[donhamrick]

Second Amendment Case Ignored by NRA!!!

American Common Defence Review

I am the Unrepresented Plaintiff in HAMRICK v. PRESIDENT BUSH, et al, U.S. District Court/DC, No. 03-2160, RICO Act case for the Second Amendment. Dismissed with prejudice; Appealed, DC Circuit, No. 04-5316.

ON MAY 18, 2006 MY MOTION FOR REHEARING & REHEARING EN BANC DISPUTING DISMISSAL OF RICO CLAIMS WAS DENIED. HOWEVER CASE IS REMANDED FOR FURTHER PROCEEDINGS ON SECOND AMENDMENT GROUNDS. Case is for National Open Carry Handgun. NRA refuses to help.

My case needs your donations! Please visit my blog above and its archives to learn that my case is real and every bit the case the NRA dreamed for but now avoids because of its open carry trait conflicts with their concealed carry agenda.

Signed: Don Hamrick

 

[Redneck Repairs]

I have seen this spam on multiple gun boards , IMHO if the NRA and other gun rights organizations ignore it its obviously a half baked loosing case. if i recall correctly it only pertains to merchant marine sailors , and has some real obscure presumptions . so in summation :

Sorry Don Hamrick , while i wish you all the best your on your own as far as i am concerned .

 

[donhamrick]

I have seen this spam on multiple gun boards , IMHO if the nra and other gun rights orginisations ignore it its obviously a half baked loosing case. if i recall correctly it only pertains to merchant marine sailers , and has some real obscure presumptions . so in summation :

Sorry Don Hamrick , while i wish you all the best your on your own as far as i am concerned .

I am posting notice on every gun related forum on the existence of my Second Amendment case in the federal courts of Washington, DC because the NRA nor any Second Amendment advocacy group will publicize news reports or commentary on my case. Calling it spam does not make it so. Not even in your wildest dreams.

My case overlaps maritime law, federal laws, and state laws. It directly affects everyone's Second Amendment rights to open carry in interstate travel (crossing state lines while armed) and intrastate travel (city to city within a state) while armed.

Obscure presumptions is exactly right. I am showing that present day social and legal norms have drifted away from constitutional norms. Constitutional norms would be obscue to you.

And yes. I agree that I am on my own as I have litigated this case in the federal courts for the last 4 years on my own.

I just thought maybe I could get a little help from "We, the People."

 

[NaturalSelection]

i can respect your conviction, but my cause is national cwp reciprocity. i feel that open carry is foolish as then only the bad guy has the element of surprise making you his first target.

 

[donhamrick]

i can respect your conviction, but my cause is national cwp reciprocity. i feel that open carry is foolish as then only the bad guy has the element of surprise making you his first target.

I'll toss this up to see if it flies.

(1) Concealed carry is entrapment. It entices the bad guy to attack thereby giving you the appearance of a justifiable shooting, if it goes that far.

(2) When open carry was the social and legal norm concealed carry was perceived to be an act of criminal intent. Thus we are now living in a flip-flop world that conradicts constitutional norms.

 

[madmike]

OK, I'll bite. . .

#1, I'd have to say, "No." By today's standards, it would not be entrapment, as that would imply intent on the part of the person carrying concealed. And a reading of the many threads on this web site clearly demonstrates that this simply isn't "the norm."

To follow that line of thinking would be to give weight to those arguments that place the blame for the crime on the victim, in this case, the person carrying concealed legally.

#2, may hold some water. but it the fact that society's point of view has changed is not something aberrant. That is a normal function of evolution of man.

mm

 

[donhamrick]

OK, I'll bite. . .

#1, I'd have to say, "No." By today's standards, it would not be entrapment, as that would imply intent on the part of the person carrying concealed. And a reading of the many threads on this web site clearly demonstrates that this simply isn't "the norm."

To follow that line of thinking would be to give weight to those arguments that place the blame for the crime on the victim, in this case, the person carrying concealed legally.

#2, may hold some water. but it the fact that society's point of view has changed is not something aberrant. That is a normal function of evolution of man.

mm

Agree on (1).

Disagree on (2). The "standard of living" for mankind may have improved over the centuries at different rates around the world but how people treat others has not evolved or improved in the slightest. The Constitution is a static document in this regard because human behavior never changes, no matter how technologically advance a country is.

 

[Redneck Repairs]

donhamrick I would really be interested to see how you can define the constitution as " static " since obviously it is not nor has it ever been.

 

[donhamrick]

donhamrick I would really be interested to see how you can define the constitution as " static " since obviously it is not nor has it ever been.

The Constitution remains static subject to the amendment process. Until it is ammended and ratified the words and their meaning remain the same. It is the error of the courts twisting the meaning of the Constitution to say what it does not mean.

As an example (that I need to do more research on) is the spelling of common defence in the Preamble to the Constitution means the People were intended to participate in the "common defence" via posse comitatus, militia, and through federal laws, the state defense force, and the right of citizens' arrest and for the maritime industry, the Letters of Marque and Reprisal (it is in the Constitution). All these imply the right of open carry to effectively practice and execute these rights and duties.

I'm suggesting that we can have both a "Common Defence" (We, the People) and a "National Defense" (the military defense industry)

Remember, with rights come duties.

 

[Redneck Repairs]

subject to the amendment process imho makes it a dynamic document , and for the record i too disagree with " legislation from the bench " on constitutional issues.

 

[donhamrick]

subject to the amendment process imho makes it a dynamic document , and for the record i too disagree with " legeslation from the bench " on constutitional issues.

We are talking semantics here.

My interpretation of "dynamic document" is construed to mean changing the meaning of the Constitution by U.S. Supreme Court case law as is being done by Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg and the other liberal Justices by applying foreign case law to American cases on a more frequent basis and other examples that do not employ the constitutional amendment process.

Prohibition of alcohol is an example of society attempting to dynamically alter the Constitution through the amendment process by bending the constitution to moral values. This didn't work. The amendment process cannot be used to alter the Constitution based on moral values but should only be used to correct some defect in the Constitution itself in order to achieve the ideals of actual freedom.

 

[QKShooter]

We will never see Interstate Open Carry in the United States...Unless there is some sort of future catastrophic, &/or probably a years long protracted national emergency.

Maybe something horrific such as nationwide roving bands of infiltrated sniper type homicide bombers and terrorists.

Anything short of that & I think you would be trying to capture moonbeams in a jar. It is just not going to happen.

Just my personal opinion on that.

Good Luck To You Though.

 

[donhamrick]

We will never see Interstate Open Carry in the United States...Unless there is some sort of future catastrophic, &/or probably a years long protracted national emergency.

Maybe something horrific such as nationwide roving bands of infiltrated sniper type homicide bombers and terrorists.

Anything short of that & I think you would be trying to capture moonbeams in a jar. It is just not going to happen.

Just my personal opinion on that.

Good Luck To You Though.

Now that is a very honest and respectful opinion. Thank you.

Nevertheless, it is an originally protected and guaranteed right and duty under the Constitution. This fact cannot be ignored although the U.S. Government ignores it anyway. However, they exacerbate the circumstances that may cause the very scenario you describe by taking so long to shore up the Mexican border.

 

[QKShooter]

I respect anybody that gets "out there" & fights any good fight.

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.

Remember that even though there are seemingly MANY gun owners in America...however, compared to the total population ~ we are still a sad minority.
Of the total population of gun owners...I'm guessing that about 35% of them only own a firearm just to have one stuffed in under the underwear in the top dresser drawer "just in case"...but, are still not actively Pro Gun.
Then you have the occasional hunters that own a long gun or two but, have no interest at all in handguns....and so on down the line - until you finally get to an extremely low # of folks that would even possibly rally around the cause of Interstate Open Carry.

Then of course...of the defensive shooters that do wish to carry...most prefer to carry concealed and would not "open carry" even if they could. They believe that Open Carry gives away some tactical advantages & so while generally in favor of anything Pro Gun are not going to be highly motivated to jump in the fight.

Pitting all that against the Highly Vocal Liberal Left & the Left Leaning Media & all the ensuing talk about Returning To The Gunfighter Days Of The Wild West & Shoot~Outs...Blood Running Like Rivers In The Street & The Return To The OK Corral type B.S. & you sure do have an uphill climb on your hands.

And then (Of Course) We MUST NOT FORGET the 40% of Americans that...Cripes!...cannot even find Iraq YET on a world map & do not know the name of our Vice Prez...even though most DO know that "Bush" is the President.

I just best guessing that you'll not have many members on your team.
The stark reality of it is highly discouraging.

So...I am not trying to discourage you but, even if you have a valid constitutional argument...I don't know how you would ever force the high court to rule on it....without a national outcry/uproar. I just don't see how they would want to touch it.

BTW: That is why I thought it would be great for LEOs & Retired LEOs to get to carry Interstate Concealed.

I thought that LEOs doing that might set up some sort of Legal Precedent such as "Everybody Equal Under The Law" & might help swing open the door for Interstate Licensed Concealed Carry but, it does not even look like that is going to happen any time soon. There still might be some hope for that though.

If Interstate Concealed Carry gets OKed then I think you might have a shot. :yup:

 

[HotGuns]

I respect anybody that gets "out there" & fights any good fight.

Amen to that...

These days so many people are so apathetic that they have no convictions & stand for absolutely nothing.

You hit that one right on the money. An unfortunate circumstance...and a pitiful state of mind to be in...

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

The same apathy that will be the cause of the downfall of this nation.

 

[donhamrick]

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.

 

[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.

The Constitution is a static document in this regard because human behavior never changes, no matter how technologically advance a country is.

 

[donhamrick]

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).

 

[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....

 

[Rugerman]

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?