The ultimate in live blogging

I suppose it is progress of a sort that Sen. Obama feels compelled to state his high regard for the Second Amendment, even though (as the Jesuits say) he has "mental reservations."

Live commenting: As Chuck Michel says, "San Francisco goes down easy!"

*laughs* I knew I knew you from somewhere. I was the bald guy who sat next to you.

FROM THE BANNED SECOND AMENDMENT PROTAGANIST:

TOPICS: Civil Liberties, Individual Rights, Freedom of Expression, Propaganda,
Persuasion, Deception, Rationality, Rhetoric, Skepticism, Logic, Fanaticism,
Dogmatism, Ideological Thinking, Political & Social Psychology

Maybe next year I will "crash" the party forcing Alan Gottlieb to have me arrested for exercising my First Amendment right of assembly and free speech defending the Second Amendment right to openly keep and bear arms in intrastate, interstate, and maritime travel. But If I win my Second Amendment case in the federal courts or my international human rights complaint against the United States before the next SAF GRPC maybe Alan Gottlieb will then see the light of the "Holy Grail" to Second Amendment rights and jump on my "bandwagon."

LIVE COMMENTING? How about LIVE QUOTATIONS for "ammunition" against Alan Gottlieb's hypocritical prejudice and bigotry against dissenting opinions on SAF ANNUAL GRPC AGENDA? How effective can SAF ANNUAL GRPC be when they silence my Second Amendment case for the Holy Grail for Second Amendment rights: Open Carry in intrastate, interstate, and maritime travel?

Pick and choose any of the quotations that support free speech and dissenting opinions for Second Amendment rights to "National Open Carry Handgun" in the following references:

The Writer's Rights
Over 1,600 Selected Quotations on Freedom of Expression, Civil Liberties and
Individual Rights
Compiled by Laird Wilcox. 136 pp.
www.overalltech.net/pub/Quotes5Writer_sRights.pdf

Propaganda, Persuasion & Deception
Over 1,125 Selected Quotations for the Ideological Skeptic
Compiled by Laird Wilcox. 124 pp. 2005.
www.overalltech.net/pub/Quotations-Propaganda.pdf

Rationality, Rhetoric, Skepticism & Logic
Over 835 Selected Quotations for the Ideological Skeptic
Compiled by Laird Wilcox. 80 pp. 2005.
www.overalltech.net/pub/Quotations-Rationality.pdf

Fanaticism, Dogmatism & Ideological Thinking
Over 1,050 Selected Quotations for the Ideological Skeptic
Compiled by Laird Wilcox. 95 pp. 2005.
www.overalltech.net/pub/Quotations-Fanaticism.pdf

Political & Social Psychology & Behavior
Over 1,250 Selected Quotations for the Ideological Skeptic
Compiled by Laird Wilcox. 121 pp. 2005.
www.overalltech.net/pub/Quotations-PoliticalPsych.pdf

Don, no one takes you seriously (least of all the courts) because you're a grade-A, certified wacko and you're not doing the gun rights folks any favors by continuing your one-man crusade against the gub'ment.

If you actually had a case, you'd have a lawyer willing to take it.

ditto

As a pro 2nd amendment attorney that is actaully involved in this area of the law I completely agree with comments of not this shit again. You hinder more than help. If you feel you must post then it is up to dave to allow that-but please stop litigating

Don, everybody is just plain sick and tired of your CONTINUAL displays of ego. The fellow can't post about anything without you intruding with "but what about MY life," as if it was the only thing worth reading about.

A post on NRA

"But NRA ignores ME!"

A post on SAF events

"but SAF has banned ME"

A post on a lawsuit

"But this isn't MY lawsuit."

If NRA ignores you, SAF threatens to have you arrested, no judge will give you the time of day, and this blog's readers regard you as a pest, your doing something very badly. Maybe instead of seeing yourself as a martyr, and protesting that everyone is out to get you, you might ask whether your enormous self-focus isnt causing the problem.

Don

Let me put it to you this way

If I were a judge, and let me say this, I am very pro 2nd amendment and believe in the strict construction of the law, I would rule against you based upon the posting you have made. AS much as it would pain me to do so your reasoning non sense

Don, did you ever stop think that the reason you were banned was because you come off as a nut case? Get a life!

I view it as a sign of David's immense tolerance that he hasn't banned Don Hamrick already. Your odds of winning before an international court rate slightly behind my odds of being selected as the next Pope (and I'm not Catholic and don't even remember the last time I was in a church). As for your First Amendment rights, you do NOT have the right to crash someone ELSE'S party. I'm sorry that you've managed to annoy all of your friends to the point that you have none, but that doesn't mean you get to go force other people to listen to you.

And "IF" I do win my Second Amendment case all you Nay Sayers won't have a pot to p*ss in.

My case asks the question: Do we have the right to travel with our Second Amendment. You dissenting opinions against my case implies you do not believe we have the right to travel with our Second Amendment. And that implies that you do not believe the Second Amendment should be incorporated through the Fourteenth Amendment to apply to the States.

Check your brains before you engage your keyboards.

I'm less worried about the Don Hamrick nutjobs than the nutjobs-with-JDs like Gary Gorsky (remember Silviera?) Those are the real dangerous ones post-Heller.

Bill Wiese
San Jose CA

HEY JAMES!

READ THIS: www.iachr.org/annualrep/2007eng/USA1490.05eng.htm

Jessica Gonzales "human rights complaint" against the U.S. challenges the U.S. Supreme Court's "No Individual Right to Police Protection Doctrine."

My case provides the counter-balance to that doctrine. "National Open Carry Handgun" as a human right. The IACHR is fully informed that my human rights complaint is intended to provide that counter-balance.

I AM THE FIRST PERSON TO have submitted the Heller opinion to the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights as evidence supporting my human rights complaint against the United States for denial of my Seventh Amendment right to a civil jury trial over my Second Amendment rights on the basis that the Heller opinion establishes the Second Amendment as jus cogens, a new peremptory international norm under Article 64 Emergence of a New Peremptory Norm of General International Law in 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

It is BECAUSE I am a U.S. merchant seaman that my Second Amendment case has the advantage of multiple jurisdictions between local municipalities, county, State, United States, and international jurisdiction under the Treaty Clause. My Second Amendment case is THE perfect case.

You people write your criticisms from ignorance of the facts in my Second Amendment case.

The fact that we think you're a nutjob does NOT mean we disagree with having a right to travel with our arms. It just means we think YOU are unlikely to prevail in court on the issue, and, in fact, are more likely to build negative precedent that we have to overcome. The fact that you're taking it to an international court, when the US is one of the VERY few countries that believes in an individual right to keep and bear arms, is WHY we find it unlikely that you will prevail.

My wife and I have been discussing gun rights and legal strategies with David and Clayton Cramer (in fact, Clayton bought us dinner a decade or so ago, before he was able to shift to working on gun rights as a full-time position) for a decade and a half. We've been active in state gun rights just as long, and have had to quit at least one organization after discovering that it was infested with nutballs who were doing gun rights more harm than good (having a member shoot a cop and then having the organization president show up in court wearing an organization hat and speak out of his ass pretty much guaranteed that ANYBODY associated with that organization would be written off by ANY member of the state legislature). So just because we don't support YOUR efforts does not mean we're not working for gun rights.

We've won a major victory with the _Heller_ decision. But we can still lose the war if a bunch of poorly-planned cases wind up setting a bunch of precedents that make _Heller_ unenforceable. It SHOULD be a slam-dunk to have the Second Amendment recognized as incorporated against the states, but we have to deal with the real world, where anti-gun judges will use every trick they've learned to minimize the effects of the ruling. Look at how many courts have falsely cited _Miller_ and claimed that Miller was appealing a conviction...

Don - have you noticed how many times the US Government has told the international courts to take a hike?

LET ME SLAP SOME QUOTATIONS UPSIDE YOUR HEADS:

Thought that is silenced is always rebellious. Majorities, of course, are often mistaken. This is why the silencing of minorities is necessarily dangerous. Criticism and dissent are the indispensable antidote to major delusions. ALAN BARTH, The Loyalty of Free Men, 1951.

Here in America we are descended in spirit from revolutionaries and rebels – men and women who dare to dissent from accepted doctrine. DWIGHT D. EISENHOWER (1890-1969), U. S. President, Speech, Columbia University, 1954.

Procedure is the bone structure of a democratic society. Our scheme of law affords great latitude for dissent and opposition. It compels wide tolerance not only for their expression but also for the organization of people and forces to bring about the acceptance of the dissenter’s claim….We have alternatives to violence. ABE FORTAS (1910-1982), U. S. Supreme Court Justice, Concerning Dissent and Civil Disobedience, 1968.

We must dare to think “unthinkable” thoughts… We must learn to welcome and not to fear the voices of dissent… Because when things become unthinkable, thinking stops and actions becomes mindless. J. WILLIAM FULBRIGHT (1905-1995), Speech, U. S. Senate, 27 March 1964.

In a democracy dissent is an act of faith, like medicine, the test of its value is not in its taste, but in its effects. J. WILLIAM FULBRIGHT (1905-1995), Speech, 21 April 1966.

I believe that the community is already in process of dissolution where each man begins to eye his neighbor as a possible enemy, where non-conformity with the accepted creed, political as well as religious, is a mark of disaffection; where denunciation, without specification or backing, takes the place of evidence, where orthodoxy chokes freedom of dissent; where faith in the eventual supremacy of reason has become so timid that we dare not enter our convictions in the open lists, to win or lose. LEARNED HAND (1872-1961), Judge, U. S. Court of Appeals, Speech, New York University, 24 October 1952.

Tyranny is avoided by virtue of the freedom and power of dissent to win the uncoerced consent of the community. Anarchy is avoided by reliance on due process, the recognition that there is a right way to correct a wrong, and a wrong way to secure a right. SIDNEY HOOK (1902-1989), “Social Protest and Civil Obedience,” The Humanist, September/December 1967.

Freedom is hammered out on the anvil of discussion, dissent and debate. HUBERT H. HUMPHREY (1911-1978), U. S. Vice-President, Speech, Syracuse University, 6 June 1965.

Those who begin coercive elimination of dissent soon find themselves exterminating dissenters. Compulsory unification of opinion achieves only a unanimity at the graveyard. ROBERT H. JACKSON (1892-1954), U. S. Supreme Court Justice

There are men – now in power in this country – who do not respect dissent, who cannot cope with turmoil, and who believe that the people of America are ready to support repression as long as it is done with a quiet voice and a business suit. JOHN V. LINDSAY (1921-2000), Speech,
University of California, 2 April 1970.

The dissenter is every human being at those times of his life when he resigns momentarily from the herd and thinks for himself. ARCHIBALD MACLEISH (1882-1982), 4 December 1937.

Protection, therefore, against the tyranny of the magistrate is not enough; there needs protection against the tyranny of the prevailing opinion and feeling, against the tendency of society to impose, by other means than civil penalties, its own ideas and practices as rules of conduct on those who dissent from them. JOHN STUART MILL (1806-1873), On Liberty, 1859.

There needs protection also against the tyranny of prevailing opinion and feeling; against the tendency of society to impose by means other than civil penalties, its own ideas and practices as rules of conduct on those who dissent from them; to fetter the development, and, if possible, prevent the formation, of any individuality not in harmony with its ways, and compel all characters to fashion themselves upon the model of its own. JOHN STUART MILL (1806-1873), On Liberty, 1859.

A good argument diluted to avoid criticism is not nearly as good as the undiluted argument, because we best arrive at truth through a process of honest and vigorous debate. Arguments should not sneak around in disguise, as if dissent were somehow sinister…For it is bravery that is required to secure freedom. CLARENCE THOMAS, U. S. Supreme Court Justice, Lecture, 13 February 2001.

Dissent…is a right essential to any concept of the dignity and freedom of the individual; it is essential to the search for truth in a world wherein no authority is infallible. NORMAN THOMAS (1884-1968), New York Times Magazine, 1959.

Mere unorthodoxy or dissent from the prevailing mores is not to be condemned. The absence of such voices would be a symptom of grave illness to our society. EARL WARREN (1891-1974), Chief Justice, U. S. Supreme Court, Sweezy v. New Hampshire, 1957.

Insults? Nutjobs? grade-A, certified wacko?

Never attack an opponent until you understand him so well that you can defend him. R. B. MacLEOD, Perception, Essays in Honor of James J. Gibson, 1974.

There is an almost universal tendency, perhaps an inborn tendency, to suspect the good faith of a man who holds opinions that differ from our own..... It obviously endangers the freedom and the objectivity of our discussion if we attack a person instead of attacking an opinion or, more precisely, a theory. SIR KARL POPPER (1902-1994), “The Importance of Critical Discussion,” in On The Barricades, 1989.

Every man who says frankly and fully what he thinks is so far doing a public service. We should be grateful to him for attacking most unsparingly our most cherished opinions. SIR LESLIE STEPHEN ((1832-1904), The Suppression of Poisonous Opinions, 1883.

If beliefs and assumptions are not called into question or tested, we are unprotected against the upheaval that accompanies their disintegration if they do become subjected to attack. DENISE WINN, The Manipulated Mind: Brainwashing, Conditioning and Indoctrination, 2000.

Groups hold their beliefs in high regard and will strive hard to defend them, and such strivings include resorting to collective self-deception. … Probably the easiest and most obvious way to distort collective memory involves the selective omission of disagreeable events. Events that make one’s social group look bad can often be ignored or expunged from its memory. ROY E. BAUMEISTER & STEPHEN HASTINGS, “Distortions of Collective Memory,” in Collective Memory of Political Events (James Pennebaker, et al.), 1997.

Stop litigating?

Attack another’s rights and you destroy your own. JOHN JAY CHAPMAN (1862-1933), letter,
1897.

First, morally responsible people insist on making up their own minds about what is good or bad in life or in politics, or what is true or false in matters of justice or faith. Government insults its citizens and denies their moral responsibility, when it decrees that they cannot be trusted to hear opinions that might persuade them to dangerous or offensive convictions. We retain our dignity, as individuals, only by insisting that no one – no official and no majority – has the right to withhold opinion from us on the ground that we are not fit to hear and consider it. RONALD DWORKIN, “The Coming Battles over Free Speech,” New York Review of Books, 11 June 1992.

It is the characteristic of the most stringent censorships that they give credibility to the opinions they attack. VOLTAIRE (1694-1778), Poeme sur le desastre de Lisbonne, 1958.

FOR THE RECORD: THE ABOVE "ANONYMOUS" IS ME, DON HAMRICK. I forgot to "fill in the blank."

Yep, your posts do prove one thing, if you are not a nut case you shortly will be.

Don,

I apologize for calling you a wacko, and I did not mean to derail these comments.

But look: you're representing yourself. You thus have a fool for a client.

Your litigation has continued for how many years now? And how many legal victories have you achieved?

ZERO.

What's the definition of insanity, according to Einstein? Doing the same thing over and over and expecting different results. The louder you shout, the more you will be ignored.

Dave,

You mention the "public accomodation" aspects of 13-3101.01, which says that a public facility (defined as government owned) must provide lockers. As a private business, I don't believe the Sheraton is required to do so, at least under the law. Morally, is another issue.

There's a lot more to the open-carry story here than was discussed there. I am working on an article on it now.

And Don, please stop posting that stuff here, as it detracts from Dave's posts. We understand you're frustrated, but stop taking it out on Dave's readership. Instead, pointing folks to YOUR blog would have been a much more Internet-accepted thing to do.

TO: "NOT THIS SHIT AGAIN!"

YOU WROTE: "But look: you're representing yourself. You thus have a fool for a client."

MY REBUTTAL: "How often we hear, "He who represents himself has a fool for a client." To that we say, "He who is represented is usually taken for a fool."

See: http://www.caught.net/prose/everyam.htm

TO: TOM WEAVER.

MY ANSWER: NO! My comments are direct rebuttals to what David Hardy posts. Dissenting opinions are NOT prohibited but by the prejudice of others.

FOR THE THIRD TIME: I do not use my blog for daily postings. My blog is a REPOSITORY for my court documents and my occasional comment.

YOU DO NOT LIKE MY COMMENTARIES? SO WHAT! GET OVER IT ALREADY!

NOTE TO EVERYONE!

Concealed carry is the social norm and the legal norm today.

Concealed carry is NOT the constitutional norm.

National Open Carry IS the constitutional norm.

Can anyone dispute this facts without insults?

Those who begin coercive elimination of dissent soon find themselves exterminating dissenters. Compulsory unification of opinion achieves only a unanimity at the graveyard. ROBERT H. JACKSON (1892-1954), U. S. Supreme Court Justice

Thanks for this quote. I wonder how many here know that Justice Jackson was not college educated, did not attend law school and was one of our most erudite and learned Supreme Court Justices.

He took a leave from the bench to serve at the Nuremburg War Crimes Trials at the request of our president.

Sometimes, as a society, we place far too much emphasis on documentation and far too little on accomplishment and intelligence. This is a much better country because of Justice Jackson than it would have been without him.

Don, no one is disputing that. They're just saying that your hamfisted one-man crusade in the federal courts is doomed to failure and ultimately hurts the gun rights movement. You're doing more harm than good.

Not this shit again with "Not This Shit Again!"

You are talking our your arse. You don't have a clue about the facts or the merits of my case.

POINT 1: In 2002 Judge Ellen Segal Huvelle of the U.S. District Court for DC dismissed my Second Amendment case with prejudice holding that the Second Amendment was a right of the State to arme the militia. HELLER overrules that Memorandum Opinion and ORDER. Judge Heller stated that under the States' rights interpretation my case had no merits. Now with HELLER's individual rights regardless of the militia interpretation my case does, in fact and law, have merits to proceed to a civil jury trial. I will very soon refile my case in that same court.

POINT 2: My human rights complaint against the U.S. at the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights will put political pressure on the federal court.

POINT 3: If you do not know the facts of a particular subject then KEEP YOUR MOUTH SHUT AND HANDS OFF THE KEYBOARD!

Fruedian slip: "Judge Heller" should be "Judge Huvelle."

Don, typical of your behavior is your insistance above that you can hijack another's forum but that people who disagree with you have to shut up.

Hijack? NO!

Shut up? Yes! WHEN THE DO NOT KNOW WHAT THEY ARE TALKING ABOUT!

GANGING UP ON AN INDIVIDUAL JUST BECAUSE YOU DON'T LIKE HIS OPINION IS "MOB RULE." MOB RULE IS A STATE OF FASCISM. THIS COUNTRY WAS FOUNDED ON INDIVIDUAL FREEDOM. LIVE WITH IT OR MOVE TO ANOTHER COUNTRY!

Don,

Point 1: You LOST. Despite the change in controlling precedent, your case was dismissed with prejudice. It's over. If you file again, it will be dismissed again, probably accompanied by sanctions.

Point 2: Human rights complaint? Inter-American Commission on Human Rights? How, exactly, will this put pressure on any court in our land? While I admit ignorance of the operation of the OAS and its related entities, I seriously doubt that the United States has ceded jurisdiction to the Inter-American Court. Any favorable decision you might receive (which is highly unlikely) will have absolutely no power or influence over a U.S. District Court judge.

Point 3: Not knowing anything about the law hasn't stopped you. Why should my ignorance of your theories stop me?

AGAIN WITH THIS SHITHEAD!

YOU DON'T LOSE IF YOU DON'T GIVE UP!

ROUND 1: (2002) Petition for Writ of Mandamus dismissed with prejudice. I appealed all the way to the U.S. Supreme Court - denied.

ROUND 2: (2003) Civil RICO Act Complaint against U.S. Dismissed with prejudice. DC Circuit affirmed dismissal of RICO Act claims but removed the "prejudice" lable and REMANDED my case on Second Amendment grounds. District Court/DC pulled a dirty trick by issuing a Scheduling Order (used for moving a case to the Discovery Phase under Rule 16 and 26 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure) but worded the Scheduling Order as though it was a redo of Rule 7 Pleadings which gave the GOVT the opportunity to file another Motion to Dismiss. I filed my own Motion to Dismiss and refiled my case in Little Rock, AR (2006). The federal court there was more hostile than DC. Dismissed again. This is the case where I bought 20 DVDs of David Hardy's video documentary on the Second Amendment to use as evidence (mailed them with the summons and complaint to the GOVT Defendants). I will file a motion in my forthcoming lawsuit to transfer the court records and the evidence to my new case (2008).

HUMAN RIGHTS TREATIES: You are completely ignorant and wrong on your interpretation of treaties. Federal judges are obligated to comply with treaties on the same level as federal laws, especially when they have direct relevance to a case at hand.

YOU PRESUME FACTS NOT IN EVIDENCE: You allege "Not knowing anything about the law hasn't stopped me." Then you further display your idiocy by asking me why should your ignorance of my theories stop you? Fortunately for you, there is no law against stupidity. You still have the right to open your mouth and stick your foot in it. And you have shoved your foot clear up to your ass. Any further you will disappear!

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the DC Circuit ordered the "dismissal with prejudice" label REMOVED and remanded