cali-da legal opinion
I am an attorney and recently graduated from one of the best law schools in the country. I can also say that I went to one of the most conservative law schools in the nation. I don't remember even talking about the 2nd amendment much more than, you can own guns but what kind and of what caliber is up for debate. However, I think I can tell you why you are not getting the support of the NRA (although it is only my opinion).
Frankly, I don't think you are on solid legal ground. I read the two articles on the 2nd amendment from the Tennessee law review. They don't support the proposition that you are arguing for. They do not in any way support a right to carry weapons 100% of the time out in the open. They don't support a National Open Carry Permit of any kind. The two articles both admit that the amount of case law is limited to very few cases and therefore most of what they wrote was piecing things together with little Supreme Court guidance. The 2nd amendment, at least according to your two sources, supports owning weapons and having them in your home. The Framers were very intent on protecting the privacy and security of the home which is evidenced by both the 2nd and the 4th Amendments.
Our country's history is sliding us further away from constitutional norms. Leading this decline is the Supreme Court with its foreign case law agenda.
CATO Institute, "Power Surge: The Constitutional Record of George W. Bush."
U.N. making homeschooling illegal?
Threat seen from U.S. judges who bow to [unratified] child-rights treaty
Beharry v. Reno, 183 F. Supp. 2d. 584 (E.D.N.Y. 2002).
There is nothing in the Second amendment that supports a National Open Carry Right. The framers in listing what rights belong to the people were limited and expressed. Had the Framers intended for there to be a right to National Open Carry, they would have written it in. When you are in public though, things change. For example, once you put your garbadge out to the curb, the government can look through it without a warrant. That is because you exposed to the public. Things change when you are outside the provinces of your own home.
The right to open carry nationwide is embodied in the Ninth Amendment. The framers included the Ninth Amendment because there are too many rights and duties to be listed. Just because open carry nationwide is not listed does not mean that it does not exist nor does it mean that it is not guaranteed.
Secondly you are aboard a US ship and as far as I know, when you volunteer for that kind of service, you can and probably did give up certain rights. In fact you are in international waters most of the time, and as I remember, that makes the captain in charge. The Coast Guard does not have to issue you what you want. You have stated here and on your own website that you wanted the permit to read a certain way. The Coast Guard or for that matter any branch of the federal government does not have to give you what you want. Where is that written in the Constitution?
The Ninth Amendment.
See also, http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,65889,00.html
As a matter off constitutional law, which reigns supreme above any state law, federal statute, or regulation, there just is not that much from the Supreme Court of what the 2nd Amendment means. I think it means what your two law review articles say. The People have the right to own firearms. It is limited to those that can be carried such as rifles, shotguns, and handguns. Beyond that there is not a lot of constitutional guidance. Much of the gun control out there has been left to the states and is guided by state constitutions and state laws. You are in federal jurisdiction though, which is clear from your filing in federal court. The answer is therefore federal and there is nothing as far as I can see to support your interpretation that because you are on a US ship, you get a Open Carry National permit.
Apparently you haven't read my blog in its entirety. Constitutional law and Supreme Court case law is lacking because the Supreme Court is criminally derelict in its duty to treat the Second Amendment on equal footing with the First Amndment. Evidence proving this is the Senate Document, "U.S. Constitution" with Analysis of Supreme Court Cases (U.S. Govt Printing Office, Washington DC) has 222 pages on the First Amndment and only one and a half pages for the Second Amendment.
My case will be "a case of first impression" if the Supreme Court does not continue its criminal behavior.
I also agree that another reason that you did not get the support of the NRA was that you crossing too many legal no mans lands. Cases such as yours that are so complex are nortorious for creating bad law. Bad law is that which can't be used as guidance for the future or results in an unintended consequence. By crossing so many different legal landscapes you case could only result in a rule that effects you. It would not have any bearing generally on the general public at large.
I think that the 2nd Amendment and its interpretation is fine as is. It says I can own a gun and have it in my home. Beyond that, it is up to the states and their individual decisions as to what is appropriate. I think that you are spending more time and money (filing fees, etc.) than it is worth. This is also due to the fact that you are in the circuit considered the stepping stone to the Supreme Court (see Chief Justice Roberts and Justice Scalia, former members of the DC Court of Appeals). No judge there is going to be the first to jump out on what could possibly be a politically charged issue.
I have a motion in the court to transfer the case to Arkansas in accordance with federal law on the fact that my home of record is Arkansas and I mistakenly filed in DC alleging that I will not get a fair trial in DC for the very reasons you state.
Also, your arguments that the Constitution is static ignore the last 50 years of Supreme Court caselaw. While I don't support legislating from the bench, the interpretation of the Constitution changes. Whether you like it or not, the words may be the same, but what they mean is up for argument. It is another Amendment that is important called the 1st. I think that originalist thinking is best but as another justice stated the Constitution is not a suicide pact. I think that taking into account reality along with originalist thinking is correct.
The last 50 years is the problem. Roosevelt's Court Packing Plan to shove his New Deal down our throats caused, in part, Congress's legislative addiction to passing gun control laws through the Commerce Clause.
You should read my blog. All of it.
What we have today in constitutional law and federal case law precedence is not the way it is supposed to be.