This man served 13 months in Federal Prison, what can we learn from his federal case?

[newbitech]

Richard A. Hamblen
Petitioner before the Supreme Court of the United States

Hamblem vs United States (09-9990[km])

Question before the Supreme Court:

"Whether the Second Amendment guarantees members of a legitimate state authorized militia the right to keep and bear arms supplied by themselves of the kind in common use by the military at the time."

Please review all the case files at the link below, and then check out the brief interview with Mr. Hamblen at the SRLC in New Orleans over the weekend April 11, 2010.

http://www.esnips.com/web/HamblenvsUnitedStates

Rich Hamblen is a Ron Paul supporter and posts in these forums from time to time.

YouTube - Richard A. Hamblen Challenges the Feds to Uphold Constitutional Rights

[BuddyRey]

What did he go to prison for?

[Pericles]

1. The 6th Circuit has no clue as to the meaning of the 2A.

2. As if point #1 was not bad enough, the court has no idea as to the language of "To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;" means the members of the militia not in active federal service are hands off to the Feds.

3. Points #1 and #2 above lead to the conclusion that any part of the National Firearms Act, and Gun Control Act of 1968 do not apply to weapons or persons in militia service (even if one were to allow that some part of such acts might in any way considered not to be violations of the 2A).

4. The above can only lead to the conclusion that the federal court system does not understand the limits to governmental power prescribed by the supreme law of the land.

How did I do?

[Live_Free_Or_Die]

If the supreme court does not rebut a writ with a ruling what does that mean?

[osan]

What we can learn from this case is the same old tired saw that government cannot be trusted to the door. Ever.

It seems to me that a quantum shift in thinking and perception is needed. Most people tacitly accept "government" as a material reality when in fact there is nothing to back that assumption. Instead of regarding the various agencies as "government", I think it may be helpful to think of them only in terms of "public services", a term that brings such agencies to their proper level, psychologically speaking. "Government" has a tendency to stand above the "ordinary citizen", whereas "public service" does precisely the opposite.

The ways in which we use language deeply affect the quality and nature of our thoughts, which in turn form our reality. When "government" is replaced with
"public service", I believe there arises the possibility of freeing ourselves from the overbearing sense of authority that "government" is more than happy to have us adopt, maintain, and cultivate to ever deepening degrees. Those in power exercise it only to the degree and manner we allow. If we, the people, alter the dialog away from the tacitly implied (and sometimes explicitly stated) authority of "the state/government", we take from those people much of the authority they assume over us by psychologically circumscribing them more closely. By so doing, we not only limit the authority they assume today, but equally limit that which they may dare usurp over time.

Politicians need to be kept on short leashes and it is up to each and every one of us to keep them that way. The past 60 years of overwhelming material prosperity has provided the people of the United States with a brilliant example of what happens when we allow the petty goals and conveniences of our personal lives to take gross precedence over the fundamental duty we hold to each other and ourselves to maintain our liberties. First and foremost this means that we universally adopt an attitude of extreme intolerance of any abuse of the public trust by public servants, always maintaining in our minds that that is all those people are and that they hold no innate authority over anyone. We may be appreciative of the jobs they do for us, but we also bear in mind that they are paid to do them and that they hold no authority to unilaterally expand their powers by either the mechanisms of legislation or policy. They hold no authority whatsoever to violate the rights of the people, and therefore such violations must be met with grim and unequivocal treatment by an irate populace. When the people develop this habit and position of wholesale intolerance for misbehavior on the part of those vested in the public trust, then we will begin to see the restoration of the Republic and not a minute before.

[pcosmar]

btw.
In another case, I just heard that David Olofson is on his way out and is presently in a halfway house.

That's 2 POWs out this week.

[newbitech]

If the supreme court does not rebut a writ with a ruling what does that mean?

Hey Shawn, from what I understand, the "Supremes" have sole discretion on what cases they will hear. From what I have learned, D.C. vs Heller was the case chosen to be heard instead of this one.

If the Supreme Court does not answer this case, then the case then the case goes away. In order for these questions to be brought before the court again, a similar case would have to come up.

What I have learned is that Federal Court system has lost its check on its power. That is to say that the Supreme Court is not a viable path for protecting liberty if the court is allowed to simply ignore the Constitutionality of laws AND other rulings.

Not only is the court allowed to ignore cases, laws, and rulings that contain evidence, blatant abridgment of rights, and internal contradictions, the Supreme Court has absolutely no interest in maintaining its own integrity if it risks causing a political stir. The Supreme Court will take the easy way out whenever it can.

[Matt Collins]

Rich Hamblen and his case were recently discussed on Lew Rockwell's site:

http://www.lewrockwell.com/blog/lewr...ves/55862.html


.

[Matt Collins]

http://www.humblelibertarian.com/201...ase-brief.html

[Matt Collins]

Here is Rich Hamblen being interviewed on Free Talk Radio last week:
http://www.zshare.net/audio/758008255a995ee5/#

[IPSecure]

Hey Shawn, from what I understand, the "Supremes" have sole discretion on what cases they will hear. From what I have learned, D.C. vs Heller was the case chosen to be heard instead of this one.

If the Supreme Court does not answer this case, then the case then the case goes away. In order for these questions to be brought before the court again, a similar case would have to come up.

What I have learned is that Federal Court system has lost its check on its power. That is to say that the Supreme Court is not a viable path for protecting liberty if the court is allowed to simply ignore the Constitutionality of laws AND other rulings.

Not only is the court allowed to ignore cases, laws, and rulings that contain evidence, blatant abridgment of rights, and internal contradictions, the Supreme Court has absolutely no interest in maintaining its own integrity if it risks causing a political stir. The Supreme Court will take the easy way out whenever it can.

Questions:

Do other courts have the ability to not hear cases?

Should the courts, including the supreme be required to hear all cases?
Was this the case, when the supreme court was established?

How fricken long does it take for the supreme court to rule on a case?
It should be as simple as: Does what ever happened violate the Constitution? Yes / No? Done, next case.

[Pericles]

Questions:

Do other courts have the ability to not hear cases?

Should the courts, including the supreme be required to hear all cases?
Was this the case, when the supreme court was established?

How fricken long does it take for the supreme court to rule on a case?
It should be as simple as: Does what ever happened violate the Constitution? Yes / No? Done, next case.

If a court does not want to hear a case, there is always the lack of standing (you personally are not adversely impacted) or lack of jurisdiction (go somewhere else).

If the SCOTUS does not take the case (only has to if state vs. state, diplomats and a few other things as original jurisdiction) the decision of the other court stands.

The Hamblen case is important, because he can claim the lower court is not following the US v. Miller decision of the SCOTUS.

Some background on the Miller case - Miller was state's witness in a bank robber case who took a short barrel shotgun across state lines without having a NFA tax stamp.

These facts are not in dispute, and Miller's lawyer filed a motion to dismiss on grounds of the 2A.

The district court granted the motion:

The defendants in this case are charged with unlawfully and feloniously transporting in interstate commerce from the town of Claremore, Oklahoma to the town of Siloam Springs in the State of Arkansas, a double barrel twelve gauge shot gun having a barrel less than eighteen inches in length, and at the time of so transporting said fire arm in interstate commerce they did not have in their possession a stamp-affixed written order for said fire arm as required by Section 1132 c, Title 26 U. S. C. A., and the regulations issued under the authority of said Act of Congress known as the National Fire Arms Act.

The defendants in due time filed a demurrer challenging the sufficiency of the facts stated in the indictment to constitute a crime and further challenging the sections under which said indictment was returned as being in contravention of the Second Amendment to the Constitution of the United States.

The indictment is based upon the Act of June 26, 1934, c.757, Section 11, 48 Statute 1239. The court is of the opinion that this section is invalid in that it violates the Second Amendment to the Constitution of the United States providing, "A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed."

The demurrer is accordingly sustained.

This the 11 day of June 1938.

{signed} Heartsill Ragon

United States District Judge.


He was the re indited for failing to pay the $200 tax on the shotgun.


The district judge tossed it again:


The defendants in this case are charged with unlawfully and feloniously transporting in interstate commerce from the town of Claremore, Oklahoma, to the town of Siloam Springs in the State of Arkansas, a double barrel twelve gauge shot gun having a barrel less than eighteen inches in length, and at the time of so transporting said fire arm in interstate commerce they did not have in their possession a stamp-affixed written order for said fire arm as required by Section 1132 c, Title 26 U. S. C. A., and the regulations issued under the authority of said Act of Congress known as the National Fire Arms Act.

The defendants in due time filed a demurrer challenging the sufficiency of the facts stated in the indictment to constitute a crime and further challenging the sections under which said indictment was returned as being in contravention of the Second Amendment to the Constitution of the United States.

The indictment is based upon the Act of June 26, 1934, C.757, Section 11, 48 Statute 1239. The court is of the opinion that this section is invalid in that it violates the Second Amendment to the Constitution of the United States providing, "A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed."

The demurrer is accordingly sustained.

This the 3rd day of January 1939.

{signed} Heartsill Ragon

United States District Judge.


The US appealed to the 5th Circuit court.


They kicked it directly to the SCOTUS


In compliance with Rule 12 of the Supreme Court of the United States, as amended, the United States of America submits herewith its statement showing the basis of the jurisdiction of the Supreme Court to entertain an appeal in this cause:

A. The statutory jurisdiction of the Supreme Court to review by direct appeal the judgement complained of is conferred by Title 18, Section 682, of the United States Code, otherwise known as the "Criminal Appeals Act", and by Section 345, Title 28, of the United States Code.

B. The statute of the United States, the constitutionality of which is involved herein, is Section 11 of the National Firearms Act of June 26, 1934, c. 757, 48 Stat. 1236, 1239 (U.S.C., Title 26, Sec. 1132j).




Before the case was heard by the SCOTUS, Miller was murdered and did not appear before the SCOTUS, so the case was never argued by Miller's legal counsel - only the lawyer for the US appeared before the court.

Remember the question before the SCOTUS - was the district court in error for granting the motion to dismiss as unconstitutional for the $200 tax stamp to be required under the NFA, taking all evidence in a light most favorable to the other side as required in granting a motion to dismiss.


The SCOTUS ruled the motion to dismiss in error, as there could be justification for a tax on weapons not used for militia service, and evidence that such a shotgun would be useful in militia service would have to be presented before it would be constitutionally protected.

I would like to think the SCOTUS had the Militia Act of 1792 in mind when stating its opionion:"every citizen so enrolled, and providing himself with the arms, ammunition and accoutrements, required as aforesaid, shall hold the same exempted from all suits, distresses, executions or sales, for debt or for the payment of taxes."

Therefore the importance of the Hamblen case is that subjecting arms of military utility for militia service to the NFA would be contrary to the SCOTUS decision in the Miller case, as Hamblen was a member of an enrolled militia (TN Satae Guard) and possessed weapons of military utility of a type formerly used by the Army. The Heller decision also applies as the RKBA predates the constitution - as does the militia. Hamblen's conviction is contrary to Miller and current court thinking in Heller.

It is important to take this approach, as trying to get the court to break "new" ground is hard, and arguing that the court either has to overturn Hamblen's conviction, or overturn previous SCOTUS decisions is more likely to reverse the conviction. Reversing the conviction would invalidate the NFA and GCA for military grade weapons, as useful in militia service. Then we can argue if M-16s and .50 cal machine guns are protected under the 2A, why not other arms?

[mikem317]

Wasn't GOA trying to help out the non-political prisoners of the Hamblem household?

I think I remember contributing to that cause.

My fellow Americans: You don't live in a free country.

[ZanZibar]

hmmm

[The Beastly One]

Hey Shawn, from what I understand, the "Supremes" have sole discretion on what cases they will hear. From what I have learned, D.C. vs Heller was the case chosen to be heard instead of this one.

If the Supreme Court does not answer this case, then the case then the case goes away. In order for these questions to be brought before the court again, a similar case would have to come up.

What I have learned is that Federal Court system has lost its check on its power. That is to say that the Supreme Court is not a viable path for protecting liberty if the court is allowed to simply ignore the Constitutionality of laws AND other rulings.

Not only is the court allowed to ignore cases, laws, and rulings that contain evidence, blatant abridgment of rights, and internal contradictions, the Supreme Court has absolutely no interest in maintaining its own integrity if it risks causing a political stir. The Supreme Court will take the easy way out whenever it can.

I couldn't have said it better myself. The fact is that the supreme court has been the political handmaiden of the regimeist governments of the last 40 years. It is a rarity in recent supreme court history to find a ruling based on common sense, logic, and Constitutional Law. The Founders wrote the Constitution in PLAIN english of the day so that even the common man would have no trouble deciphering its text. The "Constitutional" Judges and Lawyers only question "what the founders REALLY meant" at the behest and often the direct order of the established regime. The text of the Constitution is plain to the common man of even the most primitive education, and it was meant to be read so. The Supreme Court of our land was designed to be the final bastion of the peoples rights against possible State tyranny, built and designed so that even if lower level courts were somehow manipulated or politically corrupted, the rights of the people would ultimately be defended against any who would infringe upon them. In our time, however, the lifetime appointments to Supreme Court Judge have been bought and paid for in many different ways, and the Corruptors only need to get a portion of the Judges to comply with their wishes in order to accomplish their goals. In that way they can still allow honest men and women to achieve the honored seat of Supreme Court Justice in order to maintain teh APPEARANCE of legitimacy, when really the Supreme Court is just as corrupt and politically motivated as the rest of our corrupt, big whig, corporate puppet-ship which we call government...The fact that they are allowed to ignore cases was only supposed to apply to cases where there was no Constitutional issue at bar, but even in cases where the Constitution has been abridged and circumvented by lower courts, if your case is politically contrary to the regime of the day, your chances are slim and none at getting your case before the Supreme Court, let alone winning it there.

[Pericles]

Not so hard to understand. FDR threatened to pack the court, and it looked like he had the capability of doing so. The SCOTUS caved, and the Constitution (what was left of it after the 16th and 17th Amendments) died.