Why Does the NRA Ignore this Second Amendment Case in the Federal Court in Washington, DC?
The U.S. Coast Guard’s response to my application for a National Open Carry Endorsement on my Merchant Mariner’s Document (ID Card) in 2002:
“[T]he [Federal] laws and regulations do not provide for such an endorsement nor do they prohibit. Instead, the matter is left to my judgment. My decision, after considering all the material you have submitted, is that it would not be in the best interest of marine safety or security to initiate the endorsement you have applied for.”
CONSTITUTIONAL QUESTION: When there are no federal laws or regulations coverying a particular subject matter is the U.S. Coast Guard (and all federal agencies) required by their Oath of Office to refer to the Constitution of the United States (i.e. the Second Amendment) as a ministerial duty and not to ignore the Constitution in favor of a personal judgment as a discretionary duty? (Tort Law Exceptions 28 U.S.C. 2680(a))
The Date of this U.S. Coast Letter
Patiots Day — April 19
The NRA could have had a publicity field day in 2002 with this Coast Guard letter! The NRA are idiotic baboons to ignore this golden opportunity. And to prove the NRA people are dumber than a rock the NRA is still ignoring my Second Amendment case even when Open Carry is becoming a grassroots movement. (My apologies to the baboon species.)
This Second Amendment case started out as a simple judicial review of the Coast Guard’s Final Agency Action denying my application for the National Open Carry endorsement on my Merchant Mariner’s Document. But because I could not afford an attorney to represent me I filed as an unrepresented merchant seaman (28 U.S.C. § 1916). Because the federal judges do not want pro se civil plaintiffs going to trial and because they knew I had no political backing from the NRA the federal judges were free to block my cases from proceeding past the Motion to Dismiss by using every dirty trick twisting the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure favorable to dismissal aided by Government U.S. Attorney’s. I have compiled a lot of evidence of judicial bias and corruption in the 8 years I have pushed this matter in the federal courts. And push is coming to shove with federal law enforcement where I may end up as a criminal defendant because I am insisting on my implied private right of action to enforce my statutory right of exemption to fees and costs of the federal courts as a merchant seaman but federal judges ignore the the Seamen’s Suit law, 28 U.S.C. § 1916 with Court Orders compelling me to pay their filing fees and PACER Service refuses to recognize the Seamen’s Suit law without a Court Order but federal judges refuse to issue such a Court Order. Will the NRA come to my defense then? For 8 years I have been fighting corrupt federal judges on my own. I need an attorney to represent me!
THE NRA RESPONCE IN 2002 TO MY REQUEST FOR HELP:
If Arkansas’s pre-filled bill for unlicensed Open Carry becomes law then Arkansas will become the 44th State to recognize Open Carry for the poor and financially burdened citizens of Arkansas in intrastate travel. But what about Open Carry in interstate travel? It seems to me that Open Carry in interstate travel (i.e., National Open Carry) would be a protected constitutional right under the (1) Common Defence Clause of the Pramble to the Constitution; (2) the Ninth Amendment; (3) the Fourth Amendment; (4) the Fifth Amendment; (5) the Tenth Amendment (i.e., the common law right to make citizen’s arrest as a power to maintain the checks and balance as applied to local, State, and Federal Government); (6) the Thirteenth Amendment; (7) the privileges and immunities clause of Article IV, Section 2; and (8) the privileges and immunities clause of the Fourteenteenth Amendment.
I Still Need an Attorney to Represent Me
But I Will Push On as an Unrepresented Civil Plaintiff if Necessary
My Second Amendment case covers local, State, Federal, and Maritime jurisdictions in Civil Rights Law, Constitutional Law, the RICO Act, Admiralty Law, and Human Rights Law.