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.

by Interested Participant

(Oklahoma City, Oklahoma) A bill has been introduced in the Oklahoma legislature to protect the Second Amendment rights of the state’s citizens.

House Bill 2884, creates the “Oklahoma Firearms Freedom Act,” which declares that a “personal firearm, a firearm accessory, or ammunition that is manufactured commercially or privately in Oklahoma and that remains within the borders of Oklahoma is not subject to federal law or federal regulation, including registration, under the authority of Congress to regulate interstate commerce.”

The legislation notes that regulation of intrastate commerce is vested in the states under the Ninth and Tenth Amendments to the United States Constitution and that Article II, Section 26, of the Oklahoma Constitution “clearly secures to Oklahoma citizens, and prohibits interference with, the right of individual Oklahoma citizens to keep and bear arms.”

As a result, under the bill, guns manufactured in Oklahoma and sold to citizens of the state would not be subject to federal regulations since “those items have not traveled in interstate commerce.”

Applicable firearms will be required to clearly display “Made in Oklahoma” on a major metallic part.

And there’s more:

Some supporters of the legislation say that a successful application of such a state-law would set a strong precedent and open the door for states to take their own positions on a wide range of other activities that they see as not being authorized to the Federal Government by the Constitution.

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. Implied in such legislation is that the state apparatus will enforce the act against all violations – in order to protect the liberty of the state’s citizens.

Oklahoma’s bill brings the number to 16 states that have seen a Firearms Freedom Act introduced in the past year – most recently, New Hampshire, Virginia and Missouri.

Frankly, I believe everything possible should be done to challenge the federal power grab.

by Michael Boldin

Missouri State Representative Cynthia Davis has introduced the “Firearms Freedom Act” (HB1230) – prefiled for the 2010 legislative session. The bill “Asserts the right of the State of Missouri to regulate the intrastate use and acquisition of certain firearms pursuant to the reserved powers of the state over intrastate commerce and the Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms.”

While the bill’s title focuses solely federal gun regulations, it has far more to do with the 10th Amendment’s mandate that powers not delegated to the federal government are “reserved to the states, respectively, or to the people.” It states:

Amendment X of the Constitution of the United States guarantees to the states and their people all powers not granted to the federal government elsewhere in the Constitution and reserves to the state and people of Missouri certain powers as they were understood at the time that Missouri was admitted to statehood. The guarantee of those powers is a matter of contract between the state and people of Missouri and the United States as of the time that the compact with the United States was agreed upon and adopted by Missouri and the United State

Amendment II of the Constitution of the United States reserves to the people the right to keep and bear arms as that right was understood at the time that Missouri was admitted to statehood, and the guarantee of the right is a matter of contract between the state and people of Missouri and the United States as of the time that the compact with the United States was agreed upon and adopted by Missouri and the United States

Some supporters of the legislation say that a successful application of such a state-law would set a strong precedent and open the door for states to take their own positions on a wide range of activities that they see as not being authorized to the Federal Government by the Constitution.

Firearms Freedom Acts have already passed in both Montana and Tennessee, and have been introduced in a number of other states around the country. (Click here to see the full list)

There’s been no lack of controversy surrounding these laws, either. The Tenth Amendment Center recently reported on the ATF’s position that such laws don’t matter:

The Federal Government, by way of the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms expressed its own view of the Tenth Amendment this week when it issued an open letter to ‘all Tennessee Federal Firearms Licensees’ in which it denounced the opinion of Beavers and the Tennessee legislature. ATF assistant director Carson W. Carroll wrote that ‘Federal law supersedes the Act’, and thus the ATF considers it meaningless.

Constitutional historian Kevin R.C. Gutzman sees this as something far removed from the founders’ vision of constitutional government:

“Their view is that the states exist for the administrative convenience of the Federal Government, and so of course any conflict between state and federal policy must be resolved in favor of the latter.”

“This is another way of saying that the Tenth Amendment is not binding on the Federal Government. Of course, that amounts to saying that federal officials have decided to ignore the Constitution when it doesn’t suit them.”

Advocates of these efforts say it doesn’t matter if the federal government disagrees, or even threatens states over funding, as they did recently with Oklahoma. Gary Marbut, author of the Montana Firearms Freedom Act, and founder of FirearmsFreedomAct.com took this position in a recent interview with the Tenth Amendment Center:

“We’re not depending on permission from federal judges to be able to effectuate our state-made guns bills. And, we’re working on other strategies to wrest essential and effective power from the federal government and put it where it belongs.“

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.

All across the country, activists and state-legislators are pressing for similar legislation, to nullify specific federal laws within their states.

A proposed Constitutional Amendment to effectively ban national health care will go to a vote in Arizona in 2010. Thirteen states now have some form of medical marijuana laws – in direct contravention to federal laws which state that the plant is illegal in all circumstances. And,massive state nullification of the 2005 Real ID Act has rendered the law virtually null and void.

While some advocates concede that a federal court battle has a slim chance of success, they point to the successful nullification of the Real ID Act as a blueprint to resist various federal laws that they see as outside the scope of the Constitution.

Some say that each successful state-level resistance to federal programs will only embolden others to try the same – resulting in an eventual shift of power from the federal government to the States and the People themselves.

Michael Boldin is the founder of the Tenth Amendment Center

Copyright © 2009 by TenthAmendmentCenter.com. Permission to reprint in whole or in part is gladly granted, provided full credit is given.

… with heavy and sophisticated pro-2nd Amendment content and an organic deconstruction of common folk’s tendency to applaud tyrants.  –DW

From: Urban Cinefile

CLINT EASTWOOD’S IDIOSYNCRATIC MASTERPIECE ?
Matthew Dillon reminds us that, as Orson Welles declared, if it had been directed by anyone else, The Outlaw Josey Wales would have been feted as a masterpiece – or was it ahead of its time?

In the latter years of his career, Clint Eastwood has received considerable acclaim for his work. The revisionist western Unforgiven earned Oscars in four categories, including Best Picture and Director, and the French acknowledged Eastwood’s rich contribution to film with presentation of the Commander of the Order of Arts and Letters (Commandeur de L’Ordre Arts et des Lettres), the highest French cultural decoration.

“avoided the wider cultural analysis”

As an actor Eastwood has turned roles such as Harry Callahan in Dirty Harry into signposts in the Zeitgeist, and parts in numerous spaghetti westerns established an archetype in the genre, that of The Man With No Name (and after Eastwood reportedly tore pages from the script, The Man With No Dialogue).

Yet a film such as The Outlaw Josey Wales, made in 1976 and one of the earlier entries in the Eastwood directorial canon (he took over after shooting had begun), somehow avoided the wider cultural analysis afforded far shallower and less resonant westerns such as The Wild Bunch or Rio Bravo and the adulation of others such as Shane and High Noon.

At the same time, while it is well known among western aficionados and Eastwood acolytes, it is a film conspicuous by its absence from the numerous end of century critics’ lists. Consider that no less a figure than Orson Welles declared that if it had been directed by anyone else, The Outlaw Josey Wales would have been feted as a masterpiece. For some reason, however, it’s a film that just never seems to have received its due.

Perhaps it’s because, though the film depicts a government authority that lies to and betrays its constituents, and exhibits an idiosyncratic structure and script, it’s a movie not thought of as typical of its time. The Outlaw Josey Wales doesn’t readily offer a reading as one of the quintessential 70s movies made in the wake of Watergate or the Vietnam war in the same way that, say, The Deerhunter or Taxi Driver do.

“a quest for revenge”

All of which is not to say that The Outlaw Josey Wales is a standard entry in the western genre. Essentially it is the story of a man, who robbed of his family and peaceful life, sets out on a quest for revenge, only to realise ultimately, as he tells one of his victims, “dying ain’t much of a living.”

The film opens near the start of the internecine American civil War. A farmer, Josey, goes about his daily toil of ploughing a field, his young son learning by his side while in the distance we hear a voice, his wife’s, calling him to supper. Marauding Union soldiers ride into this idyllic tableau, and it quickly becomes apparent that this band, characterised by red leggings, mean the family ill will.

The house aflame, family distraught, Josey resists the soldiers, but is struck down. He recovers only to find his family is dead, the dwelling burnt down and his former tranquil life over. From the embers of his house Josey takes up his pistol, thus beginning his quest for revenge. In so many of Clint Eastwood’s films little is known about the lead characters. In fact in several, Pale Rider and High Plains Drifter come to mind, we learn not much more about the protagonists other than their adroitness with weapons, a fondness for using few words and a determination to set things right. They are avenging angels without pasts.

“a history that becomes embellished by time”

Josey Wales, though, like Unforgiven’s William Munny, has a history that becomes embellished by time. In the closing hours of the war, Fletcher (a stentorian John Vernon), the leader of the group Josey has joined after the destruction of his former existence, convinces the posse of confederates of the sense in surrendering to the union.

Wales resists, reckoning it better not to acquiesce to the murderers of his family, and his decision is a sound one. Fletcher, like his men, has been lied to – and a trap set. All are gunned down, save for Jamie (Sam Bottoms) who escapes with Josey, whose quest now becomes one of escape as Fletcher and redleg Terrill are dispatched to capture them. Before long though, the lone traveller is joined by a mess of unlikely characters.

Though outwardly a very simple film, like Unforgiven, The Outlaw Josey Wales is serviced by an interestingly lyrical script which pays as much attention to characters’ words as deeds. It also features a sparkling cast of minor players that include a sycophantic barge driver, a no-nonsense pilgrim crone and her strange granddaughter (Sondra Locke, who is not as annoying as she could be) and an elixir-shilling carpetbagger who can’t keep his suit resplendent for very long – to name a few. A moody score earned the film its only Oscar nomination.

Like many entries in the genre, The Outlaw Josey Wales uses its setting as an excuse for some superb shots of sweeping vistas and roan stallions a-whinnying.

At the same time it resists falling into the simplistic dime-novel narrative conventions, of say Wyatt Earp or The Quick and the Dead. It also manages to portray native Americans in a sympathetic and realistic manner, unlike, most notably, The Searchers.

“The price for timelessness”

And unlike Dances With Wolves, a similarly big canvas dramatic western, or even much later movies such as Tombstone or Dead Man, the characters employ humour that belies their often bleak existence. Given the awards earned by Unforgiven, and in the wake of it, to Eastwood himself – he even chaired the jury at Cannes one year – the only thing that might have prohibited The Outlaw Josey Wales from winning continuing adulation from a critical audience was timing. The film was simply made too early. It could be said the price for its timelessness is that it often continues to be overlooked.