Lawsuit for National Open Carry Handgun Filed in DC

donhamrick · Oct 17, 2008

imported post

Freeflight wrote:

Hey,

I have my own servers and website. I will post it for you. I thought it was very good (As I read the entire thing....)

Music to my ears! Please include a request for readers to contact the NRA, SAF, GOA, JPFO, andKABA to support my Second Amendment case.

Thank you.

donhamrick · Oct 17, 2008

imported post

http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/DisplayAbstractSearch.cfm

Three new law review articles on the Second Amendment:

The Lecture Notes of St. George Tucker: A Framing Era View of the Bill of Rights
David T. Hardy
affiliation not provided to SSRN
Date Posted: October 14, 2008
Last Revised: October 14, 2008
Working Paper Series

From Ballots to Bullets: District of Columbia v. Heller and the New Civil Rights
Louisiana Law Review, Forthcoming, Saint Louis U. Legal Studies Research Paper No. 2008-02
Anders Walker
Saint Louis University School of Law
Date Posted: October 3, 2008
Last Revised: October 10, 2008
Accepted Paper Series

Tench Coxe and the Right to Keep and Bear Arms, 1787-1823
William & Mary Bill of Rights, Vol. 7, No. 2, 1999
David B. Kopel and Stephen P. Halbrook
Independence Institute and affiliation not provided to SSRN
Date Posted: September 24, 2008
Last Revised: September 24, 2008
Accepted Paper Series

AbNo · Oct 17, 2008

imported post

Can we please have a Cliff's Notes version of the argument?

600 pages is a bit much for some of us. I for one have Physics, Networking, and Chip Programming classes to contend with, as well as five forums. :uhoh:

Thundar · Oct 17, 2008

imported post

AbNo wrote:

Can we please have a Cliff's Notes version of the argument?

600 pages is a bit much for some of us. I for one have Physics, Networking, and Chip Programming classes to contend with, as well as five forums. :uhoh:

Gun control sucks.

We need to defend our rights, not just on land but also on the high seas

Coast Guard sucks, refuses to document small arms training qualifications on seamans z-cards.

Whole legal system sucks, ignores rational motions because they don't like them.

There is more, but that is quick.

donhamrick · Oct 17, 2008

imported post

AbNo wrote:

Can we please have a Cliff's Notes version of the argument?

600 pages is a bit much for some of us. I for one have Physics, Networking, and Chip Programming classes to contend with, as well as five forums. :uhoh:

TheTable of Contents are the Cliff's Notes! That is the best you are going to get!

Tess · Oct 19, 2008

imported post

donhamrick wrote:

TheTable of Contents are the Cliff's Notes! That is the best you are going to get!

Sorry, but that statement gives lie to your "perfect" assertion. Anyone who cannot speak eloquently to the gist of the suit to an audience of non-legal interested parties, cannot speak well enough to defend the suit in court. That's an unfortunate part of our justice system, but it exists. In our system, a "perfect" case is clear, cogent, and to the point. The filing may not be, but the arguments must be.

You must be able to state your 3-4 most cogent points.
You must be able to explain the one or two rules of law you assert to support your claim.
You must be able to speak to your claim, rather than telling everyone "go read 600 pages".

If you want to garner support, this is what you must do. So far, it seems you haven't garnered much support. Perhaps a different tack would serve you well???

Doug Huffman · Oct 19, 2008

imported post

donhamrick wrote:

From Ballots to Bullets: District of Columbia v. Heller and the New Civil Rights
Louisiana Law Review, Forthcoming, Saint Louis U. Legal Studies Research Paper No. 2008-02
Anders Walker
Saint Louis University School of Law
Date Posted: October 3, 2008
Last Revised: October 10, 2008
Accepted Paper Serieshttp://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1272675

This is a good, interesting and readable paper.

Doug Huffman · Oct 19, 2008

imported post

I am afraid that Mr. Hamrick's rhetoric is at the nexus of the contrapositives of personal attack and argument from authority.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_authority

It is one method of obtaining propositional knowledge, but a fallacy in regard to logic, because the validity of a claim does not follow from the credibility of the source. The corresponding reverse case would be an ad hominem attack: to imply that the claim is false because the asserter lacks authority or is otherwise objectionable in some way.

donhamrick · Oct 19, 2008

imported post

:celebrateROFLMAO! The law review articles were presented only as new law review articles unconnected to my lawsuit.

AbNo · Oct 20, 2008

imported post

A>Ok, I call shenanigans.

Who are you really, and what do you want?

Alternatively....

B> I call that I am no longer concerned.

You've come in, dropped a load of text on us, refused to provide explanation, and ridiculed those of us that DO NOT NOT HAVE TIME to read 600 pages of presumable legal jargon.

Would you like to do anything else to PO the rest of the board while you're here? :quirky

donhamrick · Oct 20, 2008

imported post

AbNo wrote:

A>Ok, I call shenanigans.

Who are you really, and what do you want?

Alternatively....

B> I call that I am no longer concerned.

You've come in, dropped a load of text on us, refused to provide explanation, and ridiculed those of us that DO NOT NOT HAVE TIME to read 600 pages of presumable legal jargon.

Would you like to do anything else to PO the rest of the board while you're here? :quirky

:banghead:You can lead ahorse to water but you can't make him drink from it. So it is with my 600 page lawsuit with a wealth of new legal strategies and you refuse to read it.

Who am I?

I am a U.S. merchant seaman trying to get Second Amendment rights recognized by the U.S. Coast Guard for mandatory small arms training (9mm Baretta, 12ga shotgun, and M-14 rifle as a prerequisite for employment as Able Seamen aboard U.S. Government vessels) as an endorsement on the Merchant Mariner's Document, a.k.a. the Z-Card. But because of the U.S. Coast Guard opposition and the opposition of the U.S. Department of Justice and the Bush Administration this dispute has escalated into an international human rights complaint against the United States at the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights in addition to my latest lawsuit filed October 6, 2008, Hamrick v. President Bush, U.S. District Court for DC, No. 08-CV-1698-EGS.

Do you want to bad mouth my Seventh Amendment right to a civil jury trial under common law?

Tess · Oct 21, 2008

imported post

donhamrick wrote:

:banghead:You can lead ahorse to water but you can't make him drink from it. So it is with my 600 page lawsuit with a wealth of new legal strategies and you refuse to read it.

If it's so good, why do you keep referring to it instead of telling us the 3-4 most important "new" strategies?

Don, it seems you have lots of time to waste on boards; how about some time making us WANT to read this?

AbNo · Oct 21, 2008

imported post

donhamrick wrote:

:banghead:You can lead ahorse to water but you can't make him drink from it. So it is with my 600 page lawsuit with a wealth of new legal strategies and you refuse to read it.

That's kind of what I was thinking actually while trying to get a synopsis....

Between going to class full time, trying to coordinate 20 people in five different cities, and looking for more long-term work, working on my Jeep, I really don't have the time to read 600 pages, and by the time I DID find time to read it, be it in small, disassociated chunks, or when I was not busy, which will most likely be when this information is no longer current.

In short Don, YOU know why this is so good, we don't. You need to tell us why, and I'm afraid "just read it!" doesn't work with the sheer volume of information you have there.

Information overload. Not everyone has time to write and file a lawsuit. You have to meet us halfway, and from what other people have told me, you're getting about the same results on other boards.

You can copy and paste 600 pages, then you can copy and paste a synopsis. Get people interested in this with a 1-3 page summary, and you'll have a better chance of getting people to read it. Also, "Hey, I filed a lawsuit that's larger than a lot of books! Go read it!" isn't exactly the best way to get people interested.

deepdiver · Oct 21, 2008

imported post

I'm going to have to agree here. Even very long, complicated law suits, judgments and technical papers are routinely summarized in a 1-3 page abstract. This is especially helpful to a researcher to determine whether further effort towards the work is warranted or wanted.

donhamrick · Oct 21, 2008

imported post

Table of Contens = Abstract.

Pick and choose the Parts you want to read.

In short the federal courts are corrupt against a pro se civil plaintiff with a Second Amendment case.

My latest lawsuit is the culmination of 6 years of litigation in the corrupt federal courts.

I cannot and will not boil it down.

My lawsuit is divided int "Parts." You pick the par6s that interest you.

AbNo · Oct 21, 2008

imported post

Well, I'm done with this thread. If anyone makes any headway with this guy, let me know.

He's obviously too good, or maybe too busy to provide those of us with our own projects some brief assistance, and I just don't think I can hold someone like that back from doing their own thing.

I looked for a table of contents on both your blogs, or at least a link, and I found a large mess of text, with only one reference to a ToC, which went no where.

donhamrick · Oct 21, 2008

imported post

Hey AbNo!

Try this:

http://usopencarry.thevaughts.net/hamrick.pdf

donhamrick · Oct 21, 2008

imported post

AbNo wrote:

Well, I'm done with this thread. If anyone makes any headway with this guy, let me know.

He's obviously too good, or maybe too busy to provide those of us with our own projects some brief assistance, and I just don't think I can hold someone like that back from doing their own thing.

I looked for a table of contents on both your blogs, or at least a link, and I found a large mess of text, with only one reference to a ToC, which went no where.

Don't blow smoke in my face and tell me its a foggy day.

Don't badmouth me if you don't want to read my lawsuit. It is your choice what you do with my lawsuit.

Tess · Oct 22, 2008

imported post

donhamrick wrote:

Table of Contens = Abstract.

Pick and choose the Parts you want to read.

In short the federal courts are corrupt against a pro se civil plaintiff with a Second Amendment case.

My latest lawsuit is the culmination of 6 years of litigation in the corrupt federal courts.

I cannot and will not boil it down.

My lawsuit is divided int "Parts." You pick the par6s that interest you.

I don't know where you went to school, but Table of Contents does NOT EQUAL abstract. A table of contents indicates what sections are contained on what page. An abstract/overview/executive summary gists the document into 1-3 pages. But then, I'm sure in your mind I'm wrong and you're right; that's what I've seen here and on blogs you've commented on.

I'm with AbNo on this.

finis

donhamrick · Oct 22, 2008

imported post

If you folks don't want too read it because I won't spoon feed it to you that is your loss and your laziness. For all I know an abstract to your liking will not cause you to read my 600 page lawsuit anyway in this day of the quick 30-second soundbite.

If you want to know about my lawsuit you gotta work for it. You gotta read it. Stop being so damn lazy.

Lawsuit for National Open Carry Handgun Filed in DC

Banned

Banned

Regular Member

Regular Member

Banned

Founder's Club Member

Banned

Banned

Banned

Regular Member

Banned

Founder's Club Member

Regular Member

Campaign Veteran

Banned

Regular Member

Banned

Banned

Founder's Club Member

Banned