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 ...
From the article:
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.
So, his position is there are no qualifiers on the Second Amendment and then attempts to defend his actions with the use of a qualifier? Sounds shaky to me. But, I’ll defer to the fine legal minds here on FR.
Personally, I hope he wins and wins BIG.
It’s still time to take back the country.
“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.”
?
What kind of NG unit is he talking about? I spent a year in an NG unit and we all had M16s as well as our crew served weapons(4.2” mortars) and .50 caliber M2 machine guns for our tracks.
The thought occured to me that any one of these people could turn and begin shooting people at random...but that doesn't happen. Why? Because everyone is armed....and responsible firearms owners do not abuse the RKBA of any type....flintlock, cap&ball, single shot, semi auto or fully auto.
whoops, mispoke. The Belton gun was able to fire up to 20 rounds in five seconds, not five minutes...
I’m glad to hear that your unit was fully armed as it should be. How long ago was that?
I’m asking because it occurred to me that we NOW have a government that sympathizes with terrorists and sees our armed citizenry and especially our returned military as possible/likely terrorists. The head of DHS certainly thinks so.
Many of us expect (hopefully) that our military will not fire on American citizens or help in the confiscation of our weapons etc. under a possible/likely choreographed “crisis” (never let one go to waste and if you need one, make one) resulting in martial law.
What if they find a way to disarm not just us civilian citizens but also all the military who are loyal to our country and not Caesar.
I was sympathetic until I read this.
Yeah, that’s the question I had. In my guard unit we had two SAWs per squad, three squads per platoon and then the crew served weapons squad with two M-60s.
This was in every rifle platoon, with the HQ platoon which had the 60mm mortars, the had M60s attached as well. We also a hybrid scout/AT platoon with SAWs organic to them as well.
This guy is arguing that his brigade only had 21 automatic weapons? What the hell was he in, the 4th Spoon Platoon? There should have been at least one .50 or M60 or M240 on each vehicle in his units.
I don’t get his rational about him needing the weapons because his Guard unit did not have enough automatic weapons....
Anything that strengthens individual rights over the collectivist government is good. The government MUST fear the people.
I must have missed that particular line in the constitution. Is that a penumbric emanation, too?
Not to mention cannon. At the outset of the Revolution, many cannon were privately owned. Privateers had private canon throughout the Revolution and the War of 1212. While one can still own a Revolutionary war type canon, the second amendment does not say the guns had to be of a 200 year old type.
This reminds me of one of my favorite Walter E. Williams quotes. “You have no obligation to obey unconstitutional laws. Just be prepared for the consequences of you get caught.”
You, Sir, are 100% CORRECT! I have been saying this for years and have posted it here on FR too.
The problem is that a vast majority of our population have been so indoctrinated by the Government schools and media to think the opposite, and now people like you and me, who fully support the teachings of our founding fathers, are now looked upon as terrorists and anti-Americans.
It makes me sad to see the collectivist mindset of the majority of the citizens.
Good addendum. If the founders wanted to limit the 2nd amendment, they would have said the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed unless they are cannons shooting projectiles larger then the 6 pound variety. It sounds funny to us, but that is exactly what our founders did with the 4th amendment. They limited it.
??? Herbert Hoover was President in 1932. Franklin Delano Roosevelt took office in March, 1933. He didn't appoint a Justice until 1937. He didn't make his fifth appointment until 1940.
The BATFE is one of the most pernicious and destructive bodies operating in our government today. They have ZERO Constitutional authority to exist as they do today.
I suspect that his arguments are not as solid as he thinks. If three of the major gun advocacy organizations in the US won’t back him, I suspect that his case is a loser, and they know it.
Practically speaking, the SCOTUS is finding acceptable ground here.
And while even the possession of machine guns should not be forbidden, it is not unreasonable, in the opinion of the vast majority of Americans, the States, and law enforcement personnel, that restrictive licensing is not intolerable. The easy availability and criminal use of Tommy guns during Prohibition, and the resultant bloodbath, pretty well decided that.
But in balance, right now the momentum is with the gun rights movement. So creativity is required of each of us to think of new and better ways for gun liberties to be introduced into common use. We can’t just “hold the line” of gun rights, we need to expand on them.
Specious argument. Are you saying current Class III owners are causing today's gang crimes? Most of which are equally horrific as anything Pretty Boy Floyd may have perpetrated?
Prohibition caused an entire industry to go underground. Just as it does today. Don't blame the tools, blame the perps.
Not really following your meaning here. Elaborate?
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.