Posted on 01/26/2010 4:15:51 AM PST by marktwain
Richard A. Hamblen has lost his family and his fortune because he believes in the Second Amendment. In April of 2004, Mr. Hamblen, a former commander in the Tennessee National Guard, was arrested by agents of the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) and the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms (BATF). Hamblen, who told the author that he’s never had so much as a traffic violation, was taken from his place of business and charged with the unlawful possession of nine unregistered machine guns.
Hamblen was found guilty by a trial court and sentenced to 13 months in federal prison. He served his time at the Federal Correctional Institution in Beckley, West Virginia. Upon his release, Hamblen and his attorney, Jeffrey Fensley, appealed his conviction to the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals in Cincinnati, Ohio. On December 30, 2009, that court affirmed the lower court’s ruling and held that, “Whatever the individual right to keep and bear arms might entail, it does not authorize an unlicensed individual to possess unregistered machine guns for personal use.”
Hamblen disagrees with the Sixth Circuit’s interpretation of the Second Amendment’s guarantee of the right to keep and bear arms. “There are no qualifiers on the Second Amendment,” Hamblen told the author. “There are qualifiers on the Fourth Amendment, so if the Founders had intended to restrict the right to keep and bear arms they knew how to do it,” he continued.
At trial and at the circuit court appeal, Mr. Hamblen averred that he and the soldiers under his command qualified as a militia and thus were authorized to own military grade automatic weapons. According to figures given to the author, Hamblen claims that there are only 21 such weapons in the arsenal meant to equip over 3,000 National Guard troops.
(Excerpt) Read more at thenewamerican.com ...
In 2009 the American people purchased over 14 million firearms that is more guns than the 21 leading armies of the world combined. This fellow got it into his head that he didn’t have to work in the military system with regard to the manufacture/custody/modification of ordnance for the military . The military & the federal govt.ie the civil authorities take a dim view & rightly so of this .
Do you honestly believe that all the automatic weapons in the possesion of the armed forces of the United States aren’t registered in one fashion or another? I was in the army & the army has all sorts of paper workwith regard to weapons custody & disposition. all the services do as gun cost money & as such the army would like if they just didn’t sprout feet one night & decide to walk out of the arms room. 8*)
Your argument would be more convincing if not for the fact that the NRA and other influential groups were opposed to the Heller case and only joined the effort late in the game.
The NFA of 1934 was passed three-quarters of a century ago. It's far past time to set this issue straight.
What "unlawful" purpose was he using them for? If the 6th Court ruled that Heller doesn't apply because he was doing illegal things with these firearms, what were they? Or is this "intent" again via mere possession? Hasn't that been ruled out before? "I have a penis, therefore I must be plotting a rape." That logic fails every time.
At least, it should.
I don’t necessarily agree with it, but this is the argument that carries the day, as far as the feds are concerned. That is, I don’t think the SCOTUS will ever decide to let MGs out of the box for unlicensed civilian use.
On a more practical note, today’s problem goes beyond the classical arguments to something downright deadly. We are looking at a slow rolling civil war South of the border. They aren’t getting their weapons from our side, but they are getting them. And what our citizens are armed with, even as far as licensed MGs, doesn’t come close to that kind of weaponry if fighting rolls over onto our side.
That is, North of the border, we might soon be faced off with Mexican killers smuggling belt fed MGs and RPGs up here to party with us like Poncho Villa partied in Columbus, NM. These SOBs have killed over 18,000 Mexicans in the last four years, including over a thousand police and military. And they are indiscriminate in who they kill.
A great secret of Phoenix is that west of the city there is a desert dumping ground for murdered Mexicans. I had counted reports of over 35 killed before they just stopped reporting it. Didn’t want to make it look bad for tourism, and all. And that was before the war was going in earnest.
Often these days, the smugglers are accompanied by either Mexican military, or uniformed “Zetas”, ex-Mexican military, on US Humvees with M-60 MGs mounted on them. They will kill anyone who gets in their way. Border Patrol takes off when they see them.
Hell, we don’t just need unlicensed MGs. We need freaking CAS from Apache helicopters. Maybe some Strykers.
Now this being said, it is pretty ridiculous to require strict MG licensing. But Washington is still going to do it, because they are far, far away from the border.
You may be correct. The SCOTUS wouldn't be correct should they rule otherwise, but political reality quite often attempts to trump actual reality. The Fedgov has the legit power to tax. I have no argument with that. It is using that power to destroy a Constitutionally protected Right that boils my blood. If they think one nut with a little bitty .223 full auto is a danger, how do they think the Founders felt about armed merchant ships coming in with ranks of 4lbs cannons and 2" Parrot rifles lining their rails?
As for the Zeta's and MS-13. If they want to start a war, the bubba's in Texas alone could send them packing in just one weekend. Add in the rest of the "redneck" South and no mere Central/South American armed force would stand a chance.
You talking to me?
I know all property of the U.S. government is on a list somewhere. I’ve even maintained a couple of those lists.
To the first point: There is a large and growing sense that the national government needs to “butt out”, in a big sort of way, and the second amendment is just part of the much larger issue happening right now with the individual States.
In other words, it’s not just the second amendment that needs rescuing, it is the entire constitution, and our federal system of government. The whole system is out of whack. It doesn’t need a revolution, however. It needs a restoration.
The POTUS, the SCOTUS, the US congress, the political parties, and even the bureaucracy have lost control of the US national government. It’s running on autopilot, and losing altitude. Only the States can grab the controls and get us back to altitude.
Fortunately, the light has dawned among the States, and they are starting to act. Hopefully they will get up momentum before there is a catastrophic economic disaster and they have to act.
Right now, the best thing individual citizens can do is encourage their State legislature to start forming delegations to meet with delegations from other States, to discuss what needs to be done, and how to go about doing it.
Public forums right now are discussing things that would have amazed constitutional scholars just a few years ago. Constitutional problems going back to the days of the founding fathers, and 200+ years since, are being substantively discussed by the people. How extraordinary.
The NFA of 1934 was passed three-quarters of a century ago. It's far past time to set this issue straight.
Fact of the matter is that the attorney who won Heller got no help from the NRA. He did, however, win back rights for us. A few. Until the next case (like the Chicago gun case going on right now, to be heard in the USSC in about 6 or 7 weeks).
I belonged to the NRA for 18 years, but got sick & tired of them asking for money constantly, while not really doing much (and then only when there was an outcry from members) for gun rights.
We will NOT ever go back to the pre-NFA law in one decision. We need to be realistic about that, even as the idea of being denied rights that out grandfathers and their forebearers had grates on our sense of what is right and fair. We have to get those rights back one at a time - not go into court saying, "I have the right to walk into Wallyworld and buy a Quad-.50 for cash and with no background check, now rule in my favor or you're a Commie/Fascist/NWO stooge." I don't like the current state of our gun rights any more than you do, but if it is a choice between waiting a while for some very bright attorneys to work their magic in a slow-moving court system on the one hand, or going for broke on one case on the other (and it appears that such is EXACTLY our choice - we can't win a repeal of the NFA now or for a while), I'll take the slow and (more) sure option.
And the NRA (or any other group or person claiming to be pro-gun) can go to Hell if it doesn't support the eventual full restoration of our pre-'34 rights.
The NRA was NOT against Heller. The NRA was against Parker until the cofimation of Alito and Roberts. We would have lost Parker at the time by a possible vote of 6-3.
Thank you, President George W. Bush.
I’m 42 and becoming aware that my lifetime is finite.
I’m tired of hearing “not yet” arguments re: the 2nd Amendment.
M16s are exactly the kind of weapon our Founding Fathers intended every upstanding citizen have access to: the best weapon any individual can have*, a la what soldiers across our country and around the world are issued for standard combat preparedness.
There is no qualifier on the 2nd Amendment; instead, it ends with “shall not be infringed”.
Enough of this pussy-footing around. If someone is in a position to make a case (and being a soldier qualified to use M16s certainly is), then my best to him and my support insofar as I can give it. If the court isn’t “ripe” now, it never will be (esp. when the Obama gets done with it); get the case before the court already!!!
* - and in no way am I excluding “crew served” arms here.
Off assignment, his personal armament is up to him.
That his guard unit didn’t have enough standard weapons just emphasizes the need for each one to be respected the right to own suitable arms: if the government won’t suitably equip its own soldiers, then they are responsible for equipping themselves. Should his unit suddenly be called up for real combat, what are the 2979 unequipped ones supposed to do? throw rocks? or go buy their own M16s before need arises?
The argument IS solid, if only he can get the chance to present it.
Soldiers - who are in fact also citizens - possess hundreds of thousands (if not millions) of machineguns.
Pre-922(o) machineguns are still around and are still legal, proving that tens (hundreds?) of thousands of machineguns in private civilian hands are not a problem.
THERE ISN’T A PROBLEM. Machineguns have just been turned into boogeymen, and the subject has become a sociopolitical “third rail” for no good reason save movie-advocated paranoia.
922(o) must be overturned ASAP, shortly followed by NFA.
Of course there’s a collective RKBA. I’ll need my neighbors’ help to operate my howitzer.
A la Rock River Arms, there was no way to register them. Made after 1986, civilian ownership of them is outright illegal per law 922(o). The case against RRA failed because they could not be accused of not registering that which could not be registered.
This guy needs a really good lawyer. All the case law needed is in place, and even Heller notes that the preamble to the 2nd Amendment means nothing if citizens can't own M16s. The time has come - and I'm running on borrowed time here, so let's get this thing over with so I can own an M4 and happy-switch Glock before I expire.
BS. Soldiers are "law-abiding citizens", issued machineguns by the hundreds of thousands (millions?) as a matter of standard issue. Privately, many tens (hundreds?) of thousands of machineguns are legally owned.
Insofar as machineguns (a la M16s) are not typically possessed by law-abiding citizens the reason is that an unconstitutional law forbids and punishes such ownership.
The AR15 IS typically possessed by law-abiding citizens for lawful purposes, and differs from the M16 by only a single switch position and about $1 worth of parts.
LOL
If ever there was a case where this ammedment:
“Amendment II
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.”
Applied to the letter and in intent this is it.
Its quite frankly shocking how how far the Federal government has gone. How utterly meaningless this Constitution now is to this Federal Government.
Can any of you military veterans clear something up for me from the story?
In the letters section, Mr. Hamblin clearly states that he was in a State Guard Unit, not a National Guard Unit, which is part of the Army.
What are the differences?
Surely a State Guard Unit would not be armed as a deployable Nat. Guard Unit would. Would they? Does this fact change the story enough to sway his circumstances?
Please check my post #59, Scotsman. I meant to include you in my request.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.