Second Amendment at the U.S. Supreme Court Now!!

[Matt G]

Sigh.

Don, your grasp on these things is questionable.

The First Amendment refers to the restrictions of Congress' powers to restrict religion, speech, the press, peacable assembly, or the right to petition the Government for redress of grievance.

The First Amendment does NOT refer to a Moderator restricting personal attacks on a PRIVATELY OWNED WEBSITE!


And, while I'm certainly interested in reading the links to the law reviews that you cited, I can assure you that Marbury stands as strong as ever.

Look, the case is filed, and whether you get Cert is up the the Court. Congratulations on putting together your briefs. I'd be interested in reading your merit briefs and notes for oral arguments, should you be granted cert.

But I really wish you'd accept the help of a Constitutional Law expert with this.

 

[Molon Labe]

Wow. I can't believe how afraid people here are. It sounds like you are all wanting to avoid the issue afraid you will lose more rights. If that is the case...way to stand up for yourselves...your forefathers would be proud. If not, sorry for the misinterpretation.

My thoughts exactly.

The snobbery around here is making me nauseated. Mr. Hamrick may not overly blessed in the grammar and spelling department, and he may not be a Constitutional scholar, but he has something else a lot more important most of us lack: courage. I would also guess he has spent 100X more time & money on fighting for what he believes in than 95% of the people on this board. At least he's going out and doing something instead of safely tapping away at a keyboard all day. And how do we respond? "Um, we need someone more sophisticated than you, Mr. Hamrick. You're not, um, one of us. We need someone with better connections. And better grammar would be a plus." Grrrrrr...

Has anyone here even thanked Mr. Hamrick for his courage and sacrifice? If not, let me be the first to say, "Mr. Hamrick, you may not be perfect, but thank you for taking a risk and putting your time & money on the line for something you believe in."

 

[grampster]

Our country was founded by wildcaters with courage, guts, individualism, fierce independence, the urge to roam at will and towering moxie. While I respect the rule of law, I respect much more the individual courage to pick up the gauntlet when it is cast down with a challenge to accept quietly the loss of freedom. Frontiersmen, the founders, and a host of nameless wanderers, mountainmen and nationbuilders would turn over in their graves if they knew what a nation of whiners and victims we have become.

I don't give a tinker's damn about lawyers. They have done more to rip apart the fabric of our freedom which has been bought and paid for by patriots blood. Having said that, they fight for us at the bar of justice which saves us the hardship of fighting in the streets. Given the choice I'll take their shiny pants and pin stripes. But too much law is oppression.

Win, lose or draw, Mr. Hamrick, I take my hat off to you for jousting with the Lords of Law. You have a right to do so and I wish you well. I worry less about possible repercussions from your singular defense of freedom than I do about the absolute of a slow insidious loss of freedom that we are experiencing while and because we sit back and argue gnats, timing and procedure. One of the founders said, "We gave you a republic, madam, if you can keep it." Sir, you are doing your level best and I salute you for it.

Illigitimi non carborundum est, sir.

 

[saltydog]

It didn't take a bunch of lawyers to determine what the 2nd amendment "meant" in the old days and it sure as hell hasn't changed today either!

 

[CentralTexas]

What have I done?

I saw Mr. Hamricks post on the usenet group tx.guns & told him about THR forum and encouraged his posting here.
I said there were thousands of pro gun folks here and felt it would be a great place for support, input and advice.
I come home and see his email saying he has posted and see pages of replies of which most are negative.
In America, the underdog fighting against injustice was always supported. Tilting at windmills? Maybe he is, but when Americans quit even trying, we should schedule a funeral for this country & our culture.
It's obvious Don is doing what many can't or won't- take the fight to them.
It maybe not the perfect case, it maybe won't get heard, it may also be the best shot we ever get as the court won't again be this pro gun (even if that isn't saying much). So, can we give polite constructive criticism without insult, support or help in some manner to a man trying to make a difference?
CT

 

[Jay Kominek]

I appreciate anyone standing up for freedom. I sort of doubt the SCOTUS will agree to hear the case, but if they do, my understanding is that the Justices will ask him the questions to get the information they want, and they'll make the decision they want to make even if he recites Dr Seuss instead of answering questions.
Even if that wasn't the case, he has as much right to do this as anyone else.
More power to you, Don.

 

[Graystar]

Has anyone here even thanked Mr. Hamrick for his courage and sacrifice?

Thank him for what?? Wasting my tax dollars? I think not.

We shouldn't discourage good intentions and the desire to do what's right. However, neither should we support and encourage misguided efforts. I’m glad Don Hamrick is a supporter of our right to possess firearms. But his effort is so clearly off the wall that it borders on irresponsiveness. In fact, I think it crosses that border.

I cannot add anymore to what The Rabbi has said.

 

[Fletchette]

...the die has been cast...


I think that at this point we should figure out how to aid Mr. Hamrick should this case be accepted.

Regardless on where you stand on the issue of abortion, Roe v. Wade caught a lot of people off-guard. It is quite possible that we could pull off a legal Pearl Harbor of sorts if we stopped fighting amongst ourselves.

What can we do to bolster his case if it is accepted?

 

[Don Hamrick]

DIRECTED TO MOLON LABE:

For 3 years I am financed my court battles by taking 30 day relief jobs on ships earning just enough money to come back file more papers in my various court cases until I run low on my wages. Then I go back out to sea for another 30 days. On and on for 3 years. I live like a homeless person at times just before I have to go back out to sea.

DIRECTED TO MATT G:

Yes! I am weak on First Amendment law. I have focused on the Second Amendment in my Constitutional Law course of self-education. My argument on censorship my very well be full of legal holes. I have studied up on that subject as much as I have wanted to. Feel free to pump me full of holes! I'm fair game on your point of argument.

DIRECTED TO RABBI:

Tort Claims case against the Coast Guard for damages filed at US. District Court, dismissed with prejudice. Appeald to DC Circuit - affirmed. Did not appeal to Supreme Court.

Petition for Writ of Mandamus againt President Bush, et al, filed at US District Court for DC - dismissed with prejudice; appealed to DC Circuit, affirmed; appealed to Supreme Court - denied cert.

I retaliated by filing RICO Act case at US District Court for DC - dismissed with prejudice; appealed to DC Circuit - STILL PENDING; While pending I filed Petition for Writ of Certiorari for a determination on the SCOPE OF THE SECOND AMENDMENT AS AN INDIVIDUAL RIGHT.

- - -

Does not matter that my cases have been dismissed with prejudice, affirmed on appeal and denied certiorari at the Supreme Court. The federal courts are corrupt. I continued pushing my case (RICO Act) because I was collecting evidence of judicial bias to prove the U.S. Government is racketeering by definition under the RICO Act.

I have even gone so far as to report to the DC Circuit acts of treason, high crimes and misdemeanors against President Bush over the invasion of illegal aliens at the Mexican border.

The judges can say all they want - the judges have ruled the collective right view of the Second Amendment when the Justice Department said "individual right." I am proving corruption in the federal courts up to and including the U.S. Supreme Court.

My case, I hope, will blow the doors clean of the hinges of the courts of justice (figuratively speaking - lest I get a visit from BATF/E demanding I explain myself).

As a pro se plaintiff seeking to trash stare decisis based on Miller, and seeking to restore full open carry nationwide there was less a need for me to cite case law in my situation and more of a need to cite "current political events in the United States and around the world.

I will study the Constitution, search the Internet for current news and brainstorm a constitutional argument citing news reports to demonstrate the cause and effect of deviating from the limits of the Constitution. I would spackle appropriate case law supporting my argument giving me that legal constitutonal anchor making the news reports admissible evidence under the Federal Rules of Evidence.

I went into this fight knowing full well the legal beating I would get. I wanted that legal beating so that I would have a pile of evidence to prove judicial bias and corruption. I am close to proving my case.

 

[The Rabbi]

I think that at this point we should figure out how to aid Mr. Hamrick should this case be accepted.

I think at this point we should figure out how to dissociate ourselves from this, much like the NRA or any of the other gun orgs have done. Hasn't that rung anyone's bell, that the nation's premier org for gun rights will have nothing to do with this? Nor anyone else? That's usually a tip-off.

 

[SUE ROVR]

Back at you Dan:

"DIRECTED TO SUE ROVR:

That's the problem!

It is the statute-centric mentality that has gotten us into this mess.

I am taking the Constitution-centric approach. Taking my interpretation of the Constitution mandating an openly armed citizen for the Common Defence. All laws that denigrate the Common Defence through the Second Amendment violates the protection clause of the Constitution. Personal Security Enhances National Security."

Well, I have to say it does have panache. However, you are just wrong. I don't know how better to put it. It is plainly incorrect. The first thing I would do is examine the historical context of the second amendment. Yes, it is an individual right, but what you are doing is stetching it well beyond its original meaning into an area it never intended to protect.

If you think I am doing this to degrade your argument I am not. I would expect Scalia or Thomas to ask you this very question, you should be prepared to address it (cert will not be granted and if it is I am sure there will be a few amicus briefs which will help bolster your argument, the NRA et al may not like you but if cert is granted you will be meeting your new friends very quickly I assume).

The principle you describe, allowing for armed travel everywhere, was never legal in the US. It was not what the 2nd amendment was trying to do. "Bear" arms did not mean to literally "bear" them as you seem to want to interpret it [ie open carry]. I feel it can be best understood as to USE arms. One can "keep" arms, and then "bear" them for the purposes contemplated in the amendment, it did not allow you to walk around with them strapped to your hip.

Like I said, the keep part is where you can really make hay. The English laws and actions [mainly seizing guns and cannon from opponents and the Americans] point to the fact that "keep . . . arms" was not limited to simple weapons. Basically all weapons of war were encompased in the meaning or arms, cannon, warships, rifles etc. If you can own a warship, you should certainly be allowed to own an automatic weapon.

Well, good luck!

EDIT: If it makes you feel better absolute NO 2nd amendment law is covered in any of the Constitutional law text books I have seen. So you may be ahead of the game on that front.

 

[Graystar]

I think at this point we should figure out how to dissociate ourselves from this

Agreed.

 

[beerslurpy]

I think io333 and brett bellmore said it best: the supreme court knows what it wants to rule on and what decision it wants to pick, and it cherry picks the best cases to make precedent out of. If the supreme court has decided that precedent x is going to fall this year, it wont matter if you have Clarence Darrow and Johnny Cochraine tag teaming for you- precedent x will fall. History will record the opinions of the justices, not the arguments you made before them.

That being said, lawyers present SCOTUS cases because they know what theyre doing. This may not seem like a big deal, except when you contrast with the sheer lack of law-knowledge possessed by most laymen, especially laymen posessed of tin-foil hats and a surfeit of rage.

Even so, I dont think mister Hamrick is going to do too much damage, even if the SCOTUS uses him to make some horrific gun-grabbing precedent. I think that long-term this country is heading towards decreased gun control. The anti-gun movement has pretty much spent all its ammo, people recognize the lies and the brady bunch are making no headway in either the state or federal legislature. It is only a matter of time before we have 60 seats in the senate, at which point the filibuster goes away and in come the textualist judges. I for one am eagerly awaiting the nomination of Janice Rogers Brown to the supreme court.

 

[Don Hamrick]

OH MY DEAR SUE ROVR:

You are WRONG!

You must not have read the Emerson opinion.

You must not have read the DoJ Memorandum Opinion on the Second Amendment.

I suggest you go back an read those opinions.

I have done my homework! I know what I am talking about.

 

[Graystar]

You must not have read the Emerson opinion.

Emerson? You mean the one that found that our right to keep and bear arms can be reasonably restricted?

Oh yeah the Supreme Court is gonna love THAT one!

 

[EghtySx]

There is no case here. There is no discussion.

The judge and jury have spoken. Next case.

...
This guy is fighting for the exact things I hear mentioned on this board daily. Someone stands up to legally fight and we should dissasociate from him? This man has broken no law. He only fights to gain back/ensure civil liberties. The exact ones we are most concerned with.

Denounce his tactics and stragegies if you like but do his gials differ from our own? Also, this guy seems to have more determination than any 100 of us. For three years he has been basically living like a pauper spending all his money on what he believes in. How many of us would do that for anything?

And wasting tax money? With all the wastes and just pure corrupt stealing that goes on how much do you think he is wasting? A drop in the bucket? I'd have to say much less than even a drop. Waste of money indeed. The way our elected officials piss money away this should be the absolute least of anyone's worries.

I do agree however that this might not be the correct time. The correct time was in '39...'68...'94... Where were you guys then? Sitting there complaining about the outcomes?

 

[Graystar]

This guy is fighting for the exact things I hear mentioned on this board daily.

I hear what you're saying. But if you fling crap that the court they're just going to fling it back. Then you'll be back in the same place you started, only now you smell like crap!

 

[beerslurpy]

Don, I've read a bunch of your rantings on free republic and while I have sympathy for you and your cause, it is my expert opinion that you are ????ing nuts and have only the slimmest grasp on reality. I only hope that you can keep your manic cycle going until after oral arguments (on the 1% chance they grant cert).

You are kidding yourself if you think that you can compel, through legal gymnastics or any other coercive art, the supreme court to do anything. The supreme court can dodge completely airtight cases on a whim and a technicality. It can take completely shaky cases and make them seem like stone tablets if it wants to make a point. If I were 20 years younger, I might say "yeah you have a shot" but I have seen much much better cases than yours be swatted aside with nothing more than "no standing" or "cert denied."

Do you think that the supreme court could deny cert on something as laughable as the collective interpretation overturning of Emerson and that you will stand a chance? Monkeys will fly out of my ass and engage in interstate commerce first. Speaking of which, why are you so focused on overturning Miller, (arguably one of the most pro RKBA precedents out there), while completely ignoring Wickard v Fillburn (arguably the seminal case for legitmizing tyranny in this country)? Why hack at the twigs and leaves of evil?

 

[R.H. Lee]

Good on 'ya, Don. You don't need a lawyer to go to court any more than you need a priest to talk to God. I sincerely wish you the best. Ignore the naysayers and detractors and keep up the good fight.

 

[The Rabbi]

Do you think that the supreme court could deny cert on something as laughable as the collective interpretation overturning of Emerson and that you will stand a chance? Monkeys will fly out of my ass and engage in interstate commerce first.

+1

ROFLMAO!

 

[Don Hamrick]

I just now did for/against/indifferent count of the postings:

For Me: 18
Against Me: 8
Indifferent: 7

 

[Matt G]

Okay, there's no need to get crude, here. (Though the Interstate Commerce Clause is the tack we need to take against BATF and countless other intrusive agencies, following Lopez and Morrison [and hopefully Raich.]).

I have a problem with suing the Executive Branch for its interpretation of rights, under an interpretion of civil rights provided by that same administration, in a court that you say is a farce, only to prove that it's a farce.

In other words, Mr. Hamrick, you're not really attempting to achieve our goals at all.

 

[Aguila Blanca]

I join the ranks of those who hope this case is denied a hearing.

We need the best possible case, and the best possible representation, and the best possible arguments to prevail at the Supreme Court level. It will not help us at all if the Supremes see this case as one so obviously flawed that they can safely take it, knowing that there will be ample grounds to rule against it.

Bad, Bad, Bad.

Please ... withdraw the case.

 

[WMC]

Don, keep up the good work. At least it appears that you're getting more support as this thread develops- you certainly have mine. Guys on this board have gotten my back before as well as many others, but ultimately there are only two certain things in life. I'm glad to see that you're not letting the naysayers and cynics get to you- keep doing what you've got to do. It's easy to sit back and do nothing (or type on your computer all day), but a man who beats his own path is to be respected. Just remember, the strongest man is he who stands most alone. Good luck to you, sir.

 

[Don Hamrick]

DIRECTED TO MATT G:

I do not know what YOUR goals are. I am fighting for my Second Amendment rights as a U.S. MERCHANT SEAMEN.