Second Amendment Open Carry = Continued (also for AZG23)

This is a discussion on Second Amendment Open Carry = Continued (also for AZG23) within the The Second Amendment & Gun Legislation Discussion forums, part of the Related Topics category; Originally Posted by QKShooter These days so many people are so apathetic that they have no convictions & stand for absolutely nothing. I'm afraid that ...

Page 2 of 4 FirstFirst 1234 LastLast
Results 16 to 30 of 46

Thread: Second Amendment Open Carry = Continued (also for AZG23)

  1. #16
    Ex Member Array donhamrick's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    Everywhere (U.S. Merchant Seaman)
    Posts
    29
    Quote Originally Posted by QKShooter
    These days so many people are so apathetic that they have no convictions & stand for absolutely nothing.

    I'm afraid that same general apathy will be the downfall of your cause.
    Supporting material:

    James F. Welles, Ph.D., "Understanding Stupidity," JFW Orient, NY Oct. 1986. An online book paginated to be read online. You'll never read it all in one session. Best to read it in sections. (Framed Website).

    Cal Thomas, "The Death of Political Ideology," May 23, 2006, Jewish World Review.com (I'm Southern Baptist by upbringing, if you are wondering. I also post the Dred Scott case and Frederick Douglass at my blog to advocate political and religious freedom so long as they are not Hell bent on destroying the United States).

    Frosty Wooldridge, "The Decline and Fall of America"

    Glen Harlan Reynolds, "A Critical Guide to the Second Amendment" 62 Tenn. L. Rev. 461-511 (1955)

    Colonel Charles J. Dunlap, Jr., USAF, "Revolt of the Masses: Armed Civilians and the Insurrectionary Theory of the Second Amendment" 62 Tenn. L. Rev. 643 (1995)

    Lindsay Cohn, "The Evolution of the Civil-Military Gap" Debate," Duke University Political Science

    Charles J. Dunlap, Jr. Lt Col, USAF, "The Origins of the American Military Coup of 2012" a fictional shortstory. Excellent "what if" story based on American apathy and an incompetent and corrupt government.

  2. Remove Ads

  3. #17
    Senior Member Array tanksoldier's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2005
    Location
    Colorado
    Posts
    1,133
    No part of the Constitution is static. Human behavior does change, and more importantly with regard to the Constitution societal norms change.

    If the Constitution was static, Native Americans would count as 3/5 of a person, nobody but land-owning white males could vote, and the limitations and protections of the Constitution and the Bill of Rights would apply only to the Federal government.


    Quote Originally Posted by donhamrick
    The Constitution is a static document in this regard because human behavior never changes, no matter how technologically advance a country is.
    "I am a Soldier. I fight where I am told, and I win where I fight." GEN George S. Patton, Jr.

  4. #18
    Ex Member Array donhamrick's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    Everywhere (U.S. Merchant Seaman)
    Posts
    29

    Exclamation

    Quote Originally Posted by tanksoldier
    No part of the Constitution is static. Human behavior does change, and more importantly with regard to the Constitution societal norms change.

    If the Constitution was static, Native Americans would count as 3/5 of a person, nobody but land-owning white males could vote, and the limitations and protections of the Constitution and the Bill of Rights would apply only to the Federal government.
    It remains static between amendments. My point is that it is not a fluid or dynamic document until it is amended. The Constitution doesn't change its meaning until it is amended.

    DISSENTING OPINION IN THE DRED SCOTT V. SANFORD CASE:

    "Political reasons have not the requisite certainty to afford rules of juridical interpretation. They are different in different men. They are different in the same men at different times. And when a strict interpretation of the Constitution, according to the fixed rules which govern the interpretation of laws, is abandoned, and the theoretical opinions of individuals are allowed to control its meaning, we have no longer a Constitution; we are under the government of individual men, who for the time being have power to declare what the Constitution is, according to their own views of what it ought to mean. When such a method of interpretation of the Constitution obtains, in place of a republican Government, with limited and defined powers, we have a Government which is merely an exponent of the will of Congress; or what, in my opinion, would not be preferable, an exponent of the individual political opinions of the members of this court."

    Dred Scott v. Sanford, 60 U.S. (19 How.) 393, 620-21 (1857) (Curtis, J., dissenting).

  5. #19
    DC Founder
    Array Bumper's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2004
    Location
    Missouri
    Posts
    20,045
    I wish you well with your efforts, but must count myself among those that doubt you will get much support here or anywhere else. If you can take some constructive criticism, please read on. If not, you might want to skip the rest of this post. It is strictly my opinion.

    I had never heard of your case so I visited your website. I have to tell you, it took me 10 minutes of reading and searching just to find out what your case was about. After finally finding what I was looking for, I went through much of the other material. You are taking on so many issues, you seem to have lost focus on your own case. It appears you are ready to take on the UN, the NRA and Congress, all at the same time. To confuse matters more, the extended references to slavery, illegal aliens, militias, etc makes your effort look sorta out there in the fringe.

    When you want someone, the NRA or people in general, to support you, you probably shouldn't call them fools (The NRA Leadership are a Pack of Fools!!) call them cowards ("One Explanation Why People Are Not Donating to My Second Amendment Case: They are too cowardly to shed the comforts of present-day techno-slavery for the risks of ACTUAL FREEDOM!") or stupid (Why "Not Donating" $ to my Second Amendment Case is a Stupid Thing to Do!) for not supporting you. The story about a military coup in 2012 is pretty much when I closed my browser.

    If you honestly believe in what you are doing and need support, I would gut that website of anything not directly pertaining to your case or efforts for funding. You might also want to put the short version, along with a detailed version, of what your case is about up front so people don't have to hunt for it. But most of all, tell people how they will benefit from supporting you, without calling them names. You might also want to reduce the number of font and color changes. It makes your site extremely difficult to read.

    Honestly, I wish you luck in your efforts....
    Bumper
    Coimhéad fearg fhear na foighde; Beware the anger of a patient man.

  6. #20
    Senior Member Array Rugerman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Kalifornia
    Posts
    569
    I am 100% with Bumper. I tried to look for the meaning in your website and whatever it is that you are trying to do and was totally lost and didn't have at least an hour it would take to figure out what you want.

    I have seen this a 100 times. People get angry because someone doesn't agree with them and then calls them names. Like that is going to help you get what you want.

    I'll tell you there are a lot of NRA supporters here that don't take kindly to them being called fools. Come straight out with the short version of what it is you are trying to do and maybe I would read it. You might even find someone to sympathize with you but all of that stuff in your blog is undeciferable.

    Just what is it you are asking for that the government won't give you?
    George Washington: "A free people ought to be armed."

  7. #21
    VIP Member Array sixgun's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    indiana usa
    Posts
    2,563
    IMHO its not entrapnent or anything like that. Open carry gives the bad guy a better chance to sneak up and grab your gun and shoot you or somebody else with it. Ill carry concealed thank you very much. This guy sounds anti gun to me. Just my .02 cents

    Sixgun

  8. #22
    Administrator
    Array QKShooter's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Location
    Off Of The X
    Posts
    35,064
    Constructive Crit.
    Ditto: Bumper in that your Blog is too jumbled.
    Your cause (& what I am guessing) is your main purpose in asking for donations is lost in your blog.

    You come across as being too disjointed (unfocused) & as a rebel with way too many causes.

    Ditto: also that you cannot kick someone in the ass & at the same time ask them for their help. I can understand why the NRA would not risk putting themselves behind your cause. They are not going to allow you to intimidate them & demean them into helping you out.
    You are slightly too "all over the place" & off on too many tangents not directly related to your court case.

    I have my own personal issues with the NRA but, because of their overaggressive marketing practices in soliciting $$$ using scare tactics.

    You should maybe open up a new blog (devoted just to your case) that just calmly relates the details & specifics of your court case & your ultimate goal for interstate open carry coupled w/ a polite request for donations.

  9. #23
    Ex Member Array donhamrick's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    Everywhere (U.S. Merchant Seaman)
    Posts
    29
    Quote Originally Posted by Bumper
    I wish you well with your efforts, but must count myself among those that doubt you will get much support here or anywhere else. If you can take some constructive criticism, please read on. If not, you might want to skip the rest of this post. It is strictly my opinion.

    I had never heard of your case so I visited your website. I have to tell you, it took me 10 minutes of reading and searching just to find out what your case was about. After finally finding what I was looking for, I went through much of the other material. You are taking on so many issues, you seem to have lost focus on your own case. It appears you are ready to take on the UN, the NRA and Congress, all at the same time. To confuse matters more, the extended references to slavery, illegal aliens, militias, etc makes your effort look sorta out there in the fringe.

    When you want someone, the NRA or people in general, to support you, you probably shouldn't call them fools (The NRA Leadership are a Pack of Fools!!) call them cowards ("One Explanation Why People Are Not Donating to My Second Amendment Case: They are too cowardly to shed the comforts of present-day techno-slavery for the risks of ACTUAL FREEDOM!") or stupid (Why "Not Donating" $ to my Second Amendment Case is a Stupid Thing to Do!) for not supporting you. The story about a military coup in 2012 is pretty much when I closed my browser.

    If you honestly believe in what you are doing and need support, I would gut that website of anything not directly pertaining to your case or efforts for funding. You might also want to put the short version, along with a detailed version, of what your case is about up front so people don't have to hunt for it. But most of all, tell people how they will benefit from supporting you, without calling them names. You might also want to reduce the number of font and color changes. It makes your site extremely difficult to read.

    Honestly, I wish you luck in your efforts....
    Good criticism. You described the basic problem of websites and blogs. The intent is to gain as many new visitors and returning visitors as possible without stagnant information. I don't want a standing billboard with the same information.

    As far as my tact goes I have found that it doesn't make any difference. Simply because I am an individual seeking donations I am frequently accused of fraudster running a scam. People are simple too suspicious to trust an individual passing around the collection plate for a worthy cause. I tried the polite method. It doesn't work either just because I don't have the backing of a national organization.

    I have an idea on how to detour visitors to the meat of my case. I'll try putting a link in every posting.

  10. #24
    Ex Member Array donhamrick's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    Everywhere (U.S. Merchant Seaman)
    Posts
    29
    Fair question:

    In 2002 I reported aboard a U.S. Government ammunition ship coming out of the shipyard in Newport News, Virginia. As a new crew member I was required to take a small arms recertification court from a Military Sealift Command (U.S.Govt) certified instructor at Lynhaven Shooting Range in Virginia Beach.

    I pass the training and had a good time doing so. I research the U.S. Code and found a law that allowed me to send an application to the U.S. Coast Guard in Washington, DC to have the small arms training endorsed on my Merchant Mariner's Document (ID card). I wanted the endorsement to read "National Open Carry Handgun." The Coast Guard admitted to my assertion that there are no Coast Guard regulations providing for the endorsement nor prohibiting it. The Coast Guard officer used his own discretion to deny my application stating that such an endorsement does not benefit maritime safety or security.

    The Coast Guard letter denying my application was dated APRIL 19, 2002 = Patriots' Day. Symbolic coincidence which, in my opinion, validates me as an American Patriot fight for actual freedom (cf. Dred Scott v. Sanford definition of a free citizen. Then cf. Abraham Lincoln's Emancipation Proclamation).

    The core argument is that the U.S. Government cannot compel a U.S. civilian seafarer to take up arms in defense of a U.S. Government vessel while denying that same U.S. civilian seafare the right to keep and bear arms in defense of self and others for public safety and security. It is as though the U.S. Govt wants its cake and eat it too.

    The more I research the law and the Constitution the more legal argumens I have accumulated. The arguments now total 800 pages overlapping maritime law, federal laws and state laws in my Request for Admissions of Facts in preparation for the discovery phase.

  11. #25
    Ex Member Array donhamrick's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    Everywhere (U.S. Merchant Seaman)
    Posts
    29

    Exclamation

    OKAY!! YOU'RE RIGHT!!

    I cleaned out all the garbage from my blog. I juggled portions of text from one post to another. I edited, rephrased, and housecleaned.

    It should now flow a lot better.

    American Common Defence Review

    I hope your donations will be forthcoming now.

  12. #26
    DC Founder
    Array Bumper's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2004
    Location
    Missouri
    Posts
    20,045
    Your website now looks much better and easier for readers to see what the basis and details of the case are. There's still alot of material on it that doesn't really "belong" IMHO, but maybe it's just me not seeing the connection because I can't digest that much material in one setting.

    Anyway, looks a lot better!
    Bumper
    Coimhéad fearg fhear na foighde; Beware the anger of a patient man.

  13. #27
    DC Founder
    Array Bumper's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2004
    Location
    Missouri
    Posts
    20,045
    I am moving this thread over to "Second Amendment News & Discussions". It's "off topic" in this forum since it is really not connected to concealed carry....
    Bumper
    Coimhéad fearg fhear na foighde; Beware the anger of a patient man.

  14. #28
    Ex Member Array donhamrick's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    Everywhere (U.S. Merchant Seaman)
    Posts
    29
    Quote Originally Posted by Bumper
    There's still alot of material on it that doesn't really "belong" IMHO, but maybe it's just me not seeing the connection because I can't digest that much material in one setting.

    Anyway, looks a lot better!
    Thank you.

    Judgment call on that material that appeared not to belong such as the poems and the corrupt judicial system. The poems are just my attempt to present the sailors point of view in poetic form.

  15. #29
    Member Array cali-da's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Location
    California
    Posts
    54

    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.

    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.

    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?

    As a matter of 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.

    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 your 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.

    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.

  16. #30
    Ex Member Array donhamrick's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    Everywhere (U.S. Merchant Seaman)
    Posts
    29
    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.

    See also:
    CATO Institute, "Power Surge: The Constitutional Record of George W. Bush."
    http://www.cato.org/pubs/wtpapers/po...ealy_lynch.pdf

    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).
    http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...600710_pf.html

    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.
    Last edited by donhamrick; May 29th, 2006 at 11:37 AM.

Page 2 of 4 FirstFirst 1234 LastLast

Links

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  

Similar Threads

  1. Possible Pro-2nd Amendment Changes in NYS Concealed Carry Law
    By 2edgesword in forum The Second Amendment & Gun Legislation Discussion
    Replies: 20
    Last Post: January 30th, 2011, 09:00 AM
  2. A free open society and the 2 end amendment
    By dylistn in forum The Second Amendment & Gun Legislation Discussion
    Replies: 15
    Last Post: January 12th, 2011, 10:17 AM
  3. A free open society and the 2 end amendment
    By dylistn in forum General Firearm Discussion
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: January 10th, 2011, 08:39 AM
  4. Continued Right To Carry Concealed
    By fotomaker57 in forum Concealed Carry Issues & Discussions
    Replies: 42
    Last Post: October 13th, 2008, 07:15 PM
  5. Happy Birthday AZG23
    By Bud White in forum Off Topic & Humor Discussion
    Replies: 12
    Last Post: July 19th, 2005, 01:10 AM

Search tags for this page

author, noreen campbell, patrick henry

,

patrick henry noreen campbell dickson

Click on a term to search for related topics.