Gad... victimization at sea

See 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, International Maritime Organization, 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 defence.

The phases of suspected or attempted piracy/armed robbery attack

Suspected piracy/armed robbery vessel detected

47 Early detection of suspected attacks must be the first line of defence. If the vigilance and
surveillance has been successful, a pirate/armed robbery vessel will be detected early. This is the stage at
which the security forces of the nearest littoral or coastal State must be informed through the RCC, using the
ships’ message format contained in appendix 2. The ship's crew should be warned and, if not already in
their defensive positions, they should move to them. Evasive manoeuvres and hoses should be vigorously
employed as detailed in the preparation phase.

Being certain that piracy/armed robbery will be attempted

48 If not already in touch with the security forces of the littoral coastal State, efforts should be made to
establish contact. Crew preparations should be completed and, where a local rule of the road allows ships
under attack to do so, a combination of sound and light signals should be made to warn other ships in the
vicinity that an attack is about to take place. Vigorous manoeuvring should be continued and maximum
speed should be sustained if navigation conditions permit.

Pirate/armed robbery vessel in proximity to, or in contact with, own ship

49 Vigorous use of hoses in the boarding area should be continued. It may be possible to cast off
grappling hooks and poles, provided the ship's crew are not put to unnecessary danger.

Pirates/armed robbers start to board ship

50 Timing during this phase will be critical and as soon as it is appreciated that a boarding is inevitable
all crew should be ordered to seek their secure positions.

Pirates/armed robbers have succeeded in entering ship

51 Early detection of potential attacks must be the first line of defence, action to prevent the attackers
actually boarding the second, but there will be incidents when attackers succeed in boarding a ship. The
majority of pirates and armed robbers are opportunists seeking an easy target and time may not be on their
side, particularly if the crew are aware they are on board and are raising the alarm. However, the attackers
may seek to compensate for the pressure of time they face by escalating their threats or the violence they
employ.

When attackers are on board the actions of the master and crew should be aimed at:

.1 securing the greatest level of safety for those on board the ship;

.2 seeking to ensure that the crew remain in control of the navigation of the ship; and

.3 securing the earliest possible departure of the attackers from the ship.

52 The options available to the master and crew will depend on the extent to which the attackers have
secured control of the ship, e.g. by having gained access to the bridge or engine room, or by seizing crew
members who they can threaten, to force the master or crew to comply with their wishes. However, even if
the crew are all safely within secure areas, the master will always have to consider the risk to the ship the
attackers could cause outside those areas, e.g. by using firebombs to start fires on a tanker or chemical
carrier.

53 If the master is certain that all his/her crew are within secure areas and that the attackers cannot gain
access or by their actions outside the secure areas they do not place the entire ship at imminent risk, then
he/she may consider undertaking evasive manoeuvres of the type referred to above to encourage the
attackers to return to their craft.

54 The possibility of a sortie by a well-organized crew has, in the past, successfully persuaded
attackers to leave a ship but the use of this tactic is only appropriate if it can be undertaken at no risk to the
crew. For an action like this to be attempted the master must have clear knowledge of where the attackers
are on the ship, that they are not carrying firearms or other potentially lethal weapons and that the number of
crew involved significantly outnumbers the attackers they will face. If a sortie party can use water hoses,
they stand an increased chance of success. The intention should be to encourage the attackers back to their
craft. Crew members should not seek to come between the attackers and their craft nor should they seek to
capture attackers as to do so may increase the resistance the attackers offer which will, in turn, increase the
risk faced by members of the sortie party. Once outside the secure area, the sortie party should always stay
together. Pursuit of an individual attacker by a lone crew member may be attractive but if it results in the
crew member being isolated and seized by the attackers, the advantage turns to the attackers. Crew
members should operate together and remain in constant communication with the bridge and should be
recalled if their line of withdrawal to a secure area is threatened.

55 If the crew do apprehend an attacker, he/she should be placed in secure confinement and well cared
for. Arrangements should be made to transfer him/her to the custody of officers of the security forces of a
coastal State at the earliest possible opportunity. Any evidence relating to this activities should also be
handed over to the authorities who take him/her into custody.

The pirates/armed robbers begin to gain control and take one or more of the ship's crew into their
custody

56 If the attackers have gained control of the engine room or bridge, have seized crew members or can
pose an imminent threat to the safety of a ship, the master or officer in charge should remain calm and, if
possible, seek to negotiate with the attackers with the intention of maintaining the crew's control over the
navigation of the ship, the safe return of any hostages they may hold and the early departure of the attackers
from the ship. There will be many circumstances when compliance with the attackers' demands will be the
only safe alternative and when resistance or obstruction of any kind could be both futile and dangerous.

57 In the event of attackers gaining temporary control of the ship, crew members should, if it is safe and
practicable, leave Close Circuit Television (CCTV) records running.

58 As there have been occasions when entire crews have been locked up, consideration should be
given to secreting equipment within areas in which the crew could be detained to facilitate their early escape.

The pirates/armed robbers have stolen property/money, etc.

59 At this stage it is essential that the pirates/armed robbers are assured that they have been given
everything they demand and a strong reassurance that nothing has been secreted may persuade the
pirates/armed robbers to leave.

The pirates/armed robbers start to disembark from the ship

60 If the crew are in their secure positions, it would be unwise of them to leave this security until it is
confirmed that the pirates/armed robbers have left the ship.

The pirates/armed robbers have disembarked from the ship

61 A pre-arranged signal on the ship's siren will alert the crew to the "all clear".

See also, Don Hamrick v. President Bush, U.S. District Court for DC, No. 08-1698-EGS, filed October 6, 2008. Second Amendment case from a U.S. merchant seaman's point of view.

See also, Don Hamrick v. United States, Inter-American Commission on Human Rights, Petition No. 1142-06 (human rights complaint)(still active pending admissibility determination)(Contact Assist Legal Advisor for Human Rights and Refugee Affairs Kevin Alan Baumert, U.S. Department of State, Office of the Legal Advisor (L) for information).

See also my letter to the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights re: my human rights complaint against the United States:

TITLE OF LETTER: U.S. Supreme Court Ruling on the Second Amendment as Being an Individual Right has Become "jus cogens" For A New Peremptory Norm of General International Law

Petition No. 1142-06

DATED: July 4, 2008 [PATRIOTS' DAY]

Paolo G. Carozza

Inter-American Commission on Human Rights

1889 F Street, N.W.

Washington, D.C., 20006

Dear Mr. Carozza,

Please let the attached U.S. Supreme Court's District of Columbia, et al v. Heller opinion be entered into the record as evidence vindicating my human rights complaint against the United States in Petition No. 1142-06. The Heller opinion also affects Jessica Gonzales (now Lenahan) human rights complaint against the United States, Petition No. 1490-05.

Citing 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 my claim that the U.S. Supreme Court's Heller opinion on the Second Amendment includes and protects the right of armed self-defense as part of the "right to life" provision in international human rights treaties and presents a "fundamental change of circumstances" (Article 62 of both Vienna Conventions) for the "emergence of a new peremptory norm of general international law" ("jus cogens"), (Article 64 of both Vienna Conventions) for the "right to life" provisions in international human rights treaties through the treaty clause in Article II, Section 2 of the CONSTITUTION OF THE UNITED STATES.

The Heller opinion also impacts the AMERICAN DECLARATION OF THE RIGHTS AND DUTIES OF MAN under Articles I, II, IV, V, VI, VII, VIII, IX, gun culture under Articles XIII, XV, XVII, XVIII, XXI, XXII, XXIII, XXIV, XXV, XXVI, and duties to society under Article XXIX to which the INTER-AMERICAN COMMISSION ON HUMAN RIGHTS and the INTER-AMERICAN COURT ON HUMAN RIGHTS have jurisdiction.

The Heller opinion has two quotable points:

Page 9:

"Keep arms" was simply a common way of referring to possessing arms, for militiamen and "everyone else." [Footnote 7: . . . J. Ayliffe, A NEW PANDECT OF ROMAN CIVIL LAW 195 (1734) ("Yet a Person might keep Arms in his House, or on his Estate, on the Account of Hunting, Navigation, Travelling, and on the Score of Selling them in the way of Trade or Commerce, or such Arms as accrued to him by way of Inheritance"); . . .]

Page 46:

"As the Constitution of the United States, and the constitutions of several of the states, in terms more or less comprehensive, declare the right of the people to keep and bear arms, it has been a subject of grave discussion, in some of the state courts, whether a statute prohibiting persons, when not on a journey, or as travellers, from wearing or carrying concealed weapons, be constitutional. There has been a great difference of opinion on the question." 2 J. Kent, Commentaries on American Law *340, n. 2 (O. Holmes ed., 12th ed. 1873).

In the Page 9 quotation I construe the term "everyone else" to include merchant seamen in interstate and maritime travel as supported by the terms "Navigation" and "Traveling" in Scalia's

Footnote 7.

Scalia's Page 46 quotation implies that "open carry in interstate and maritime travel" is an "absolute or near-absolute right" not subject to any regulation at all. This inference needs clarification by judicial challenge.

The federal statute, 18 U.S.C. § 926A - INTERSTATE TRANSPORTATION OF FIREARMS, (nearly identical in effect to the strickened DC gun control law), is now ready for such a judicial challenge.

Does anyone want to call or write to the NRA to ask them to help me? The NRA has ignored my Second Amendment cause of action for the last 6 years. I need all the help I can get because I will not back down or give up on my rights as a MERCHANT SEAMAN or as a U.S. CITIZEN. Even if the NRA still refuses to help me I will continue on my own as a "pro se civil plaintiff." But take note, the federal courts hate "pro se civil plaintiffs" and especially so with Second Amendment cases. It the NRA does not want a pro se civil plaintiff setting a bad precedent (their fear) then they ought to be jumping in to help me dontcha think?

NOTE TO: David Hardy

You posted on a topic that fell into my area of occupation as a merchant seaman. That made it fair game for me to make the multiple postings above.

I hope they were informative for your readers.

They were crap, Don. Get lost.

For all the anti-gun rhetoric over the use of weapons against pirates, the real issue is that the weapons will at some point be taken into a coastal state's territory, i.e., enter a port or generally within 12 miles of the coastline. At that point regardless of your citizenship, you are subject to the port state's laws. Many are understanding of declared firearms on boats but others will jail you for a single round of ammunition. If hidden weapons are discovered, you will be charged with smuggling. It is a myth that a vessel is the sovereign territory of their flag state when in foreign waters. That only applies to warships and to a degree to public vessels owned by a national government.

In addition, the export of any firearm from the US is subject to US export controls. There are exceptions for some hunting rifles and shotguns but any handgun and any military style weapon can only be exported, even temporarily, by license from the State Department's Directorate of Defense Trade Controls. Their export is controlled by the US International Traffic in Arms Regulations (ITAR) and the Wassenaar Arrangement.

Even in and around the US mainland, if you carry arms you better not try to enter Canada or Mexico or New York or New Jersey for that matter or you will run afoul of a gun control regime.

Of course, that doesn't mean that you couldn't operate a private defensive force offshore that only went into friendly ports or was replenished underway.

33 U.S.C. § 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 port of the United States.

10 U.S.C. § 351. During war or threat to national security

(a) The President, through any agency of the Department of Defense designated by him, may arm, have armed, or allow to be armed, any watercraft or aircraft that is capable of being used as a means of transportation on, over, or under water, and is documented, registered, or licensed under the laws of the United States.

(b) This section applies during a war and at any other time when the President determines that the security of the United States is threatened by the application, or the imminent danger of application, of physical force by any foreign government or agency against the United States, its citizens, the property of its citizens, or their commercial interests.

(c) Section 16 of the Act of March 4, 1909 (22 U.S.C. 463) does not apply to vessels armed under this section.

Sorry for this double post. I left off the headers:

TITLE 10—ARMED FORCES
Subtitle A—General Military Law
PART I—ORGANIZATION AND GENERAL MILITARY POWERS
CHAPTER 17—ARMING OF AMERICAN VESSELS

10 U.S.C. § 351. During war or threat to national security

(a) The President, through any agency of the Department of Defense designated by him, may arm, have armed, or allow to be armed, any watercraft or aircraft that is capable of being used as a means of transportation on, over, or under water, and is documented, registered, or licensed under the laws of the United States.

(b) This section applies during a war and at any other time when the President determines that the security of the United States is threatened by the application, or the imminent danger of application, of physical force by any foreign government or agency against the United States, its citizens, the property of its citizens, or their commercial interests.

(c) Section 16 of the Act of March 4, 1909 (22 U.S.C. 463) does not apply to vessels armed under this section.

See also:

William Langewiesche, "Anarchy at Sea," The Atlantic Monthly's cover story for September 2003.
www.wesjones.com/anarchy.htm

See also Weekly Piracy Reports
www.icc-ccs.org/prc/piracyreport.php

Maybe it is time for Congress to issue Letters of Marque and Reprisal? See Art. 1, Sec. 8 US Const.

A couple of US Merchant Ships (or even Airships) called the Blackwater I and II cruising off the Somali coast and escorting (for a fee of course) other vessels, could cut down on piracy in that region I wager.

Don,

You have every right to arm yourself on the high seas if you're a US flagged vessel. The problem becomes when you enter foreign territorial waters or foreign ports whos laws are different than The United States.

Also, suggesting that NRA better help you, lest you go forward with a quacky lawsuit "pro se" is probably the opposite of the correct way to get help. Talk to attorneys who are experts at second amendment and civil rights litigation and see what they think. If it's a good case, the NRA might look at funding it. But if all the experts tell you that it's not worth bringing forward, you should listen to them, and stop pestering other people's blogs.

REBUTTAL TO SEBASTION:

FIREARMS IN FOREIGN TERRITORIAL WATERS: Recognition of the Second Amendment as a human right must occur at international human rights tribunals. The perfect "next step" is my human rights complaint against the United States over the Second Amendment as a new international human right as shown in my letter to IACHR above. Getting the IACHR to declare the right to keep and bear arms a human right is the immediate goal. Then my next step is to get the International Maritime Organization to accept armed self-defense (United States Second Amendment) as an international human right. The next step from there is the showdown with United Nations. These are the procedures available to me and I intend to follow these procedures with or without help.

NRA. I am through begging the NRA for help. They are fully aware of my case. If you and everyone else want me to have the NRA help me then the task is upon your shoulders to contact the NRA for me. The more calls the NRA gets the more likely they will change their minds. It is called the Grassroots method of Second Amendment advocacy. I am forced to publicize my case by any and all means necessary, by posting on blogs, discussion forums, and direct emailing. Just because the NRA says I have no case doesn't mean that they speak the truth. There are political agendas and ambitions at play in the NRA. Why else would the NRA try to derail the Parker and Heller cases on their way to the U.S. Supreme Court? My Second Amendment is valid and it has merits for a civil jury trial.

Don,

The customary way to reference this volume of material in a "comments" page is to link to the material, or cite articles. It looks like you have a lot of material. Link us to the sites where it is available; if the material is not already available online, then start your own website and upload it there, which you can do free through blogger.com. David's "comments" page is not supposed to be a virtual library.

I agree with David. Put a couple miniguns or .50's fore and aft along with a couple grenade launchers... some shotguns and various rifles along with sidearms aboard in the off chance one makes it past the minigun and you're good to go. No more pirates, no more hostages, no more wasted time and money. Light 'em up. No excuse not to. If countries don't like them in port, they provide armed security enroute and on the way home. Period.

ABS's shouldn't have to deal with this, nor yachtsmen. A low-budget Q-ship strategy coordinated by shipping nations would probably clear the world's seas of pirates. I don't know why they haven't done it.

ABS's shouldn't have to deal with this, nor yachtsmen. A low-budget Q-ship strategy coordinated by shipping nations would probably clear the world's seas of pirates. I don't know why they haven't done it. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Q-ship

REBUTTAL TO MONTREAL:

Hey! You don't like education through "relevant information" expanding upon a topic posted my David? Then stop reading David's blog!

My own blog is American Common Defense Review
AmericanCommonDefenceReview.WordPress.com which I use as my document repository. I do not have the time to make daily postings on my own blog because I am continuing my research and preparation of my court case and human rights case.

David Hardy's blog is a rich source for legal developments and the information he provides through his blog has greatly benefited my Second Amendment cases these past 6 years.

I realize that in the last 6 years that my name, "Don Hamrick" has become recognized as someone to shoot on sight with insults, criticisms, and harassing remarks such as yours. There are a lot of people who do not like my efforts at pushing "National Open Carry Handgun" or pushing the Second Amendment as an international human right. Which camp are you in?

American Merchant Seamen in Harm’s Way

by Don Hamrick, Able Seaman
© 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.

Somehow, in that six years, you've missed ALL of the strategy discussions about the important of bringing the RIGHT, carefully tailored, cases to avoid building negative precedent. Your chances of prevailing on the "Second Amendment as an international human right" are somewhere between Slim and none, and Slim stepped out for a beer. Even if a court should proclaim it such, how many countries would actually comply or care? There are international laws and treaties on a number of subjects, but until a big enough country is willing to use force to enforce them, they're largely meaningless. I know someone whose in-laws have effectively kidnapped his son to Japan, but even with treaties in place, there's nothing he can realistically do about it.

The US is practically unique in our view that the Constitution establishes a government for the purpose of protecting our rights - most other countries view "rights" as emanating from government. Think those countries will recognize a "right" to keep and bear arms? Most of them consider the US to be barbaric for allowing people to have guns with so few restrictions as it is.

In the meantime, you serve as a PERFECT example to be trotted out by the anti-gun bigots as an example of why they feel the Second Amendment MUST be narrowly restricted.

So I'm in the camp that thinks you're a threat to our efforts to broaden the protections of the Second Amendment throughout the United States.

REBUTTAL TO JAMES:

Your argument has one major fatal flaw. My situation as a U.S. citizen and a U.S. merchant seaman is not unique to the U.S. Constitution nor to human rights. You cannot suppress the rights of a whole class of citizens (U.S. merchant seamen) just because the another class of citizens (NRA and the likes such as you) are sitting on their asses waiting for a 'perfect case' to stroll by. The world does not revolve around the NRA. It would be nice to pick and choose cases but life forces us to deal with Government violations of Constitutional rights as individuals in the greater instances.

Sorry James. But you have to expand your view of the world around you to include the fact that American civilian sailors of the U.S. Merchant Marine have their Second Amendment rights just like you back home on land.

You fail to realize that the United Nations are attack our Second Amendment rights. Please read David Kopel's "The Human Right of Self-Defense" at
www.davekopel.com/2A/LawRev/The-Human-Right-of-Self-Defense.pdf

Then tell me no lies.

I am completely amazed at just how ignorant people are voicing their opinions on subjects that they know nothing about but their on biased presumptions. As with James above he presumed a lot of lot of baseless facts (not in evidence).

Where the hell did James come up the presumption that I "missed ALL of the strategy discussions about the important of bringing the RIGHT, carefully tailored, cases to avoid building negative precedent?"

Was there "strategy sessions" for my Second Amendment cases these past 6 years that I was not invited to? Who was holding these "strategy sessions?"

And why is it that the "anti's" come out of the woodward to denounce me derogatory remarks anytime I post factual citations of law and treaties?

Ohh! Yeah! That's right! I am taking point exploring a taboo in today's society: "National Open Carry Handgun." The terrifies alot of people.

Don,

'Hey! You don't like education through "relevant information" expanding upon a topic posted my David? Then stop reading David's blog!'

Please get your own blog so people can read your writing if (and only if) they want to. You can link to stories on David's blog and write stories about them on your own blog for all the world to see, if they want to.

Thanks,

Steve

NOTE TO SELF: IGNORE THE IDIOTS.

Capslock: Cruise control for coolness.

Don, I am neither sympathetic nor antipathetic to your situation. However, I feel strongly that you are wasting your time here and, with your combative attitude, alienating people who you would wish to support you. Perhaps you should take your own advice and ignore us.

REBUTTAL TO DAVEP:

I WILL IGNORE THE IDIOTS.

People who want to comment, criticize, or praise my lawsuit in the federal court and/or my human rights complaint against the United States at the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights are very welcome.

Well DaveP, I have to say that I found Don's info enlightening and I now know some things I didn't. As for his combative attitude, don't take swipes at people if you don't want them to swipe back. Simple, isn't?

As for the suggestion that he link to the info or put it on his own blog, I agree that would be a good solution. But, if you don't want people to be combative don't slap them.

Don - I've been working on gun rights for over a decade, which is how I came to know David. I resigned my seat on a state NRA affiliate's board of directors because I decided they were an impediment to removing unConstitutional restrictions on my right to keep and bear arms. I've DIRECTLY been involved with lobbying to successfully fix a situation where district attorneys were interpreting the holster requirements for carrying a handgun to mean that a person could only 'conceal' a handgun by placing it in a holster, but that then concealing the holstered handgun was illegal.

I've been involved in starting a college gun club that still exists and still promotes safe firearms ownership on a college campus - a club that exists despite the fact that they can't have any firearms on campus, even for demonstrations or to meet for club outings. I also conduct range seminars for authors and other guests at science fiction conventions, introducing many novices to handgun and rifle shooting, and have volunteered at a number of Department of Natural Resources and Boy Scouts of America youth shooter events.

So I'm hardly "sitting on my hands waiting on a perfect case" - I've been involved in helping FIND the perfect case and BUILD the environment in which it can flourish - NOT piss off judges and prejudice the community so that a good case gets dismissed because it's perceived as "fringe". My coworker's wife is the clerk to a judge, he has LOTS of stories about cases that MIGHT have gone differently if the plaintiff wasn't viewed as a loon. Another friend works for the Federal Courts for a judge, when was the last time YOU got an email asking what you thought about a particular decision, knowing that your response might be included in how that person explained the decision to the judge she worked for?

If one man says you are an ass, pay him no heed.

If three do, strap on the saddle.

You do your work in your area. I will do my work in my area. Don't denigrate my activities and I won't denigrate yours.

I am presently writing up a letter to the U.S. Coast Guard requesting Negotiated Rulemaking for a National Open Carry Handgun endorsement on the Merchant Mariner's Document citing 33 C.F.R § 1.05-20 Petition for Rulemaking; 33 C.F.R. § 1.05-60 Negotiated Rulemaking; 5 U.S.C. § 561-570a Negotiated Rulemaking (The Administrative Procedure Act) because merchant seaman have to keep up to date on a handful of identification documents.

33 C.F.R. § 1.05-60 Negotiated Rulemaking.

(a) The Coast Guard may establish a negotiated rulemaking committee under the Negotiated Rulemaking Act of 1990 and the Federal Advisory Committee Act (FACA) (5 U.S.C. App. 2) when it is in the public interest.

(b) Generally, the Coast Guard will consider negotiated rulemaking when:

(1) There is a need for a rule; [COMMENTARY: YES - American seafarers have Second Amendment right to openly keep and bear arms in intrastate, interstate, and maritime travel.]

(2) There are a limited number of representatives for identifiable parties affected by the rule; [COMMENTARY: With the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq. I hope to streamline the security background checks for the Merchant Mariner Document and the Transportation Worker Identification Card (TWIC) between the U.S. Coast Guard, the FBI, the BATF/E and other executive agencies via the negotiating table).]

(3) There is a reasonable chance that balanced representation can be reached in the negotiated rulemaking committee and that the committee members will negotiate in good faith; [COMMENTARY: Reasonable chance is possible so long as I am persistance with my rights.]

(4) There is a likelihood of a committee consensus in a fixed time period; [COMMENTARY. Certainly. What I am negotiating for is cut and dry.]

(5) The negotiated rulemaking process will not unreasonably delay the rule; [COMMENTARY: Unless my internet stalkers storm the negiotations].

(6) The Coast Guard has resources to do negotiated rulemaking; and [COMMENTARY: Absolutely they do.]

(7) The Coast Guard can use the consensus of the committee in formulating the NPRM and final rule. [COMMENTARY: The result of my persistence.]

-------

Everyone presumes I am a jackass out to destroy the Second Amendment. They never believe that I, in fact, know exactly what I am doing. I am turning federal law and regulations on the U.S. Government BECAUSE I am a U.S. merchant seaman who is heavily burdened by federal laws and regulations.

GIVE ME A BREAK PEOPLE!!

Well this was fertile post. I enjoyed the info but the arguement would be better on Don Hamrick own blog. You indicated you have a blog, Don so I will visit to learn about the case you are pursuing.

Not to aggravate you, but your tone has been a bit combative. The NRA mainly serves their membership and merchant marine freedom to arm may be out of their bailiwick.

I have research the legality and viability to arm civilian and commercial ships. I appreciate the addred info, Don.

REBUTTAL TO RAH:

Thank you for your kind comments. I don't get many of them.

My tone is combative due to 6 years of encountering Internet Rambos who seem to have no other goal but to annoy and harass me for whatever reasons they have. I should learn to ignore them.

The NRA has refused to help me because my lawsuit for "National Open Carry Handgun" is counter-productive to their "National Reciprocity for Concealed Carry."

My blog: American Common Defence Review
AmericanCommonDefenceReview.WordPress.com

I use my blog as a repository for my court documents NOT as a daily diary of commentary.

Good Luck Don, if it was up to me I would let you defend yourself at sea with any reasonable means you see fit. On the other hand, when you pull into port, I'm afraid your gonna be on your own. I guess this just goes with the territory. Maybe that safe shipping line might be a argument for you to take up.

PS I think most of us feel your pain, but there is only so far it's gonna go here.

REBUTTAL TO TOM:

YOU WROTE: ". . . but there is only so far it's gonna go here."

First point is my argument for firearms on U.S. flag commercial vessels is primarily for company owned firearms (stored in gun safes or lockers under maritime law) need to be issued to crew members performing security duties because 33 C.F.R. § 104.220 "Company or Vessel Personnel with Security Duties" omits to mention the need of firearms for personal protection and protection of the vessel. It also does not address the liability for personal injury or death resulting from the ommission or implied prohibition of firearms to vessel personnel performing security duties. I guess this will not be addressed until a merchant seaman aboard a U.S. container ship gets injuried or killed by a pirate or terrorist.

Second, to force the issue, to compel the U.S. government to address the matter, someone has to initiate civil litigation in federal or court or initiate a human rights complaint at the international level. Ohh! Wait! I have already done that! I have been pushing the matter in federal court for 6 years and the human rights issue at the international level for 2 years and my cases are still ignored by the NRA, SAF, GOA, JPFO, and everyone else.

I believe it is because I am pushing, for the lack of a better descriptive, a taboo into the arena of legal and social norms that the very idea of "National Open Carry Handgun" is either offensive or it terrorizes the phobic, even among pro-Second Amendment advocates at online discussion forums.

After 6 years of hopping from one discussion forum to another and getting banned from each because the message I bring draws weapon fire of insults, ridicule, and harassment like a magnet I presume I have name recognition, "Don Hamrick" as one who is to be "shot on sight" with verbal artillery regardless of the merits of my Second Amendment case. I still have not learned how to counter this type of prejudice. Fight fire with fire has always resulted in getting me banned from the discussion forums for breaking the rules of conduct while the natives (or cronies) of those forums get off scott free because I was the "newbie" on their boards. This is synonymous to mob lynching mentality. The behavior is the same.

After 6 years of combatting this type of intellectual stupidity I have become jaded and combative myself. My own prejudiced behavior is reflected in my pleadings to the Courts as you can see in the first 10 pages of my newest lawsuit. I intentially prepared my lawsuit in that manner to impress upon the Court that there does exist a judicial prejudice against pro se civil plaintiffs, especially so against those with Second Amendment cases.

If ever these is to be a restoration of the Second Amendment right to openly keep and bear arms in intrastate, interstate, and maritime travel there must be someone to be the first to break ground in this territory. I am that "first person."

I am the "first person" to use HELLER as evidence in a human rights complaint against the United States. The NRA and SAF love to use the phrase "next step" in their propaganda. Where is the recognition for me taking the "next step" in the fight for the Second Amendment at the international level? I am ignored. And believe me I am taking the toll of this political isolation.

I need legal help. I know it. But I am treated like a diseased leper by the NRA, SAF, GOA, and everyone else because I am tackling a legal subject that is viewed to be unwinnable because the right to open carry in interstate travel is viewed to be long dead, a relic of the old Wild West.

Six years pushing a Second Amendment case from a U.S. merchant seaman's point of view while being insulted, ridicule, and harassed, HELL! Even Curtis Stone, alias SAILORCURT, blogger for Virginia Citizen's Defense League (VCDL) chased me off their blog and stalked me to David Hardy's blog hear and was the first to comment when David Hardy was kind enough to promote my Second Amendment case here. Curtis Stone's harassing comment triggered an avalanche of harassing remarks.

I guess you can say I have collected a lot of enemies who hat the sight of my name, "Don Hamrick." Believe me, 6 years of such harassed is taking its toll on me. But I cannot and will not give up my fight for my own Second Amendment rights because it is MY rights that I am fighting for. It may very well be collateral rights with the American people but it is still my rights as and individual.

Yesterday, I sent an email to Chuck Norris, [email protected] via WorldNetDaily.com for help.
embeds.blogs.foxnews.com/2008/10/28/chuck-norris-the-nras-black-belt-patriot/

Note Michelle Malkin's Hotair blog on Chuck Norris
hotair.com/archives/2008/10/28/video-chuck-norris-and-the-nra/

If I am fighting for the Second Amendment then why does the NRA ignore me? (Too soon to question Chuck Norris. I emailed him only yesterday. The question is will Chuck Norris answer my email?).

I am asking everyone to call, write, and email Chuck Norris and the NRA and ask, no, demand that the NRA help my Second Amendment case.

Thank you.

"I guess this will not be addressed until a merchant seaman aboard a U.S. container ship gets injuried or killed by a pirate or terrorist."

Actually Don, I think it will take more than just one. You see the pirate thing is really rather small and seems to be in one certain area, from what I have observed. If this is really a bigger problem worldwide, I would think we would hear more from it.

The NRA, I think has alot on their plate right now, and maybe to much if we end up with a Democratic President and Democratic majority in Congress. There are lots of issues that face law abidding citizens (that want firearms)right here in the USA that will take up the majority of the NRA's resources. This is not to say that your issue isnt a good one, because it certainly is, but how many seamen are there that fall into your catagory compared to American Citizens living on the soil of their own property?

The NRA has a Hell of a lot on its plate, mostly caviar at all those dinners hosted by our enemies whom they support.

REBUTTAL TO TOM:

YOU WROTE: "You see the pirate thing is really rather small and seems to be in one certain area, from what I have observed. If this is really a bigger problem worldwide, I would think we would hear more from it."

Piracy is global: www.icc-ccs.org/prc/piracy_maps_2006.php

Weekly Piracy Reports: www.icc-ccs.org/prc/piracyreport.php

Don, I see what your saying, I never looked into this myself. Seems to me you have been doing the right things in this fight. I guess this may not get the attention (it deserves) of our legislatures untill and if it becomes a problem off our own shores. Actually it looks like the issue is being taken up by NATO with this fleet that has been put together recently, maybe the tide is turning in your favor, it just may take a while.

The really sad thing is that for the last 6 years I have tried to publicize my Second Amendment case from a merchant seaman's point of view hoping to get people on my "bandwagon" and all I get for my efforts is insults, ridicule, harassment and personal attacks that amounts to "internet pyschological abuse" because it is taking its toll on me.

To use an analogy it is like walking to city hall to file a complaint but every citizen along the way slaps you upside your head, shoves you aside, throws stuff at you, drive bys try to run you over. I am running a gauntlet of personal attacks on the Internet when the people don't know the facts about my case. They don't care or want to know. They don't want things to change. They are frogs resting in a water bowl sitting over a flame on the stove and the water is nearing the boiling point. They do not know it is time for a change. That it is time to take action to save themselves and their rights by jumping out of that water and onto my Second Amendment case.

Recognizing the Need for Change

Excerpt from:

Lieutenant Colonel Charles L. Beck, Jr., USAF, Lieutenant Colonel Nina Lynn Brokaw,USA, Commander Brian A. Kelmar, USN, A Model for Leading Change: Making Acquisition Reform Work, Report of the Military Research Fellows; DSMC 1996-1997, Defense Systems Management College, December 1997 [FOOTNOTE 1]
--------------
[FOOTNOTE 1]: Pp. 3-5 to 3-6. Footnotes omitted. Published by the Defense Systems Management College Press, Fort Belvoir, Virginia 22060_5565. (Disclaimer: This book was produced in the Department of Defense (DoD) school environment in the interest of academic freedom and the advancement of national defense_related concepts. The views expressed in this book are those of the authors and do not reflect the official position or policy of the DoD or those of the United States Government). http://www.dau.mil/pubs/mfrpts/pdf/res97.pdf
---------
One of the most important roles of the leadership is recognizing the need for change. This sounds obvious, since change could not be implemented unless you recognize the need for it, but many researchers point out that this recognition can be one of the hardest aspects of change. The "Boiling Frog" experiment has been used to illustrate the difficulty of recognizing the need for change:

"The label comes from a classic physiological response experiment involving two live frogs, a pan filled with water, and a bunsen burner. The first frog is placed in a pan of cold water. The pan is then placed on a bunsen burner and the heat is turned up very gradually. If the change in temperature is gradual enough, the frog will sit in the pan until it boils to death. The creature could have jumped out of the pan at any time, but the change in its environment happened so gradually that no response was triggered in the frog and death ensued If we take the remaining frog and place it in a pan of water that is already boiling, it will not sit there but will promptly jump out and survive. We can clearly continue to refine this experiment so that we can discover how great the change has to be in a given time period in order to get the frog to respond, but the analogy is clear." [Tichy and Devanna, Transformational Leader,59 44.] [FOOTNOTE 2]

[FOOTNOTE 2]:
http://www.wiley.com/cda/product/0,,0471623342%7Cdesc,00.html.
"How to transform an organization, based on fascinating, inside stories of major industrial companies and service companies (including Fortune 500 companies), aggressive smaller firms, and European companies. Provides insights into the styles and philosophies of leaders and executives who have transformed their companies, whether big or small, and offers practical advice on middle management’s role in transforming large organizations."

Organizations become boiled frogs because they do not recognize the changes in their environment in time to react. There are numerous examples of companies that have not recognized the need for change. The business news regularly carries stories of large corporations losing market share and profits, while companies in the same line of business are making record profits. The companies that are doing poorly may have failed to recognize the need for change. As illustrated by the boiling frog phenomenon, these organizations are slow to realize that a change is needed.

The leaders of the organization must recognize and believe in the need for change before it is too late. The senior leadership may not be the first to recognize the need for change, but they must be sold on it and make a commitment to its support. Mr. William J. Trahant of Coopers and Lybrand expresses the need for a clear reason for change: "No organization changes, absent a business imperative for the change. Without this business imperative, the organization can implement a lot of organizational good ideas, but these become training exercise, without resulting in measurable change. This training is good, but will not result in change."

Levels of Urgency for Change

Recognition of the need for change is tied in to the level of urgency for change. The less urgent and obvious the need for change, the harder it is to see that change is needed, as was illustrated by the boiling frog analogy. Organizational change theorists are in general agreement that there must be a justifiable reason for change, and that the reason must be communicated to and believed by the workforce. However, there is disagreement as to the level of urgency that must be conveyed. Some researchers feel that successful organizational change can only occur if there is a strong sense of urgency. Others lean more toward a "business imperative" to generate change. Regardless of the level of urgency they advocate, almost all researchers agree that the less urgent the need, the harder it will be to recognize and convince others of the need for change. Using Lewin’s model, the less urgent the need, the harder it will be to create the dissatisfaction with the status quo that will unfreeze the organization.

Reclaiming Our Values: Lessons From a Tragedy

Robert L. Veninga, Ph.D., Professor, Shool of Public Health, University of Minnesota delivered a speech to the National Public Health Leadership Institute in Atlanta, Georgia on October 21, 2001 titled Reclaiming Our Values. In his speech he presents six lessons of leadership resulting from the September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks.

His Lesson #1: "It’s best to be prepared for the unexpected" mirrors 1782 George Washington’s "If we are wise let us prepare for the worst."

In Lesson #2: "Nothing Substitutes for outstanding leadership." Is it outstanding leadership to perpetuate the disarming of citizens with 68 years of gun control laws and 20 years of anti-militia laws to the extent that national security is weakened enough to encourage terrorists to coordinate the attacks of September 11, 2001?

In Lesson #3: "There is a generous spirit in the hearts of most people, waiting to be claimed. When the call for volunteers went out, government officials were overwhelmed with expressions of support. The response was so great that New York City officials had to put out word that no more volunteers were needed. Volunteers to the armed forces nearly doubled as young mean and women went to recruiting stations to sign up for active duty." Where is the channeling of this generous spirit of volunteerism towards the traditional unorganized militia service for the security of a free State as mentioned in the Second Amendment or in the resurgence of State Defense Forces when the National Guard is federalized and deployed in foreign countries?

In Lesson #6: "Faith matters." We are indeed fighting a War of Faith, a Religious War. The politically correct will vehemently deny this assertion. But the facts bear this assertion as true.

Mr. Hamrick: Hey, man, you remind me of me. I mean, when I write that, that I think you're leaning really hard into an autistic perseveration, here. I'm not saying it ain't true, just that being very very earnest tends to scare off the normal folks, even if one has overwhelming evidence.