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

By Kevin L. Kobe

DISCLAIMER: The following is My individual interpretation of the controversy surrounding the recent MIAC Report. It in no way is meant to express the views of others within the movement or Liberty Restoration Project. In recent days, Officer Holz has repeatedly said that people are overreacting. I would like to offer the following critiques as my testimonial to the danger of propaganda disguised as police informational reports.

The Missouri Information Analysis Center’s February 20, 2009 strategic report titled “The Modern Militia Movement” is a blatantly poor attempt to divide the loving people of Missouri against each other. My response is that a true criminal cares not about constitutional law. A true Terrorist cares nothing of peace. All across America people ask for equal rights and protections under the law, and one by one various groups of persons have been singled out for their differences. The true Constitutional liberty movement sees no race, gender, or political affiliation. Yet, according to the MIAC/MHP those who speak freedom the loudest are the ones who need their freedoms taken.

This report is nothing more than a propaganda tool meant to drive police to view the Militia and Constitutional Government Advocates as enemies of the state. While I am not speaking for others who would call their selves Patriots, I do have a straight forward view on the opinions expressed by members of the movement. I felt the need to take a common sense examination of this document from a Patriotic perspective.

The first myth I would like to address is that this movement is Anti-Government or Anti-Police. And specifically the portion under the heading – Implications for Law Enforcement: “You are the Enemy.” While there is a minority of persons who do walk a fine line in their rhetoric and actions, and there are cases where people take things too far, I would argue that there is almost no demographic within society where extremists, criminals, thieves, and killers do not exist. On the contrary, I argue that many within our movement are not Anti-Government or Anti-Police, but instead are Anti-Tyranny, and even those with the most extreme perspectives on these issues do not act out of blind hatred for government, but out of shock at the actions of those in power. Instead, most Patriots would love to network with Police Officers, National Guard, and members of the Armed Forces. We would like to educate you on the constitutional fundamentals of the country and aid you in your duties while educating you on how to perform your functions in a manor that adheres to your constitutional oaths and does not infringe on the unalienable rights of the people in the communities in which you serve. A Police Officer, Government Official, or Military Person who acts out of love and protection for the things that they love is a patriot’s best friend.

Even in most cases where violence is discussed, the point of view is usually one of mutually assured destruction. Never fire unless fired upon and only in self defense do you aim a weapon at a person. It was John F. Kennedy who said “When you make peaceful revolution impossible, you make violent revolution inevitable.” If someone is afraid of the possibility of Patriots acting out of fear, the best approach would be to not incite fear and always attempt a peaceful resolution first. Essentially, I view this document as a memo saying “Look these people are afraid of government! Be afraid of them!”

Where does the fear end and the cooperation and love begin? I would certainly hope that the first step is education. One problem I see with this document is that it makes claims that are spun to incite a certain type of response.

For example, the examples given of terror-type activity by the militia movement is laden with “were plotting” and “were planning.” I’m not attempting to trivialize possible threats to the safety of human lives here, but unless the planning phase begins being put into action, such as the other examples given of actual explosives, then the threat is not realized, and therefore no violent action is truly being put into production.

Other examples given describe the persons as being “arrested” or “charged” for weapons or violence. Not once is the word “Convicted” used. I have not researched all of the cases given, and I’m sure most have been convicted of some crime, however, recent use of the words “Arrested” and “Charged” have been propagandized to assume guilt. We live in a nation where anyone who has seen the TV show “Cops” knows, people are innocent until proven guilty in a court of law.

The next thing I’d like to address is not what this document says, but what it does not say. It lists several “motivators,” with very little connection to why a Patriot would fear such things, often using the term “Conspiracy theory” with little background on these issues to determine if any information is relevant enough to warrant legitimate fear of these issues.

Two of these are the Ammunition Accountability Act and the implantable microchip. Both are identification tracking devices used to assign an object and number to a person. The implantable microchip exists, you can find this information easily on the Internet by searching for “Verichip.” After the Real ID act passed into law, we see a government that seems to be striving for digital and bio-metric identification and the databases in which to store this information. When these databases are used for every-day activity, one can see a scenario where that type of information becomes increasingly valuable, which means both a more appealing prize for criminals to attempt to obtain, and a possibility to simply “turn off” someone’s ability to function in a society controlled by account numbers and databases.

The other instances where concerns are blamed on “Theories” The New World Order, The North American Union, and Universal Service are incorrectly attributed to this movement in this document. Again, a little research reveals that it is not the patriot movement coining these terms and predicting these events. A google news search for “New World Order” nets thousands of mainstream news sources. As far as a Global Conspiracy goes, one can do a google search for “David Rockafeller, Zbignew Brzezinski, and Henry Kissinger” examine who they associate with, think tanks they are part of, and you decide if you believe they are advocating global decisions to supersede the US Constitutional government sovereignty.

A youtube search for “Rahm Emanuel Service” will get you the video where he describes every person’s duty to serve in order to pay the country back for citizenship. A youtube search for former Mexican President “Vincente Fox Union” will display videos where he doesn’t simply describe a NAU, he says it WILL happen.

When patriots discuss these things, they do not simply make them up as a boogeyman to fear. They do so because these world leaders have discussed these concerns publicly, and when pressed for more information about these subjects, government has either denied, hidden, or changed the talking points of these concerns.

When something happens, and a person has seen it, and officials deny it ever happened and call the person a crazy conspiracy theorist, how do you expect those people to act? When a person is distrustful of government, it is not always out of hate and fear. Sometimes there is legitimate concern upon realization that so much of what has made this country great and strong for over two centuries by those who we have entrusted to preserve, protect, and defend those institutions.

Finally, I would like to address this view of the Militia as militant right wing terrorists. The spirit of the militia is every able bodied person being prepared to help their community in times of war on the homeland or crisis. Every able bodied person, from your militant right winger to your local shop owner with a small pistol, to the average young lady who learns martial arts to defend herself in the parking lot at night.

True militia, true constitutionalism goes beyond group activities, goes beyond race, beyond gender, beyond sexual preference, beyond political belief or affiliation. Please see through this divisive hate speech document and understand why the Ron Paul revolution logo highlighted “L-O-V-E” in revolution, because a revolution can only be based on love. Real change can not happen from the barrel of a gun, but from education of the peaceful ways of life and guidance through the hard times. This goes for both Police and Militia. Embrace freedom and love as your guidance and you will never have to fear these “us & them” perceptions like what MIAC have tried to sell here. The only terrorists involved here are those who would tell cops to fear us and spread fear and divisiveness knowing that such public documents would also work to make patriots fear cops pitting both against each other. I beg that anyone involved would not alter their behavior based upon a document so obviously based on lies and allusions to guilt by association.