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

The gun banning front group Mayors Against Illegal Guns, headed by New York’s Mayor Bloomberg, came out with a full page ad in the Washington Post recommending that the Federal Government now link the secret No Fly list to National Instant Background Check System (NICS) and use this to prevent gun owners on the list from buying guns.

And just last week, Attorney General Eric Holder endorsed this legislation on behalf of the Obama Administration. Fortunately for US gun owners, Congress has failed to act and that is why Bloomberg’s MAIG is now pushing to connect the two.

According to the Government Accountability Office, over the past five years people on the terrorist watch list, also called the No Fly List bought guns more than 850 times. This is a Secret List kept by the federal government that has no rhyme or reason as to who gets on it and no known way to get off it.  Remember, this is the same secret list that the late Senator Kennedy was listed on for a period of time, preventing him from flying on commercial airlines.

In addition to the No Fly list MAIG is also calling for closure of the imaginary Gun Show Loop Hole and a repeal of Tiahrt Amendments which require the FBI to destroy records of approved background checks performed on gun purchasers within 24 hours.

ACTION 1: Check the Mayors Against Illegal Guns website and see what Mayors belonging to MAIG live in your state and call them and demand they resign from a group that’s mission is banning legal gun ownership and infringing on your second amendment rights. http://www.mayorsagainstillegalguns.org/

ACTION 2: Write your congressman and demand that they Vote down any attempts by the Obama Administration and MAIG to introduce any bills that would allow the secret government No Fly list to be linked with the National Instant Background Check System.

An overview of District of Columbia V. Heller
http://www.scotuswiki.com/index.php?title=DC_v._Heller

Knowledge is infinite. Knowledge is power. Knowledge is the truth and the power to overcome obstacles.

As I look around me everyday I see fear. I see fear expressed on people’s faces and I hear it in their voices. I ask myself, “where is all this fear coming from?” And, I wonder if all this fear is rational. It is important to remember that good decision making comes with a reasonable assessment of threats.

The concept of threat is what I want to address and what I want you to take from this encounter. There is one thing that I know about human behavior and motivation: Either real or perceived, a threat triggers a chemical response in the brain and body. A threat may not be real, but if a person perceives something as a threat the perceived threat is very real to that person and triggers the same physiological response.

In regard to firearms, a gun pointed at you is a real threat and your fear is rational. This is true no matter who you are or where you are from. I want you to think about this for a moment. I am not here to preach to the choir. I know what side of the Second Amendment you are on. I am here to ask you to consider the great responsibility that is attached to the freedom the Second Amendment grants us.

I am not here to add to your fear of losing your right to keep and bear arms. There is enough of that. Are there people out there who want to take firearms out of the hands of citizens? Yes… Of course. I question the rationality of our fear of loosing our right to keep and bear arms. I guess I just know that no one is going to try to take a firearm from my hands without killing me first.

Therefore, I see our work in supporting the Second Amendment as more of a marketing or publicity campaign. There are a few things I know that I want to share with you:

1. The subject of firearms has been a topic of passionate discussion since their invention. As we work to restore liberty, we will be asked to address firearms and their uses. We all have opinions and ideas about firearms. People base their opinions on experiences with firearms or what they have been told about them. It is in the interest of liberty that we detach ourselves from the passion and emotion that the subject of firearms evokes. It is important that we speak without judgment because our listeners are ready to defend their positions on the subject. Find a common ground. People are more receptive to what you say if they know that you understand their position. Please know that if someone is afraid of your position you will never win them over to your side. When you are calm and confident in your behavior and beliefs people see your strength. When your actions are inspired by that which is good you will inspire others and not perpetuate fear.

I know how frustrating it is to hear the news about things like the Blair-Holt Firearm Act. We see proposals like this as a threat. Whether or not bills like the Holt act are real threats depends upon us and how we oppose these bills. We can get angry and react out of fear, or we can remember that a bill is only a bill until it becomes law.

In order to keep the freedoms that we have we must exercise them. This brings me to ask: How are you going to exercise your right to keep and bear arms? Are you going to make a political statement, or are you going to act out of authenticity? I ask this because I know this:

Owning a firearm is one of the greatest freedoms we have in this country. However, with this freedom comes a responsibility. BEFORE YOU EVER PICK UP A FIREARM YOU MUST:

1. Know how to use it.
2. Intend to use it.

Those are the rules to possessing firearms. They are not toys (although some collectors may disagree). Anything else is just showing your ass and can get someone hurt.

If you had not had mentoring and education in the use of firearms I urge you to peruse your interest. There are taxpayer funded centers all across the state of Missouri. (I apologize for not being able to speak for what is available in Kansas. However, I am positive that Kansas offers just as much as Missouri).

http://mdc.mo.gov/hunt/huntered/
http://www.mdc.mo.gov/areas/ranges/

I would also like the address the issue of militia. Constitutional scholar and attorney, Dr. Edwin Vieira, gives a very clear report on what the Constitution offers. “Nothing other than a well-regulated militia is necessary for a free state.” According to Vieira, the Constitution does not say anything else is necessary for a free state. Not Congress, not the Presidency, not the Senate. A well-regulated militia is all we need to ensure a free state.

Section 311 of US Code Title 10, entitled, “Militia: composition and classes” says;

(a) The militia of the United States consists of all able-bodied males at least 17 years of age and, except as provided in section 313 of title 32, under 45 years of age who are, or who have made a declaration of intention to become, citizens of the United States and of female citizens of the United States who are members of the National Guard.

(b) The classes of the militia are —
1. Thee organized militia, which consists of the National Guard and the Naval Militia; and
2. The unorganized militia, which consists of the members of the militia who are not members of the National Guard or Naval Militia.

To put it more succinctly: The militia is a part of our government, outlined in our constitution. This means that it is of, for, and by the people. That makes us all members of the militia. Now, I beg to question… How will we represent ourselves?

We are all being called speak on the issue of firearms. It is our responsibility to hear people’s concerns regarding firearms. It is our responsibility to address these concerns in a manner that does not evoke fear.

People fear what they do not understand. It is our duty to help people understand that firearms are necessary to our society for many reasons. If we speak with respect and we speak the truth we will be free to own our firearms without fear of losing them.

Your friend in liberty,
Renea McMasters

For Immediate Release

Liberty Restoration Project delivers “Sunshine Law” request to Jefferson City regarding Police document.

Kansas City, MO. March 16^th, 2009:

Today representatives of the Liberty Restoration Project (LRP) hand delivered a “Sunshine Law” request to 3 offices in Jefferson City. The Sunshine Law in Missouri is a version of the Federal Freedom of Information Act that allows groups to petition for information. This request was delivered to Missouri Governor Jay Nixon’s office, Missouri Highway Patrol office and State Emergency Management office. The LRP is operating as a mouthpiece to a national “Freedom Movement” that feels that a document released by the Missouri Information Analysis Center (MIAC) on February 20^th, 2009, has placed a peaceful movement into the same groupings as “Paramilitary”, white supremacists, hate groups and unconstitutional Militia. This document was released to the Missouri Highway Patrol offices and was released from the desk of Governor Nixon’s desk. This document was leaked to the public by someone who obtained it from their law enforcement agency.

The document in question is being criticized by the freedom movement because of such generalized information provided in the document. The document was written as a training tool for the police to be able to identify Militia members and protect officers as well and citizens. Instead the document managed to label anyone with a political view that differs from the two party designs. This document indicates current Texas Congressman Ron Paul as an icon for the Paramilitary movement, as well as displaying an inverted American flag, or having copies of documentaries that discuss issues that are relevant to the freedom movement. This document indicates that displaying a 3^rd Party bumper sticker, or a “Gadsden Flag”, or even carrying a copy of the United States Constitution could be considered “political paraphernalia”. The freedom movement as a whole feels that this document will allow Missouri police to profile vehicles, individuals, organizations, or even political figures as “radical” or “extremists”, and will infringe upon a person’s 1^st amendment right to express their views. The most immediate threat to this peaceful group will come at the end of March when Congressman Ron Paul will hold a regional conference in St. Louis, MO. This conference will bring in hundreds of supporters into Missouri, and now most are fearful of being singled out and profiled against, and potentially having their rights violated by the police, all because of a generalized and poorly informed document.

The Liberty Restoration Project is requesting on behalf of a national freedom movement for a retraction of this document, and a formal apology from the Governor, MIAC, and the Missouri Highway Patrol. The Liberty Restoration Project in Kansas City will extend a hand in drafting information that will not only clarify a position of a freedom movement, but also assist in better informing law enforcement officials in hopes to protect our peacekeeping officers and citizens.

For More information about the LRP, please visit: www.libertyrestorationproject.org

Please contact Bryon Huber at: 816-739-8064

Attached you will find the Sunshine Law request that was submitted.

Full MIAC report can be found at : http://www.scribd.com/doc/13232178/MIAC-Strategic-Report-The-Modern-Militia-Movement

####

United,
Bryon Huber
Director of Public Relations
Liberty Restoration Project
www.libertyrestorationproject.org

The subject of firearms has been a topic of passionate discussion since their invention. As we work to restore liberty, we will be asked to address firearms and their uses. We all have opinions and ideas about firearms. People base their opinions on experiences with firearms or what they have been told about them. It is in the interest of liberty that we detach ourselves from the passion and emotion that the subject of firearms evokes. It is important that we speak without judgment because our listeners are ready to defend their positions on the subject. Find a common ground. People are more receptive to what you say if they know you understand their position.

When speaking about firearms or the Second Amendment it is imperative that we use the word “firearm” instead of “weapon” or “gun,” Why? Because there is a small, yet vocal, group of people who do not want anyone except the military or police to have a firearm. The demographics of this group are: White, middle-income urbanites. Some people who live in urban areas only see firearms used as tools to commit crimes and acts of violence.

The topic of firearms has many layers or levels. Each layer of this subject corresponds to how firearms are used by people.

Combat – When considering firearms, most people automatically grant military and police personnel permission to own or use firearms without much inquiry. Firearms are a part of war and police protection. Firearms are used both offensively and defensively. Military and law enforcement personnel are required to carry firearms. It cannot be denied that some people who work in law enforcement and the military abuse their authority with the use of firearms. However, this probably has more to do with personality than career choice.

It is essential that we respectfully consider the veterans who have had to use their firearms in combat for killing. This is a severe trauma for that person. Some veterans never recover from this tragedy. Whether or not we agree with the reason for combat is inconsequential. If you are speaking to a veteran about firearms or the Second Amendment know that they have had an experience that you can never fully understand unless you have been in this situation yourself. Also, remember that police and military veterans have had firearms used against them.

It is a fact that most military and police personnel support the people’s right to keep and bear arms. This almost wins the argument by itself. Veteran’s and those who have experience with firearms are the real experts on the subject.

Collecting – Firearms are a part of our culture. They are a technology and art form that has developed over time. Consider the firearms used in the Revolutionary War or the Civil War. These firearms have great historical and monetary value. Firearms are objects that people collect, just like people collect cars, art, or guitars. There are museums dedicated to the history of firearms. Perhaps the most famous is the Springfield Armory in Massachusetts http://www.nps.gov/spar/historyculture/index.htm. My personal favorite is the Ralph Foster Museum located at the College of the Ozarks near Branson, Missouri http://www.rfostermuseum.com/.

Crime and defense – It is a fact that firearms are used by criminals. It is important to remember that a firearm does not make someone a criminal. Someone with nefarious intentions will use whatever is available to carry out their plan. Rape is one of the most violent acts that can be done against a person. In the instance of rape, the penis is a weapon used to control the victim. Most women’s rights and crime victim’s rights advocates support the security and empowerment that owning a firearm can give women.

It is a documented fact that the institution of stricter gun laws raises crime rates. When the restrictions are loosened crime rates drop. The reason for this is very simple: Someone cannot harm you if you are armed. There are people in the world who take pleasure in committing acts of violence. These people will derive their pleasure from harming someone with or without firearms. If you have a firearm you can protect yourself. Knowing that you can defend yourself from crime is very empowering. People who commit acts of violence know this. Why do you think crime rates fall when there are fewer restrictions on the possession of firearms?

Sport – Success in hitting a target builds self-esteem and confidence. It is like making a hole-in-one on the golf course or making a three-point shot on the basketball court. More than 19 million Americans safely participate in target shooting. Their numbers break out into subsets of people who enjoy shooting handguns, shotguns and rifles. Add special-interest shooters such as muzzleloader enthusiasts, and the total number of active shooters jumps even higher! Target shooting varies from leisurely hobbies to competitive local leagues and from collegiate athletics to the world stage of the Olympic Games.

The National Shooting Sports Foundation is an excellent example of how firearms are used positively. http://www.nssf.org/shooting/index.cfm?AoI=shooting.

Being proficient in the use of firearms is a tradition that is proudly passed down through generations. There are children who are being taught how to safely use a firearm through mentoring and educational programs. There is risk of physical harm in most sports. We may not allow OUR children to participate in the sport of football because of this risk, but we would not end high school football for every child. The same principle applies to sports shooting.

Hunting – For as long as there have been people in the world there has been hunting. It has only been in the past one-hundred-years that people have had the luxury of going to supermarkets to purchase meat.

The philosophy of wildlife conservation began with hunters and fishermen. They realized that if they kill everything they will have nothing to eat. To conserve means “wise use.” If you conserve money, does this mean you never spend money? No. It means that you use your money wisely.

There are people who do not eat meat or believe in killing animals at all. I understand their point of view for the following reason: Most people who eat meat buy their meat in a supermarket. They do not see the horrible living conditions and lives that animals live when they are raised in feed lots by huge agri-businesses that receive tax incentives and subsidies. They do not realize the growth hormones and antibiotics that are pumped into these animals are also being taken into their bodies when they eat this meat. There are people who eat meat but are against hunting. All I can say to this is: “So you let other people do your killing for you.”

It is the people who hunt that will ensure that the right to keep and bear arms will never be infringed. People who hunt own firearms and know how to use them.

In conclusion, people who stand for liberty will be required to speak on the issue of firearms. It is our responsibility to hear people’s concerns regarding firearms. It is our responsibility to address these concerns in a manner that ensures that the point of view of the collector of firearms, the people who have engaged in combat or police service, the sportsman, the victim, and the hunter are represented.

People fear what they do not understand. It is our duty to help people understand that firearms are necessary to our society for many reasons. If we speak with respect and we speak the truth we will be free to own our firearms without fear of losing them.

Your friend in liberty,

Renea McMasters

“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.” – 2^nd Amendment to the United States Constitution

It is important to preface any further discussion about the Second Amendment with the following: We do not live in a democracy where 51% of the people get to decide whether or not American citizens may own guns. We live in a republic that is ruled by law.

The law is the United States Constitution. When the people of the United States deem it necessary, they may (with a two-third majority vote from both the House of Representatives and the Senate) amend this document. The first ten amendments to the United States Constitution are called the Bill of Rights.

“We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. — That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, — That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.” –Declaration of Independence.

What did the Founder’s say about the Second Amendment? The first thing they said is quoted above. The only entitlement the Constitution grants us is the right to throw out bad governments and start new ones. Everything else is inherently ours, given by the grace of the Creator. I encourage the reader to consider the definition of grace. Grace is unmerited assistance. It is our duty to provide the rest of what we need to exist happily and freely.

Constitutional scholar and attorney, Dr. Edwin Vieira, gives a very clear report on what the Constitution offers. “Nothing other than a well-regulated militia is necessary for a free state.” According to Vieira, the Constitution does not say anything else is necessary for a free state. Not Congress, not the Presidency, not the Senate. A well-regulated militia is all we need to ensure a free state.

Dr. Vieira gives us a picture of what life was like when the Founder’s formed their opinions about the right to keep and bear arms. In Colonial times, the thirteen states (or colonies) all had laws about citizens owning weapons. The laws for the individual states were basically the same:

1). It was the duty of all free, white able-bodied males between the ages of 16 and 50 (or 60) to purchase and keep arms in their homes and on their person.

2). Firearms were to be bought and sold in the free-market.

3). Citizens could be fined for not being armed.

4). If you could not afford to purchase a firearm the state would provide one for you from the revenues collected from the fines just mentioned.

5). Weapons were exempt from state (government) seizure or confiscation.

6). Weapons were the same or better quality than the British Red Coat’s (the only standing army at that time).

Pre-Constitutional laws regarding militias are the laws that we have today. The Founder’s of the Constitution passed down the law regarding militias, they did not create a new law when they created the Constitution. Why? There was a revolution and war and creation of a new government! The militias were the only defense against standing armies of the time. This is still true today.

It is important to understand the differences between armed forces and militias. Here are just a few differences:

1). Armed Forces receive pay. Militia members are volunteers.

2). Armed Forces can be sent out of the United States. Militia members do not leave the States. It is important to note that standing armies are constitutionally prohibited from the United States. See Amendment 3 of the US Constitution.

3). Armed Forces Chain of Command ends with the President of the United States. Militia’s Chain of Command ends with the Governor.

There is controversy about our National Guard. Some say the National Guard is our Organized Militia. Others believe that because National Guardsmen and women are sent out of the United States the National Guard is a part of the United States Armed Forces. This writer is here to tell you that if this country is “of the people, by the people, and for the people,” the people of the United States must keep the discussion open.

Section 311 of US Code Title 10, entitled, “Militia: composition and classes” says;

(b) The classes of the militia are —
(1) the organized militia, which consists of the National Guard and the Naval Militia; and
(2) the unorganized militia, which consists of the members of the militia who are not members of

the National Guard or the Naval Militia.

The point this writer is trying to make is this: We have a right to arm ourselves and our individual states are required to provide for and allow a militia, either organized or unorganized. Should the subject of the Second Amendment arise with the reader, it is this writer’s hope that individuals will remember that “the right to keep and bear arms” is only part of the statement that James Madison placed into the Bill of Rights. The big picture is of American’s being able to organize and protect themselves against armies and tyrants.

The writer of this article is neither a constitutional attorney nor a politician. This writer is a citizen who is deeply concerned about keeping liberty in the hands of the people, and out of the hands of politicians and tyrants.

References

The Constitution of the United States.

The Constitution of the State of Missouri.

The Federalist Papers, ed. Gary Wills (New York: Bantam Dell, 2003).

LaPierre, W. (2007). The Essential Second Amendment Guide. Fairfax, VA: Boru Publishing, Inc.

Vieira, Edwin (Lecturer), & National Heritage Center for Constitutional Studies (Producer). (2007). Principles of the Constitutional Militia [Video Lecture]. United States: New Hampshire Center for Constitutional Studies.

List of online resources:

The Second Amendment Foundation: http://www.saf.org/

The National Rifle Association: http://www.nra.org/

Gun Owners of America: http://www.gunowners.org/