by Russell D. Longcore, DumpDC

Richard Hamblen is a businessman from Nashville,Tennessee. In 2004, he held the rank of Captain in the Tennessee State Guard, which is a state-created citizen militia. As an officer in a 3,500-member force, he noted that the Tennessee State Guard only had 21 M16A1 automatic rifles in the armory. So, in order to be better able to train the Guard troops, he made a lawful purchase of M16 parts for assembly, complying with all Federal laws regarding the purchases. Still, the BATF raided his business on an anonymous “tip” that he possessed machine guns (where he kept the guns in a locked safe), arrested him and confiscated the weapons. He was convicted and sentenced to 15 months in Federal prison. He served his time and is out on parole.

Mr. Hamblen has been locked in a battle with the Federal courts since his arrest in 2004. On March 30, 2010, he has filed a Writ of Certiorari before the US Supreme Court so that the merits of his case may be heard.

He seeks a decision on whether it is Constitutional under the 2nd Amendment for a citizen to own the same weapons that are presently the standard issue rifles for the US military. He states, “If such a fundamental right as the right to keep and bear arms can in effect be nullified by sophistic wordplay, then what chance does the rest of the Constitution stand?”

Listen to Mr. Hamblen explain his situation and his case below:

Then, if you would like to read his Writ in its entirety, go to:

Hamblen vs. United States

As you know, I look at everything through the secession-colored glasses of DumpDC. So, my personal opinion of Mr. Hamblen’s effort is that it is a useless waste of the talents, energy and assets of a fine man.

First, the US Constitution is a dead document. So, haggling over its technicalities is a waste of everyone’s time. The Federal government is very pleased to have a man like Mr. Hamblen incur monstrous legal fees and spend his children’s inheritance on an issue like this. The Fed’s resources are almost infinite, his are not.

Second, to expect the Supreme Court to rule on this in light of the Court’s Heller ruling is probably overly optimistic. The Supremes have no intent to ever assert that The People have anything but the rights conferred by government. In fact, Mr. Hamblen and his attorney have inadvertently fallen into this trap by asserting within the Writ that the right to keep and bear arms is a right conferred by the 2nd Amendment. If you read the Writ, you’ll see the “right conferred” phrase repeated in the verbiage. The right to keep and bear arms is a natural right, not a conferred right.

But I think that you should be aware of this court fight and the underlying philosophical issues. Govern yourselves accordingly.

State secession settles this issue once and for all. Tennessee could be its own nation and write its own constitution if it seceded. I hope they redeem themselves as the “Volunteer State” and voluntarily secede from the Union.

Secession is the Hope for Mankind. Who will be first…and wisest?

DumpDC. Six Letters That Can Change History.

© Copyright 2010, Russell D. Longcore. Permission to reprint in whole or in part is gladly granted, provided full credit is given.

from Tenth Amendment Center

Introduced in the State Senates of both Colorado and South Dakota last week is a bill known as the “Firearms Freedom Act.” If passed, the bill would make state law that “any firearm, firearm accessory, or ammunition that is manufactured commercially or privately in the state and that remains within the borders of the state is not subject to federal law or federal regulation, including registration, under the authority of Congress to regulate interstate commerce.”

This now makes Firearms Freedom Acts already passed in Montana and Tennessee, and currently introduced in these 21 states: Alabama, Alaska, Arizona, Colorado Florida, Georgia, Kentucky, Michigan, Minnesota, Missouri, New Hampshire, Ohio, Oklahoma, Pennsylvania, South Carolina, South Dakota, Texas, Utah, Virginia, Washington, and Wyoming.

According to Gary Marbut of the Montana Shooting Sports Association and author of the original bill that was introduced in Montana, “It’s likely that FFAs will be introduced soon in West Virginia, New Mexico, Idaho, Kansas, Arkansas, Louisiana, North Carolina and maybe elsewhere”

South Dakota’s Senate Bill 89 (SB89) was introduced by State Senator Rhoden, and has 22 Senate co-sponsors and 44 House co-sponsors.

Colorado’s Senate Bill 092 (SB10-092) was introduced by State Senator Schultheis and has 9 Senate co-sponsors and 7 House co-sponsors.

CLICK HERE – to view the Tenth Amendment Center’s Firearms Freedom Act Tracking Page

UPDATE, 01-26-10

The principle behind such legislation is nullification, which has a long history in the American tradition. When a state ‘nullifies’ a federal law, it is proclaiming that the law in question is void and inoperative, or ‘non-effective,’ within the boundaries of that state; or, in other words, not a law as far as the state is concerned.

But nullification is more than just a mere rhetorical statement or a resolution affirming the position of the legislature. To effectively nullify a federal law requires state action to prevent federal enforcement within the state.

Implied in any nullification legislation is enforcement of the state law. In the Virginia Resolution of 1798, James Madison wrote of the principle of interposition:

That this Assembly doth explicitly and peremptorily declare, that it views the powers of the federal government, as resulting from the compact, to which the states are parties; as limited by the plain sense and intention of the instrument constituting the compact; as no further valid that they are authorized by the grants enumerated in that compact; and that in case of a deliberate, palpable, and dangerous exercise of other powers, not granted by the said compact, the states who are parties thereto, have the right, and are in duty bound, to interpose for arresting the progress of the evil, and for maintaining within their respective limits, the authorities, rights and liberties appertaining to them.

In his famous speech during the war of 1812, Daniel Webster said:

“The operation of measures thus unconstitutional and illegal ought to be prevented by a resort to other measures which are both constitutional and legal. It will be the solemn duty of the State governments to protect their own authority over their own militia, and to interpose between their citizens and arbitrary power. These are among the objects for which the State governments exist”

Here Madison and Webster assert what is implied in nullification laws — that state governments not only have the right to resist unconstitutional federal acts, but that, in order to protect liberty, they are “duty bound to interpose” or stand between the federal government and the people of the state.

In similar proposals, some legislators around the country have begun adding penalties – ranging from misdemeanors to felony charges – for federal agents, too.  Other legislators have already introduced what’s known as the “State Sovereignty and Federal Tax Funds Act” which would require the state to interpose against the IRS and withhold tax funds from D.C.  Click here to read more about this proposal.

Even without such specific penalties listed, I see this as an important step in the right direction.

Hat Tip: National Expositor

by Michael Gaddy

“One of the ordinary modes, by which tyrants accomplish their purposes without resistance, is, by disarming the people, and making it an offense to keep arms.”

~ Constitutional scholar and Supreme Court Justice Joseph Story

I was somewhat surprised in the email responses to my article here at the number of inquiries from would be first-time gun purchasers asking for advice on firearm selection, training and concealed carry permits. Obviously there are many in the freedom crowd out there who has yet to arm themselves.

I believe that many first-time gun buyers have a tendency to put the cart before the horse. Many long-time gun owners fit in the same category. Before one purchases a firearm for defense of life and property, it is imperative they realize one must first possess the courage to use this tool of liberty, up to and including deadly force. The firearm should never be the source of that courage. An inanimate object is a poor substitute for character.

True courage is in short supply in this nation’s gun culture. Supposed strong advocates of the Second Amendment routinely vote for politicians with anti-gun voting records because they are members of their chosen political party.

Authors of books on the rights of citizens to keep and bear arms routinely vote for the same anti-gun politicians. One in particular emailed me that he could not support Ron Paul in the 2008 election because he was “unelectable.” This author then spoke of having to “hold his nose” when he voted for John McCain. Great courage, this one!

The majority of gun magazines routinely carry many more articles on firearms for “military and police” than they do for Joe Citizen. An editor for one of these magazines chastised me in an email for having the audacity to suggest his publication support Ron Paul for president because he too saw him as “unelectable.” He opined that those who would vote for Ron Paul were actually helping the greater of two evils get elected. When I asked him whom he would vote for if his choices were Stalin or Hitler, he replied that it would never come to that in America. I promptly cancelled my subscription to his magazine. Cowardice and ignorance in the same package is hard to support.

Then there are those bastions of liberty in the pro-gun crowd who question why anyone would want to own an AK-47 or any other of those dastardly assault weapons. They contend there is no “legitimate” reason to own one. Let me make this as simple as I can: I own a legal AK-47 and several other assault weapons so I can assault the tyrant who seeks to deprive me of my rights granted by my creator, or any other criminal who attempts to take that which is mine, or harm me and those I love. Simple enough?

From past experience I know I am going to catch a lot of flak for my opinion of concealed carry laws, because I believe them to be another form of registration. Gun owners who claim they are totally against “registration” of firearms have no problem in registering themselves as gun owners. Most egregious is their paying the state to bestow on them the rights they already possess as free men.

If the true purpose of the Second Amendment is to provide the means to resist a tyrannical government, where is the logic in begging and paying that same government to allow us to possess the weapons to protect ourselves from their tyrannical pursuits? Groveling at the feet of tyrants is no reflection of courage.

Not only do concealed carry permit holders place themselves in a database available to all bureaucrats whose goal is to disarm everyone, they place themselves in the database of all law enforcement agencies. How convenient it must be for the cop who runs your drivers or vehicle license number to immediately know you are armed, what you drive, where you live, and in some cases, what type firearm you have.

Next on my list of things to anger the average gun guy is my total disdain for the organization that presents itself as the true champion of the right to keep and bear arms: the NRA, better known as the National Republican Association – Oops, sorry, National Rifle Association. Author and American Patriot L. Neil Smith, eloquently states his reasons for not trusting the NRA here.

If you are a potential owner of a new firearm, or possess several, please reexamine your commitment to liberty or give your weapons to a true patriot now rather than the tyrant when he comes for them.

Guard with jealous attention the public liberty. Suspect everyone who comes near that precious jewel. Unfortunately, nothing will preserve it but downright force. When you give up that force, you are ruined.

~ Patrick Henry

Here is Obama’s Office of Information and Regulatory Affiars Czar speaking at a school of law in October of 2007:

Remember: like Obama, Sunstein is a “Constitutional Scholar.”  Somehow, in his scholarly studies, he seems to have missed a few key points in the history of the U.S. Supreme Court.  Most notably:

• Spenver v. Kemna in which it was said directly by the dissent that one of the punishments for committing a crime is “loss of the right to vote or to bear arms.”  This implies that the individual had a right to bear arms previous to committing a crime.
• Muscarello v. United States in which one of Justice Ginsberg’s points was to define what “carrying a firearm” meant.  In making that point, the Justice said “as the Constitution’s Second Amendment (“keep and bear Arms”) and Black’s Law Dictionary at 214 indicate: “wear, bear, or carry … for the purpose of being armed and ready for offensive or defensive action…”  This clearly implies an individual right.

There are many, many more such instances.  Eight of them in the 1980s alone and more for every generation before and since.  The only arguments the gun-grabbers can make are based on weak interpretations of the most recent findings of the Court as well as the original 1939 rights-grabbing finding of the United States v. Miller.

from The National Expositor

Many people do not know that the first man killed in an act of defiance during the revolutionary war was African American.

Crispus Attucks was the first of five people killed in the Boston Massacre in Boston, Massachusetts. He has been frequently named as the first martyrof the American Revolution and is the only Boston Massacre victim whose name is commonly remembered. He is regarded as an important inspirational figure in American history.

The documentary below, “No Guns for Negroes ” exposes the racist history of American gun control laws.