Calguns.net  

Home My iTrader Join the NRA Donate to CGSSA Sponsors CGN Google Search
CA Semiauto Ban(AW)ID Flowchart CA Handgun Ban ID Flowchart CA Shotgun Ban ID Flowchart
Go Back   Calguns.net > POLITICS, LITIGATION AND ACTIVISM > California 2nd Amend. Political Discussion & Activism
Register FAQ Members List Calendar Mark Forums Read

California 2nd Amend. Political Discussion & Activism Discuss gun rights activism and 2A related political topics here. All advice given is NOT legal counsel.

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old 09-02-2009, 9:15 PM
drbob drbob is offline
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Posts: 23
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default Richard A. Hamblen Challenges the Feds to Uphold Constitutional Rights

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VTTYyO_8N9M

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

http://www.facebook.com/topic.php?to...16&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.
Reply With Quote
  #2  
Old 09-02-2009, 10:09 PM
dantodd dantodd is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: San Carlos
Posts: 9,362
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

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.
Reply With Quote
  #3  
Old 09-02-2009, 10:09 PM
Maestro Pistolero's Avatar
Maestro Pistolero Maestro Pistolero is offline
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Las Vegas
Posts: 3,890
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Interesting case. He has real live, state-sanctioned militia credibility. This may be one to watch.

Last edited by Maestro Pistolero; 09-03-2009 at 11:01 AM..
Reply With Quote
  #4  
Old 09-03-2009, 9:34 AM
nobody_special nobody_special is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Posts: 1,041
iTrader: 1 / 100%
Default

If he loses (and he will), that means the federal government has effectively disarmed the states.

Interesting.
__________________
Quote:
Originally Posted by Edmund G. Brown
There are certain rights that are not to be subject to popular votes, otherwise they are not fundamental rights. If every fundamental liberty can be stripped away by a majority vote, then it's not a fundamental liberty.
Quote:
Originally Posted by jeffyhog
When the governor vetoes a bill that would make it a felony to steal a gun, but signs a bill into law that makes it a felony not to register a gun you already legally own, you know something isn't right.
Reply With Quote
  #5  
Old 09-03-2009, 9:37 AM
dantodd dantodd is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: San Carlos
Posts: 9,362
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by nobody_special View Post
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.
Reply With Quote
  #6  
Old 09-03-2009, 9:42 AM
Flopper's Avatar
Flopper Flopper is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: San Jose
Posts: 1,285
iTrader: 11 / 100%
Default

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.
Reply With Quote
  #7  
Old 09-03-2009, 9:56 AM
Glock22Fan's Avatar
Glock22Fan Glock22Fan is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: May 2006
Location: Los Angeles County
Posts: 5,752
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by dantodd View Post
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.
__________________
John -- bitter gun owner.

All opinions expressed here are my own unless I say otherwise.
I am not a lawyer and this is not legal advice.

Reply With Quote
  #8  
Old 09-03-2009, 10:01 AM
dantodd dantodd is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: San Carlos
Posts: 9,362
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Glock22Fan View Post
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.
Reply With Quote
  #9  
Old 09-03-2009, 10:59 AM
FS00008's Avatar
FS00008 FS00008 is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 2008
Location: Purcellville, Virginia
Posts: 1,980
iTrader: 26 / 100%
Default

Y'all should read the fb thread...
__________________
"No posts of mine on Calguns are to be construed as
legal advice, which can only be given by a lawyer."
Reply With Quote
  #10  
Old 09-03-2009, 11:03 AM
Maestro Pistolero's Avatar
Maestro Pistolero Maestro Pistolero is offline
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Las Vegas
Posts: 3,890
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by FS00008 View Post
Y'all should read the fb thread...
What's the FB thread?
Reply With Quote
  #11  
Old 09-03-2009, 11:13 AM
drbob drbob is offline
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Posts: 23
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

"What's the FB thread? "

http://www.facebook.com/topic.php?ui...f=mf#topic_top
Reply With Quote
  #12  
Old 09-03-2009, 11:22 AM
Texas Boy's Avatar
Texas Boy Texas Boy is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: San Jose, CA
Posts: 779
iTrader: 6 / 100%
Default

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.
Reply With Quote
  #13  
Old 09-03-2009, 11:23 AM
dantodd dantodd is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: San Carlos
Posts: 9,362
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Texas Boy View Post
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.
Reply With Quote
  #14  
Old 09-03-2009, 11:42 AM
Texas Boy's Avatar
Texas Boy Texas Boy is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: San Jose, CA
Posts: 779
iTrader: 6 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by dantodd View Post
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.
Reply With Quote
  #15  
Old 09-03-2009, 11:53 AM
Texas Boy's Avatar
Texas Boy Texas Boy is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: San Jose, CA
Posts: 779
iTrader: 6 / 100%
Default

BTW - there is a thread on AR15.com - http://www.ar15.com/forums/topic.htm...=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.
Reply With Quote
  #16  
Old 09-03-2009, 11:58 AM
Glock22Fan's Avatar
Glock22Fan Glock22Fan is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: May 2006
Location: Los Angeles County
Posts: 5,752
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by drbob View Post

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.
__________________
John -- bitter gun owner.

All opinions expressed here are my own unless I say otherwise.
I am not a lawyer and this is not legal advice.

Reply With Quote
  #17  
Old 09-03-2009, 12:09 PM
FS00008's Avatar
FS00008 FS00008 is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 2008
Location: Purcellville, Virginia
Posts: 1,980
iTrader: 26 / 100%
Default

You should seriously read the thread. It's set up much like this forum on that specific series of pages.
__________________
"No posts of mine on Calguns are to be construed as
legal advice, which can only be given by a lawyer."
Reply With Quote
  #18  
Old 09-03-2009, 12:10 PM
Maestro Pistolero's Avatar
Maestro Pistolero Maestro Pistolero is offline
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Las Vegas
Posts: 3,890
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
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?
Reply With Quote
  #19  
Old 09-03-2009, 12:15 PM
htjyang htjyang is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Los Angeles, CA
Posts: 272
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

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. 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.
Reply With Quote
  #20  
Old 09-03-2009, 12:16 PM
wash's Avatar
wash wash is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: sillycon valley
Posts: 9,020
iTrader: 12 / 100%
Blog Entries: 13
Default

I'll agree, avoiding youtube is hard to justify unless you are on dialup or something.
Reply With Quote
  #21  
Old 09-03-2009, 1:27 PM
Kharn's Avatar
Kharn Kharn is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: MD
Posts: 1,197
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

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.

Last edited by Kharn; 09-03-2009 at 1:29 PM..
Reply With Quote
  #22  
Old 09-03-2009, 1:32 PM
FS00008's Avatar
FS00008 FS00008 is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 2008
Location: Purcellville, Virginia
Posts: 1,980
iTrader: 26 / 100%
Default

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.
__________________
"No posts of mine on Calguns are to be construed as
legal advice, which can only be given by a lawyer."
Reply With Quote
  #23  
Old 09-03-2009, 1:43 PM
Maestro Pistolero's Avatar
Maestro Pistolero Maestro Pistolero is offline
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Las Vegas
Posts: 3,890
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

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.
Reply With Quote
  #24  
Old 09-03-2009, 1:44 PM
bwiese's Avatar
bwiese bwiese is offline
I need a LIFE!!
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: San Jose
Posts: 26,791
iTrader: 3 / 100%
Default

Now is absolutely the wrong time to fight about NFA MGs etc.
__________________

Bill Wiese
San Jose, CA

CGF Board Member / NRA Benefactor Life Member / CRPA life member

No postings of mine here, unless otherwise specifically noted, are
to be construed as formal or informal positions of the Calguns.Net
ownership, The Calguns Foundation, Inc. ("CGF"), the NRA, or my
employer. No posts of mine on Calguns are to be construed as
legal advice, which can only be given by a lawyer.
Reply With Quote
  #25  
Old 09-03-2009, 3:35 PM
RichardAHamblen RichardAHamblen is offline
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Posts: 4
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

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

I look forward to your comments.
Reply With Quote
  #26  
Old 09-03-2009, 3:44 PM
madmike's Avatar
madmike madmike is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: Santa Rosa
Posts: 461
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

More informed and articulate people than I, will be along shortly to explain our concerns.

-madmike.
__________________
-madmike.

I would like to say something profound here...
Reply With Quote
  #27  
Old 09-03-2009, 3:52 PM
pnkssbtz's Avatar
pnkssbtz pnkssbtz is offline
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Oh R'lyeh?
Posts: 3,551
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by RichardAHamblen View Post
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.
Reply With Quote
  #28  
Old 09-03-2009, 4:02 PM
dantodd dantodd is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: San Carlos
Posts: 9,362
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by RichardAHamblen View Post
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
Reply With Quote
  #29  
Old 09-03-2009, 4:38 PM
B Strong B Strong is offline
CGN/CGSSA Contributor
CGN Contributor
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: S.F. Bay Area.
Posts: 6,370
iTrader: 14 / 100%
Default

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.
__________________
The way some gunshop clerks spout off, you'd think that they invented gunpowder and the repeating rifle, and sat on the Supreme Court as well.
___________________________________________
"An unarmed man can only flee from evil, and evil is not overcome by fleeing from it."
- Jeff Cooper

Check my current auctions on Gunbroker - user name bigbasscat - see what left California before Roberti-Roos
Reply With Quote
  #30  
Old 09-03-2009, 4:55 PM
wash's Avatar
wash wash is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: sillycon valley
Posts: 9,020
iTrader: 12 / 100%
Blog Entries: 13
Default

I wonder, which lawyer told you to try this stunt?

If you didn't have a legal strategy before you started, you are dangerous.
Reply With Quote
  #31  
Old 09-03-2009, 5:02 PM
B Strong B Strong is offline
CGN/CGSSA Contributor
CGN Contributor
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: S.F. Bay Area.
Posts: 6,370
iTrader: 14 / 100%
Default

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?
__________________
The way some gunshop clerks spout off, you'd think that they invented gunpowder and the repeating rifle, and sat on the Supreme Court as well.
___________________________________________
"An unarmed man can only flee from evil, and evil is not overcome by fleeing from it."
- Jeff Cooper

Check my current auctions on Gunbroker - user name bigbasscat - see what left California before Roberti-Roos
Reply With Quote
  #32  
Old 09-03-2009, 5:34 PM
B Strong B Strong is offline
CGN/CGSSA Contributor
CGN Contributor
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: S.F. Bay Area.
Posts: 6,370
iTrader: 14 / 100%
Default

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.
__________________
The way some gunshop clerks spout off, you'd think that they invented gunpowder and the repeating rifle, and sat on the Supreme Court as well.
___________________________________________
"An unarmed man can only flee from evil, and evil is not overcome by fleeing from it."
- Jeff Cooper

Check my current auctions on Gunbroker - user name bigbasscat - see what left California before Roberti-Roos
Reply With Quote
  #33  
Old 09-03-2009, 6:06 PM
Kharn's Avatar
Kharn Kharn is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: MD
Posts: 1,197
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

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?
Reply With Quote
  #34  
Old 09-03-2009, 6:25 PM
htjyang htjyang is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Los Angeles, CA
Posts: 272
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by RichardAHamblen View Post
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.

Quote:
Originally Posted by RichardAHamblen View Post
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

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."
Reply With Quote
  #35  
Old 09-04-2009, 5:52 PM
RichardAHamblen RichardAHamblen is offline
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Posts: 4
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default Richard A. Hamblen responds

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?

Last edited by RichardAHamblen; 09-04-2009 at 8:20 PM.. Reason: grammar
Reply With Quote
  #36  
Old 09-04-2009, 6:21 PM
Dr Rockso's Avatar
Dr Rockso Dr Rockso is offline
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: San Jose
Posts: 3,674
iTrader: 6 / 100%
Default

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.
Reply With Quote
  #37  
Old 09-04-2009, 6:23 PM
gunsmith gunsmith is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Northern Nevada
Posts: 1,923
iTrader: 1 / 100%
Default gosh

Quote:
Originally Posted by [B
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
__________________
NRA Life Member
Reply With Quote
  #38  
Old 09-04-2009, 6:23 PM
yellowfin's Avatar
yellowfin yellowfin is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: Lancaster, PA
Posts: 8,373
iTrader: 1 / 100%
Default

Holy cow, welcome Mr. Hamblen! Glad to see you made your way here to our not-as-little-as-it-used-to-be community.
__________________
"You can't stop insane people from doing insane things with insane laws. That's insane!" -- Penn Jillette
Quote:
Originally Posted by indiandave View Post
In Pennsylvania Your permit to carry concealed is called a License to carry fire arms. Other states call it a CCW. In New Jersey it's called a crime.
Discretionary Issue is the new Separate but Equal.
Reply With Quote
  #39  
Old 09-04-2009, 6:27 PM
6172crew's Avatar
6172crew 6172crew is offline
Super Moderator
CGN Contributor - Lifetime
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Concord CA
Posts: 6,271
iTrader: 12 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by RichardAHamblen View Post
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.
__________________

HMM-161 Westpac 1994
Reply With Quote
  #40  
Old 09-04-2009, 11:49 PM
Theseus's Avatar
Theseus Theseus is offline
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Lamma Island, HK
Posts: 2,670
iTrader: 9 / 100%
Default

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!
__________________
Nothing to see here. . . Move along.
Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump



All times are GMT -8. The time now is 3:16 AM.




Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.9
Copyright ©2000 - 2016, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Proudly hosted by GeoVario the Premier 2A host.
Calguns.net, the 'Calguns' name and all associated variants and logos are ® Trademark and © Copyright 2002-2016, Calguns.net an Incorporated Company All Rights Reserved.