Hamblen v. US, petition to the Supreme Court

[RichardAHamblen]

Read it here , at the same time as the Court does, (assuming they will even read it before denying cert.). Filed 30 March, 2010. Hot off the press.

[Dan Lee]

I had posted something here, but I seem to have missed & misunderstood some of the facts of Mr. Hamlben's case.. So, I am replacing my comments with this:

I support his efforts to show the Federal Government that their actions regarding the regulation of Firearms are unconstitutional, unnecessary, & heavy handed..

Furthermore, I don't see any evidence that these efforts have lowered crime rates, or made any significant impact on anything but adding to the obscene budget deficit our country faces..

[RichardAHamblen]

Bump.

I find it real hard to believe that no one has any thoughts on this case...

[C. Richard Archie]

Seems to be a paucity of wags around lately.

I am very interested in the case, and guess my first question, not to appear confrontational or judgmental at all, is this:

What bearing did the lack of admission about the presence of the weapons when first questioned about them have on the whole case? Not that I could imagine the BATFE giving up their self appointed stature to confiscate them and jail you had you been totally forthcoming, but did that bring additional problems into the mix?

I do think your pleading is well laid out, factual and sufficiently backed up to gain a serious chance of winning, if it gets heard. The arguments that Heller and Miller cases seem at odds is compelling, and that as a member of a duly authorized militia, your right to possess weapons of the kind normally used by the military has been restricted, seemingly at odds with the intent of the Second Amendment.

Other question that come to mind:

Do you have a guaranteed date with SCOTUS, or is your pleading just up for review? Does the Court have to answer, or can they simply decide not to consider?

Is my understanding correct that all punishment of the original case has been endured?

Per the lower court's findings, did you lose your rights to vote, own and possess weapons?

[RichardAHamblen]

No there were no legal consequences to my initial denial during the "interrogation". In fact it was a year and a half before I was indicted. The trial judge paid it no attention, nor did any of the subsequent rulings pay it any attention. So it is a non issue.

Punishment has been served, but I am still classified as a felon and suffer the concomitant civil disabilities. It is, practically speaking, impossible to regain firearms rights after a federal felony conviction.

The Supreme Court has since 1923 exercised sole discretion over which cases it grants a hearing (certiorari) to. I have been denied once already, and am up there now only because of Heller and because my trial judge, Todd Campbell, said in his memorandum in response to my petition for a writ of habeas corpus, that I had made "a substantial showing of the denial of [my] constitutional rights". I expect no relief and am under no delusions about this. But at this point the case is about speaking Truth to Power. The Supreme Court's ruling In Heller is flat out wrong, and shows contempt for us, the Constitution, our history, and even the Court itself. They have to be called on it. There has been ample opportunity for them to do the right thing over the past six years and they have failed consistently. No point in mincing words now.

[tnxdshooter]

[RichardAHamblen]

No, I received the dealer SOT after the "social call" but before the indictment, or rather before the ATF came back to revoke the FFL after about a year. I still got renewal requests right up to the trial.

At this point we are beyond arguing trial details. The issue now is the constitutionality of the law itself. The Supreme Court is talking out of both sides of its mouth (when it is not actually lying), and now must reconcile its two rulings, because they are in conflict. So far it has resorted to selective quotes and outright lies.

[tnxdshooter]

[C. Richard Archie]

Is there any action by interested parties that would be beneficial to the effort?

[RichardAHamblen]

In case anybody missed it.

[1gewehr]

Richard,
I cannot pull up the doc on eSnips. I'm assuming from the post title that your petition was denied. While I'm really sad to hear it, I am also not a bit surprised. SCOTUS seems determined to do everything it can to avoid it's duty to protect and defend the Constitution of the United States.

[fl0at]