gentlemen (and Ladies), to paraphrase Patrick Henry, Will we be better able to resist when we are completely disarmed?

I am trying to demonstrate that the Court not only ignores the Constitution, it ignores its own precedents. We have become a nation of men and not laws. If my case serves to demonstrate this to the public, then the struggle will not have been completely in vain. I have been fighting this case since April of 2004. I have made a run at the Court already. I am proceeding now on a writ of habeas corpus. My case was at the Court at the very same time as Heller. You can see its footprints in the remarks from Solicitor General Clements in the oral arguments for Heller. Read Miller again. Heller is in conflict with Miller. And Scalia's remarks on Miller are mere dicta, because as Roberts says in the Heller exchange with Clements, "this case is not about machine guns." (and neither was Miller, by the way). The issue is not settled. Miller does not say what it has been alleged to say. But then again, you can't win an argument with a liar.

Guns are only the occasion for this fight. The real struggle is over the Constitution, and the utter contempt in which the Federal Government holds it.

The most recent pleadings are filed at http://www.esnips.com/web/HamblenvsUnitedStates (http://http://www.esnips.com/web/HamblenvsUnitedStates)

I look forward to your comments.

madmike
09-03-2009, 4:44 PM
More informed and articulate people than I, will be along shortly to explain our concerns.

-madmike.

pnkssbtz
09-03-2009, 4:52 PM
As for timing, Gentlemen (and Ladies), to paraphrase Patrick Henry, Will we be better able to resist when we are completely disarmed?

So you are saying that you would rather gamble for potential short term gains rather than long term gains?

Because that is what you sound like. You need to lay your strategy out and set out the frame work for it to succeed before you lay it all on the line.


Are you fully cognizant of the potential for negative repercussions should your case go the wrong way? Because frankly it doesn't seem like it.


You need to lay down your framework so that when you do take action the potential for negative outcome is reduced by your prior planning.

dantodd
09-03-2009, 5:02 PM
OK, it's open season. Anyone want to ask me anything, I am here. Please do a little research before you speak, though. I always like to hear opposing views.

Thank you very much for joining the discussion here. I will post a few questions when I have a bit more time to compose them. I appreciate your zeal and understand that you didn't have the advantage of Heller's individual interpretation of the Second Amendment when you started your fight.

Best,
Dan

B Strong
09-03-2009, 5:38 PM
This guy screwed up and screwed us so well that I'm tempted to think he's a plant.

Tennessee is an NFA state - had he complied with state and fed law he could have bought NFA weapons till his money gave out.

This is not a good thing, and I think that before it's through everyone of us should get used to the idea of spitting everytime his name comes up - which I fear it will.

wash
09-03-2009, 5:55 PM
I wonder, which lawyer told you to try this stunt?

If you didn't have a legal strategy before you started, you are dangerous.

B Strong
09-03-2009, 6:02 PM
One of the reasons we were able to eek out a win in Heller is the fact that the plantiffs came in with clean hands.

This fella not only didn't come in with clean hands, he evidently didn't even attempt to follow the legal avenue that was available to him.

Ok RAH - before manufacture, did you even attempt to file a form 1 on any of the MG's you built?

B Strong
09-03-2009, 6:34 PM
I finished reading the facebook threads.

Some of his stuff might play on facebook, but not here.

The McClure-Volkmer Act only restricted the manufacture of civilian transferable MG's, it did not stop the lawful transfer of MG's registered prior to 5-19-86 - the law does not, as RAH asserts, forbid you from paying the transfer tax. It does forbid the manufacture of new, civilian transferable MG's.

RAH had two legal avenues available to him.

He could have paid the fee to become a SOT (Special Occupational Taxpayer) and turned out post-may dealer samples till the cows came home, or his capital gave out.

He could have purchased transferable MG's in compliance with state and fed. law.

His reliance on his membership in the Tn. state guard doesn't help his case, as there is no evidence that he was requested or directed to manufacture the weapons as part of his duties or responsibilities.

I think the guy got off easy with 13 months.

Kharn
09-03-2009, 7:06 PM
RichardAHamblen:
Do you claim that 1) 1919s, 2) G3s or 3) MG42/51s are, or have been within the last 20 years, on a Table of Organization and Equipment or Table of Distribution and Allowances for any military organization in the United States? What weapons did the TOE/TDA authorize for your unit when you were arrested?

Did you request permission from higher headquarters 1) to be issued weapons to bring your unit to TOE/TDA-approved maximums, 2) to be issued supplemental weapons beyond your TOE/TDA, 3) for the authority to locally procure weapons within or beyond your TOE/TDA, or 4) to personally manufacture weapons beyond the TOE/TDA? What were the responses?

htjyang
09-03-2009, 7:25 PM
As for timing, Gentlemen (and Ladies), to paraphrase Patrick Henry, Will we be better able to resist when we are completely disarmed?

That's quite the hyperbole. Leaving aside the fact that there are an estimated 80 million gun owners in the country and ignoring the recent Heller decision, the trend in the states over the past decade has been more protection of gun rights, not less. Hence we see the spread of things like the castle doctrine and concealed carry.

Since the broader societal trend is in favor of gun rights, I'm in favor of letting things take their course, rather than jumping ahead of both popular opinion and what the courts are willing to accept at this time.

I'm actually inclined to agree with you on the militia argument. I just think that your timing is way off.

I am trying to demonstrate that the Court not only ignores the Constitution, it ignores its own precedents. We have become a nation of men and not laws. If my case serves to demonstrate this to the public, then the struggle will not have been completely in vain. I have been fighting this case since April of 2004. I have made a run at the Court already. I am proceeding now on a writ of habeas corpus. My case was at the Court at the very same time as Heller. You can see its footprints in the remarks from Solicitor General Clements in the oral arguments for Heller. Read Miller again. Heller is in conflict with Miller. And Scalia's remarks on Miller are mere dicta, because as Roberts says in the Heller exchange with Clements, "this case is not about machine guns." (and neither was Miller, by the way). The issue is not settled. Miller does not say what it has been alleged to say. But then again, you can't win an argument with a liar.

Guns are only the occasion for this fight. The real struggle is over the Constitution, and the utter contempt in which the Federal Government holds it.

The most recent pleadings are filed at http://www.esnips.com/web/HamblenvsUnitedStates (http://http://www.esnips.com/web/HamblenvsUnitedStates)

I look forward to your comments.

I can't help but notice that there are a lot of people who are very critical of Heller and Alan Gura and yet they have much less to show for their own efforts. The Heller opinion establishes that the 2nd Amendment covers an individual right to bear arms and came close to establishing it as a fundamental right subject to strict scrutiny (it ruled out the rational basis test). Pardon me for asking, but what have you done for the 2nd Amendment?

When you said that you intend to demonstrate that the Court ignores the Constitution, I can only ask in response: To what end?

Plenty of legal scholars have demonstrated that the Court ignores the Constitution from Wickard v. Filburn to Roe v. Wade. Regrettably, that has not resulted in overturning those decisions. What makes you think that you can succeed where all those legal scholars and popular movements failed?

It would be nice to think that the vast majority of the American people are as passionate about the Constitution as you are and that once the scales fall from their eyes, they will rise up and force the federal government back into its place. The problem about this romantic vision is that it is not true. Most Americans have practical concerns like the crime rate or the state of the economy. Arguments about the Constitution sound ephemeral, almost unreal to them.

If you're suggesting that the DoJ's brief in Heller is motivated in part by your case, then you have done the gun rights movement a disservice. The DoJ brief repeatedly raised the specter of machine guns, forcing even justices friendly to gun rights to try to mitigate that concern.

I'm sorry if my response sounds very critical of you. I can only hope that you will remember that I'm inclined to agree with your militia argument. I also can't help but respect the courage of a man who believes so much in the Constitution that he is willing to test the law by going to prison for it. It seems to me that you're not the case of the violent felon who pleads the 2nd Amendment as a last ditch argument, abusing the Constitution as a get-out-of jail-free card. Rather, you seem engaged in a kind of peaceful, conscientious resistance against the authorities.

I can only ask you to reconsider your timing. Whereas the liberals on the Court have made clear their implacable opposition, there have been some resistance even among more conservative jurists (Judges Posner and Wilkinson immediately come to mind). I'm concerned that in light of such opposition, one or more from the Heller majority may decide to use your case to narrow the reach of the 2nd Amendment (either by applying only intermediate scrutiny or by carving out a special machine gun loop hole where the rational basis test applies) in order to demonstrate their moderation. I'm concerned that your case will negatively affect the pending incorporation cases from Chicago and the follow-up cases on the level of scrutiny and the definition of "arms."

RichardAHamblen
09-04-2009, 6:52 PM
I posted this on ar15.com, but you all might like to read it too.

First off, I want to thank everyone for their posts. Most were thoughtful. A few were thoughtless and obviously uninformed, but that is your problem not mine. I won't answer ad hominem attacks. Look, I have been to prison, I went through a nasty divorce, and I have been betrayed by some people I trusted. You're not going to hurt my feelings. And jail was an interesting place. You ought to try it sometime. Might get that smart guy attitude out of you when you realize just how easy it is for anyone to end up there. There's too many people in jail because there are too many laws. Breeds contempt for all laws, the necessary ones as well as the bs ones. Now with that out of the way, let's get on to substantive issues.

The whole point of my argument is that the government is restricted from any infringement of the right to keep and bear arms by the Bill of Rights. The Bill of Rights does not create rights, it merely forces the government to recognize God given natural rights that we all have. "Shall not be infringed" is pretty absolute. It is not qualified by "unreasonable" as in the Fourth Amendment. And the right belongs to the people, not just the people who are in the militia. For the Militia to become"well regulated", the people have to be armed since the Militia was (and is) drawn from them. The Founders knew how to write consistently. To suggest otherwise is absurd. The Bill of Rights, adopted in 1791, supersedes the Commerce Clause and the Taxation Authority of the Constitution of 1787. Read the preamble to the Bill of Rights, especially the part about the articles being adopted to prevent "misconstruction and abuse of power". Bet you weren't taught this in your government school. I wasn't.

Unless you challenge an unconstitutional law it will stand uncontested. You who put your faith in the Courts to protect your God given rights are building your house on quicksand. The Supreme Court not only disregards the Constitution, it disregards its own precedents. When you get even close to meeting the standard set previously by the Court, suddenly the goalposts are moved. The moving target theory of jurisprudence.

Heller is dicta on anything other than the question put forth in the petition for writ of certiorari, the DC handgun ban. Justice Roberts says so in an exchange with the Solicitor General of the US, which I shall revisit shortly. When you get right down to it, Miller is dicta, too, even on short barreled shotguns. Miller does not say that short barreled shotguns are not protected, but says that in the absence of any evidence to the contrary, the Court cannot say that they are protected by the Second Amendment. It then goes on to a discourse saying that the Militia clearly consisted of every man between the ages of 16 and 60, physically capable of bearing arms, who, when summoned, were to appear bearing arms, provided by themselves, that were part of the ordinary equipment of the soldier, and of the type in common use at the time, and which could reasonably contribute to the common defense. The Court then remanded the case to the lower court for further action, which never happened, mainly because the chief defendant was no longer alive. In fact, the defendants were not even represented by counsel before the Court. No opposing arguments were presented in the Supreme Court.

Miller by hook and by crook, has been used to justify every federal gun control statute ever since, and twisted to mean that it only protects a collective right, when the Militia is called to duty by the states, even though it clearly states that the Militia consists of every able bodied man, who had to show up armed when called, not armed after being called up. Read the DC Circuit ruling in Parker, which set the ball rolling. The DC Circuit contains a full discussion of the Second Amendment in the context of the enabling legislation Congress adopted, (the same Congress which ratified the Second Amendment, by the way) to carry out its Constitutionally mandated duty to organize the Militia. The laws prescribes how the States are to regulate their Militias, ie make them uniform so they can be integrated into the force structure (to use a modern term) of the other State militias to carry out the Constitutionally delineated role of the Militia: repel invasion, suppress insurrection, and enforce the laws.

Congress has the additional power to "arm" the Militia. For what this means, read Madison's Notes on the Constitutional Convention which, when discussing this clause, says that this is to mean only setting a standard such as caliber of weapon, and that the arms are to be provided first by the Militia themselves, secondly by the States, and then only as a last resort by the Federal Government. Congress has no power to disarm the Militia. Since the States did not feel this was clear enough, the Second Amendment was added to recognize that the right to keep and bear arms was a right of the people for those instances, feared at the time, but confirmed by subsequent history, when the government would fail in its Constitutionally mandated duty to see that the Militia is armed, and in fact would actively take measures to disarm it.

The then Solicitor General of the United States understood all this at the time of the Heller oral arguments. Read the following:

Excerpt, Oral Arguments, Heller v. District of Columbia, page 46,exchange between Solicitor General Clement and the Justices:

***GENERAL CLEMENT: Well, Justice Scalia, I think our principal concern based on the parts of the court of appeals' opinion that seemed to adopt a very categorical rule were with respect to machine guns, because I do think that it is difficult –– I don't want to foreclose the possibility of the government, Federal Government making the argument some day –– but I think it is more than a little difficult to say that the one arm that's not protected by the Second Amendment is that which is the standard issue armament for the National Guard, and that's what the machine gun is. CHIEF JUSTICE ROBERTS: But this law didn't involve a restriction on machine guns.*** [emphasis added]



This an admission that not only are Militia suitable weapons not subject to infringement, but also that Heller is not about machine guns, and is thus dicta and of no binding authority. Justice Scalia may be startled by Miller, but perhaps only because he has failed to read it.

This is a long post, I know. I don't mind being challenged, because there are a lot of nuances to this case. I do mind being met with dismissive and condescending remarks. If you are a member of the Class III community I can understand your hostility, for if the NFA of 1934 is recognized as the unconstitutional law that it is, the value of your collection is going to be diminished markedly. So, full disclosure, please. Same for government licensed FFL dealers. An FFL is a restraint on trade after all. You have a vested interest in the status quo. If you sincerely believe in the validity of the NFA of 1934 and all other gun laws which restrict the right to keep and bear arms, then demonstrate it based on the evidence of the Constitution. If you do not like the Second Amendment, then persuade 3/4 of the rest of us to change the Constitution. In the meantime, the Constitution is allegedly the Supreme Law of the Land and should be obeyed. An unConstitutional law should be treated as if it never existed and is bound to be honored by no one. For all of you who think there is a better way, pray tell me just exactly what you are doing to secure your God given rights?

Dr Rockso
09-04-2009, 7:21 PM
Sorry man, just because you're right doesn't mean you're making a smart move. We're going to have to get our rights back the same way we lost them...one little bit at a time. The hail mary pass doesn't work in real life.

gunsmith
09-04-2009, 7:23 PM
For all of you who think there is a better way, pray tell me just exactly what you are doing to secure your God given rights?[/B]


What I do is contribute to calguns when I can, and already became a life NRA when I had the dough.
I contribute to people like calguns/saf/nra because they win important cases like Heller and Nordyke.

Loose cannons, like the guy from back east with his lame nunchuk case are a huge PITA.

It would be great if SCOTUS would recognize God given rights, it would also be great if Osama & GW held hands and sang kumbaya.


I aint holding my breath

yellowfin
09-04-2009, 7:23 PM
Holy cow, welcome Mr. Hamblen! Glad to see you made your way here to our not-as-little-as-it-used-to-be community.

6172crew
09-04-2009, 7:27 PM
I posted this on ar15.com, but you all might like to read it too.

First off, I want to thank everyone for their posts. Most were thoughtful. A few were thoughtless and obviously uninformed, but that is your problem not mine. I won't answer ad hominem attacks. Look, I have been to prison, I went through a nasty divorce, and I have been betrayed by some people I trusted. You're not going to hurt my feelings. And jail was an interesting place. You ought to try it sometime. Might get that smart guy attitude out of you when you realize just how easy it is for anyone to end up there. There's too many people in jail because there are too many laws. Breeds contempt for all laws, the necessary ones as well as the bs ones. Now with that out of the way, let's get on to substantive issues.

The whole point of my argument is that the government is restricted from any infringement of the right to keep and bear arms by the Bill of Rights. The Bill of Rights does not create rights, it merely forces the government to recognize God given natural rights that we all have. "Shall not be infringed" is pretty absolute. It is not qualified by "unreasonable" as in the Fourth Amendment. And the right belongs to the people, not just the people who are in the militia. For the Militia to become"well regulated", the people have to be armed since the Militia was (and is) drawn from them. The Founders knew how to write consistently. To suggest otherwise is absurd. The Bill of Rights, adopted in 1791, supersedes the Commerce Clause and the Taxation Authority of the Constitution of 1787. Read the preamble to the Bill of Rights, especially the part about the articles being adopted to prevent "misconstruction and abuse of power". Bet you weren't taught this in your government school. I wasn't.

Unless you challenge an unconstitutional law it will stand uncontested. You who put your faith in the Courts to protect your God given rights are building your house on quicksand. The Supreme Court not only disregards the Constitution, it disregards its own precedents. When you get even close to meeting the standard set previously by the Court, suddenly the goalposts are moved. The moving target theory of jurisprudence.

Heller is dicta on anything other than the question put forth in the petition for writ of certiorari, the DC handgun ban. Justice Roberts says so in an exchange with the Solicitor General of the US, which I shall revisit shortly. When you get right down to it, Miller is dicta, too, even on short barreled shotguns. Miller does not say that short barreled shotguns are not protected, but says that in the absence of any evidence to the contrary, the Court cannot say that it is protected by the Second Amendment. It then goes on to a discourse saying that the Militia clearly consisted of every man between the ages of 16 and 60, physically capable of bearing arms, who, when summoned, were to appear bearing arms, provided by themselves, that were part of the ordinary equipment of the soldier, and of the type in common use at the time, and which could reasonably contribute to the common defense. The Court then remanded the case to the lower court for further action, which never happened, mainly because the chief defendant was no longer alive. In fact, the defendants were not even represented by counsel before the Court. No opposing arguments were presented in the Supreme Court.

Miller by hook and by crook, has been used to justify every federal gun control statute ever since, and twisted to mean that it only protects a collective right, when the Militia is called to duty by the states, even though it clearly states that the Militia consists of every able bodied man, who had to show up armed when called, not armed after being called up. Read the DC Circuit ruling in Parker, which set the ball rolling. The DC Circuit contains a full discussion of the Second Amendment in the context of the enabling legislation Congress adopted, (the same Congress which ratified the Second Amendment, by the way) to carry out its Constitutionally mandated duty to organize the Militia. The laws prescribes how the States are to regulate their Militias, ie make them uniform so they can be integrated into the force structure (to use a modern term) of the other State militias to carry out the Constitutionally delineated role of the Militia: repel invasion, suppress insurrection, and enforce the laws.

Congress has the additional power to "arm" the Militia. For what this means, read Madison's Notes on the Constitutional Convention which, when discussing this clause, says that this is to mean only setting a standard such as caliber of weapon, and that the arms are to be provided first by the Militia themselves, secondly by the States, and then only as a last resort by the Federal Government. Congress has no power to disarm the Militia. Since the States did not feel this was clear enough, the Second Amendment was added to recognize that the right to keep and bear arms was a right of the people for those instances, feared at the time, but confirmed by subsequent history, when the government would fail in its Constitutionally mandated duty to see that the Militia is armed, and in fact would actively take measures to disarm it.

The then Solicitor General of the United States understood all this at the time of the Heller oral arguments. Read the following:

Excerpt, Oral Arguments, Heller v. District of Columbia, page 46,exchange between Solicitor General Clement and the Justices:

***GENERAL CLEMENT: Well, Justice Scalia, I think our principal concern based on the parts of the court of appeals' opinion that seemed to adopt a very categorical rule were with respect to machine guns, because I do think that it is difficult –– I don't want to foreclose the possibility of the government, Federal Government making the argument some day –– but I think it is more than a little difficult to say that the one arm that's not protected by the Second Amendment is that which is the standard issue armament for the National Guard, and that's what the machine gun is. CHIEF JUSTICE ROBERTS: But this law didn't involve a restriction on machine guns.*** [emphasis added]



This an admission that not only are Militia suitable weapons not subject to infringement, but also that Heller is not about machine guns, and is thus dicta and of no binding authority. Justice Scalia may be startled by Miller, but perhaps only because he has failed to read it.

This is long post, I know. I don't mind being challenged, because there are a lot of nuances to this case. I do mind being met with dismissive and condescending remarks. If you a member of the Class III community I can understand your hostility, for if the NFA of 1934 is recognized as the unconstitutional law that it is, the value of your collection is going to be diminished markedly. So, full disclosure, please. Same for government licensed FFL dealers. An FFL is a restraint on trade after all. You have a vested interest in the status quo. If you sincerely believe in the validity of the NFA of 1934 and all other gun laws which restrict the right to keep and bear arms, then demonstrate it based on the evidence of the Constitution. If you do not like the Second Amendment, then persuade 3/4 of the rest of us to change the Constitution. In the meantime, the Constitution is allegedly the Supreme Law of the Land and should be obeyed. An unConstitutional law should be treated as if it never existed and is bound to be honored by no one. For all of you who think there is a better way, pray tell me just exactly what you are doing to secure your God given rights?
Welcome to CalGuns Mr. Hamblen, Im glad you stopped by.

Theseus
09-05-2009, 12:49 AM
Hmmm...more and more the members of this forum show their colors the more I think that I might have to stop comming by.

I thought that perhaps we were all fighting a somewhat similar fight, but instead I notice that you only like the people fighting your fight they way you want to fight it.

If I myself wasn't already having to fight the BS Gun Free School Zone crap I would be helping him out best I could. . . And I don't even like machine guns! Waste of ammo!

hoffmang
09-05-2009, 12:53 AM
Richard,

I only count 4 supreme court justices who may plausibly think that FA is protected by the Second Amendment at this time. Do you think it is wise to lose a case on Machine Guns and create more bad precedent?

I'll read the filings and opinions tonight, but as I've said before: asking the courts for a fundamental right to machine guns at this time is like asking the girl you just met in the bar for anal sex after your first drink...

-Gene

Theseus
09-05-2009, 1:24 AM
Richard,

I only count 4 supreme court justices who may plausibly think that FA is protected by the Second Amendment at this time. Do you think it is wise to lose a case on Machine Guns and create more bad precedent?

I'll read the filings and opinions tonight, but as I've said before: asking the courts for a fundamental right to machine guns at this time is like asking the girl you just met in the bar for anal sex after your first drink...

-Gene
Sure, chances are against you, but sometimes bold and brazen works. . . well. . . as far as picking up girls for anal sex.

B Strong
09-05-2009, 7:54 AM
Hmmm...more and more the members of this forum show their colors the more I think that I might have to stop comming by.

I thought that perhaps we were all fighting a somewhat similar fight, but instead I notice that you only like the people fighting your fight they way you want to fight it.

If I myself wasn't already having to fight the BS Gun Free School Zone crap I would be helping him out best I could. . . And I don't even like machine guns! Waste of ammo!

In my case, the only fight I want us to be involved in is one that we have a reasonable expectation of winning, along with the least amount of damage to the 2nd as a whole if we lose.

Notice that RAH couldn't answer one question in a straight forward manner? that's because he's bull**** dependent.

The simple fact that in the youtube video he lies through his teeth (or simply can't read the law) about what the McClure-Volkmer law means wrt transferable MG's show's what he's up to.

The facts are that he had two legal avenues open to him to acquire NFA weapons that he refused to pursue demonstrates what the real problem is - he's not a member of the gun culture or the shooting community or any other group of like minded gunnies, he's an Island - the fact that He's Right! is the most important thing in the world to him, and the man is so poorly informed that he believes that being Right! has anything to do with prevailing in a court of law on any subject, not just Second Amendment issues.

I do like the dig at NFA owners - he had his chance to do it legally, but that would just make him part of a crowd, so he had to appoint himself the main man and tear apart an unconstitutional law and bring down the members of the group he didn't want to be a part of.

Anybody see a pattern here?

Now that's he's lost, served his sentence and is waiting for the restoration of his right to own a BP wheelgun, all of us that have chosen to obey "unconstitutional" laws are the enemy the same way NFA owners were, and if his court case fouls up the gains we've made and are in the process of making, tough ****, he's Right!

FS00008
09-05-2009, 8:26 AM
It does not seem as if there is much that can be done at this point in time except for to try to support Mr. Hamblen as best we can and do whatever we can to make DAMN SURE that his case goes successfully.

That is my feeling anyways.

Maestro Pistolero
09-05-2009, 9:07 AM
At a minimum, we need incorporation first, do we not? I wouldn't be surprised if the court could 'carve out' specific circumstances where FA could not be banned. If it is for is a state sanctioned militia, and a particular state authorizes it, I just don't see how it would not be protected. But a relative rogue, (sorry Richard, I think your are right, too) is not going to get the time of day on this issue right now.

B Strong
09-05-2009, 9:45 AM
At a minimum, we need incorporation first, do we not? I wouldn't be surprised if the court could 'carve out' specific circumstances where FA could not be banned. If it is for is a state sanctioned militia, and a particular state authorizes it, I just don't see how it would not be protected. But a relative rogue, (sorry Richard, I think your are right, too) is not going to get the time of day on this issue right now.

If Hamblen had spent as much time doing his homework and consulting with attorneys familiar with the subject matter as he did manufacturing unregistered NFA weapons, he could have structured a good case to pursue wrt the NFA and FOPA.

Here's what he could have done: have every member of his MP unit acquire a semi-auto AR variant, making sure each firearm was in a legal title 1 configuration, and then file a Form 1 on each AR to remanufacture the weapon to select-fire, citing the need for adequate weapons for the Guard Unit.

After ATF refused the Form 1's, pursue a case the same way we did with Heller - plantiffs with clean hands and standing. It may not have won, but if it was lost it wouldn't pose the same danger that this case does as it sits.

The truth is that this didn't start as a case against unconstitutional laws, it is a case of a guy who wanted NFA goodies without even attempting to comply with the law.

CALPsidewinder
09-05-2009, 9:56 AM
While I do agree in principle with a lot that Mr. Hamblen says and is trying to accomplish, I must concur with others who believe this is not the right time to make so bold a move.

The anti-gun advocates have incrementally attacked the 2nd Amendment and have been very successful at it. For us to re-establish in full the proper place of that amendment, will require equal attention to selecting the "battles that can be won" and discouraging the ones that will knock us back 3 spaces. We cannot afford to lose ground now. The states are clearly being influenced to uphold the RTKBA but to force the highest court to make such a concrete ruling at this time looks to me more of a provocation to incite rebellion than a rational means of affecting permanent change. I do not know if that is Mr. Hamblen's purpose but it does necessitate inquiry.

I must say that I do admire you Mr. Hamblen, and do not agree with others that because there might be a legal way to procure MGs that somehow you should be vilified (and were incarcerated) for doing otherwise. To comply with irrational laws in essence justifies them.

Theseus
09-05-2009, 10:05 AM
At a minimum, we need incorporation first, do we not? I wouldn't be surprised if the court could 'carve out' specific circumstances where FA could not be banned. If it is for is a state sanctioned militia, and a particular state authorizes it, I just don't see how it would not be protected. But a relative rogue, (sorry Richard, I think your are right, too) is not going to get the time of day on this issue right now.

NFA and the GTA68 - or whatever it was is Federal. . . don't need incorporation against Feds.

I agree with the guy.If a right is a right. If a right can not be taxed. If an unconstitutional law is void, then he technically didn't break any law.

If the Federal government is not allowed to restrict the right to keep and bear amrs, then the NFA and the other law in 68 seem to me pretty clearly void.

Sometimes you have to just ignore the law. The problem I see is that too many in the "gun culture" are oddly so supportive of following the law, even the ones so unconstitutionally founded. Sometimes the rules are to be broken.

Maestro Pistolero
09-05-2009, 10:38 AM
NFA and the GTA68 - or whatever it was is Federal. . . don't need incorporation against Feds.

I agree with the guy.If a right is a right. If a right can not be taxed. If an unconstitutional law is void, then he technically didn't break any law.

We know, we know. But he did go to jail.

If the Federal government is not allowed to restrict the right to keep and bear amrs, then the NFA and the other law in 68 seem to me pretty clearly void.

It really should be that clear. Shall not infringed is hardly ambiguous. But it is EXACTLY BECAUSE BAD PRECEDENT WAS ALLOWED TO BE CREATED THAT WE ARE IN THE PREDICAMENT THAT WE ARE IN.

Careful, strategic moves in the style of Mr Gura, and the incredible folks here and elsewhere is the clearest, surest way to restore rights. The house was not undermined at it's foundation, thank god. It was damaged from the roof down. Accordingly, it needs to be rebuilt starting with reinforcing the existing foundation (Heller) and building it back up from there.

i: Incorporation
ii: Shall issue
iii: Arms in common use (rosters/AWB)
iv: Arms suitable for militia/military use
v: GCA and related tax issues

gunsmith
09-05-2009, 1:53 PM
Richard,

I only count 4 supreme court justices who may plausibly think that FA is protected by the Second Amendment at this time. Do you think it is wise to lose a case on Machine Guns and create more bad precedent?

I'll read the filings and opinions tonight, but as I've said before: asking the courts for a fundamental right to machine guns at this time is like asking the girl you just met in the bar for anal sex after your first drink...

-Gene

I'm living in San Francisco, if I asked a girl that she might say yes, but she probably wasn't always a girl!
;-)

Anyways, it seems as if they're are plenty of people who think that all we have to do
is show the Judges the historical facts and apply the logic and they will act accordingly.

If it was really that simple we would have won long ago.

Unfortunately, people have the right to screw it up for everybody.

nicki
09-06-2009, 5:06 PM
The only way I see getting machineguns back is to get to Justice Kennedy.

Considering how much legal full autos now cost and the fact that there is a worldwide black market in full autos, going rate for a full auto AK47 in many parts of the world is around 100 USD.

Iraqi citizens were allowed to keep full auto AK47's for home protection and other purposes. Someone in the US government determined that disarming the Iraqi population wouldn't be productive.

If the US government felt full auto was so bad, they could have been a push to at least change the guns to semi auto only.

When the NFA was enacted, the standard military arm was a bolt action rifle, during WW2 the semi auto M1 rifle became the standard and a self loading rifle was superior.

Prior to federal meddling, militia arms were always equal or superior to what the government would issue to troops.

We can win this battle, but we have to work the court of public opinion first.

As more and more people view protection of gun rights as a check on government rather than something related to hunting or sporting purposes, we will be able to make the shift in the correct direction which ultimately will lead to victory in getting rid of federal infringements on our right to arms.

Nicki

CALPsidewinder
09-06-2009, 6:36 PM
The only way I see getting machineguns back is to get to Justice Kennedy.

Considering how much legal full autos now cost and the fact that there is a worldwide black market in full autos, going rate for a full auto AK47 in many parts of the world is around 100 USD.

Iraqi citizens were allowed to keep full auto AK47's for home protection and other purposes. Someone in the US government determined that disarming the Iraqi population wouldn't be productive.

If the US government felt full auto was so bad, they could have been a push to at least change the guns to semi auto only.

When the NFA was enacted, the standard military arm was a bolt action rifle, during WW2 the semi auto M1 rifle became the standard and a self loading rifle was superior.

Prior to federal meddling, militia arms were always equal or superior to what the government would issue to troops.

We can win this battle, but we have to work the court of public opinion first.

As more and more people view protection of gun rights as a check on government rather than something related to hunting or sporting purposes, we will be able to make the shift in the correct direction which ultimately will lead to victory in getting rid of federal infringements on our right to arms.

Nicki



+100 :D

HowardW56
09-06-2009, 6:47 PM
Y'all should read the fb thread...

Reading that Facebook page made want to hum the theme from Twilight Zone

Gray Peterson
09-06-2009, 9:22 PM
Richard, for the love of the gods, drop your case! You're putting danger of us getting hit with bad precedent. The Gura method of dealing with this issue is the best way, because if follows the same forms of precedent that the NAACP and other allied organizations during the Civil Rights Movement with Brown v. Board of Education.

We already have the 8th Circuit Court of Appeal lost to us due to Mr. Hollis Wayne Fincher last year on the MG issue. We will get to machine guns, but it's going to take a minimum of a decade. We NEED right to carry nationwide first, rebuild the gun cultures of a dozen states who were the worst against gun carriers (Cali, NY, NJ, Maryland), and get AW/Roster bans taken down. The most important part of our work is to get the gun ownership culture back in these states. The core of the potato is machine guns. We need to peel away the skin that involves the other stuff before we go for it.

I live in a state which completely bans the civil possession of machineguns. I have to move a state south in order to do so, but my work and my job is here in Washington State. Your case will screw up ANY chance I have to have that in my lifetime. Do you want to be known as the Plessy case or the Bowers case? Then continue doing what you're doing.

RichardAHamblen
09-07-2009, 3:02 PM
Richard A. Hamblen responds:

More fuel for the fire...

I would like to address, among other things, the issue of “not attempting to follow the registration laws first”.

I think it is a little absurd, certainly nonsensical, if not downright ridiculous to criticize a man for not following the provisions of a law which he is claiming is absolutely contrary to the Constitution. Why would anyone even acknowledge any provision of a statute that runs counter to the Supreme Law of the Land, which is after all what the Constitution is? I think you all need to be reminded of the following:

"The general rule is that an unconstitutional statute, though having the form and name of law, is in reality no law, but is wholly void, and ineffective for any purpose; since unconstitutionality dates from the time of its enactment, and not merely from the date of the decision so branding it. An unconstitutional law, in legal contemplation, is as inoperative as if it had never been passed. Such a statute leaves the question that it purports to settle just as it would be had the statute not been enacted.
Since an unconstitutional law is void, the general principles follow that it imposes no duties, confers no rights, creates no office, bestows no power or authority on anyone, affords no protection, and justifies no acts performed under it ....
A void act cannot be legally consistent with a valid one. An unconstitutional law cannot operate to supersede any existing valid law. Indeed, insofar as a statute runs counter to the fundamental law of the land, it is superseded thereby.
No one is bound to obey an unconstitutional law and no courts are bound to enforce it.
-- (American Jurisprudence, Second Edition, Volume 16, Section 177)”

I presume that this this is still being taught in Law School today and that most of you agree with it.

I have acted therefore in the best American tradition: I treated the law as the invalid statute that it is. I am accepting the consequences of my action and I am pursuing this fight to the bitter end in the prescribed legal manner.

If Americans do not stand up for their rights, they will lose them. If the Second Amendment is an individual right, as the Heller court has said and the Constitution states, then it is to be exercised at the discretion of the holder of that right. The language of the Article says it “shall not be infringed”. When you have to ask permission to exercise a right, it then ceases to be a right and becomes a privilege, subject to revocation by our masters at their pleasure.

REMEMBER: THERE WERE NO FEDERAL GUN LAWS PRIOR TO 1934!

My objection is that the Supreme Court established a standard in Miller for judging just what arms the NFA does not apply to (“part of the ordinary military equipment...of the type in common use at the time”), and then has refused, under the discretion they have been able to exercise since 1923 over what cases they will accept, to hear any challenge which actually meets those standards. As a result, the lower courts have misused Miller, and misrepresented it to their own purposes, to run roughshod over the Second Amendment ever since, just as they are misusing Heller. “Subject to reasonable restriction”? Just what does that mean, exactly, and who decides? I don't find “reasonable restriction” in my copy of the Constitution, which comes directly from the US Government Printing Office. The Founders were clearly able to insert “unreasonable” in the Fourth Amendment, so I must conclude that after four years of open debate, and ratification by the Constitutionally required three quarters of the states, that the omission of “reasonable restriction” from the Second Amendment was intentional. The Constitution has not been amended since then to reflect this language of “reasonable restriction”.

I am challenging the Court to come out into the open to address this issue, so that the American Public can judge for themselves whether the arguments used to support the gun control regime stand up to Constitutional scrutiny. To those who decry my timing, or say “I would have done it differently”, or have a host of other criticisms, here is what I say: it is easy to cast aspersions when it is not your butt on the line. I exercised my individual right to keep and bear arms as defined by the parameter of Miller, the only time prior to Heller the Court addressed the Second Amendment. I was arrested, tried, convicted, and punished. I am now exercising my Constitutional right of appeal. This train has left the station, and if I have anything to do with it, it's going before the Supreme Court. If it fails to get there, it won't be for lack of trying. You can either assist in the effort and try to help achieve the best possible outcome, or you can sit on the sidelines and passively watch a bad decision come down, smug in your self satisfaction. To you gradualists I say: it has been 69 years between Miller and Heller. Are you going to wait another 69 years for another “well planned” case to reach the Court? How's that working out for you, anyway? “Subject to reasonable restrictions?” You who are trying that approach with these unConstitutional gun laws are merely rearranging the deck chairs on the Titanic. We need to attack gun control at the source and that is what I am doing.

The occasion of my case is Guns, but the real issue is whether the Constitution is still the Supreme Law of the Land, and the utter contempt in which it is held by our government and Courts, and evidently a lot of the public. If the Constitution is indeed the Supreme Law of the Land, then any ruling made by the Court contrary to the Constitution is invalid, or else the Constitution would no longer be supreme. If you are waiting for "Favorable Judges" I ask you:

Are we a nation of laws, or are we a nation of men, subject to the arbitrary whims of whoever currently holds office?

Chatterbox
09-07-2009, 3:10 PM
We are so screwed....

curtisfong
09-07-2009, 3:37 PM
Richard A. Hamblen responds:
We need to attack gun control at the source and that is what I am doing.


And respectfully, I predict you will lose, and add yet more bad case law to the already bad 69 years worth of case law.

FullMetalJacket
09-07-2009, 4:01 PM
I admire his passion, but strategically he leaves a lot to be desired.

Steve O
09-07-2009, 5:18 PM
Richard, for the love of the gods, drop your case! You're putting danger of us getting hit with bad precedent. The Gura method of dealing with this issue is the best way, because if follows the same forms of precedent that the NAACP and other allied organizations during the Civil Rights Movement with Brown v. Board of Education.

We already have the 8th Circuit Court of Appeal lost to us due to Mr. Hollis Wayne Fincher last year on the MG issue. We will get to machine guns, but it's going to take a minimum of a decade. We NEED right to carry nationwide first, rebuild the gun cultures of a dozen states who were the worst against gun carriers (Cali, NY, NJ, Maryland), and get AW/Roster bans taken down. The most important part of our work is to get the gun ownership culture back in these states. The core of the potato is machine guns. We need to peel away the skin that involves the other stuff before we go for it.

I live in a state which completely bans the civil possession of machineguns. I have to move a state south in order to do so, but my work and my job is here in Washington State. Your case will screw up ANY chance I have to have that in my lifetime. Do you want to be known as the Plessy case or the Bowers case? Then continue doing what you're doing.

Well said.....

Steve O
09-07-2009, 5:20 PM
Richard A. Hamblen responds:

More fuel for the fire...

I would like to address, among other things, the issue of “not attempting to follow the registration laws first”.

I think it is a little absurd, certainly nonsensical, if not downright ridiculous to criticize a man for not following the provisions of a law which he is claiming is absolutely contrary to the Constitution. Why would anyone even acknowledge any provision of a statute that runs counter to the Supreme Law of the Land, which is after all what the Constitution is? I think you all need to be reminded of the following:

"The general rule is that an unconstitutional statute, though having the form and name of law, is in reality no law, but is wholly void, and ineffective for any purpose; since unconstitutionality dates from the time of its enactment, and not merely from the date of the decision so branding it. An unconstitutional law, in legal contemplation, is as inoperative as if it had never been passed. Such a statute leaves the question that it purports to settle just as it would be had the statute not been enacted.
Since an unconstitutional law is void, the general principles follow that it imposes no duties, confers no rights, creates no office, bestows no power or authority on anyone, affords no protection, and justifies no acts performed under it ....
A void act cannot be legally consistent with a valid one. An unconstitutional law cannot operate to supersede any existing valid law. Indeed, insofar as a statute runs counter to the fundamental law of the land, it is superseded thereby.
No one is bound to obey an unconstitutional law and no courts are bound to enforce it.
-- (American Jurisprudence, Second Edition, Volume 16, Section 177)”

I presume that this this is still being taught in Law School today and that most of you agree with it.

I have acted therefore in the best American tradition: I treated the law as the invalid statute that it is. I am accepting the consequences of my action and I am pursuing this fight to the bitter end in the prescribed legal manner.

If Americans do not stand up for their rights, they will lose them. If the Second Amendment is an individual right, as the Heller court has said and the Constitution states, then it is to be exercised at the discretion of the holder of that right. The language of the Article says it “shall not be infringed”. When you have to ask permission to exercise a right, it then ceases to be a right and becomes a privilege, subject to revocation by our masters at their pleasure.

REMEMBER: THERE WERE NO FEDERAL GUN LAWS PRIOR TO 1934!

My objection is that the Supreme Court established a standard in Miller for judging just what arms the NFA does not apply to (“part of the ordinary military equipment...of the type in common use at the time”), and then has refused, under the discretion they have been able to exercise since 1923 over what cases they will accept, to hear any challenge which actually meets those standards. As a result, the lower courts have misused Miller, and misrepresented it to their own purposes, to run roughshod over the Second Amendment ever since, just as they are misusing Heller. “Subject to reasonable restriction”? Just what does that mean, exactly, and who decides? I don't find “reasonable restriction” in my copy of the Constitution, which comes directly from the US Government Printing Office. The Founders were clearly able to insert “unreasonable” in the Fourth Amendment, so I must conclude that after four years of open debate, and ratification by the Constitutionally required three quarters of the states, that the omission of “reasonable restriction” from the Second Amendment was intentional. The Constitution has not been amended since then to reflect this language of “reasonable restriction”.

I am challenging the Court to come out into the open to address this issue, so that the American Public can judge for themselves whether the arguments used to support the gun control regime stand up to Constitutional scrutiny. To those who decry my timing, or say “I would have done it differently”, or have a host of other criticisms, here is what I say: it is easy to cast aspersions when it is not your butt on the line. I exercised my individual right to keep and bear arms as defined by the parameter of Miller, the only time prior to Heller the Court addressed the Second Amendment. I was arrested, tried, convicted, and punished. I am now exercising my Constitutional right of appeal. This train has left the station, and if I have anything to do with it, it's going before the Supreme Court. If it fails to get there, it won't be for lack of trying. You can either assist in the effort and try to help achieve the best possible outcome, or you can sit on the sidelines and passively watch a bad decision come down, smug in your self satisfaction. To you gradualists I say: it has been 69 years between Miller and Heller. Are you going to wait another 69 years for another “well planned” case to reach the Court? How's that working out for you, anyway? “Subject to reasonable restrictions?” You who are trying that approach with these unConstitutional gun laws are merely rearranging the deck chairs on the Titanic. We need to attack gun control at the source and that is what I am doing.

The occasion of my case is Guns, but the real issue is whether the Constitution is still the Supreme Law of the Land, and the utter contempt in which it is held by our government and Courts, and evidently a lot of the public. If the Constitution is indeed the Supreme Law of the Land, then any ruling made by the Court contrary to the Constitution is invalid, or else the Constitution would no longer be supreme. If you are waiting for "Favorable Judges" I ask you:

Are we a nation of laws, or are we a nation of men, subject to the arbitrary whims of whoever currently holds office?

Well thanks for stopping in and posting like a webbot!
Thanks for addressing our questions....

Has he answered anyone's question?
Or is his posts all quote form his philosophy?

B Strong
09-07-2009, 5:26 PM
Well thanks for stopping in and posting like a webbot!
Thanks for addressing our questions....

Has he answered anyone's question?
Or is his posts all quote form his philosophy?

No, because it's all about Him.

I was explaining this case to a fellow NFA guy, he loved the bit about NFA collections being worthless if RAH "wins."

My friend's best line?

"That guy crawled out from under a rock and into our tent."

Kharn
09-07-2009, 5:46 PM
The other problem is Hamblen is trying to say he has 2A rights because he is in a militia/military organization. That is in direct contrast with Heller, which states that 2A rights are for individuals regardless of militia membership. A ruling would make the right subject to whatever Congress decides the militia is that year, and nothing could be argued in court as the Constitution allows Congress to organize the militia, and thus set limits on membership.

How would we like it if Congress limited the militia to 28-30yos with 10 years of active service having attained the rank of E7 or O4? We would be screwed.

Maestro Pistolero
09-07-2009, 6:08 PM
The other problem is Hamblen is trying to say he has 2A rights because he is in a militia/military organization. That is in direct contrast with Heller, which states that 2A rights are for individuals regardless of militia membership.

The court did, in fact, de-couple the militia clause from the operative clause to the extent that the second clause does not depend on the first, but merely announces 'A' purpose . In other words, the right to keep and bear arms is an individual right, not necessarily connected to militia service. So in effect, Hamblen's point is mute. Even active duty military personnel are subject to civilian firearms law when not deployed or when off-post.

The militia purpose is as relevant today as it was pre-Heller, in my opinion. If unstated purposes such as self defense are relevant to the validity of the clause, then certainly it's only stated purpose continues to apply.

anthonyca
09-08-2009, 12:22 AM
Sure, chances are against you, but sometimes bold and brazen works. . . well. . . as far as picking up girls for anal sex.

The repercussions are not then held that none of your buddies or you could ever have anal sex again if you are shot down.

I really agree with this case and have the upmost respect for the man and his sacrifices but I think taking it to the court now is like asking a lesbian for anal sex when she isn't even liquored up and some hot girl is winking at her from across the bar.

Gray Peterson
09-08-2009, 1:50 AM
The occasion of my case is Guns, but the real issue is whether the Constitution is still the Supreme Law of the Land, and the utter contempt in which it is held by our government and Courts, and evidently a lot of the public. If the Constitution is indeed the Supreme Law of the Land, then any ruling made by the Court contrary to the Constitution is invalid, or else the Constitution would no longer be supreme. If you are waiting for "Favorable Judges" I ask you:

Are we a nation of laws, or are we a nation of men, subject to the arbitrary whims of whoever currently holds office?

And yet you run to the same courts you attack, hoping against hope, wishing really hard, that the three judges in your panel will give a tinkers damn about your plight as CONVICTED FELON?! What are you, new?!!

Maybe you haven't been following, but when it comes to civil rights cases, unless it comes to actual defenses at a criminal trial (4th, 5th and 6th), other civil rights cases are best filed by CLEAN plaintiffs that are not tainted by being tangled by a criminal case. This is why the plaintiffs in Brown v. Board of Education were generally upstanding and law abiding, and didn't do the equivalent to what you did (basically walking on to the school and demand registration of your children and refused to leave, causing them to get arrested).

You seem to be the latest in the line of self-important incompetent *******s (Kasler, Gorski, Don Hamrick, Hollis Wayne Fincher etc) who think that their plight, your need to be "vindicated", and the belief that you can throw a "hail mary pass", is more important than protecting the 2A rights of 31 million people. 20 million people (8th Circuit) already lost the ability to challenge lack of ability to register post-86 machine guns thanks to your fellow traveler Fincher, who basically made the same general arguments that you did, but in a different way. One Court of Appeals decision can be ignored by another Court of Appeals, but two of them is a lot more difficult kettle of fish. What part of "I want to own new Class 3 weapons sometime in my lifetime" do you not understand?

Prove you're not actually a self important *******, and drop this case. You'll have a better chance re-litigating this issue after we rebuild the gun culture in the most populated areas of our country, and after we clear the way with plaintiffs not tainted by a criminal conviction, and can get standing by applying for a registration and being denied, you know, ways of challenging the law without ending up in prison, on probation, and putting your own family through unnecessary hardship, which you already did by acting self important. "I'm right!!!! I'm right!!!" is not enough to keep your house from getting raided and putting the lives of your own family at risk by your own actions. You brought this on yourself, you need to man up and own up to your ****up, and quit trying so hard to screw the rest of us over.

Before you say, "But the founding fathers took a risk too with their families" because I know that's coming, let me make a few things clear:

1) You are not a Founding Father.
2) You will NEVER be a Founding Father.
3) You do not the civic virtu of the Founding Fathers.

:rant:

Steve O
09-08-2009, 4:03 AM
God i hope they don't hear this case....
We need more precedent first...why cant this jack *** realize this?

1911_sfca
09-08-2009, 11:57 AM
I think it is a little absurd, certainly nonsensical, if not downright ridiculous to criticize a man for not following the provisions of a law which he is claiming is absolutely contrary to the Constitution. Why would anyone even acknowledge any provision of a statute that runs counter to the Supreme Law of the Land, which is after all what the Constitution is?

FAIL.

The members of Calguns have considerable experience dealing with partially or fully unconstitutional laws, and the reason they asked why you did not even attempt to follow the law is a good one: because (if they take your case,) the Supreme Court justices will ask you the same question, and then you will lose your case. All self-righteous pontification notwithstanding.

Gray Peterson
09-08-2009, 12:37 PM
FAIL.

The members of Calguns have considerable experience dealing with partially or fully unconstitutional laws, and the reason they asked why you did not even attempt to follow the law is a good one: because (if they take your case,) the Supreme Court justices will ask you the same question, and then you will lose your case. All self-righteous pontification notwithstanding.

He won't man up and admit responsibility, either.

PatriotnMore
09-08-2009, 12:59 PM
Well said, it was a blunt reality check, but your points are valid IMO.


And yet you run to the same courts you attack, hoping against hope, wishing really hard, that the three judges in your panel will give a tinkers damn about your plight as CONVICTED FELON?! What are you, new?!!

Maybe you haven't been following, but when it comes to civil rights cases, unless it comes to actual defenses at a criminal trial (4th, 5th and 6th), other civil rights cases are best filed by CLEAN plaintiffs that are not tainted by being tangled by a criminal case. This is why the plaintiffs in Brown v. Board of Education were generally upstanding and law abiding, and didn't do the equivalent to what you did (basically walking on to the school and demand registration of your children and refused to leave, causing them to get arrested).

You seem to be the latest in the line of self-important incompetent *******s (Kasler, Gorski, Don Hamrick, Hollis Wayne Fincher etc) who think that their plight, your need to be "vindicated", and the belief that you can throw a "hail mary pass", is more important than protecting the 2A rights of 31 million people. 20 million people (8th Circuit) already lost the ability to challenge lack of ability to register post-86 machine guns thanks to your fellow traveler Fincher, who basically made the same general arguments that you did, but in a different way. One Court of Appeals decision can be ignored by another Court of Appeals, but two of them is a lot more difficult kettle of fish. What part of "I want to own new Class 3 weapons sometime in my lifetime" do you not understand?

Prove you're not actually a self important *******, and drop this case. You'll have a better chance re-litigating this issue after we rebuild the gun culture in the most populated areas of our country, and after we clear the way with plaintiffs not tainted by a criminal conviction, and can get standing by applying for a registration and being denied, you know, ways of challenging the law without ending up in prison, on probation, and putting your own family through unnecessary hardship, which you already did by acting self important. "I'm right!!!! I'm right!!!" is not enough to keep your house from getting raided and putting the lives of your own family at risk by your own actions. You brought this on yourself, you need to man up and own up to your ****up, and quit trying so hard to screw the rest of us over.

Before you say, "But the founding fathers took a risk too with their families" because I know that's coming, let me make a few things clear:

1) You are not a Founding Father.
2) You will NEVER be a Founding Father.
3) You do not the civic virtu of the Founding Fathers.

:rant:

Glock22Fan
09-08-2009, 1:02 PM
I'll agree, avoiding youtube is hard to justify unless you are on dialup or something.

Even satellite links are too slow for streaming video. I get tired of the screen stopping while it buffers the next section. Also, there's too much junk there surrounding the useful stuff, from what I've seen.

bwiese
09-08-2009, 1:26 PM
Even satellite links are too slow for streaming video. I get tired of the screen stopping while it buffers the next section. Also, there's too much junk there surrounding the useful stuff, from what I've seen.

Yeah I rarely watch YooToob.

If the person has something important to say, he'll create text that's easier to search and takes far less time to read than view.

fourdoorchevelle
09-08-2009, 2:16 PM
youtube almost never requires stop time to buffer for me.

pretty much click play and watch from beginning to end. most videos are under 10 minutes long. (although I always anxiously anticipate mises, 30-120 minute, presentations)

RichardAHamblen
09-12-2009, 10:19 AM
To Bill Strong and others

The law applies equally to us all, or else it is nothing more than an arbitrary exercise of power.

I am merely asking that the Court to apply to me the same standard they established in U.S. v. Miller to ascertain the protection of the Second Amendment:

“In the absence of any evidence tending to show that possession or use of a 'shotgun having a barrel of less than eighteen inches in length' at this time has some reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia, we cannot say that the Second Amendment guarantees the right to keep and bear such an instrument. Certainly it is not within judicial notice that this weapon is any part of the ordinary military equipment or that its use could contribute to the common defense. Aymette v. State of Tennessee, 2 Humph., Tenn., 154, 158
***
The signification attributed to the term Militia appears from the debates in the Convention, the history and legislation of Colonies and States, and the writings of approved commentators. These show plainly enough that the Militia comprised all males physically capable of acting in concert for the common defense. 'A body of citizens enrolled for military discipline.' And further, that ordinarily when called for service these men were expected to appear bearing arms supplied by themselves and of the kind in common use at the time.” (U.S. v. Miller 307 U.S. 174 (1939) (emphasis added).

“All males physically capable of acting in concert for the common defense” clearly indicates that the right to keep and bear arms is universal and therefore individual, and “expected to appear bearing arms supplied by themselves and of the kind in common use at the time,” clearly applies to standard light infantry weapons such as the machine gun which are “part of the ordinary military equipment... [whose] use could contribute to the common defense” , as even the Solicitor General of the United States, Mr. Paul Clement, admits in oral arguments for Heller before the Supreme Court in 2008 (“I think it is more than a little difficult to say that the one arm that's not protected by the Second Amendment is that which is the standard issue armament for the National Guard, and that's what the machine gun is.”)

My circumstances fit all these requirements. I gave plenty of “Judicial Notice” of the military application of my weapons in my trial. In addition, the Heller Court now reaffirms that the right is individual, as if Miller says anything other than that. The United States Government simply proceeded to apply the ruling they wanted to get in Miller and not the one they actually received, assisted by a compliant Supreme Court which has since refused to accept any case which meets the standard set in Miller. My case was up there at the exact same time as Heller in 2007.

If in your “real world,” Bill, we are dependent on the tender mercies of those administering the law rather than the absolute standard set by the law itself, then the law is meaningless and we are subject to arbitrary rule. This is not a state of Liberty. And this is a concession I make to no man or authority. We'll just have to disagree, Bill.

I am not breaking new ground; I am only asking for the Supreme Court to apply the standards it has already set, and, in so doing, obey the Constitution, which is, after all, the Supreme Law of the Land.

hoffmang
09-12-2009, 12:21 PM
I am not breaking new ground; I am only asking for the Supreme Court to apply the standards it has already set, and, in so doing, obey the Constitution, which is, after all, the Supreme Law of the Land.

And due to Stare Decisis, they're not going to do that here.

-Gene

Kharn
09-12-2009, 1:02 PM
Heller revised the Miller test; quoting the Miller test and ignoring Heller's statement about not overruling longstanding regulation against 'dangerous and unusual weapons' will get you absolutely no-where. The newest case applies first, if it is not clear enough then you go to an older case.

I hope you enjoy checking the box marked 'convicted felon' for the rest of your life, because you're not getting your conviction overturned with your current path of legal reasoning.

Gray Peterson
09-12-2009, 2:43 PM
If in your “real world,” Bill, we are dependent on the tender mercies of those administering the law rather than the absolute standard set by the law itself, then the law is meaningless and we are subject to arbitrary rule. This is not a state of Liberty. And this is a concession I make to no man or authority. We'll just have to disagree, Bill.

I am not breaking new ground; I am only asking for the Supreme Court to apply the standards it has already set, and, in so doing, obey the Constitution, which is, after all, the Supreme Law of the Land.

Does anyone see a disconnect here?

if in your “real world,” Bill, we are dependent on the tender mercies of those administering the law rather than the absolute standard set by the law itself, then the law is meaningless and we are subject to arbitrary rule.

and

I am only asking for the Supreme Court to apply the standards it has already set, and, in so doing, obey the Constitution, which is, after all, the Supreme Law of the Land

You lambaste us for relying on tender mercies of the judiciary, and then you rely on the tender mercies of the top of that judiciary food chain, basically implying that only YOU can convince 6th Circuit and SCOTUS to strike down NFA '34?

What are you, high? Can I have some of what you're smoking?

You're not just a self important *******, you also think that you're better than the lawyers (Gura, Kilmer, Davis, Kates) who actually have made this their life's work and know what the federal judiciary can and won't do. The judiciary will not listen to a convicted felon on gun issues and the 2nd amendment, period. You are not a lawyer who's experienced on 2A cases.

gunsmith
09-12-2009, 4:18 PM
Does anyone see a disconnect here?

if in your “real world,” Bill, we are dependent on the tender mercies of those administering the law rather than the absolute standard set by the law itself, then the law is meaningless and we are subject to arbitrary rule.

and

I am only asking for the Supreme Court to apply the standards it has already set, and, in so doing, obey the Constitution, which is, after all, the Supreme Law of the Land

You lambaste us for relying on tender mercies of the judiciary, and then you rely on the tender mercies of the top of that judiciary food chain, basically implying that only YOU can convince 6th Circuit and SCOTUS to strike down NFA '34?

What are you, high? Can I have some of what you're smoking?

You're not just a self important *******, you also think that you're better than the lawyers (Gura, Kilmer, Davis, Kates) who actually have made this their life's work and know what the federal judiciary can and won't do. The judiciary will not listen to a convicted felon on gun issues and the 2nd amendment, period. You are not a lawyer who's experienced on 2A cases.


Thats what I would have said if I was even minimumally articulate, IDK if I even spelled "minimumally" correctly.

Maestro Pistolero
09-12-2009, 4:19 PM
Heller revised the Miller test;
How so? What if the yet-to-be-defined dangerous and unusual means weapons that rise above the level of small arms? I read nothing in Heller that dismisses the militia or military purpose test. after all, Heller was about keeping a mere handgun in the home. The individual right issue was a happy necessity to deciding the case.

quoting the Miller test and ignoring Heller's statement about not overruling longstanding regulation against 'dangerous and unusual weapons' will get you absolutely no-where. The newest case applies first, if it is not clear enough then you go to an older case.
Again, your assuming that D&E = full auto. That has not been estabilshed.
I hope you enjoy checking the box marked 'convicted felon' for the rest of your life, because you're not getting your conviction overturned with your current path of legal reasoning.You may be right about this.

Kharn
09-12-2009, 8:00 PM
Maestro:
Heller:
Read in isolation, Miller’s phrase ‘part of ordinary military equipment’ could mean that only those weapons useful in warfare are protected. That would be a startling reading of the opinion, since it would mean that the National Firearms Act’s restrictions on machineguns (not challenged in Miller) might be unconstitutional, machineguns being useful in warfare in 1939. . . . We therefore read Miller to say only that the Second Amendment does not protect those weapons not typically possessed by law-abiding citizens for lawful purposes, such as short-barreled shotguns. . .The court saying they 'read Miller to mean X' means that X is now the law of the land.

And from the verdict against Hamblen himself:
In United States v. Fincher, 538 F.3d 868, 873-74 (8th Cir. 2008), the Eighth Circuit held that the defendant’s possession of a machine gun was not protected by the Second Amendment under Heller: “Machine guns are not in common use by law-abiding citizens for lawful purposes and therefore fall within the category of dangerous and unusual weapons that the government can prohibit for individual use.”
He's toast.

Maestro Pistolero
09-12-2009, 9:59 PM
Maestro:
Heller:
The court saying they 'read Miller to mean X' means that X is now the law of the land.

And from the verdict against Hamblen himself:

He's toast.

The holding in Heller is the only thing that is binding on the courts. The rest is dicta and subject to future holdings, not the law of the land, as you say.

That said, Hamblen's challenge is poorly timed, ill-conceived and for those reasons, will only do more harm than good at this time. I don't know the whole history of his case, and don't know whether he availed himself of any legal means to acquire or build those weapons through the state.

He IS toast, but he is absolutely right. Those weapons that are typically possessed by law-abiding citizens for lawful purposes include AR15s. Lots and lots of them. Select-fire is only uncommon because they were recently (1986) closed to registration, not because they were banned or because they weren't typically possessed by law-abiding citizens for lawful purposes.

It's like the DC handgun ban: "You have to register your handguns, but we refuse to register them after a certain date"

The ongoing history of full-auto ownership in this country is that any law abiding citizen may have them with a background check and a tax certificate. That, in fact, is still true today. So we have a legal conundrum, where it is lawful and constitutional to own a type of weapon, but the government has passed laws which make them impossible to own or afford for the average person, and illegal to buy new. This is an infringement. Full auto is not illegal, only regulated. And now nearly regulated out of existence for just about everybody, because the closed registration has driven the market value through the roof.

Given the primary and only originally stated purpose of the Second Amendment (the first clause) it is impossible to seriously argue that the primary arm of the national guard and the four branches of the military shouldn't be the most protected weapon in the land.

From Heller:
It may be objected that if weapons that are most useful
in military service—M-16 rifles and the like—may be
banned, then the Second Amendment right is completely
detached from the prefatory clause.
. . . which it most certainly is not.
The conception of the militia at the time of the Second
Amendment’s ratification was the body of all citizens
capable of military service, who would bring the sorts of
lawful weapons that they possessed at home to militia
duty. It may well be true today that a militia, to be as
effective as militias in the 18th century, would require
sophisticated arms that are highly unusual in society at
large. Indeed, it may be true that no amount of small
arms could be useful against modern-day bombers and
tanks. But the fact that modern developments have lim-
ited the degree of fit between the prefatory clause and the
protected right cannot change our interpretation of the
right.

At the time of our founding, there was essentially no difference in the type of weapons found on a farm and those found in the military. The primary purpose of any weapon has always been to equalize the disparity of power between individuals and between groups. To upset that balancing effect by prohibiting arms to citizens that are freely available to the government, is to eviscerate the amendment for the exact purpose for which it was intended. Of course, more dangerous and unusual weapons emerged, such as tanks, and bombers, making that disparity unavoidable in modern times. Along the continuum of dangerous and unusual weapons, no small arm, even select-fire rifles, begins to rise to the same level of danger of tanks, missiles, bombers, and the like.

But, as we have painfully witnessed in more than one or two wars, that sophisticated weaponry only goes so far in a conflict, and each conflict inevitably digresses into primarily close combat, which is usually where the campaign is actually won or lost. And the government would be highly reluctant to unleash such WMD upon it's own infrastructure, let alone it's own citizens.

For these reasons, I submit that small arms, as an entire category of privately borne weapons should be off the table as far as any outright or effective ban.

Full auto is harder to control, increasing the risk that rounds may end up unintended targets. It would seem reasonable, given the relatively increased indiscriminate threat risk that fully automatic weapons present, that there may be an elevated level of training, screening, and regulation required beyond that required for semi-automatic weapons.

But to outright or effectively ban the exact weapon which the government has chosen defend our nation at home and abroad, and which the government freely puts into the hands of every 18 year old capable of signing his or her name, seems to me completely and monumentally antithetical to the purpose, intent, and deepest meaning of the Second Amendment, and such, should be completely taken off the table as a policy choice.

B Strong
09-13-2009, 8:34 AM
What RAH is referring to here is a series of posts I made at the Facebook discussion forum.

He has received a much warmer welcome there from people that are less interested in the facts and poorly informed about the law wrt firearms in general and NFA weapons and devices in particular.

Over there you have folks that assert up front that in violating the NFA, Hamblen violated "no law" and is "not guilty in reality" because the law in itself is unconstitutional.They buy hook, line and sinker Hamblen's argument that he had no legal way to own the machine guns that he manufactured.

One poster insists that the only way "we" have to fight unconstitutional laws is to violate them, and goes further in stating that any such law should be ignored entirely. The usual references to Nazi Germany come out too - as if an individual that refused to comply with a law that would have allowed him to do exactly what he did is fighting against fascism.

As I'm a bit better informed, and far less impressed with his bull****, Hamblen posted his rebuttal on facebook addressed to me, and cross posted it here.

What we know about successfully fighting bad law means nothing to people that are so poorly educated about the law and the legal process in challenging these laws. The concept that Hamblen's case could pose a danger to future good challenges to the NFA goes over their collective heads.

I've not brought it up over at FB, but I'd be willing to bet that Hamblen is working his case pro se, for no other reason than he's too self-centered to follow anyone's competent advice.

B Strong
09-13-2009, 8:39 AM
Does anyone see a disconnect here?

if in your “real world,” Bill, we are dependent on the tender mercies of those administering the law rather than the absolute standard set by the law itself, then the law is meaningless and we are subject to arbitrary rule.

and

I am only asking for the Supreme Court to apply the standards it has already set, and, in so doing, obey the Constitution, which is, after all, the Supreme Law of the Land

You lambaste us for relying on tender mercies of the judiciary, and then you rely on the tender mercies of the top of that judiciary food chain, basically implying that only YOU can convince 6th Circuit and SCOTUS to strike down NFA '34?

What are you, high? Can I have some of what you're smoking?

You're not just a self important *******, you also think that you're better than the lawyers (Gura, Kilmer, Davis, Kates) who actually have made this their life's work and know what the federal judiciary can and won't do. The judiciary will not listen to a convicted felon on gun issues and the 2nd amendment, period. You are not a lawyer who's experienced on 2A cases.

Gray - since you summed this up so nicely, would you grant permission for me to post this in response to Hamblen's post over at facebook? I would cite you and calguns.net as the source, but will not do so without your permission.

Bill

Gray Peterson
09-13-2009, 9:12 AM
Gray - since you summed this up so nicely, would you grant permission for me to post this in response to Hamblen's post over at facebook? I would cite you and calguns.net as the source, but will not do so without your permission.

Bill

Go right ahead, I do want you to PM me the link to his Facebook post, though.

B Strong
09-13-2009, 9:21 AM
Go right ahead, I do want you to PM me the link to his Facebook post, though.

Will do Gray - I will do so immediately.

KylaGWolf
09-13-2009, 1:42 PM
[QUOTE=RichardAHamblen;3052257]


“All males physically capable of acting in concert for the common defense”

Well that argument right there totally hoses you from any female support on your case. From all your posts I am so far not impressed with your case. You know what I think will lose your case for you. You were found GUILTY. Plain and simple.

Flopper
09-13-2009, 2:21 PM
[QUOTE=RichardAHamblen;3052257]


“All males physically capable of acting in concert for the common defense”

Well that argument right there totally hoses you from any female support on your case.

It shouldn't, because at the time of the founding, only males were defined as part of the militia.

I'm sure if this question were to actually become an issue, women would be held to be part of the militia through equal protection.

Kharn
09-13-2009, 3:53 PM
Maestro:
Full auto is harder to control, increasing the risk that rounds may end up unintended targets. It would seem reasonable, given the relatively increased indiscriminate threat risk that fully automatic weapons present, that there may be an elevated level of training, screening, and regulation required beyond that required for semi-automatic weapons.And the position the judge will take: Congress decided that no amount of training makes such dangerous and unusual weapons suitable for civilian ownership, so further manufacture was banned. But to outright or effectively ban the exact weapon which the government has chosen defend our nation at home and abroad, and which the government freely puts into the hands of every 18 year old capable of signing his or her name, seems to me completely and monumentally antithetical to the purpose, intent, and deepest meaning of the Second Amendment, and such, should be completely taken off the table as a policy choice.Mr Hamblen isn't asking the court to vacate a conviction for possessing post-86 M16A2s. He was convicted of making weapons that have no connection with the current military system, two of the weapon types he made have never been issued to US troops, and one has not been issued since Vietnam.

Maestro Pistolero
09-13-2009, 5:38 PM
Maestro:
And the position the judge will take: Congress decided that no amount of training makes such dangerous and unusual weapons suitable for civilian ownership, so further manufacture was banned.
Only registration wasn't banned, they're still being made like popcorn. A quarter million of them just went to arm the Iraqi security forces.

Mr Hamblen isn't asking the court to vacate a conviction for possessing post-86 M16A2s. He was convicted of making weapons that have no connection with the current military system, two of the weapon types he made have never been issued to US troops, and one has not been issued since Vietnam.

That's true. For the record, My points are not in reference to Hamblen's case. I think he is a well intended, if self-righteous, misguided liability whom we should run, not walk away from. If the State of Tennessee wanted him to have full auto as part of his militia duties, they could have authorized it and no-one, not even the federal government could have stopped them.

At this time, civilian possession of select fire weapons can only circumvent the GCA if duly authorized by a state for the purposes of arming their Militia. A state like Montana, could take the lead in such an effort, as it would certainly bolster their sovereignty movement.

bomb_on_bus
09-13-2009, 6:14 PM
man the news just keeps getting worse, WAY TO GO CA! let another nut job ruin things for the rest of us.

Gray Peterson
09-14-2009, 1:14 AM
RAH posted again on facebook:

I wish some of you were as vociferous in defending our rights and Liberty as you seem to be in surrendering mine to the Federal Government.

Reread Miller and reread Heller.

Heller does not trump Miller. Reread the question posed in the Heller petition for writ of certiorari:

“Whether the Second Amendment forbids the District of Columbia from banning private possession of handguns while allowing possession of rifles and shotguns”

Heller is about the Washington DC handgun ban and nothing else. Solicitor General of the United States Paul Clements is reminded by Chief Justice Roberts in the oral arguments to Heller that “this law [DC ban on handguns] didn't involve a restriction on machine guns.” The decision therefore covers only the issue actually brought to the Court. Anything said on any other matter is “obiter dicta”:

“An obiter dictum (plural obiter dicta, often referred to simply as dicta or obiter), Latin for a statement 'said by the way', is a remark or observation made by a judge that, although included in the body of the court's opinion, does not form a necessary part of the court's decision. In a court opinion, obiter dicta include, but are not limited to, words 'introduced by way of illustration, or analogy or argument.'(Black's Law Dictionary p. 967 [5th ed. 1979]). Unlike the rationes decidendi, obiter dicta are not the subject of the judicial decision, even if they happen to be correct statements of law. Under the doctrine of stare decisis, statements constituting obiter dicta are therefore not binding, although in some jurisdictions, such as England and Wales, they can be strongly persuasive.”

This is not England or Wales, no matter what some Justices of the Court may wish to the contrary,(that's what the War of Independence was fought about, you will recall), so whatever Justice Scalia may say about his reading of Miller (if he has actually read it) is irrelevant to the discussion at hand. In the absence of any rationes decidendi about Miller and the NFA, Miller is still controlling. My own trial judge, Judge Todd Campbell, recognizes, in his December 5 2008 Memorandum granting my right to continue my appeal, the conflict between the two, and that the conflict bears discussion and resolution:
“The Petitioner [Hamblen] argues that the limitations placed on the right to bear arms by the majority opinion in Heller can not square with the Court's earlier decision in Miller.
***
The Court concludes that Petitioner has made a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right as to his Second Amendment claim, and reasonable jurists could find the Court's assessment of the constitutional claim debatable...”

I wish you critics would read what Miller actually says, and explain it to me. I think you also need to review the full circumstances of the case, from initial indictment to the remanding of the case back to the lower court to the ultimate guilty plea of co-defendant Frank Layton. A good source for this is the file compiled by Patrick L. Aultice: http://rkba.org/research/miller/Miller.html
Miller is what is underpinning the government's claim to have the power to infringe on the Second Amendment. As you read the documents, keep this quote from the Supreme Court itself in mind:

“But I think we owe somewhat less deference to a decision that was rendered without benefit of a full airing of all the relevant considerations.”
Monell v. Dep't of Social Services of City of New York, 436 U.S. 658, 709 n. 6 (1978) (J. Powell, concurring) (overruling of Monroe v. Pape, 365 U.S. 167 [1961] after reexamination of Reconstruction debates).

Read the Prosecution's brief in Miller (there was no representation before the Court for Miller, by that time dead, or for Layton, the other defendant). This brief contains everything from the collective rights theory to the alleged power to regulate firearms based on the Commerce Clause and the Taxing Authority in spite of what the Bill of Rights says about “shall not be infringed”. Since 1939 the Federal Government has applied to the NFA not the ruling they actually received in Miller, but rather the ruling they wanted but failed to get from the Supreme Court. And the Supreme Court, intimidated by Roosevelt's attempt to pack the Court in 1937, was complicit in this effort and has been ever since by refusing, under their discretionary authority over which cases to accept, to hear any challenge to the NFA. This is how constitutional guarantees of rights are subverted by unscrupulous men.


To all of you namecallers who are so outraged and horrified at the prospect of my case going forward, you are seeking to deny me my right as an American citizen to seek redress of grievance through the Courts.

But before you go ballistic and reach for the nitroglycerin pills and your keyboard,I think you should consider the most likely outcome of this effort is that the Court will refuse to grant cert. Simple as that. Which means that the appeals process no longer works and the Constitution is indeed no longer the Supreme Law of the Land; but rather the Supreme Law of the Land is now the pronouncements of an unelected elite, accountable to no one but themselves; a defect in the Constitution pointed out 220 years ago by the real heroes of Liberty, the Anti-Federalists.

And if that is acceptable to you, then God save us, because the Constitution by itself won't!

I highlighted and italicized the salient points. No, Richard, as usual as someone who can't see beyond their own nose in terms of addressing a problem that's effecting everyone (the ability to register post-86 machineguns), you're all too willing to roll the dice with the civil liberties of millions of people for PURELY your own benefit.

Denial of cert isn't the only thing that's gonna happen, Richard. You're going to kill any chance in the 6th Circuit to address 922(o), cutting off 31 million more people from being able to challenge that law with clean hands and a clean case.

You are still acting like a incompetent self important *******, Richard. Quit acting like a petulant child, admit your responsibility, man up, and stand aside. I can think of dozens of better plaintiffs than you in the 6th Circuit alone.

artherd
09-14-2009, 1:24 AM
This is Richard: "Hello. Nice to meet you. Your daughter is very pretty, is she into Anal Sex?"

Baby steps people!