|
|
|
 |
 |
Posted on 08/10/2002 6:46:10 PM PDT by Merchant Seaman
IF YOU FEEL THAT MY CASE IS DESERVING OF NRA'S ASSISTANCE (WHICH IT IS UNDER THE RULES OF THE NRA'S CIVIL RIGHTS DEFENSE FUND) PLEASE CONTACT HORALD VOLKMER, DIRECTOR, NRA CIVIL RIGHTS DEFENSE FUND AT NRA HQ IN FAIRFAX, VA.
Don Hamrick, U.S. Merchant Seaman v. President George W. Bush, et al, U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia, Civil Action No. 02-1435ESH, July 18, 2002.
On July 18, 2002 I, a U.S. Merchant Seaman, Don Hamrick, filed a lawsuit, (a Writ of Mandamus) against President George W. Bush, Norman Mineta, Secretary of the Department of Transportation, Rep. Frank A. LoBiondo, Chairman of the House Subcommittee on the Coast Guard and Maritime Transportation, Admiral Thomas H. Collins, Commandant of the U.S. Coast Guard, and Capt. J.P. Brusseau, Director of Field Activities, Marine Safety, Security and Environmental Protection, Commandant (G-MO), U.S. Coast Guard, all in Washington, DC for Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms as an individual right in the form of an endorsement on my Merchant Mariner's Document (I.D. card), not as a license or permit, but as recognition of the constitutional right under the Second Amendment.
I have sent a letter certified mail to Harold Volkmer, Director of the NRA Civil Rights Defense Fund asking for help. I filed my case Pro Se asking the court for a Pro Bono attorney. The case is still in is early pre-trail phase.
I have been corresponding with the Coast Guard since October 2001 about the Second Amendment rights of U.S. Merchant Seamen while ashore in the United States. And because I was exercising First Amendment rights to petition the government for redress of grievances the Coast Guard pulled my off a government-contracted U.S. merchant vessel anchored off the coast of Lithuania to subject me to a two hour criminal investigation interview. (I am suing the Coast Guard for damages for this act of intimidation in the amount of $10 million.)
The Coast Guard issued the 46 CFR 1.03-15(j) "Final Agency Action" denying my application. They dated this denial "APRIL 19". That is Patriots Day. By denying my Second Amendment application the Coast Guard validates me as an American Patriot fight for freedom. By putting me through a criminal investigation through the Navy Criminal Investigative Service they verify that validation.
When the Coast Guard denied my the first time (Commanding Officer, National Maritime Center, Arlington, VA) they said my application went against Coast Guard regulations. But the letter did not list the Coast Guard regulations the letter relied on to make that conclusive denial. That letter is nothing both a baseless claim. On the other hand, I have cited from the U.S. Code laws that opens the door for the restoration of Second Amendment rights to open carry without license or permit across state lines. My legal position is far stronger the the Coast Guard's.
I aim to cause the striking of State and Federal gun laws that infringe or prohibit the open carry of firearms for personal security and the security of a free State.
One of my arguing points relies on the 1857 U.S. Supreme Court case in Dred Scott v. Sanford's definition of a free citizen and a slave. I allege that because the combined effect of the anti-militia laws of the 24 States (1996 data) and the total number of State and Federal firearms laws render law-abiding citizens as slaves to the State and Federal governments. Hence my Civil Rights lawsuit against President Bush for FREEDOM.
United States v. Miller (1939) was a Second Amendment case arising from criminal law.
United States v. Emerson was a Second Amendment case arising from criminal law.
My case arises from Civil Rights law. This is a whole different ball game.
With that said, I am turning the tables on President Bush and Attorney General John Ashcroft over their LIP SERVICE policy reversal on the Second Amendment where they say it is an individual right but will continue prosecuting and enforcing firearms laws.
What you will read below is my MOTION that I filed after I filed my Writ of Mandamus.
IF YOU FEEL THAT MY CASE IS DESERVING OF NRA'S ASSISTANCE (WHICH IT IS UNDER THE RULES OF THE NRA'S CIVIL RIGHTS DEFENSE FUND) PLEASE CONTACT HORALD VOLKMER, DIRECTOR, NRA CIVIL RIGHTS DEFENSE FUND AT NRA HQ IN FAIRFAX, VA.
==================================
Motion To Include Judicial Review of Certain Transferred Duties and Powers of the Department of Transportation, the U.S. Coast Guard & the U.S. Congress With Writ of Mandamus
(1) In accordance with Rule 7(b), Motions and Other Papers of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedures; and with 3 U.S.C. § 301 General Authorization to Delegate Functions; publication of delegations of the President of the United States; with 2 U.S.C. § 285a Purpose and Policy and 285b Functions of the Office of Law Revision Counsel of the U.S. Congress; with 49 U.S.C. § 301(1), Leadership, Consultation, and Cooperation of the Department of Transportation with the President of the United States, (The Secretary of Transportation shall, under the direction of the President, exercise leadership in transportation matters, including those matters affecting national defense and those matters involving national or regional emergencies); 49 U.S.C. § 2103, (The Secretary has general superintendence over the merchant marine of the United States and of merchant marine personnel insofar as the enforcement of this subtitle is concerned and insofar as those vessels and personnel are not subject, under other law, to the supervision of another official of the United States Government. In the interests of marine safety and seamen’s welfare, the Secretary shall enforce this subtitle and shall carry out correctly and uniformly administer this subtitle. The Secretary may prescribe regulations to carry out the provisions of this subtitle.); with 14 U.S.C. § 2 Primary duties of the U.S. Coast Guard concerning land patrols; with 49 U.S.C. § 351 Judicial Review of Actions in Carrying Out Certain Transferred Duties and Powers of the Department of Transportation; Petitioner hereby requests review of the official United States policy on the Second Amendment to the United States Constitution and its impact upon U.S. citizens of the U.S. Merchant Marine while ashore in the United States as a subset of law abiding citizens as well as law abiding citizens as a whole set in intrastate and interstate travel in conjunction with the Ninth, Tenth, Thirteenth and Fourteenth Amendments.
(2) The current official policy of the United States government on the Second Amendment is contained in Footnote 3 to the U.S. Supreme Court Brief for the United States in Opposition to Timothy Joe Emerson v. United States on Petition for a Writ of Certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit, No. 01-8780; Theodore B. Olson, Solicitor General and Council of Record.
(3) That portion of Footnote 3 reads:
The current position of the United States, however, is that the Second Amendment more broadly protects the rights of individuals, including persons who are not members of any militia or engaged in active military service or training, to possess and bear their own firearms, subject to reasonable restrictions designed to prevent possession by unfit persons or to restrict the possession of types of firearms that are particularly suited to criminal misuse. See Memorandum From the Attorney General To All United States Attorneys, Re: United States v. Emerson, Nov. 9, 2001. A copy of that memorandum is appended to this brief.
(4) The Memorandum:
[Seal Omitted] Office of the Attorney General Washington, D.C. 20530 November 9, 2001
MEMORANDUM TO ALL UNITED STATES’ ATTORNEYS FROM: The Attorney General /s/ John Ashcroft RE: United States v. Emerson
On October 16, 2001, the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit issued its decision in United States v. Emerson. I am pleased that the decision upholds the constitutionality of 18 U.S.C. 922(g)(8) - which prohibits violent persons who are under domestic restraining orders from possessing firearms. By taking guns out of the hands of persons whose propensity to violence is sufficient to warrant a specific restraining order, this statute helps avoid tragic episodes of domestic violence. As I have stated many times, reducing gun crime is a top priority for the Department. We will vigorously enforce and defend existing firearms laws in order to accomplish that goal.
Emerson is also noteworthy because, in upholding this statute, the Fifth Circuit undertook a scholarly and comprehensive review of the pertinent legal materials and specifically affirmed that the Second Amendment “protects the right of individuals, including those not then actually a member of any militia or engaged in active military service or training, to privately possess and bear their own firearms. . . .” The Court’s opinion also makes the important point that the existence of this individual right does not mean that reasonable restrictions cannot be imposed to prevent unfit persons from possessing firearms or to restrict possession of firearms particularly suited to criminal misuse. In my view, the Emerson opinion, and the balance it strikes, generally reflect the correct understanding of the Second Amendment.
The Department can and will continue to defend vigorously the constitutionality, under the Second Amendment, of all existing federal firearms laws. The Department has a solemn obligation both to enforce federal law and to respect the constitutional rights guaranteed to Americans. Because it may be expected that Emerson will be raised in any number of firearms case handled by this Department, it is important that the Department carefully assess the implications of the Emerson decision and how it interacts with existing circuit precedent. Accordingly, United States Attorney’s Offices should promptly advise the Criminal Division of all cases in which Second Amendment issues are raised, and coordinate all briefing in those cases with the Criminal Division and the Solicitor General’s office.
As the Supreme Court has long observed, the mission of the Department “in a criminal prosecution is not that it shall win a case, but that justice shall be done.” Berger v. United States, 295 U.S. 78, 88 (1935). Justice is best achieved, not by making any available argument that might win a case, but by vigorously enforcing federal law in a manner that heeds the commands of the Constitution.
(5) Citing United States v. Lopez, 514 U.S. 549 (1995) for a discussion of errant Congressional legislation overstepping the Commerce Clause to establish “Gun Free School Zones” Petitioner excerpts from Lopez:
The Government argues that Congress has accumulated institutional expertise regarding the regulation of firearms through previous enactments. Cf. Fullilove v. Klutznick, 448 U.S. 448, 503 (1980) (Powell, J., concurring). We agree, however, with the Fifth Circuit that importation of previous findings to justify §922(q) is especially inappropriate here because the “prior federal enactments or Congressional findings [do not] speak to the subject matter of section 922(q) or its relationship to interstate commerce. Indeed, section 922(q) plows thoroughly new ground and represents a sharp break with the long standing pattern of federal firearms legislation.” 2 F. 3d, at 1366.
The Government’s essential contention, in fine, is that we may determine here that §922(q) is valid because possession of a firearm in a local school zone does indeed substantially affect interstate commerce. Brief for United States 17. The Government argues that possession of a firearm in a school zone may result in violent crime and that violent crime can be expected to affect the functioning of the national economy in two ways. First, the costs of violent crime are substantial, and, through the mechanism of insurance, those costs are spread throughout the population. See United States v. Evans, 928 F. 2d 858, 862 (CA9 1991). Second, violent crime reduces the willingness of individuals to travel to areas within the country that are perceived to be unsafe. Cf. Heart of Atlanta Motel, 379 U. S., at 253. The Government also argues that the presence of guns in schools poses a substantial threat to the educational process by threatening the learning environment. A handicapped educational process, in turn, will result in a less productive citizenry. That, in turn, would have an adverse effect on the Nation’s economic well being. As a result, the Government argues that Congress could rationally have concluded that §922(q) substantially affects interstate commerce.
We pause to consider the implications of the Government’s arguments. The Government admits, under its “costs of crime” reasoning, that Congress could regulate not only all violent crime, but all activities that might lead to violent crime, regardless of how tenuously they relate to interstate commerce. See Tr. of Oral Arg. 8-9. Similarly, under the Government’s “national productivity” reasoning, Congress could regulate any activity that it found was related to the economic productivity of individual citizens: family law (including marriage, divorce, and child custody), for example. Under the theories that the Government presents in support of 922(q), it is difficult to perceive any limitation on federal power, even in areas such as criminal law enforcement or education where States historically have been sovereign. Thus, if we were to accept the Government’s arguments, we are hard-pressed to posit any activity by an individual that Congress is without power to regulate. . . .
These are not precise formulations, and in the nature of things they cannot be. But we think they point the way to a correct decision of this case. The possession of a gun in a local school zone is in no sense an economic activity that might, through repetition elsewhere, substantially affect any sort of interstate commerce. Respondent was a local student at a local school; there is no indication that he had recently moved in interstate commerce, and there is no requirement that his possession of the firearm have any concrete tie to interstate commerce.
(6) Petitioner asserts the claim that the purpose of the Preamble to the Bill of Rights, to “prevent misconstruction or abuse of its powers, that further declaratory and restrictive clauses should be added: And as extending the ground of public confidence in the Government, will best ensure the beneficent ends of its institution;” the Preamble to the Constitution; the Second, Ninth, Tenth, Thirteenth, and Fourteenth Amendments; the Full Faith and Credit Clause and the Privileges and Immunities Clause of Article IV; the delegation of the President being the Commander in Chief of the Militia of the several States in Section 2, Article II;, The United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a Republican Form of Government, and shall protect each of them against Invasion; and on Application of the Legislature, or of the Executive (when the Legislature cannot be convened), against domestic Violence of Section 4, Article IV; all serve as a barrier to firearms laws through the Commerce Clause of Section 8, Article I of the U.S. Constitution and whether such barriers prohibit the States from enacting such firearms laws through the Fourteenth Amendment.
(7) The new official United States policy on the Second Amendment as being an individual right is so fundamental to the Rule of Law as to mandate a legislative and judicial review of all firearms laws in existence as to the fact that either all, most, or some of the firearms laws were enacted either on the assumption the Second Amendment was a collective right of the state or a confused mixture of the collective and individual rights assumptive view. The new policy on the Second Amendment unequivocally impeaches all firearms laws for constitutionality given the legislative history of collective rights advocates in Congress misconstructing and misconstruing the Second Amendment in violation of the Preamble to the Bill of Rights, and other portions of the U.S. Constitution so listed in paragraph (6) above, at the passage of said firearms laws.
(8) Petitioner questions the constitutionality of State and Federal firearms laws that infringe, restrict, or prohibit the right to travel while armed under the Second Amendment for the purpose of personal security and the security of a free state as violating the Ninth, Tenth, Thirteenth and Fourteenth Amendments as, as establishing a form of legislated slavery and/or involuntary servitude as defined by the 1857 U.S. Supreme Court case in Dred Scott v. Sanford.
(9) The above Footnote 3 and the Memorandum applies the new official United States policy on the Second Amendment as an individual right to criminal cases. Petitioner requests judicial review of the United States policy on the Second Amendment’s impact on civil rights encompassing the Full Faith and Credit clause and the Privileges and Immunities clause of Article IV of the United States Constitution; and the Ninth, Tenth, Thirteenth and Fourteenth Amendments as it impacts the right to travel the various States of the United States and within a State giving due regard to residents of the State and Out-of-State citizens.
(10) Petitioner presents a question to the Court to determine whether the new official United States policy on the Second Amendment as an individual right to keep and bear arms is, in fact, a delegated authority and direct order to establish law & regulation to the U.S. Coast Guard through the Department of Transportation and a mandate to the U.S. Congress to review the constitutionality of all firearms laws in accordance with the following laws:
3 U.S.C. § 301 General Authorization to Delegate Functions; publication of delegations of the President of the United States;
2 U.S.C. § 285a Purpose and Policy and 285b Functions of the Office of Law Revision Counsel of the U.S. Congress; with
49 U.S.C. § 301(1), Leadership, Consultation, and Cooperation of the Department of Transportation with the President of the United States, (The Secretary of Transportation shall, under the direction of the President, exercise leadership in transportation matters, including those matters affecting national defense and those matters involving national or regional emergencies);
49 U.S.C. § 2103 (The Secretary [of Transportation] has general superintendence over the merchant marine of the United States and of merchant marine personnel insofar as the enforcement of this subtitle is concerned and insofar as those vessels and personnel are not subject, under other law, to the supervision of another official of the United States Government. In the interests of marine safety and seamen’s welfare, the Secretary shall enforce this subtitle and shall carry out correctly and uniformly administer this subtitle. The Secretary may prescribe regulations to carry out the provisions of this subtitle.); with
14 U.S.C. § 2 Primary duties of the U.S. Coast Guard concerning land patrols; with
49 U.S.C. § 351 Judicial Review of Actions in Carrying Out Certain Transferred Duties and Powers of the Department of Transportation.
(11) Petitioner hereby motions for a determination of the constitutionality of State and Federal firearms laws infringing, restricting, or prohibiting the First Amendment right of the people peaceably to assemble while in intrastate and interstate travel conjoined with traveling while armed under the Second, Ninth, Tenth, and Thirteenth Amendment rights to personal security and safety with an eye to restoring certain Second Amendment freedoms for the security of a free state and for the people to provide for the common defense as being the right and duty of the people of the United States giving due regard to the Dred Scott v. Sanford’s definitions of a free citizen and a slave.
=============
Merchan Seaman signed up 2002-08-10
$5 million worth of pain & suffering per hour. Not bad.
What do the Bermuda Triangle and George Michael have in common?........They're both still swallowing "seamen".
The president? Wow, are you ever gonna get some tasty reparations...
|
|
|
|
|
Hard to say eggsactly.
I make them all the time.
Once I meant to say that someone had been "missing for six hours" and somehow I hit the P key instead of the M.
Another time, on a thread about an especially cruel sentence in Nigeria, I meant to type "It's tough being an old woman in Nigeria" but for some reason it came out as "It's tough being on old women in Nigeria".
But I don't expect people not to laugh when I present them with comedy material.
I'd also be real careful to proofread when selecting a permanent screen name, but maybe that's just me.
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.