Richard A. Hamblen Challenges the Feds to Uphold Constitutio

[RichardAHamblen]

Introductory video of me talking about my ongoing case in the US Courts.

I will be the program at the November 17, 2009 meeting of the Nashville chapter. Come and show your support or voice your displeasure. I welcome an open discussion. See you there!

[RichardAHamblen]

[johnharris]

Looking forward to hearing about the questions from the bench.

[RichardAHamblen]

[RichardAHamblen]

Update on the case:

State of the Case

Hamblen vs United States

January 19, 2010


As you probably know, the Sixth Circuit affirmed my conviction, devoting all of two paragraphs to discussion, hardly the debate of my claims that my trial judge Todd Campbell said "reasonable jurists" should make when he said in December, 2008 that he was convinced I had made a "substantial showing" that my constitutional rights had been denied as far as my Second Amendment claim was concerned. The rationale that the panel offered was this:

1) that I was acting outside my scope of duties as a state guardsman when I possessed machine guns, and that my act was contrary to state guard policy. This in effect denies that the second amendment is a right, since if you have to ask permission to exercise a right then it is no longer a right but a privilege. This is akin to saying you have a right to keep and bear arms, but it is our policy to not let you exercise that right. State guard "policy" is however contrary to the state statute organizing the state guard, as the state guard is specifically mandated by statute to be a "reserve armed force" for the National Guard. The state owns 21 machine guns for the entire force, no magazines, and no ammunition. You can't be an armed force without arms. This is what the Second Amendment is all about: when the authorities fail to equip the militia, the people have the right to arm themselves.

2) my contention is wrong that a proper reading of US vs. Miller supports my actions. They dismissed this by saying that it is just not so, because Justice Scalia says so in Heller, and that's that. You read Miller and see for yourself what it says. Miller does not affirm the NFA. Furthermore, the Sixth Circuit quotes that insidious phrase in Heller introduced by Gura, Cato and Co about protection for "arms in common use owned by law abiding citizens for lawful purposes". Besides being contrary to Miller, (which says the Militia consists of everyone physically capable of bearing arms, who, when called up, are to report bearing arms provided by themselves, that are "part of the ordinary military equipment ...of the type in common use"), and recognized as problematic by the Solicitor General of the US in the oral arguments to Heller( “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” ), this is circular logic--are the arms uncommon because they are unlawful, or unlawful because they are uncommon? And if uncommon, why is there a need to regulate them?

This Sixth Circuit rationale is what I am going to address in my petition to the Supreme Court. We will expand this of course by a complete examination of the ruling in Miller, as well as pointing out certain niceties about constitutional law, such as the fact that the Second Amendment of 1791 effectively removes arms from any jurisdiction claimed by the Federal Government in the Constitution of 1787, just as surely as the Thirteenth Amendment removes chattel slavery from any protection found in the same Constitution. Now I know well that this is heading for denial, since I am in effect calling the Supreme Court, and specifically Justice Scalia, liars, or more charitably, idiots, neither of which will sit well with their collective ego. That does not change the fact that they are. It is called speaking truth to power.


In sum, I am asking merely that the Supreme Court honor its ruling from 1939 and apply it to the law. We seek to invent no new and novel interpretation of the Right to Keep and Bear Arms, but rather gain a recognition of the ruling already made by the Court in Miller. And if they cannot apply the ruling from Miller, they need to explain to us all why not. --Richard A. Hamblen January 19, 2010

[Dan Lee]

Best wishes on your situation Richard. I will indeed be praying for you. Now that the Northern Command has been given permission to Operate on our soil in an "emergency", this ruling against you stands out as even more critical than ever as far as I can tell.. The Constitution is the base for the law of our land, & all freedom in writing, so it must be protected.

[ProguninTN]

Keep us updated, Richard.

[RichardAHamblen]

I will be at the meeting next week in Nashville.