You are on page 1of 94

Don Hamrick, civil RICO Act Plaintiff and

The Second Amendment Trial of the Century!


For National Open Carry Handgun!
Released Monday, May 7, 2007

Hamrick, pro se, (Non-State Actor)


(U.S. merchant seaman!)
v.
United Nations, President Bush, et al,

U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of


Arkansas, Northern Division, (Batesville),
No. 1:06cv0044, filed September 11, 2006.

Trial date set November 13, 2007


with Motion to Dismiss still pending.

4 years, 8 months of Federal


Litigation
with No help from the NRA or the
Second Amendment Foundation!
They refused to help or even publicize
the existence of my case because
my case conflicts with their
National Reciprocity for Concealed
If I win my case for significant damages and
collect
I will create the American Common Defence
Review
to Run the NRA out of Business!

My Future Plan:
The American Common Defence
Review will be a non-profit
organization with its own hybrid
news, commentary, and policy
analysis magazine taking an
absolute no compromise position
on gun control legislation and we
will not stand for any United
Nations attacks on our Bill of
Rights!
Donations Desparately
Needed for my Second
Amendment case!
This case takes more money to fight
than I can earn as a merchant seaman.
Please send
U.S. Postal Money Orders or Certified
Bank Drafts (No personal checks) to:

Don Hamrick
5860 Wilburn Road
Wilburn, Arkansas 72179
Is it Common Defence -or- National
Defense?
Questions for the Jury to Answer

 Does the National Open Carry Handgun


endorsement on a U.S. Merchant
Mariner’s Document (ID Card) benefit
marine safety and security?
 Does National Open Carry Handgun
benefit public safety and security?
 Is National Open Carry Handgun an
individual right under the Bill of Rights
and a power reserved to the People
under the Tenth Amendment?
The Second Amendment
As a Function of the Common Defence
(wait 5 seconds)
Separation of Tenth Amendment
Powers
Enforcement

Executiv Legislativ
Policy e
e
Implementati Judicial Interpretati
on

Vertical Separation of
onof
UNITED STATES – Horizontal Separation
Powers
Enforcement

Executiv Legislativ
Policy

Powers
e e
Implementati Judicial Interpretation
on
STATE – Horizontal Separation of
Powers

We, the People


The Ultimate Sovereign. The Source
of all rights and powers to set
policy.
Areas of Law this Case
Covers
 International Maritime Law
 International Human Rights Law
 Constitutional Law
 Federal Law
 State Law
 Local Ordinances
The Preamble
to the U.S. Constitution

 We the People of the United States, in


Order to form a more perfect Union,
establish Justice, insure domestic
Tranquility, provide for the common
defence, promote the general Welfare,
and secure the Blessings of Liberty to
ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain
and establish this Constitution for the
United States of America.
Purpose and Effect of the
Preamble to the U.S. Constitution
 Although
‘‘Its true office,’’
the preamble
wrote is
Joseph
not a Story
sourceinof
his
power for
any
COMMENTARIES,
department of ‘‘is
the
to Federal
expound Government,
the nature and [Jacobson
v.
extent
Massachusetts,
and application 197 U.S.
of the
11,powers
22 (1905)],
actually
the
Supreme
conferredCourtby the hasConstitution,
often referredandto not
it substantively
as evidence of
the
to create
origin,them.
scope, Forandexample,
purposethe of preamble
the Constitution.
declares
[E.g.,
one object
the Court
to be,has‘toread
provide
the for
preamble
the common
as bearing
witness
defense.’ toNo
the
one
fact canthat
doubt
the Constitution
that this does emanated
not
from
enlargethethepeople
powers andof was
Congress
not theto actpass
of sovereign
any and
independent
measures which States,
theyMcCulloch
deem useful v. Maryland,
for the common
4 Wheat.
(17
defence.
U.S.) But
316,suppose
403 (1819) the Chisholm
terms of av.given
Georgia,
power 2 Dall.
(2
admit
U.S.) of419,
two 471
constructions,
(1793); Martinthe one
v. Hunter’s
more restrictive,
Lessee, 1
Wheat.
the other (14more
U.S.)liberal,
304, 324 and(1816),
each ofand themthat
is it was
made
consistent
for, and
withisthe
binding
words,only
butin,is,the
andUnited
oughtStates
to be, of
America.
governedDownesby the intent
v. Bidwell,
of the182
power;
U.S. if
244,
one251could
(1901);
In
promote
re Ross, and
140the
U.S.other
453,defeat
464 (1891)]
the common defence,
ought not the former, upon the soundest principles
of interpretation, to be adopted?’’ [1 J. STORY,
COMMENTARIES ON THE CONSTITUTION OF THE
UNITED STATES (Boston: 1833), 462. For a lengthy
exegesis of the preamble phrase by phrase, see M.
ADLER & W. GORMAN, THE AMERICAN TESTAMENT
U.S. CONSTITION
Article I: Powers of Congress

 Section. 8. The Congress shall have Power . . .

 To declare War, grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal,


and make Rules concerning Captures on Land and
Water;
Oxford English Dictionary Online
The Spelling & Usage of Defence &
Defense?
 “Both the word defence and defense were used
simultaneously, as early as 1297.” Lisa E. Munson,
Student assistant Librarian, Old Diminion University
Library, Norfolk, Virginia

 FROM THE OXFORD ENGLISH DICTIONARY ONLINE: Two


forms: ME. defens, a. OF. defens (deffans, deffenz, desfens,
-fans, etc.), Ph. de Thaun 1119, ad. L. dfensum thing
forbidden, defended, etc., n. use of pa. pple. of dfendre (see
DEFEND); also ME. defense, a. OF. defense defence,
prohibition, ad. L. dfensa (Tertullian = defensio), f. pa. pple.
dfensus, analogous to ns. in -ta, -ade, -ée. In Eng. where e
became early mute, and grammatical gender was lost, the two
forms naturally ran together; app. the spelling defence comes
from the defens form; cf. hennes, hens, hence; penis, pens,
pence; ones, ons, once; sithens, since; Duns, dunce. The
spelling defense is that it is now usual in the United
States.
The Six Guarantees of the Preamble
to the U.S. Constitution

We the People of the United States


(1) in Order to form a more perfect Union,
(2) establish Justice,
(3) insure domestic Tranquility,
(4) provide for the common defence,
(5) promote the general Welfare, and
(6) secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our
Posterity,

do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United


States of America
The Ninth Amendment

 The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights,


shall not be construed to deny or disparage others
retained by the people.
The Tenth Amendment

 The powers not delegated to the United States by the


Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are
reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.
Fourteenth Amendment

 Section. 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United


States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are
citizens of the United States and of the State wherein
they reside. The United
No State States
shall make shall make orany
or enforce enforce any
law which
law
shallwhich
abridgeshall
theabridge the or
privileges privileges or immunities
immunities of citizens of
of
citizens
the United of the United
States; norStates; and
shall any shalldeprive
State depriveany
anyperson
person of life, liberty,
of life, liberty, or property,
or property, withoutwithout due process
due process of law; of
law; and deny
nor deny to any toperson
any person
withinwithin its jurisdiction
its jurisdiction the
the equal
equal protection
protection of the of the laws. But the States shall not do
laws.
any of these against the citizens of the United States.

>>TRANSLATED IN AFFIRMATIVE LANGUAGE FOR THE


UNITED STATES BUT IN NEGATIVE LANGUAGE FOR THE
STATES <<
Resistance of Pirates by Merchant
Vessels
UNITED STATES CODE
Title 33 – Navigation and Navigable Waters
Chapter 7 – Regulations for the Suppression of Piracy
 33 USC § 383. Resistance of pirates by merchant
vessels

 “The commander and crew of any merchant vessel


of the United States, owned wholly, or in part, by a
citizen thereof, may oppose and defend against
any aggression, search, restraint, depredation,
or seizure, which shall be attempted upon such
vessel, or upon any other vessel so owned, by
the commander or crew of any armed vessel
whatsoever, not being a public armed vessel of some
nation in amity with the United States, and may
subdue and capture the same; and may also
retake any vessel so owned which may have
been captured by the commander or crew of any
such armed vessel, and send the same into any
PIRACY AND ARMED ROBBERY AGAINST
SHIPS:
Guidance to Shipowners and Ship Operators, Shipmasters
and Crews on Preventing and Suppressing Acts of Piracy and
Armed Robbery Against Ships MSC/circ.623/Rev.3 Dated 29
May 2002

 Firearms
 ¶ 45. The carrying and use of firearms for
personal protection or protection of a ship is
strongly discouraged.
 ¶ 46. Carriage of arms on board ship may
encourage attackers to carry firearms
thereby escalating an already dangerous
situation, and any firearms on board may
themselves become an attractive target
for an attacker. The use of firearms
requires special training and aptitudes
and the risk of accidents with firearms
carried on board ship is great. In some
jurisdictions, killing a national may have
unforeseen consequences even for a
person who believes he has acted in self
American Merchant Seamen in Harm’s
Way
By Don Hamrick
© 2004 Don Hamrick

Pirates by sea, terrorists by land.


Through hostile waters we sailors dare
steam,
Defensive weapons denied our hand.
Not the law of land or sea it would
seem.

Without rhyme or reason,


September 11, a day of slaughter.
Security now a perpetual season.
Arm ourselves now! Sailors oughta!

Pirates and terrorists armed to the


teeth,
With every blade and firepower within
reach,
Against sailors defenseless as sheep.
For to arm sailors liberals would
screech,

Would cause the Bill of Rights


To become our steering light.
Modern Day Piracy Statistics 1978-
2000
by Michael Bruyneel, February 7, 2001
http://home.wanadoo.nl/m.bruyneel/archive/modern/figures.htm
The
Feds
We, The
The People State
The Second Amendment & International
Treaties
Corpus Juris Secundum; Volume 87:
TREATIES
 II. Construction and Operation

 87 C.J.S. § 6. Generally

Generally, questions as to the construction, and operation


of treaties viewed as contracts between independent
nations are questions for the political departments of the
contracting powers and not for the courts. Accordingly,
respect is ordinarily due the reasonable views of the
Executive Branch concerning the meaning of an
international treaty. Nevertheless, since treaties in their
effect on private rights are in the nature of legislative
acts, and are binding on the courts, it is often necessary
where such rights are involved for the courts to construe
treaties. In such cases, the courts have the power, and the
duty, to construe the treaty, and they have the power to
determine whether a treaty is applicable to the case
under consideration, and the duty to apply it if found
applicable. Thus, a treaty, no less than a statute,
may confer judicial power.
The Second Amendment & International
Treaties
Corpus Juris Secundum; Volume 87:
TREATIES
 III. Duration, Modification, Suspension, and Termination

 87 C.J.S. § 10. Generally — Effect of abrogation.

In the absence of a showing that a treaty provision violates


the Federal Constitution, the courts may not abrogate or
annul a treaty provision. However, where one party to a treaty
abrogates it, the other party is relieved from all obligation
under it.

 87 C.J.S. § 11. Modification or amendment

In the absence of a showing that a treaty provision violates


the Federal Constitution, courts may not alter, amend or
add to any treaty by inserting any clause since to do so would
constitute an usurpation of power and would not be an
exercise of judicial function.
The Second Amendment & International
Treaties
Corpus Juris Secundum; Volume 87:
TREATIES
 III. Duration, Modification, Suspension, and Termination

 87 C.J.S. § 12. Manner of termination —

Termination by constitutional amendment or by


Congress
In the United States Congress may abrogate by a formal
act or resolution directly abrogating the treaty, or by
legislation which by necessary implication results in
abrogation. The intent of Congress, however, must be
clear. Moreover, a treaty may be abrogated by the
adoption of an amendment to the Federal Constitution and
the enactment of a federal statute giving operative effect
to such amendment which is in conflict with such treaty
provisions.
The Second Amendment & International
Treaties
Corpus Juris Secundum; Volume 87:
TREATIES
 III. Duration, Modification, Suspension, and Termination

 87 C.J.S. § 12. Manner of termination —

Effect of War.

Treaties may be of such a nature as to their object and import


that war will put an end to them, war does not, always or
necessarily dissolve or terminate treaties between the
contending powers. The question whether the stipulations of a
treaty are annulled by war depends on their intrinsic character,
and provisions compatible with a state of hostilities, unless
expressly terminated, survive, and those which are
incompatible fall.
The Second Amendment & International
Treaties
Corpus Juris Secundum; Volume 87:
TREATIES
 IV. Relation To, and Conflict With, Other Laws

 87 C.J.S. § 13. Generally

Without express authority from Congress, or authority


otherwise clearly indicated, the courts are bound to
recognize treaties as lawfully made. However, the courts
have the authority to declare the invalidity of a
treaty in a proper case where the rights of citizens
are involved.

 87 C.J.S. § 14. Acts of Congress

Treaties and acts of Congress, are placed on the


same footing and are of like obligation, so that
neither having any inherent superiority over the
other, either may supersede the other. Even so,
neither treaties nor laws passed pursuant to them
are free from the restraints of the United States
Constitution, such as the Bill of Rights.
The Second Amendment & International
Treaties
Corpus Juris Secundum; Volume 87:
TREATIES
 87 C.J.S. § 15. State Constitutions and Statutes

The provision of the Federal Constitution that this Constitution


and the laws and treaties of the United States shall be the
supreme law of the land, and binding on the judges in every
state, anything in the constitution or laws of any state to the
contrary notwithstanding, makes treaties superior to both the
constitutions and laws of the several states, including the
common law of a state, insofar as it is in conflict with the
provisions of a treaty. Valid treaties are binding within the
territorial limits of the states as throughout the dominion of
the United States. States must adhere to United States
treaties and give them the same force and effect as any other
federal law, since they are considered to be of equal dignity
with acts of Congress, but not superior to the Federal
Constitution. A treaty must be regarded as a part of the law of
a state, as much as are the state’s own local laws and
constitution, and is effective and binding on the state
legislature.
The U.N. Charter
 Chapter I: Purposes and Principles
 Article 2 - The Organization and its Members, in
pursuit of the Purposes stated in Article 1 [The
Purposes of the United Nations], shall act in
accordance with the following Principles.
 Clause 7 - Nothing contained in the present
Charter shall authorize the United Nations to
intervene in matters which are essentially within
the domestic jurisdiction of any state or shall
require the Members to submit such matters
to settlement under the present Charter; but
this principle shall not prejudice the
application of enforcement measures under
Chapter VII [ ACTION WITH RESPECT TO
THREATS TO THE PEACE, BREACHES OF THE
PEACE, AND ACTS OF AGGRESSION].
United Nations
Universal Declaration of Human
Rights
PREAMBLE
 Whereas recognition of the inherent dignity and of the
equal and inalienable rights of all members of the
human family is the foundation of freedom, justice and
peace in the world,
 Whereas disregard and contempt for human rights have
resulted in barbarous acts which have outraged the
conscience of mankind, and the advent of a world in
which human beings shall enjoy freedom of speech and
belief and freedom from fear and want has been
proclaimed as the highest aspiration of the common
people,
 Whereas it is essential, if man is not to be compelled
to have recourse, as a last resort, to rebellion
against tyranny and oppression, that human
rights should be protected by the rule of law,
United Nations
Universal Declaration of Human
Rights
 Whereas it is essential to promote the
development of friendly relations between nations,
 Whereas the peoples of the United Nations have in
the Charter reaffirmed their faith in fundamental
human rights, in the dignity and worth of the
human person and in the equal rights of men and
women and have determined to promote social
progress and better standards of life in larger
freedom,
 Whereas Member States have pledged themselves
to achieve, in cooperation with the United Nations,
the promotion of universal respect for and
observance of human rights and fundamental
freedoms,
 Whereas a common understanding of these
rights and freedoms is of the greatest
importance for the full realization of this pledge.
United Nations
Universal Declaration of Human
Rights
Article 29
 Everyone has duties to the community in
which alone the free and full development of
his personality is possible.
 In the exercise of his rights and freedoms,
everyone shall be subject only to such
limitations as are determined by law solely for
the purpose of securing due recognition and
respect for the rights and freedoms of others
and of meeting the just requirements of
morality, public order and the general
welfare in a democratic society.
 These rights and freedoms may in no
case be exercised contrary to the
purposes and principles of the United
Nations.
TWN: Third World Network
“America’s Problem with Human
Rights”
By Reed Brody, May 1999 (excerpts) About the writer: Reed Brody, a
Board Member of the Human Rights International, is Advocacy Director of
Human Rights Watch. The above article first appeared in Human Rights
Tribune (Vol. 6 No. 1, January 1999).
 By consistently behaving as if human rights law does not
apply to itself, the USA poses a challenge to the
universality of the Universal Declaration of Human
Rights.
 Unlike previous challengers, the US does not actually
argue that the international bill of human rights is not of
universal relevance. Rather, and more pernicously, it just
consistently behaves as if human rights law does
not apply to the United States.
 On Ratification: One good illustration is the United
States' record of ratifying human rights treaties. The US is
the only country in the world - other than the collapsed
state of Somalia - that has not ratified the Convention on
the Rights of the Child. The US is also one of only a
handful of countries that have not ratified the Convention
on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination against
Women. Nor has the US ratified the International
TWN: Third World Network
“America’s Problem with Human
Rights”
 When the US does ratify treaties, government lawyers
comb through each treaty to identify any rights that might
strengthen existing guarantees under US law, and then
nullify them through reservations or declarations. Thus,
the International Covenant on Civil and Political
Rights (ICCPR) prohibits passing a death sentence on
anyone aged less than 18 at the time of the crime. Yet a
US reservation preserves its right to execute juvenile
offenders. Similarly, because the US permits prolonged
solitary confinement and other conditions of detention
internationally considered as forms of torture or cruel
treatment, it entered a reservation to the right to freedom
from cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or
punishment in the ICCPR.
 Finally, to guard against the possibility that the remaining
rights might be construed more broadly than US law,
Washington then ratifies the treaties in a way that denies
US residents the right to enforce their provisions in US
courts (because they are 'non-self-executing') or before
the international treaty bodies charged with upholding
them (because the US refuses to allow individual
TWN: Third World Network
“America’s Problem with Human
Rights”
 Commenting on US ratification of the ICCPR, the American Civil
Liberties Union lamented that 'the endorsement of the most
important treaty for the protection of civil rights yielded not a
single additional enforceable right to citizens and residents of the
United States.'
 When Amnesty International launched its report on abuses in the
United States in October, there was a similar response.
Representative Tom Lantos, Co-Chair of the Congressional Human
Rights Caucus, protested that 'to single out the United States as a
perpetrator of human rights violation, I think it's preposterous and
unacceptable'.
 These reactions betray a sentiment that human rights apply to
'them', 'over there', but they have no relevance to 'us', 'here'.
Americans would do well to remember the words of Eleanor
Roosevelt after the Declaration was adopted. She asked, 'Where,
after all, do universal rights begin? In small places, close to home
- so close and so small that they cannot be seen on any maps of
the world. Yet they are the world of the individual person; the
neighbourhood he lives in; the school or college he attends; the
factory, farm or office where he works.
 'Such are the places where every man, woman and child seeks
equal justice, equal opportunity, equal dignity without
discrimination. Unless these rights have meaning there, they have
little meaning anywhere. Without concerted citizen action to
International Bill of Human
Rights
 Universal Declaration of Human Rights
 International Covenant on Economic,
Social and Cultural Rights

 International Covenant on Civil and


Political Rights
 Optional Protocol to the International
Covenant on Civil and Political Rights
 Second Optional Protocol to the
International Covenant on Civil and
Political Rights, aiming at the abolition
of the death penalty
International Covenant on Economic,
Social and Cultural Rights
PREAMBLE
The States Parties to the present Covenant,
 Considering that, in accordance with the principles
proclaimed in the Charter of the United
Nations, recognition of the inherent dignity and of
the equal and inalienable rights of all members of
the human family is the foundation of freedom,
justice and peace in the world,
 Recognizing that these rights derive from the
inherent dignity of the human person,
 Recognizing that, in accordance with the
Universal Declaration of Human Rights, the
ideal of free human beings enjoying civil and
political freedom and freedom from fear and
want can only be achieved if conditions are created
whereby everyone may enjoy his civil and
political rights, as well as his economic,
social and cultural rights,
International Covenant on Economic,
Social and Cultural Rights
PREAMBLE
 Considering the obligation of States under the Charter
of the United Nations to promote universal respect
for, and observance of, human rights and freedoms,
 Realizing that the individual, having duties to other
individuals and to the community to which he belongs,
is under a responsibility to strive for the promotion and
observance of the rights recognized in the present
Covenant,
PART 1
Article 1
 1. All peoples have the right of self-determination. By
virtue of that right they freely determine their political
status and freely pursue their economic, social and
cultural development.
Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties
between States and International
Organizations or between International
Organizations 1986
PART V.
INVALIDITY, TERMINATION AND SUSPENSION
OF THE OPERATION OF TREATIES

SECTION 2. INVALIDITY OF TREATIES

 Article 49 - Fraud
A State or an international organization induced to
conclude a treaty by the fraudulent conduct of a
negotiating State or a negotiating organization may
invoke the fraud as invalidating its consent to be bound
by the treaty.
Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties
between States and International
Organizations or between International
Organizations 1986
Article 53
Treaties conflicting with a peremptory norm of
general international law (jus cogens)

A treaty is void if, at the time of its conclusion, it


conflicts with a peremptory norm of general
international law. For the purposes of the present
Convention, a peremptory norm of general
international law is a norm accepted and
recognized by the international community of
States as a whole as a norm from which no
derogation is permitted and which can be
modified only by a subsequent norm of general
international law having the same character.
BLACK’S LAW DICTIONARY
page 864 (8th ed. 2004)

jus cogens is defined as:


 “A mandatory or peremptory norm of
general international law accepted and
recognized by the international
community as a norm from which no
derogation is permitted.”
RESTATEMENT (THIRD) OF
FOREIGN RELATIONS LAW OF
THE UNITED STATES
§ 102 cmt. 6 (1987)
Explains that an international
agreement that encourages, practices,
or condones genocide is void under jus
cogens principles.
Domingues v. United States, Case 12.285,
Inter-American Commission on Human
Rights,
Report. No. 62/02 (2002),
 available at:
http://web.amnesty.org/library/pdf/AMR510332003ENGLISH/$File/AMR5103
303.pdf.
 “The Inter-American Commission on Human
Rights, for example, recently stated that
norms of jus cogens derive ‘their status from
fundamental values held by the international
community, as violations of such peremptory
norms are considered to shock the conscience
of humankind and therefore bind the
international community as a whole,
irrespective of protest, recognition or
acquiescence.’ The Commission noted that
commonly cited examples of rules of
customary law that have attained the status of
jus cogens norms include the prohibitions
RIGHT?
By David B. Kopel, Paul Gallant, Joanne D.
Eisen,
Notre Dame Law Review, Vol. 81:4, 152-153
 It bears noting that the father of the principle
(2006)
which was eventually named jus cogens was
Francisco Suárez, a scholar and Jesuit who is
recognized as a founder of modern
international law. Suárez’s views are,
therefore, highly significant regarding which
human rights should be considered so
fundamental as to be jus cogens.
 The record is clear that Suárez strongly
believed in a natural human right of self-
defense. Self-defense, said Suárez, was “‘the
greatest of rights,’” a right which belonged
to individuals and to communities. This
right of self-defense included a right of
defense against tyrants.
RIGHT?
By David B. Kopel, Paul Gallant, Joanne D.
Eisen,
Notre Dame Law Review, Vol. 81:4, 152-153
 According to the great British historian Lord Acton,
(2006)
“the greater part of the political ideas” of John
Milton and John Locke “may be found in the
ponderous Latin of Jesuits who were subjects of the
Spanish Crown,” including Suárez.
 Thus, it seems apparent that the prevention of
genocide is a jus cogens norm. Moreover, the
roots of the jus cogens principle necessarily
implicate a natural right of self-defense
against genocide.
 Accordingly, the legal duty to prevent
genocide would be superior to whatever
limits the U.N. Charter sets on military action
which is not authorized by the Security Council.
Similarly, the legal duty to prevent genocide
would be superior to treaties or conventions
restricting the transfer or possession of
Convention on the Prevention and
Punishment of the Crime of Genocide,
1948
ARTICLE 2
 In the present Convention, genocide means any of the
following acts committed with intent to destroy, in
whole or in part, a national, ethical, racial or religious
group as such:
 (a) Killing members of the group;
 (b) Causing serious bodily or mental harm to
members of the group;
 (c) Deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of
life calculated to bring about its physical destruction
in whole or in part;
 (d) Imposing measures intended to prevent births
within the group;
 (e) Forcibly transferring children of the group to
another group.
United States Understandings on
Article 2 to the Genocide Convention
 A total of thirty of the 132 nations which are party to the
Genocide Convention have made reservations,
declarations and understandings. However, the
United States is the only country to have
submitted an “Understanding” on the definition
of “genocide” in Article 2.
 Understanding #(1): That the term ‘intent to
destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical,
racial, or religious group as such’ appearing in
article 2 means the specific intent to destroy, in whole
or in substantial part, a national, ethnical, racial or
religious group as such by the acts specified in article 2.
 Understanding #(2): That the term ‘mental harm’ in
article 2 (b) means permanent impairment of mental
faculties through drugs, torture or similar techniques.
 Understanding # (3): Not Applicable in Plaintiff’s case.
 Understanding # (4): That acts in the course of
armed conflicts committed without the specific
intent required by article 2 are not sufficient to
constitute genocide as defined by this
Convention on the Prevention and
Punishment of the Crime of Genocide,
1948
ARTICLE 3
 The following acts shall be punishable:
 (a) Genocide;
 (b) Conspiracy to commit genocide;
 (c) Direct and public incitement to commit genocide;
 (d) Attempt to commit genocide;
 (e) Complicity in genocide
 ARTICLE 9
Disputes between the Contracting Parties relating to the
interpretation, application or fulfillment of the present
Convention, including those relating to the responsibility
of a State for genocide or any of the other acts
enumerated in Article 3 shall be submitted to the
International Court of Justice at the request of any of
the parties to the dispute.
United States Reservations on
Article 2 to the Genocide
Convention
 Reservation #(1): That with reference to article 9 of
the Convention, before any dispute to which the United
States is a party may be submitted to the jurisdiction of
the International Court of Justice under this article, the
specific consent of the United States is required in
each case.
 Reservation #(2): That nothing in the Convention
requires or authorizes legislation or other action by
the United States of America prohibited by the
Constitution of the United States as interpreted by
the United States."
18 U.S.C. § 1091 – Genocide
18 U.S.C. § 1091. Genocide
(a) Basic Offense. — Whoever, whether in time of peace
or in time of war, in a circumstance described in
subsection (d) and with the specific intent to destroy, in
whole or in substantial part, a national, ethnic, racial, or
religious group as such—
 (1) kills members of that group;
 (2) causes serious bodily injury to members of that
group;
 (3) causes the permanent impairment of the mental
faculties of members of the group through drugs,
torture, or similar techniques;
 (4) subjects the group to conditions of life that
are intended to cause the physical destruction of
the group in whole or in part;
 (5) imposes measures intended to prevent births within
the group; or
 (6) transfers by force children of the group to another
group; or attempts to do so, shall be punished as
18 U.S.C. § 1091 – Genocide
 (b) Punishment for Basic Offense. — The
punishment for an offense under subsection
(a) is —
 (1) in the case of an offense under subsection
(a)(1), where death results, by death or
imprisonment for life and a fine of not more
than $1,000,000, or both; and
 (2) a fine of not more than $1,000,000 or
imprisonment for not more than twenty years,
or both, in any other case.
 (c) Incitement Offense. — Whoever in a
circumstance described in subsection (d)
directly and publicly incites another to
violate subsection (a) shall be fined not
more than $500,000 or imprisoned not
18 U.S.C. § 1091 – Genocide
 (d) Required Circumstance for Offenses. —
The circumstance referred to in subsections (a) and
(c) is that —
 (1) the offense is committed within the
United States; or
 (2) the alleged offender is a national of the
United States (as defined in section 101 of the
Immigration and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C.
1101)).
 (e) Nonapplicability of Certain Limitations. —
Notwithstanding section 3282 of this title, in the
case of an offense under subsection (a)(1), an
indictment may be found, or information instituted,
at any time without limitation.
Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties
between States and International
Organizations or between International
Organizations 1986
SECTION 3. TERMINATION AND SUSPENSION OF
THE OPERATION OF TREATIES
 ARTICLE 54
Termination of or withdrawal from a treaty under
its provisions or by consent of the parties
 The termination of a treaty or the withdrawal of a party
may take place:
(a) in conformity with the provisions of the
treaty; or
(b) at any time by consent of all the parties after
consultation with the contracting States and
contracting organizations.
Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties
between States and International
Organizations or between International
Organizations 1986
 Article 56
Denunciation of or withdrawal from a treaty
containing no provision regarding termination,
denunciation or withdrawal
 1. A treaty which contains no provision regarding its
termination and which does not provide for denunciation or
withdrawal is not subject to denunciation or withdrawal
unless:
 (a) it is established that the parties intended to admit
the possibility of denunciation or withdrawal; or
 (b) a right of denunciation or withdrawal may be
implied by the nature of the treaty.
 2. A party shall give not less than twelve months’ notice of
its intention to denounce or withdraw from a treaty under
paragraph 1.
Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties
between States and International
Organizations or between International
Organizations 1986
Article 58
Suspension of the operation of a multilateral treaty
by agreement between certain of the parties only
 1.Two or more parties to a multilateral treaty may conclude
an agreement to suspend the operation of provisions of the
treaty, temporarily and as between themselves alone, if:
 (a) the possibility of such a suspension is provided for
by the treaty; or
 (b) the suspension in question is not prohibited by the
treaty and:
 (i) does not affect the enjoyment by the other

parties of their rights under the treaty or the


performance of their obligations;
 (ii) is not incompatible with the object and purpose

of the treaty.
 2.Unless in a case falling under paragraph 1 (a) the treaty
otherwise provides, the parties in question shall notify the
other parties of their intention to conclude the agreement
and of those provisions of the treaty the operation of which
they intend to suspend.
Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties
between States and International
Organizations or between International
Organizations 1986
Article 59
Termination or suspension of the operation of a
treaty implied by conclusion of a later treaty
 1.A treaty shall be considered as terminated if all the
parties to it conclude a later treaty relating to the same
subject matter and:
 (a) it appears from the later treaty or is otherwise
established that the parties intended that the matter
should be governed by that treaty; or
 (b) the provisions of the later treaty are so far
incompatible with those of the earlier one that the
two treaties are not capable of being applied at the
same time.
 2.The earlier treaty shall be considered as only
suspended in operation if it appears from the later
treaty or is otherwise established that such was the
intention of the parties.
Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties
between States and International
Organizations or between International
Organizations 1986
Article 60
Termination or suspension of the operation of a
treaty as a consequence of its breach
 1. A material breach of a bilateral treaty by one of
the parties entitles the other to invoke the breach as a
ground for terminating the treaty or suspending its
operation in whole or in part.
Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties
between States and International
Organizations or between International
Organizations 1986
 2. A material breach of a multilateral treaty by one of
the parties entitles:
 (a) the other parties by unanimous agreement to
suspend the operation of the treaty in whole or in
part or to terminate it either:
 (i) in the relations between themselves and the

defaulting State or international organization;


or
 (ii) as between all the parties;

 (b) a party specially affected by the breach to


invoke it as a ground for suspending the operation of
the treaty in whole or in part in the relations between
itself and the defaulting State or international
organization;
 (c) any party other than the defaulting State or
international organization to invoke the breach
as a ground for suspending the operation of the
treaty in whole or in part with respect to itself if the
treaty is of such a character that a material breach
of its provisions by one party radically changes
Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties
between States and International
Organizations or between International
Organizations 1986
 3. A material breach of a treaty, for the purposes of
this article, consists in:
 (a) a repudiation of the treaty not sanctioned by the
present Convention; or
 (b) the violation of a provision essential to the
accomplishment of the object or purpose of the
treaty.
 4. The foregoing paragraphs are without prejudice to
any provision in the treaty applicable in the event of a
breach.
 5. Paragraphs 1 to 3 do not apply to provisions
relating to the protection of the human person
contained in treaties of a humanitarian character,
in particular to provisions prohibiting any form of
reprisals against persons protected by such
treaties.
Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties
between States and International
Organizations or between International
Organizations 1986
Article 61
Supervening impossibility of performance
 1.A party may invoke the impossibility of performing a
treaty as a ground for terminating or withdrawing from
it if the impossibility results from the permanent
disappearance or destruction of an object indispensable
for the execution of the treaty. If the impossibility is
temporary, it may be invoked only as a ground for
suspending the operation of the treaty.
 2. Impossibility of performance may not be invoked by a
party as a ground for terminating, withdrawing from or
suspending the operation of a treaty if the impossibility
is the result of a breach by that party either of an
obligation under the treaty or of any other international
obligation owed to any other party to the treaty.
Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties
between States and International
Organizations or between International
Organizations 1986
Article 62
Fundamental change of circumstances
 1.A fundamental change of circumstances which has
occurred with regard to those existing at the time of the
conclusion of a treaty, and which was not foreseen by
the parties, may not be invoked as a ground for
terminating or withdrawing from the treaty unless:
 (a) the existence of those circumstances constituted
an essential basis of the consent of the parties to be
bound by the treaty; and
 (b) the effect of the change is radically to transform
the extent of obligations still to be performed under
the treaty.
 2.A fundamental change of circumstances may not be
invoked as a ground for terminating or withdrawing
from a treaty between two or more States and one or
more international organizations if the treaty
establishes a boundary.
Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties
between States and International
Organizations or between International
Organizations 1986
 3. A fundamental change of circumstances may not be
invoked as a ground for terminating or withdrawing
from a treaty if the fundamental change is the result of
a breach by the party invoking it either of an obligation
under the treaty or of any other international obligation
owed to any other party to the treaty.
 4. If, under the foregoing paragraphs, a party may
invoke a fundamental change of circumstances as a
ground for terminating or withdrawing from a treaty it
may also invoke the change as a ground for suspending
the operation of the treaty.
Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties
between States and International
Organizations or between International
Organizations 1986
Article 64
Emergence of a new peremptory norm of general
international law (jus cogens)
 If a new peremptory norm of general
international law emerges, any existing treaty
which is in conflict with that norm becomes void
and terminates.

 SECTION 4. PROCEDURE . . . .
The U.N. Charter
 Chapter I: Purposes and Principles
 Article 2 - The Organization and its Members, in
pursuit of the Purposes stated in Article 1 [The
Purposes of the United Nations], shall act in
accordance with the following Principles.
 Clause 7 - Nothing contained in the present
Charter shall authorize the United Nations to
intervene in matters which are essentially within
the domestic jurisdiction of any state or shall
require the Members to submit such matters
to settlement under the present Charter; but
this principle shall not prejudice the
application of enforcement measures under
Chapter VII [ ACTION WITH RESPECT TO
THREATS TO THE PEACE, BREACHES OF THE
PEACE, AND ACTS OF AGGRESSION].
Prevent, Combat and Eradicate the Illicit
Trade in Small Arms and Light Weapons in
All Its Aspects
(UN Doc. A/CONF.192/15) [VIOLATES THE U.N.
CHARTER]
II. Preventing, combating and eradicating
the illicit trade in small arms and light
weapons in all its aspects
 1. We, the States participating in this Conference,
bearing in mind the different situations, capacities and
priorities of States and regions, undertake the following
measures to prevent, combat and eradicate the illicit
trade in small arms and light weapons in all its
aspects:
At the national level
 2. To put in place, where they do not exist, adequate
laws, regulations and administrative procedures to
exercise effective control over the production of small
arms and light weapons within their areas of jurisdiction
and over the export, import, transit or retransfer of such
weapons, in order to prevent illegal manufacture of and
illicit trafficking in small arms and light weapons, or
their diversion to unauthorized recipients.
The U.N. Charter
 Chapter I: Purposes and Principles
 Article 2 - The Organization and its Members, in
pursuit of the Purposes stated in Article 1 [The
Purposes of the United Nations], shall act in
accordance with the following Principles.
 Clause 7 - Nothing contained in the present
Charter shall authorize the United Nations to
intervene in matters which are essentially within
the domestic jurisdiction of any state or shall
require the Members to submit such matters
to settlement under the present Charter; but
this principle shall not prejudice the
application of enforcement measures under
Chapter VII [ ACTION WITH RESPECT TO
THREATS TO THE PEACE, BREACHES OF THE
PEACE, AND ACTS OF AGGRESSION].
Controlling Federal
Laws
The Posse Comitatus Act
UNITED STATES CODE
Title 18 – Crimes and Criminal Procedure
Part I – Crimes
Chapter 67 – Military and Navy
 18 U.S.C. § 1385 Use of Army and Air Force as Posse
Comitatus
 Whoever, except in cases and under circumstances
expressly authorized by the Constitution or Act of
Congress, willfully uses any part of the Army or the Air
Force as a posse comitatus or otherwise to execute
the laws shall be fined under this title or imprisoned
not more than two years, or both.
The Militia
UNITED STATES CODE
Title 10 – Armed Forces (Subtitle A - General Military Law)
Part I – Organization and General Military Powers
Chapter 13 – The Militia
 10 U.S.C. § 311. Militia: Composition and Classes
 (a) The militia of the United States consists of all
able-bodied males at least 17 years of age and,
except as provided in section 313 of title 32, under
45 years of age who are, or who have made a
declaration of intention to become, citizens of the
United States and of female citizens of the United
States who are members of the National Guard.
 (b) The classes of the militia are –

 (1) the organized militia, which consists


of the National Guard and the Naval
Militia; and
 (2) the unorganized militia, which
consists of the members of the militia
who are not members of the National
State Defense Force
UNITED STATES CODE
Title 32 – National Guard
Chapter 1 - Organization

 NATIONAL GUARD 32 U.S.C. § 109. Maintenance of other troops


 (a) In time of peace, a State or Territory, Puerto Rico, the Virgin Islands,
or the District of Columbia may maintain no troops other than those of its
National Guard and defense forces authorized by subsection (c).
 (b) Nothing in this title limits the right of a State or Territory, Puerto Rico,
the Virgin Islands, or the District of Columbia to use its National Guard or
its defense forces authorized by subsection (c) within its borders in time
of peace, or prevents it from organizing and maintaining police or
constabulary.
 (c) In addition to its National Guard, if any, a State or Territory, Puerto
Rico, the Virgin Islands, or the District of Columbia may, as provided by
its laws, organize and maintain defense forces. A defense force
established under this section may be used within the
jurisdiction concerned, as its chief executive (or commanding
general in the case of the District of Columbia) considers
necessary, but it may not be called, ordered, or drafted into the
armed forces.
 (d) A member of a defense force established under subsection (c) is not,
because of that membership, exempt from service in the armed forces,
nor is he entitled to pay, allowances, subsistence, transportation, or
medical care or treatment, from funds of the United States.
 (e) A person may not become a member of a defense force
established under subsection (c) if he is a member of a reserve
component of the armed forces.
Civilian Military Activity as a Crime
UNITED STATES CODE
Title 18 – Crimes and Criminal Procedures
Part I - Crimes
Chapter 115 – Treason, Sedition, and Subversive Activities
 18 U.S.C. § 2386(A) Registration of Certain
Organizations
 For the purposes of this section:
 “Attorney General” means the Attorney General of the
United States;
 “Organization” means any group, club, league, society,
committee, association, political party, or combination of
individuals, whether incorporated or otherwise, but such
term shall not include any corporation, association,
community chest, fund, or foundation, organized and
operated exclusively for religious, charitable, scientific,
literary, or educational purposes;
 “Political activity” means any activity the purpose or
aim of which, or one of the purposes or aims of which, is
the control by force or overthrow of the Government of the
United States or a political subdivision thereof, or any State
or political subdivision thereof;
Civilian Military Activity as a Crime
UNITED STATES CODE
Title 18 – Crimes and Criminal Procedures
Part I - Crimes
Chapter 115 – Treason, Sedition, and Subversive Activities
 18 U.S.C. § 2386(B)(1) Registration of Certain
Organizations
 The following organizations shall be required to register with the
Attorney General:
 Every organization subject to foreign control which engages in
political activity;
 Every organization which engages both in
civilian military activity and in political activity;
 Every organization subject to foreign control which engages in
civilian military activity; and
 Every organization, the purpose or aim of
which, or one of the purposes or aims of which,
is the establishment, control, conduct, seizure,
or overthrow of a government or subdivision
thereof by the use of force, violence, military
measures, or threats of any one or more of the
foregoing.
Civilian Military Activity as a Crime
UNITED STATES CODE
Title 18 – Crimes and Criminal Procedures
Part I - Crimes
Chapter 115 – Treason, Sedition, and Subversive Activities
 18 U.S.C. § 2386(B)(1) Registration of Certain Organizations
(Continued)

 Every such organization shall register by filing with the Attorney


General, on such forms and in such detail as the Attorney General
may by rules and regulations prescribe, a registration statement
containing the information and documents prescribed in subsection
(B)(3) and shall within thirty days after the expiration of each
period of six months succeeding the filing of such registration
statement, file with the Attorney General, on such forms and in
such detail as the Attorney General may by rules and regulations
prescribe, a supplemental statement containing such information
and documents as may be necessary to make the information and
documents previously filed under this section accurate and current
with respect to such preceding six months' period. Every
statement required to be filed by this section shall be subscribed,
under oath, by all of the officers of the organization.
Civilian Military Activity as a Crime
UNITED STATES CODE
Title 18 – Crimes and Criminal Procedures
Part I - Crimes
Chapter 115 – Treason, Sedition, and Subversive Activities
 18 U.S.C. § 2386(B)(2) Registration of Certain
Organizations
 This section shall not require registration or the filing of any
statement with the Attorney General by:
 (a) The armed forces of the United States; or

 (b) The organized militia or National Guard


of any State, Territory, District, or possession of
the United States; or
 (c) Any law-enforcement agency of the United States or of
any Territory, District or possession thereof, or of any State or
political subdivision of a State, or of any agency or
instrumentality of one or more States; or
 (d) Any duly established diplomatic mission or consular
office of a foreign government which is so recognized by the
Department of State; or
 (e) Any nationally recognized organization of persons who are
veterans of the armed forces of the United States, or
The Militia
UNITED STATES CODE
Title 10 – Armed Forces (Subtitle A - General Military Law)
Part I – Organization and General Military Powers
Chapter 13 – The Militia
 10 U.S.C. § 311. Militia: composition and classes

 (a) The militia of the United States consists of all able-bodied


males at least 17 years of age and, except as provided in
section 313 of title 32, under 45 years of age who are, or who
have made a declaration of intention to become, citizens of
the United States and of female citizens of the United States
who are members of the National Guard.
 (b) The classes of the militia are –
 (1) the organized militia, which consists of the National
Guard and the Naval Militia; and
 (2) the unorganized militia, which consists of the
members of the militia who are not members of the
National Guard or the Naval Militia
Civilian Military Activity as a Crime
UNITED STATES CODE
Title 18 – Crimes and Criminal Procedures
Part I - Crimes
Chapter 115 – Treason, Sedition, and Subversive Activities

 18 U.S.C. § 2386(C) Registration of Certain


Organizations
 The Attorney General is authorized at any time to make,
amend, and rescind such rules and regulations as may be
necessary to carry out this section, including rules and
regulations governing the statements required to be filed.
Title 27 - Alcohol, Tobacco
UNITED STATES CODE
Products and Firearms
Title 18 - Crimes and Criminal
Part I - BATF, Department of the
Procedure
Treasury
Part I - Crimes
Commerce in Firearms and
Chapter 44 - Firearms
Ammunition
27 C.F.R. § 178.38 Transportation of 18 U.S.C. § 926A. Interstate
Firearms Transportation of Firearms:
Notwithstanding any other provision of Notwithstanding any other provision of
any law or any rule or regulation of a any law or any rule or regulation of a
State or any political subdivision thereof, State or any political subdivision
any person who is not otherwise thereof, any person who is not otherwise
prohibited by this chapter from prohibited by this chapter from
transporting, shipping, or receiving a transporting, shipping, or receiving a
firearms shall be entitled to firearm shall be entitled to transport
transport a firearm for any lawful a firearm for any lawful purpose
purpose from any place where such from any place where he may
person may lawfully possess and lawfully possess and carry such
carry such firearm to any other firearm to any other place where he
place where such person may may lawfully possess and carry
lawfully possess and carry such such firearm if, during such
firearm if, during such transportation the firearm is
transportation the firearm is unloaded, and neither the firearm
unloaded, and neither the firearm nor any ammunition being
nor any ammunition being transported is readily accessible or
transported is readily accessible or is directly accessible from the
is directly accessible from the passenger compartment of such
passenger compartment of such transporting vehicle: Provided, That
in the case of a vehicle without a
Military Sealift Command
Small Arms Training & Qualification
Guide
COMSC Instruction 3121.9 “The Standard Operating Manual
(SOM)
 Small arms training qualification shall
be conducted annually.
 MSC course deals with weapons
allocated by the Navy on board MSC
ships
 M9 Beretta 9mm Pistol
 12 Guage Shotgun
 M-14 Rifle

 Use of Deadly Force


Some Quotations
General Douglas MacArthur, 1957

 “Our government has kept us in a perpetual state of fear – kept us


in a continuous stampede of patriotic fervor – with the cry of grave
national emergency... Always there has been some terrible evil to
gobble us up if we did not blindly rally behind it by furnishing the
exorbitant sums demanded. Yet, in retrospect, these disasters
seem never to have happened, seem never to have been quite
real.”
Ayn Rand, “The Nature of Government”

 “We are fast approaching the stage of the ultimate inversion:


the stage where the government is free to do anything it
pleases, while the citizens may act only by permission; which
is the stage of the darkest periods of human history, the
stage of rule by brute force.”
Abraham Lincoln

 “We the People are the rightful masters of both Congress and
the courts, not to overthrow the Constitution, but to overthrow
the men who pervert the Constitution.”
Case Law
Arkansas Case Law

 Wilson v. State, 33 Ark. 557, 560, 34 Am. Rep. 52 (1878),

“But to prohibit the citizen from wearing or carrying a war arm,


except upon his own premises or when on a journey traveling
through the country with baggage, or when acting as or in aid of an
officer, is an unwarranted restriction upon his constitutional right to
keep and bear arms. If cowardly and dishonorable men sometimes
shoot unarmed men with army pistols or guns, the evil must be
prevented by the penitentiary and gallows, and not by a general
deprivation of a constitutional privilege.”
U.S. Supreme Court Case Law

 Presser v. Illinois, 116 U.S. 252, 265 (1886)

“It is undoubtedly true that all citizens


capable of bearing arms constitute the
reserved military force or reserved militia of
the United States as well as of the states,
and, in view of this prerogative of the general
government, as well as of its general powers,
the states cannot, even laying the
constitutional provision in question out of
view, prohibit the people from keeping and
bearing arms, so as to deprive the United
States of their rightful resource for
maintaining the public security, and
disable the people from performing their
duty to the general government.”
U.S. Supreme Court Case Law

 Simmons v. United States, 390 US 389 (1968),

“We find it intolerable that one constitutional right should


have to be surrendered in order to assert another.”
7th Circuit Case Law

 Bowers v. DeVito, 686 F.2d 616 (7th Cir. 1982),

“There is no constitutional right to be protected by the state


against being murdered by criminals or madmen. It is
monstrous if the state fails to protect its residents against
such predators but it does not violate the due process clause
of the Fourteenth Amendment, or, we suppose, any other
provision of the Constitution. The Constitution is a charter of
negative liberties; it tells the state to let the people alone; it
does not require the federal government or the state to
provide services, even so elementary a service as
maintaining law and order.”
5th Circuit Case Law

 United States v. Emerson, Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals, No. 99-


10331, Oct. 16, 2001:
 “We conclude that the phrase “bear arms” refers generally to the
carrying or wearing of arms. It is certainly proper to use the phrase in
reference to the carrying or wearing of arms by a soldier or militiaman;
thus, the context in which “bear arms” appears may indicate that it
refers to a military situation, e.g. the conscientious objector clauses
cited by amici supporting the government. However, amici’s argument
that “bear arms” was exclusively, or even usually, used to only refer to
the carrying or wearing of arms by a soldier or militiaman must be
rejected. The appearance of “bear Arms” in the Second
Amendment accords fully with the plain meaning of the subject
of the substantive guarantee, “the people,” and offers no
support for the proposition that the Second Amendment
applies only during periods of actual military service or only to
those who are members of a select militia. Finally, our view of
“bear arms” as used in the Second Amendment appears to be
the same as that expressed in the dissenting opinion of Justice
Ginsburg (joined by the Chief Justice and Justices Scalia and
Souter) in Muscarello v. United States, 118 S.Ct. 1911, 1921
5th Circuit Case Law

 “Surely a most familiar meaning [of carrying a firearm] is,


as the Constitution’s Second Amendment (“keep and bear
Arms”) (emphasis added) and Black’s Law Dictionary, at
214, indicate: “wear, bear, or carry . . . upon the person or
in the clothing or in a pocket, for the purpose . . . of being
armed and ready for offensive or defensive action in a
case of conflict with another person.” . . .
5th Circuit Case Law

“We conclude that Miller does not support the government’s


collective rights or sophisticated collective rights approach to the
Second Amendment. Indeed, to the extent that Miller sheds light
on the matter it cuts against the government’s position. Nor does
the government cite any other authority binding on this panel
which mandates acceptance of its position in this respect.
However, we do not proceed on the assumption that Miller
actually accepted an individual rights, as opposed to a collective
or sophisticated collective rights, interpretation of the Second
Amendment. Thus, Miller itself does not resolve that issue. We
turn, therefore, to an analysis of history and wording of the
Second Amendment for guidance. In undertaking this
analysis, we are mindful that almost all of our sister
circuits have rejected any individual rights view of the
Second Amendment. However, it respectfully appears to
us that all or almost all of these opinions seem to have
done so either on the erroneous assumption that Miller
resolved that issue or without sufficient articulated
U.S. Department of Justice
MEMORANDUM OPINION FOR THE ATTORNEY GENERAL
WHETHER THE SECOND AMENDMENT SECURES AN
INDIVIDUAL RIGHT (August 24, 2004)

 For the foregoing reasons, we conclude that the Second


Amendment secures an individual right to keep and to
bear arms. Current case law leaves open and unsettled
the question of whose right is secured by the
Amendment. Although we do not address the scope of
the right, our examination of the original meaning of the
Amendment provides extensive reasons to conclude that
the Second Amendment secures an individual right, and
no persuasive basis for either the collective-right or
quasi-collective-right views. The text of the
Amendment’s operative clause, setting out a “right of
the people to keep and bear Arms,” is clear and is
reinforced by the Constitution’s structure. The
Amendment’s prefatory clause, properly understood, is
fully consistent with this interpretation. The broader
history of the Anglo-American right of individuals to have and
use arms, from England’s Revolution of 1688-1689 to the
ratification of the Second Amendment a hundred years later,
leads to the same conclusion. Finally, the first hundred
years of interpretations of the Amendment, and
especially the commentaries and case law in the pre-Civil
War period closest to the Amendment’s ratification,
Practical Applications
What Can You Do?

 Popular Constitutionalism -vs.- Judicial Supremacy


 Right to Travel Intrastate & Interstate While Openly Armed?
Negotiated Rulemaking for
Settlement
of Lawsuit in Lieu of Motion to
Dismiss
 Under Special Procedures of
Rule 16(c)(9), Federal Rules of Civil
Procedures
 Under U.S. Coast Guard’s Federal Rules
and Regulations for Negotiated
Rulemaking in compliance with:
 14 U.S.C. § 2; § 93(a); § 141; § 631; § 632;
§ 633; and
 33 C.F.R. § 1.05–1; § 1.05–5; § 1.05–10;
§ 1.05–60.
Litigating for:
 The constitutional norm, and
the right and a duty to openly
wear a sidearm in our
American society (1) as a U.S.
seaman aboard U.S. flag
vessels transiting pirate
waters under maritime law
and, (2) as a U.S. citizen
ashore in the United States in
intrastate and interstate
travel under the Bill of
Rights.

You might also like