SECOND AMENDMET CASE AS AN INTERNATIONAL HUMAN RIGHTS CASE
Don Hamrick’s 2006 Human Rights Petition at the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights.
I have and still continue to litigate my Second Amendment case for the last 6 years (2002 to the present) without an attorney to represent me, never getting past the motion to dismiss because the corrupt federal courts in Washington, DC and in Little Rock, Arkansas, and the 8th Circuit Court of Appeals do not want an unrepresented civil plaintiff in their courtroom.
My Human Rights Complaint Against the United States & United Nations at the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights, Petition No. P-1142-06.
Note that Jessica Lenahan (formerly Gonzales), filed her human rights complaint against the United States challenging the “No Right to Police Protection” doctrine of the U.S. Supreme Court. Petition No. P-1490-05.
My Petition No. P-1142-06 takes the Second Amendment to the international level to provide the counter to the “No Right to Police Protection” doctrine. My 2006 Second Amendment case at the U.S. District Court named the United States and the United Nations as defendants. I employed the civil RICO Act to allege the United States and the United Nations of racketeering an unlawful and unconstitutional (United States) protection scheme over the Second Amendment. I had case law supporting my claims against the United Nations and the United States but the the originally assigned judge died and the reassigned judge dismissed my case in less than 30 days after getting assgned to my case. All this in combination with the aggrivating circumstances of the NRA, SAF, and KABA, ignoring my Second Amendment cases.
Therefore, I claim that the NRA, the SAF, and KABA are not living up to their mission statements when they refuse to support Second Amendment cases advocating the ultimate Second Amendment rights of national open carry. They empower the “Use it or lose it” doctrine of constitutional rights to our disadvantage.
My Human Rights Complaint to the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights: Where is the NRA, the SAF, and KABA on this? They are MIA!
SOCIAL NORMING THE SECOND AMENDMENT
My thesis “Social Norming the Second Amendment: Reinstating a Constitutional Norm as a Social Norm Through Social Norms Marketing” is the method I will use to introduce Second Amendment bills restorting the Second Amendment to its originial social, legal, and constitutional standing.
DENIAL OF SECOND AMENDMENT RIGHTS IS SLAVERY
The U.S. Coast Guard Letter dated April 19, 2002 denying my Second Amendment application as an Able Seaman. Note the date “April 19” is traditionally known as Patriots Day. Also note that the Coast Guard letter stands in defiance of Abraham Lincoln’s Emancipation Proclamation of January 1, 1863 stating:
“That on the first day of January, in the year of our Lord one thousand eight hundred and sixty-three, all persons held as slaves within any State or designated part of a State, the people whereof shall then be in rebellion against the United States, shall be then, thenceforward, and forever free; and the Executive Government of the United States, including the military and naval authority thereof, will recognize and maintain the freedom of such persons, and will do no act or acts to repress such persons, or any of them, in any efforts they may make for their actual freedom.”
Lincoln’s “actual freedom” is defined by the slavery case of Dred Scott v. Sandford, 60 U.S. 393 (1857):
The legislation of the States therefore shows, in a manner not to be mistaken, the inferior and subject condition of that race at the time the Constitution was adopted, and long afterwards, throughout the thirteen States by which that instrument was framed; and it is hardly consistent with the respect due to these States, to suppose that they regarded at that time, as fellow-citizens and members of the sovereignty, a class of beings whom they had thus stigmatized; whom, as we are bound, out of respect to the State sovereignties, to assume they had deemed it just and necessary thus to stigmatize, and upon whom they had impressed such deep and enduring marks of inferiority and degradation; or, that when they met in convention to form the Constitution, they looked upon them as a portion of their constituents, or designed to include them in the provisions so carefully inserted for the security and protection of the liberties and rights of their citizens. It cannot be supposed that they intended to secure to them rights, and privileges, and rank, in the new political body throughout the Union, which every one of them denied within the limits of its own dominion. More especially, it cannot be believed that the large slaveholding States regarded them as included in the word citizens, or would have consented to a Constitution which might compel them to receive them in that character from another State. For if they were so received, and entitled to the privileges and immunities of citizens, it would exempt them from the operation of the special laws and from the police [60 U.S. 393, 417] regulations which they considered to be necessary for their own safety. It would give to persons of the negro race, who were recognised as citizens in any one State of the Union, the right to enter every other State whenever they pleased, singly or in companies, without pass or passport, and without obstruction, to sojourn there as long as they pleased, to go where they pleased at every hour of the day or night without molestation, unless they committed some violation of law for which a white man would be punished; and it would give them the full liberty of speech in public and in private upon all subjects upon which its own citizens might speak; to hold public meetings upon political affairs, and to keep and carry arms wherever they went. And all of this would be done in the face of the subject race of the same color, both free and slaves, and inevitably producing discontent and insubordination among them, and endangering the peace and safety of the State.
Note that, “keep and carry arms wherever they went” implies “National Open Carry.” Now is it incorrect of me to implied that the current level of State and Federal gun control laws has reduced the U.S. citizen and the citizens of the States under the Fourteenth Amendment as slaves in violation of the Thirteenth Amendment to which sprang from the Dred Scott case?
Does this imply that the NRA, SAF, and KABA, want to enslave you to their ideology of National Reciprocity for Concealed Carry instead of the “actual freedom” of National Open Carry?”
|CG LETTER APR 19 2002|
|Hosted by eSnips|
NRA DOWLUT LETTER
|NRA ROBERT DOWLUT LETTER REFUSING TO HELP
DON HAMRICK WITH HIS SECOND AMENDMENT CASE
|Hosted by eSnips|