|
California 2nd Amend. Political Discussion & Activism Discuss gun rights activism and 2A related political topics here. All advice given is NOT legal counsel. |
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#1
|
|||
|
|||
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. |
#4
|
|||
|
|||
If he loses (and he will), that means the federal government has effectively disarmed the states.
Interesting.
__________________
Quote:
Quote:
|
#5
|
|||
|
|||
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.
|
#6
|
||||
|
||||
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.
|
#7
|
||||
|
||||
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. |
#8
|
|||
|
|||
Oooops.... lol. I am confident the good one wouldn't take this case.
|
#11
|
|||
|
|||
|
#12
|
||||
|
||||
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. |
#13
|
|||
|
|||
I believe that would be the best possible outcome.
|
#14
|
||||
|
||||
Unfortunately, I agree. The chance of SCOUTS hearing the case and ruling in our favor is slim to none at this point in time.
|
#15
|
||||
|
||||
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. |
#16
|
||||
|
||||
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.
__________________
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. |
#17
|
||||
|
||||
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." |
#18
|
||||
|
||||
Quote:
|
#19
|
|||
|
|||
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. |
#21
|
||||
|
||||
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.. |
#22
|
||||
|
||||
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." |
#23
|
||||
|
||||
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. |
#24
|
||||
|
||||
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. |
#25
|
|||
|
|||
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. |
#27
|
||||
|
||||
Quote:
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. |
#28
|
|||
|
|||
Quote:
Best, Dan |
#29
|
|||
|
|||
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 |
#31
|
|||
|
|||
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 |
#32
|
|||
|
|||
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 |
#33
|
||||
|
||||
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? |
#34
|
|||
|
|||
Quote:
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:
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." |
#35
|
|||
|
|||
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 |
#36
|
||||
|
||||
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.
|
#37
|
|||
|
|||
gosh
Quote:
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 |
#38
|
||||
|
||||
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 Discretionary Issue is the new Separate but Equal. |
#39
|
||||
|
||||
Quote:
__________________
HMM-161 Westpac 1994 |
#40
|
||||
|
||||
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! |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|