Executive Office of the President Searching Blogs for Intel on Second Amendment Solution Re: Somali Pirates

President Obama’s staff and perhaps even the Djibouti Government are searching blogs for a “Second Amendment Solution” to resolve the problem with Somali pirates. The screen capture below is from the Statcounter log for my blog, American Common Defence Review and it is my evidence that maritime nations may very well be considering a new maritime treaty for armed merchant vessels and crew and not just contract security teams. It is nice to be vindicated by such high profile members of Government (even though I do not personally consider Obama to be a legitimate President until he proves his eligibility in accordance with the dictates of the Constitution.)

The Executive Office of the President (as did Djibouti, “Djibouti’s Code of Conduct” see the PDF Document which is NOT working because Somali piracy is expanding in area and increasing in frequency) visiting my blog is the most recent vindication of my Second Amendment case for U.S. Merchant Seamen’s right to openly keep and bear arms in intrastate and interstate travel between home and their ship as well as a U.S. merchant seaman on vacation or at home between deployments in addition to arming U.S. merchant vessels and their crew to defend against pirates on the high seas.

January 5, 2011 Maryland’s Court of Appeals, the highest court in the State (commonly called the Supreme Court in other states and at the federal level) handed down an opinion on the Second Amendment that opens the door to public debate on the scope of the Second Amendment which also opens the door to public discussion on National Open Carry for U.S. merchant seamen, in intrastate and interstate travel under the Merchant Marine Act of 1936 (See 46 U.S.C. Appendix § 1295(1) Congressional Declaration of Policy).  In Williams v. State of Maryland, No. 16, September Term 2010. (SUBJECTS: Constitutional Law; Second Amendment; Section 4-203 of the Criminal Law Article; Scope of Right to Bear Arms) Section 4-203(a)(1)(i) of the Criminal Law Article, which prohibits wearing, carrying, or transporting a handgun in public, without a permit, is outside of the scope of the Second Amendment as explicated by the United States Supreme Court in Heller and McDonald because that Section does not implicate gun ownership for personal protection in the home. Petitioner also lacked standing to challenge Section 5-301 et seq. of the Public Safety Article, Maryland Code (2003), as well as COMAR, governing carry permitting, because he had failed to even apply for a permit to wear, carry, or transport a handgun. 

See Eugene Volokh, Highest Court of Maryland Holds That Second Amendment Does Not Protect Carrying (Concealed or Not) of Guns Outside the Home, January 5, 2011 for additional commentary at his blog, The Volokh Conspiracy.

In 2009 the U.S. Department of State and the U.S. Coast Guard vindicated my Second Amendment case reported by Maritime Protective Services’ blogger John C.W. Bennet, of Maritime Transportation Security News & Views, titled USCG Updates Information on Foreign Nations’ Policies Towards Weapons on US-Flag Commercial Vessels, dated August 18, 2010.

The U.S. Coast Guard’s Port Security Advisory (8-09): Port State Response to Request for Information Regarding Carriage and Transport of Self-Defense Weapons Aboard U.S. Commercial Vessels dated October 19, 2009 and the U.S. Coast Guard’s updated Port Information Matrix, dated August 9, 2010, summarizing the available [maritime] port state responses to a U.S. State Department démarche requesting information on [maritime] port state laws and restrictions (posted online August 10, 2010 as encoded in the URL) also vindicate my Second Amendment case for seamen’s rights because the Port Information Matrix will have the potential to lead to a new maritime treaty for armed merchant vessels.


If you can accept the fact that the human right to armed self-defense is a basic fundamental Truth then I present several ancient Latin quotations from Peter Halkerston, L.L.D., A Collection of Latin Maxims and Rules in Law and Equity: Selected from the Most Eminent Authors on the Civil, Canon, Feudal, English and Scots Law with an English Translation., Edinburgh, Scotland, 200 pages, (1823):


Veritas est justitiæ mater. (Truth is the mother of justice.)

Veritas nihil veretur nisi abscondi. (Truth dreads nothing, unless to be hidden,)

(SEPARATE NON-LATIN SOURCE): “All truth passes through three stages. First, it is ridiculed. Second, it is violently opposed. Third, it is accepted as being self-evident.” Arthur Schopenhauer, German philosopher (1788–1860). 


Qui non libere veritatem pronunciat, proditor est veritatis. (He who does not freely declare the truth, is a betrayer of the truth.)

Veritatem qui non libere pronunciat, proditor est veritatis. (He who does not speak the truth freely, is the betrayer of truth.)

Veritas quæ minime defensatur, opprimitur ; et qui non improbat, approbat. (Truth which is by no means defended, is oppressed ; and he who does not disapprove, approves it.)


I cite as authority to make such an international demand, Section 2 Invalidity of Treaties, Articles 48, 49, 53; Section 3, Articles 61, 62, and 64 of both the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties 1969 and the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties between States and International Organizations or between International Organizations 1986 against the United Nations’ Programme of Action to Prevent, Combat and Eradicate the Illicit Trade in Small Arms and Light Weapons in All Its Aspects and the Inter-American Convention Against Illicit Manufacturing of and Trafficking in Firearms (CIFTA) because the human right to life demands a human right to armed self-defense. The above anti-firearms treaties violate the human right to life of people defenseless against genocide and other violent crimes by rogue governments and bands of criminals acting under the cover of militias:


Article 48 Error
Article 49 Fraud
Article 53 Treaties Conflicting with a Peremptory Porm of General International Law (“jus cogens”)


Article 61 Supervening Impossibility of Performance
Article 62 Fundamental Change of Circumstances
Article 64 Emergence of a New Peremptory Norm of General International Law (“jus cogens”)

The human right to life combined with the human right to armed self-defense requires the operative law of human rights that an aggressor forfeits his or her own human right to life when they seek to murder another person. A human right to life cannot be used as a defense to murder as the International Maritime Organization would have you believe with Page 2, Paragraph 5 – Non-Arming of Seafarers, in ANNEX – RECOMMENDATIONS TO GOVERNMENTS FOR PREVENTING AND SUPPRESSING PIRACY AND ARMED ROBBERY AGAINST SHIPS, to MSC.1/Circ. 1333 PIRACY AND ARMED ROBBERY AGAINST SHIPS: Recommendations to Governments for Preventing and Suppressing Piracy and Armed Robbery Against Ships, dated June 26, 2009:

For legal and safety reasons, flag States should strongly discourage the carrying and use of firearms by seafarers for personal protection or for the protection of a ship. Seafarers are civilians and the use of firearms requires special training and aptitudes and the risk of accidents with firearms carried on board ship is great. Carriage of arms on board ships may encourage attackers to carry firearms or even more dangerous weapons, thereby escalating an already dangerous situation. Any firearm on board may itself become an attractive target for an attacker.

Here the International Maritime Organization treats seafarers of all nations as civilians with no human right to armed self-defense against life-threatening attacks by pirates. This implies a anti-human rights bias in favor of Government power to have arms but not civilians, the fundamental basis of all genocides.

The next insult the IMO implies is that seafarers are too stupid to know how to operate firearms safely. Yet, seafarers are required to operate deck machinery far more complicate with greater risks of injury, death, and damage to equipment and the vessel itself. 

The final insult to seafarers of all nations is the IMO claim that weapons aboard merchant vessels will be an incentive for pirates to attack the merchant vessels. This is a false misdirection of logic in the presumed goals of the pirate. There is no need for pirates to attack merchant vessels solely for the weapons aboard a vessel nor incidental to ransom for the crew, vessel, and cargo when pirates can safely acquire firearms from the black market with their reward of ransom. In this example the IMO places the human right to life of the pirate and the crew on equal balance with no regard for the life of the innocent. In fact the IMO waves a naughty finger to the innocent crew who dare take up arms in defense against the aggressive pirates.

That’s three insults against seafarers of all maritime nations! The IMO ought to get their head out of their asses and stand up for the rights of seafarers and against pirates and governments alike who have no regard for the lives of seafarers.

With that explanation the IMO’s policy on Piracy and Armed Robbery Against Ships is a fraud under Article 49 of  the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties between States and International Organizations or between International Organizations 1986.

The human right to life of innocent seafarers ought to have greater weight than the human right to life of the murderous pirates at sea or the common criminal on land in any society. This is basic, instinctive, common sense and a fundamental Truth under Natural Law. Ignoring this fundamental Truth under Natural Law is a symptom of a delusion.

My human rights theory as applied to the maritime environment is primarily developed from a study of David B. Kopel, Joanne D. Eisen, Paul Gallant, The Human Right of Self-Defense, 22 BYU Journal of Public Law 43 (Fall 2007), various human rights treaties, and countless law review articles and a wide variety of subjects too numerous to list hear. I am, after all, just a 20-year seafarer who has taken up the burden of primarily defending the constitutional rights of American seafarers and, as a collateral effect, incidentally defending the human rights of seafarers of all maritime nations, if I may be so bold as to claim such an effort without being acused of boasting. I am but a poor seafarer with no attorney, no resources or funding for my efforts.


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s