Missourians approve Prop C, the Health Care Freedom Act

by Jessica Machetta on August 3, 2010

in Uncategorized

Proposition C, also known as the Health Care Freedom Act, has been approved by Missouri voters.

Prop C was placed on the ballot as a referendum after being passed by the Missouri Legislature and authorizes Missourians to opt out of the federal healthcare plan passed by Congress earlier this year.

With 2,681 of 3,354 precincts reporting, 72.7 percent of Missouri voters approved the measure.

“Tonight is a historic night,” said Lt. Governor Peter Kinder. “Missourians have the distinction of being the first Americans to go to the ballot box and reject the reckless federal health care takeover. From Massachusetts to Virginia to Missouri, voters are rejecting the extreme liberal agenda being forced upon our nation by an out-of-control federal government.”

Kinder has filed a lawsuit against the federal government on behalf of Missouri, claiming the federal healthcare plan is unconstitutional.

Clearly the measure is split down party lines.

Kinder is the only Republican to hold statewide office. Democrats Gov. Nixon and Attorney General Chris Koster did not support the move.

Sen. Jane Cunningham, a Republican, fostered the bill through the Missouri Senate.

“Missourians have sent Washington a clear message: stay out of our health care decisions,” she said. “For more than a year, Americans have taken to the streets to protest the federal government’s irresponsible agenda. Washington liberals didn’t listen when they rammed through Congress their reckless health care bill — but they can’t help but hear us now.”

Cunningham noted that Prop C does present a conflict with federal law and the case will likey come down to a decision by the Supreme Court.

She also noted that Prop C does not prevent Missourians from participating in the federal healthcare system, it simply gives them a choice.

Four other states will vote on a similar measure in upcoming primaries.

via Missourians approve Prop C, the Health Care Freedom Act.

We want to thank all those amazing organizations who have helped Missouri break free from the shackles of the federal government on this issue.  We realize that with the passage of this issue, the fight is not truly over.  However, today we won a major battle and have told the federal government to back off.

Missouri to Vote on Health Law
By KEVIN SACK
Published: July 31, 2010

ST. CHARLES, Mo. — For all its symbolic import, the first plebiscite on the Obama health care law, to be held Tuesday in Missouri, seems likely to be a low-turnout affair among an electorate dominated by Republican primary voters and conservative activists.

State Senators Jim Lembke and Jane Cunningham watching a commercial for Proposition C at a fund-raiser last week.

Missouri is the first of at least three states with ballot measures this year aimed at nullifying the federal health care law by invalidating its keystone provision, the requirement that most people obtain insurance or pay a tax penalty. A recent statewide poll in Missouri found that not even likely Democratic voters could muster a majority against the proposition.

The referendum on the measure, known as Proposition C, is seen as an organizational test for the Tea Party and like-minded conservatives in a swing state that President Obama lost narrowly in 2008 and that has since moved measurably away from him.

But the campaign has been a low-key affair, with no television advertising, debates or celebrity Facebook endorsements. Leading Democrats, from Mr. Obama to Gov. Jay Nixon, have kept their distance, seeing little to be gained by contesting what strategists dismiss as a Republican straw poll with a foregone conclusion.

The most competitive elections in Tuesday’s primary are on the Republican side, meaning turnout should be higher among those with natural sympathies for Proposition C. There are 291 Republicans competing for state and federal office, compared with 208 Democrats.

The Missouri secretary of state, Robin Carnahan, who is herself expected to coast to the Democratic nomination for United States Senate, predicted that only 24 percent of voters would turn out.

Of 20 Missourians interviewed at random in St. Louis last week, only five knew that there was a primary on Tuesday, much less a referendum on the health care law.

“Really, there is?” said Jeff R. Swaney, 53, a lawyer from Chesterfield, a St. Louis suburb. “I wasn’t even aware it was on the ballot. I haven’t seen any commercials.”

Supporters of Proposition C are hoping for a substantial victory that will convey a message of discontent with expansive federal government and rally other states and candidates to press the issue through the fall campaign.

“This is a throw-down by the states, saying, ‘Not in our state, you don’t,’ ” State Senator Jim Lembke, a Republican, said at a rally for the proposition here on Wednesday. “This health care thing is just a vehicle, a vehicle for the debate about what is the role of the federal government and what is the role of the states.”

No grass-roots organization has formed to oppose the measure, and the unions and consumer groups that lobbied for the federal health care law have steered clear. Mr. Obama did not take time to denounce Proposition C when he visited Missouri in early June.

“The proposition will have no legal standing, so I don’t know why there’d be a reason to focus on it,” said Brian B. Zuzenak, executive director of the Missouri Democratic Party. “From the beginning, we’ve said it’s meaningless and unconstitutional. At best, it’s a ploy by the Republicans to get their base excited.”

Comparable measures have already been enacted by legislatures in five states — Arizona, Georgia, Idaho, Louisiana and Virginia — according to the American Legislative Exchange Council, a conservative group that is pushing the initiatives. Arizona and Oklahoma are scheduled to vote in the November general election on state constitutional amendments to nullify the insurance requirement. A judge in Florida tossed a similar constitutional amendment off that state’s ballot last week, sayings its language was too overtly political.

The nullification laws are expected to have little immediate practical impact, because the insurance requirement does not take effect until 2014. And by then, the federal courts are likely to have had much to say about whether the new health care law is constitutional, and thus beyond the reach of state efforts to invalidate it.

Elected officials in 22 states, almost all Republicans, have filed lawsuits challenging the so-called individual insurance mandate. Among them, Virginia has made a direct claim that the federal law conflicts with its own 2010 statute, which asserts that residents of the commonwealth cannot be compelled to obtain health insurance.

The most recent lawsuit was filed individually by Missouri’s lieutenant governor, Peter D. Kinder, a Republican who acted without the support of Governor Nixon.

In the Missouri referendum, voters will be asked whether state law — not the State Constitution — should be amended to “deny the government authority to penalize citizens for refusing to purchase private insurance or infringe upon the right to offer or accept direct payment for lawful health care services.”

In May, Republican legislators, who control both houses, cut a deal with Democrats to put the question on the ballot. The Democrats agreed not to filibuster if the referendum was held during the August primary rather than the November general election, said State Senator Jane Cunningham, a Republican who sponsored the bill. With an open seat for the Senate on the line, the Democrats did not want to encourage heavy turnout among conservatives in November.

The legislation passed each chamber comfortably, winning a number of Democratic votes. By addressing the issue as a statutory ballot measure, the lawmakers managed to bypass Mr. Nixon, whose signature would otherwise be needed.

A spokesman for Mr. Nixon declined to reveal how the governor would vote on the referendum. The governor acknowledges that the health care law is not popular in his state, but has said he will work to maximize its benefits for Missouri. “This isn’t about protest,” he said recently. “It’s about progress.”

Support for the proposition is being rallied by Missourians for Health Care Freedom, which formed as an outgrowth of the legislative debate. The group raised $75,000 as of July 24, enough for radio advertising, yard signs and get-out-the-vote telephone banks, but not enough for television commercials.

“Do you think Washington knows what’s best for you and your family?” asks the group’s radio ad, which is playing on Christian and conservative talk stations.

The referendum is supported by the Missouri State Medical Association. The only organized opposition — beyond a Facebook page — has been mounted by the Missouri Hospital Association, which has spent more than $400,000 to send mailings to hundreds of thousands of homes, according to financial disclosure reports. The brochures warn that approval of Proposition C could burden hospitals, and their insured patients, with the cost of uncompensated care for people without health coverage.

“There’s an argument that a vote for Proposition C is a vote in support of freeloaders,” said David M. Dillon, a spokesman for the hospital association.

Mr. Dillon said there was no corresponding get-out-the-vote operation.

“I don’t even have someone I can direct people to,” he said. “There really isn’t an organized opposition. Frankly, we don’t want it perceived that we’re opposing it. But we certainly want people to understand that their choice has some implications.”
A version of this article appeared in print on August 1, 2010, on page A14 of the New York edition.

There is an election next Tuesday, August 3rd.  On that ballot you will find Proposition C, the Health Care Freedom Act which was passed in the last legislative session by a bipartisan, super majority vote of the House and Senate.

Proposition C provides Missourians a voice in the future of their own health care.

A “Yes” vote on Proposition C preserves your present right to keep your own health insurance plan or choose any other private plan or no plan without being penalized for that choice.  It also allows Missourians to select the federal government designed and approved insurance plan.

A “No” vote on Proposition C would limit Missourians to only a government designed and approved plan.

The ballot language reads:

Shall the Missouri Statutes be amended to:

*”Deny the government authority to penalize citizens for refusing to purchase private health insurance or infringe upon the right to offer or accept direct payment for lawful healthcare services.

*Modify laws regarding the liquidation of certain domestic insurance companies?”

The entire language of the two page bill may be found at the following link: http://www.house.mo.gov/billtracking/bills101/biltxt/truly/HB1764T.HTM.  It simply states that government may not, “penalize citizens for refusing to purchase private health insurance or infringe upon the right to offer or accept direct payment for lawful healthcare services.”  It does not require that the state opt out of any federal program or bar Missourians from participating in any plan of their choice including the federally designed plan.

If Proposition C passes on August 3rd, it will become a Missouri statute.

Missourians will be the first Americans in the nation to have a vote on this issue.  It is a very important election.  Many people around the country will be watching for the Show-Me State election results.

For even more information, check out this website:  http://www.mohealthfreedom.org/

The Liberty Restoration Project held a counter protest/rally in SUPPORT of Prop C yesterday on the Plaza in Kansas City.  There was a rally AGAINST Prop C at the same time, same place as well.  We had well over 30 people come out in support of Prop C, handed out fliers educating the public on the issue, and urging voters to vote YES on Tuesday, August 3.  We had a great amount of positive feedback from passersby.  Many honked their horns and gave us the thumbs up!!  Below are photos and a video from yesterdays rally:

Yes On Prop C: What You Won't Read In the Kansas City Star

July 28, 2010 10:40 PM

By Jane Cunningham

(The following is a rejected submission to the Kansas City Star)

I encourage your readers to vote yes on Proposition C, The Health Care Freedom Act, on August 3. It is a critical election since Missourians will be the first Americans in the nation to have a vote on Obamacare. Many around the country will be watching the election results from the Show-Me State.

In response to your July 23 editorial on Proposition C, my first reaction as the sponsor of the bill was, had you bothered to check with its sponsors you would have saved yourself the embarrassment of bold face inaccuracies.

The language of the measure simply states that the government may not “penalize citizens for refusing to purchase private health insurance or infringe upon the right to offer or accept direct payment for lawful healthcare services.” It does not require the state to opt out of any federal program or bar Missourians from participating in any plan of their choice including any federally designed and approved plan. It would only keep them from being penalized, including criminally, for exercising their choices regarding healthcare.

The Health Care Freedom Act passed the Missouri Legislature with an overwhelming, bipartisan, supermajority vote of the House and the Senate with 68% of elected Representatives and Senators supporting the measure. Legislators in 42 States, or 84% of the states in the union, introduced similar measures in a push back of historic proportions against the intrusive overreach of the federal government in the area of health care.

If the Health Care Freedom Act is ratified by a majority of the voters on August 3, it will become a statute that will authorize Missouri’s Attorney General to defend Missourians against the mandates and penalties of Obamacare. Unlike you, that is hardly what I would call “futile.”

Eventually, the Missouri law, joined with similar laws and constitutional amendments from other states, will work its way to the US Supreme Court for a decision that has never been made in the history of America – is the Commerce Clause of the US Constitution so broad that the federal government can force individuals and employers to purchase a product — any product — with their own money against their will. Many constitutional attorneys and scholars believe that it is not. If the Kansas City Star believes that is a “futile” question to have addressed, perhaps you need to review the historical account of the Boston Tea Party with the resulting revolution and sacrifice that was made to protect similar rights.

With regard to your prediction that premiums would be reduced under the federal law, we need look no further than Massachusetts where a similar program to the federal mandate law has been tried. The results: premiums rose 40% and uninsured visits to the emergency rooms remained the same or rose slightly.

You stated that Proposition C was “instigated by an advocacy group amply funded by health insurers and drug companies.” This is just flat untrue! Had you done your homework by checking the Missouri Ethics Commission financial reports where all donations are required to be disclosed, you would have seen that no donations to the campaign committee, Missourians for Health Care Freedom, came from insurance or drug companies. I will accept your public apology for this misrepresentation of our effort on behalf of hundreds of citizens who flooded the Capitol urging relief from the federal takeover. This is the people’s bill and the people’s campaign from the bottom up.

Contrary to your statement about the ballots, Proposition C cost nothing to add to an already available ballot. Had you bothered to check the publicly available fiscal note on the bill from the Capitol Fiscal Oversight Office, you would have seen that a nonpartisan review showed a fiscal note of zero. Fiscal notes are required of all legislation that is considered in the House or Senate.

How you conclude that this will increase legal costs I don’t know since the Attorney General’s office is responsible for defending Missouri Statutes. That budget item remains the same no matter how many or how few state cases the office tries.

And, by the way, there is precedent for state laws to trump federal law contrary to your assertion.

I hope you will check your facts first for future recommendations, but perhaps there was never an intention for facts to interfere with your viewpoint.

It really boils down to whether you want government to make your health care choices or you want to make them yourself. If you want to make them yourself, you should vote yes on Proposition C.

via Yes On Prop C: What You Won’t Read In the Kansas City Star.

Vote “YES” on Prop C Rally – The Plaza

Today · 5:00pm – 6:30pm

Location Across from the Fountain at the Kansas City Plaza

47th and JC Nichols Parkway

Kansas City, MO

There is a rally for Vote “NO” on Prop C in the same location, we will be across the street. They're spreading misinformation about the bill and we need to educate people on the TRUTH!

Vote “YES!” on Prop C – August 3rd

via Facebook | Vote “YES” on Prop C Rally – The Plaza.

Special HFAC Screening Event: “Don’t Tread On Me” Tuesday, July 20, 2010

Location:  Johnson County Library – Antioch Branch, 8700 W. Shawnee Mission Parkway (NW corner of Shawnee Mission and Antioch Road – map and directions

William Lewis will also conduct a Q&A session afterwards, and we are lining up other people featured in the movie to participate and give their thoughts on the long-term direction of the “Freedom Movement” in this country.

Meet & Greet: 6:00pm
The screening will start promptly at 6:30, so don’t be late!

Figuring Out the Fed: A Conversation with Allan Meltzer and Tom Hoenig

Allan Meltzer, the leading historian of the nation’s central bank, and Tom Hoenig, president of the Federal Reserve Bank of Kansas City, join Crosby Kemper III, director of the Kansas City Public Library for a public conversation on the past, present, and future of the Federal Reserve System. The program takes place on Wednesday, July 21, at 6:30 p.m. at the Central Library, 14 W. 10th St.

Admission is free. A 6 p.m. reception precedes the presentation. RSVP online or call 816.701.3407. Free parking is available at the Library District Parking Garage at 10th & Baltimore.

Liberty Restoration Project – Man on the Street – Street Team event

We will meet up at the Westport Coffee House at Noon, Thursday, July 22.  Please bring a video camera if you have it.  We will disseminate fliers to those who come to the event to then pass out to people on the streets.  We will arm you with a few questions to use for the Man on the Street action and then you’ll be free to find people on the street willing to go on camera answering the questions.  More information will be discussed at the meetup.

Liberty Restoration Project Bi-Monthly Meeting

Sunday, July 25, 4pm

Westport Flea Market

We will be discussing future events as well as our Man on the Street activism, meeting with council members, and more.  Please join us for this!!

Protest to end the occupations/the global empire!

I think we’ve given Obama enough time to fulfill his promise to bring our troops home. He said 16 months, it’s been 16 months.

Let’s peacefully demonstrate to end the occupation and bring our men and women home. Let’s rally to stop funding these wars.

KANSAS CITY AREA PROTEST/RALLY
Sunday, June 6th
2-4pm
At the Fountain on the Plaza
47th and JC Nichols Parkway
Kansas City, MO

SAINT LOUIS AREA PROTEST/RALLY
Sunday, June 6th
Noon – 2pm
The Hampton Round About near the Zoo
St. Louis, MO

COLUMBIA AREA PROTEST/RALLY
Sunday, June 6th
1-3pm
Corner of 9th and Broadway, Downtown Columbia
Columbia, Mo

Any other groups interested in joining us? Please forward to other groups as well.

Thank you!!

Iraq Veterans Against War will be joining forces with LRP for this event!!

This is a posting of local events and issues coming up in the next week that Liberty Restoration Project will be involved with:

Tuesday, May 4th
We will be in Jefferson City for the CODE BLUE HEALTH CARE FREEDOM ACT RALLY
Show Me State Sovereignty
Code Blue Rally
When: Tuesday, May 4, 10:00 a.m.
Where: Missouri State Capitol – Senate Gallery
Why: We must show up in huge numbers so Senators know we mean business. “We the People” want a ballot option to protect our families from federal health control. (Wear Red)

Rally at noon in the first floor rotunda!

Hear from the sponsors of the resolutions and leaders of the Missouri Sovereignty effort in the Missouri General Assembly – Sen. Jane Cunningham, Rep. Tim Jones, Sen. Jim Lembke, Rep. Brian Nieves and others.

They have set up a fun activity before the rally if you’re interested:
9:30 a.m. to 10:00 a.m. – Join in the Rolling Tea Party circling the Capitol. Decorate your car with balloons, flags, writing on the glass – however creative or not creative you want to be. We are alerting the press and the members of the General Assembly to step out of the Capitol at that time and watch the patriots as they circle the Capitol in support of the Health Care Freedom Act.
At 9:55 a.m., honk your car horn for two minutes.
Drivers should then drop off your passengers so they can go in and find seats in the Senate Gallery. They can save a seat for the driver so the driver can join them after the car is parked.

Wednesday, May 5th
SUPPORT Urban Farming
Kansas City City Hall, 26th Floor
1:30pm

A lovely message from BADSEED:

This is crazy Farmer Brooke and I am down on my dirt-stained knees begging you to drop everything on Wednesday, May 5th at 1:30 PM and get your “organic” booties down to City Hall on the 26th Floor to SUPPORT URBAN AGRICULTURE at the final hearing before City Council to vote on city code changes that will make it possible for urban farms and gardens to flourish throughout KC!!

As you know, this movement to amend the city codes regarding farms & gardens came out of the BADSEED crisis which began last season when our idyllic farm came under scrutiny from the City and was threatened to be dismantled. Consequently, we are in fact moving to a new location. We may have lost the battle here on BADSEED Farm, but all the heart-ache will be worth it IF as a result we get a “greener” Kansas City at large. Heck Yeah!!!

We Kansas Citians are very fortunate to have some awesome “forward-thinking” and “environmentally aware” individuals on our City Council who have pushed this codes change forward. However – there is plenty of opposition and without the showing of community support this thing will get squashed under the pressure of politically powerful “tomato-haters”……ya know…..the same folks who rose up against BADSEED Farm in the first place. Why?? Well, come weed an onion bed with me, and I will tell ya all about it….

Okay Okay – on a more serious note – I need you! My urban eggplant needs you. We need you to support us on May 5th!

Pretty pretty PLEASE with heirloom tomato sauce on top of it……

If you cannot make it down to City Hall you can always e-mail a “short and sweet” letter of support to your City Council representatives at city_council@kcmo.org. PLEASE contact me if you need more info or details.

If this thing passes it will actually be legal for you to come and weed my onion beds with me!! Haha!

Yours Truly,
Brooke
-farmer and mistress of the BADSEED

Saturday, May 8th
Red Light Camera protest at 39th and Southwest Trafficway
Noon to 2pm
You know the drill, you’ve seen us out there at least 3 times this year. This is BIG PUSH!! Details as follows:

For the past year, Senator Jim Lembke and Campaign for Liberty members have worked on banning Red Light Cameras. Senator Lembke’s amendment to ban red light cameras passed in the Missouri Senate this Tuesday. With a little more work, that legislation now has a good chance of passing in the Missouri House.

Red Light Cameras have been a violation of your rights and they do not provide due process. We need your help to insure that this ban becomes law and is not stripped in committee from HB2111. The bill’s fate lies in the hands of these legislators:

Please call:

your state representative (contact info here www.house.mo.gov )

Senator Stouffer (sponsor of the bill) (314) 751-1507

Representative Dixon (committee chair) (573) 751-9809

Representative Faith (573) 751-1452

Encourage support of this ban.

Here are some talking points associated with the lack of due process:

Due Process: says that government must respect all of the legal rights that are owed to a person according to the law. Due process holds the government submissive to the law of the land, protecting individual persons from the state.

The 5th amendment to the constitution says that no person shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law.

Because of municipality’s use of a ‘rebuttable presumption,’ or a presumption that the driver of the car is the owner of the car, and a failure of the municipality to provide evidence against the driver of the car, individuals are forced incriminate themselves or investigate, provide evidence, and incriminate another.

Forcing the owner of the car to incriminate another, in many cases a family member, can be a violation of a person’s right to spousal privilege (the right to not incriminate or testify against your spouse).

Municipalities use a presumption of guilt, not innocence, and punish our Missouri citizens based on the assumption that the individual who owned the car is the individual who ran the red light. If you are innocent you must provide proof of your innocence vs. the state providing proof of your guilt.

Thank Senator Lembke, Josh Carter and Tracy Ward for leading the effort to stop this violation of Missouri citizen’s rights.

Paul Hamby
Missouri Coordinator
Campaign For Liberty

*Much thanks from Liberty Restoration Project to Paul Hamby for getting this message spread far and wide and helping promote the protest as well!!!

I hope to see some of you at the upcoming events!! If you know of something that Liberty Restoration Project should attend, let me know and I’ll get it posted!!

Published with permission of Richard Hamblen:

Brief Introduction to
Hamblen vs United States
(09-9990)

Richard A. Hamblen was a commissioned officer in the state militia of Tennessee, the Tennessee State Guard, and battalion commander of the 201st Military Police Battalion. He committed an act of civil disobedience by defying the National Firearms Act of 1934 and building for his use, and the use of the soldiers in his command, firearms that are, in the words of the United States Supreme Court, in United States vs Miller, “part of the ordinary military equipment… of the type in common use at the time, which could reasonably contribute to the common defense”.

Hamblen was tried and convicted in 2006 for violating the NFA of 1934 and the 922(o) laws. He served 13 months in federal prison, and 24 months of probation. His case was appealed to the Supreme Court at the exact same time as Heller vs DC. Certiorari was denied without comment. In December of 2008, Hamblen filed a petition for writ of habeas corpus, in which US District Court Judge Todd Campbell said Hamblen “made a substantial showing of the denial of his constitutional rights as regards his Second Amendment claim”. The case is now once again before the Supreme Court.
Question presented to the 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”

Hamblen’s argument is this:

1. Hamblen’s case is the first Second Amendment case to be presented to the Court involving an actual member of a statutorily created state militia, and should be accepted for this reason.

2. The Heller decision contradicts the Court’s earlier ruling in Miller by selectively quoting from Miller. Heller claims that, according to Miller, the Second Amendment protects only those arms which are “in common use at the time”. The actual quote is “part of the ordinary military equipment of the type in common use at the time, which could reasonably contribute to the common defense”. Only the Supreme Court can resolve the conflict between the two cases.

3. Heller gets the facts of Miller wrong. Heller states that Miller and his codefendant appealed their conviction for violating the NFA of 1934. In truth, it was the government appealing the dismissal of the charges against the two. The surviving defendant in Miller was not even represented in the Supreme Court. The Court nevertheless did not accept the prosecution’s argument, but said, rather, in the “absence of any evidence” in the trial record that the weapon in question was “part of the ordinary military equipment, of the type in common use at the time, which could reasonably contribute to the common defense”, they could not say the Second Amendment protected it and the case was remanded to the original jurisdiction for further discovery to expand the record. The surviving defendant, instead of introducing the evidence to meet the standard set by the Court, obligingly plead guilty in exchange for a sentence of probation.

4. The United States is prevented by the Constitution from exercising any authority over the Militia, unless and until the Militia is in the actual service of the United States. Under all other circumstances the Militia is under the jurisdiction of the “several states”. Furthermore, the Second Amendment, adopted in 1791, overrides any authority over arms claimed by the United States under any provision of the 1787 Constitution, just as the 13th Amendment removes any protections for chattel slavery found in the 1787 Constitution. The Militia is the only institution named by the Constitution as “necessary for the security of a free state”. The purpose of the Second Amendment is, as Miller says, to preserve and maintain the efficiency of the Militia. For the United States to do anything to impair this goal defeats the purpose of the Second Amendment, and, since the Constitution cannot be internally contradictory, such action is nonsensical.

Hamblen vs United States deserves the consideration and support of all who claim to defend the Second Amendment. Given the circumstances of his case, if Hamblen is not protected by the Second Amendment, then no one is.

Mr. Hamblen talks about his case to the Motorhome Diaries:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VTTYyO_8N9M&feature=related

To follow this case or read more about it:  http://www.esnips.com/web/HamblenvsUnitedStates

Your friend in Liberty,

Renea McMasters