Lawsuit for National Open Carry Handgun Filed in DC

[xd.40]

imported post

We could all say the same for you, sir. Like many have said before, you should know your lawsuit best and try to get people involved. You putting it there may get 1 person to read it. If that happens, hopefully they will be able to sum it up for us. Just like in high school: I need a 1-2 paragraph summary of the major points of the lawsuit. We aren't lawyers here and don't have that kind of time.

 

[donhamrick]

imported post

:banghead:

Read the damn 19-page, 4-Level, Table of Contents!

It is better than an Abstract! It least you won't have to read the whole 600 pages you poor baby!


Click to download the lawsuit: Hamrick v. President Bush, U.S. District Court for DC, No. 08-CV-1698-EGS, filed October 6, 2008.

 

[xd.40]

imported post

I tried - I can't seem to find out what your ORIGINAL lawsuit is about - I see a bunch of things about previous motions to dismiss and all. I am not a lawyer and don't know where to BEGIN to decipher all this. What is your lawsuit about? You say open carry, but all I read is about being able to be your own attorney general. I am really lost and if you don't want to help out, I don't think this thread will remain unlocked for long...

 

[donhamrick]

imported post

xd.40 wrote:

I tried - I can't seem to find out what your ORIGINAL lawsuit is about - I see a bunch of things about previous motions to dismiss and all. I am not a lawyer and don't know where to BEGIN to decipher all this. What is your lawsuit about? You say open carry, but all I read is about being able to be your own attorney general. I am really lost and if you don't want to help out, I don't think this thread will remain unlocked for long...

NOTE: APRIL 19 IS PATRIOTS' DAY!

You DID NOT TRY HARD ENOUGH! It is in PART 12! (1 freakin' page!):

PART 12. CHALLENGING THE FINAL AGENCY ACTION OF THE U.S. COAST GUARD

A. Capt. J. P. Brusseau Violated his Oath of Office when he ascribed a Personal Ideology against the Second Amendment as a Basis for the Denial Letter, April 19, 2002

That Don Hamrick's cause of action arose in 2002 from a judicial review of the U.S. Coast Guard's final agency action denial, (46 C.F.R. § 1.01.30), [FN492] of his application for an endorsement on his Merchant Mariner's Document, such endorsement to read, "National Open Carry Handgun" for which there were and still are no federal laws or regulations for or against that particular endorsement. The reason given for the denial is found in the U.S. Coast Guard's letter dated April 19, 2002:

Dated April 19, 2002:

[align=left]Dear Mr. Hamrick:

This is to address your appeal of a decision by the Commanding Officer, Coast Guard National Maritime Center concerning your Merchant Mariner.s Document.

In your letter of 19 January 2002, you applied to have your Merchant Mariner.s Document endorsed .National Open Carry Handgun.. The Commanding Officer, Coast Guard National Maritime Center replied to you in his letter of 22 February, denying your application. You appealed that decision in your letter of 16 March to Secretary of Transportation Norman Y. Mineta, and supplemented your appeal with your letter 29 March, also to Secretary Mineta. Your appeal was forwarded to me for final agency action as outlined in 46 CFR 1.03-15(j).

I am impressed with your scholar ship and zeal in formulating arguments in support of your application for a "National Open Carry Handgun" endorsement on your Merchant Mariner's Document, but I am not persuaded to agree with you.493 As you have noted, the laws and regulations do not provide for such an endorsement nor do they prohibit it. Instead, the matter is left to my judgment.494 My decision, after considering all the material your have submitted, is that it would not be in the best interest of marine safety or security495 to initiate the endorsement you have applied for. Your appeal is therefore denied and the Commanding Officer, National Maritime Center is directed not to place any endorsements regarding firearms on any merchant mariner.s licenses or documents.

This decision constitutes final agency action as cited above.

Capt. J. P. Brusseau
Director of Field Activities
Marine Safety, Security and Environmental Protection

FOOTNOTES:

492 Plaintiff.s Note: 46 CFR 1.01-30(a) Judicial Review states: "Nothing in this chapter shall be construed to prohibit any party from seeking judicial review of any Commandant.s decision or action taken pursuant to the regulations in this part or part 5 of this chapter with respect to suspension and revocation proceedings arising under 46 U.S.C. chapter 77."

493 Emphasis added.

494 Emphasis added.

495 Emphasis added
[/align]​

 

[xd.40]

imported post

donhamrick wrote:

xd.40 wrote:

I tried - I can't seem to find out what your ORIGINAL lawsuit is about - I see a bunch of things about previous motions to dismiss and all. I am not a lawyer and don't know where to BEGIN to decipher all this. What is your lawsuit about? You say open carry, but all I read is about being able to be your own attorney general. I am really lost and if you don't want to help out, I don't think this thread will remain unlocked for long...

Snip

You DID NOT TRY!

I don't know what you are trying to prove here - you don't know me or what I DID do. I TRIED to sift through all those pages, but couldn't find anything AS YOU DIDN'T WANT TO TELL US! All you did was TELL us to read the lawsuit. You could have avoided all of this if you would have posted that in the first place with a link to the lawsuit. You lost a lot of following because you were hesitant to help other s out.

 

[donhamrick]

imported post

BULL!

YOU COULD HAVE EASILY FOUND IT BY READING THE TABLE OF CONTENTS!

NOW I BET THAT BECAUSE YOUR BIG CURIOSITY IS NOW SATISFIED YOU HAVE NO FURTHER INCENTIVE TO READ MY LAWSUIT. RIGHT? YOU HAVE NO CURIOSITY ABOUT ANYTHING ELSE. RIGHT?

SPOON FED AND NO LONGER HUNGRY FOR INFORMATION! JUST AS I THOUGHT!

 

[xd.40]

imported post

No need to waste my time reading the 600 pages. You just lost my support due to your negative comments. Courtesy goes a long way here. You sir, have none.

 

[donhamrick]

imported post

That is BECAUSE of 6-years of enduring bullheaded people like you who prefer to do things the hard way. You talk about courtesy? I haveendured 6-years of personal attacks and insults from people who have no courtesy or respect for common decency or they have their own anti-Second Amendment agenda to prejudice people from getting involved in or learning more aboutmy Second Amendment case as you appear to be doing here.

You have protested far too much to be a true Second Amendment patriot. A true patriot or advocate would have readthe Table of Contents without hesitation and then proceeded to read the rest of my lawsuit in installments when time permitted.

No. You fought me every step of the way like a squabling 2-year old.

You sir, are the one without courtesy or respect.

 

[xd.40]

imported post

If you notice - I JUST started commenting last night. I don't know how I became the enemy. And calling me a 2 year old was very mature too. I am done with you. Goodbye.

 

[donhamrick]

imported post

Now where is my Aspirin bottle. I have a splitting headache.

 

[deepdiver]

imported post

Section I of the petition is "General Synopsis of This Case", on page numbered 123 of the petition, being page 144 of the pdf document. Although it is not as enlightening as I would have hoped.

And here, found on page numbered 313 of the petition, under "Part 19. The Claims", being page 334 of the pdf document, I think is the precursor and nexus of this matter:

A. The U.S. Coast Guard Final Agency Action Denial was Wrongfully Based Upon a Personal Ideology in Violation of the Oath of Office

That Don Hamrick's cause of action arose in 2002 from a judicial review of the U.S. Coast Guard's final agency action denial (46 C.F.R. § 1.01–30) of his application for an endorsement on his Merchant Mariner's Document, such endorsement to read, "National Open Carry Handgun" for which there were and still are no federal laws r regulations for or against that particular endorsement. The reason given for the denial is found in the U.S. Coast Guard's letter dated April 19, 2002:

Dated April 19, 2002

Dear Mr. Hamrick:

This is to address your appeal of a decision by the Commanding Officer, Coast Guard National Maritime Center concerning your Merchant Mariner's Document.

In your letter of 19 January 2002, you applied to have your Merchant Mariner's Document endorsed "National Open Carry Handgun." The Commanding Officer, Coast Guard National Maritime Center replied to you in his letter of 22 February, denying your application. You appealed that decision in your letter of 16 March to Secretary of Transportation Norman Y. Mineta, and supplemented your appeal with your letter 29 March, also to Secretary Mineta. Your appeal was forwarded to me for final agency action as outlined in 46 CFR 1.03-15(j).

I am impressed with your scholar ship [sic] and zeal in formulating arguments in support of your application for a National Open Carry Handgun endorsement on your Merchant Mariner's Document, but I am not persuaded to agree with you.[sup]577[/sup] As you have noted, the laws and regulations do not provide for such an endorsement nor do they prohibit it. Instead, the matter is left to my judgment.[sup]578[/sup] My decision, after considering all the material your [sic] have submitted, is that it would not be in the best interest of marine safety or security[sup]579[/sup] to initiate the endorsement you have applied for. Your appeal is therefore denied and the Commanding Officer, National Maritime Center is directed not to place any endorsements regarding firearms on any merchant mariner's licenses or documents.

This decision constitutes final agency action as cited above.

Capt. J. P. Brusseau
Director of Field Activities
Marine Safety, Security and Environmental Protection

That is as much as I have had time to dig through. Cutting and pasting it from the pdf to the forum in a readable form is especially time consuming as a lot of editing is required as those of us who have had formatting destroyed (or arbitrarily added) by WowBB are well aware.

If you want to dig through the petition, I would recommend begining with the two sections noted above as they are the best places to start based on the Table of Contents information.

 

[donhamrick]

imported post

Sorry Deepdiver! I beat you to it already. Scroll Up and you will see I provided the same information.

Please note that the U.S. Coast Guard letter is dated APRIL 19, 2002.

APRIL 19 is Patriots Day.

At risk of attracking more insults and ridicule I would say that the U.S. Coast Guard officially confirmed my status as a patriot in like manner to the British action in Concord and Lexington.

 

[PT111]

imported post

Let's see if I am somewhere close on this.

Mr. Hamrick is a member of the Merchant Marines and in 2002 he applied to the US Coast Guard for an endorsement to his merchant Marines certification to allow him to openly carry a handgun anywhere in the nation. The US Coast Guard turned him down so he appealed to the Secreatary of Transportation and was also turned down.

In the letter from Capt. J. P. Brusseau hesaid that Mr. Hamrick was very wordy and a raving lunatic. He also said that he was neither required to issue the endorsement or required to deny it but had within his sole power to do either. Since he felt that Mr. Hamrick was a raving lunatic he was going to deny it. :what:

Now Mr. Hamrick has filed a 600 page lawsuit with the US Supreme Court to get his endorsement and has posted 45 times on OCDO raving about people to lazy to read his 600 page lawsuit. This is in addition to his 1,600 page lawsuit filed in a lower court.

This 12 page ruling may clear thing up for those of you that want to get a shorter version of the case. http://www.websupp.org/data/EDAR/1:02-cv-01434-57-EDAR.pdf

Is this somewhere close?:question:

 

[donhamrick]

imported post

PT111 wrote:

Let's see if I am somewhere close on this.

Mr. Hamrick is a member of the Merchant Marines and in 2002 he applied to the US Coast Guard for an endorsement to his merchant Marines certification to allow him to openly carry a handgun anywhere in the nation. The US Coast Guard turned him down so he appealed to the Secreatary of Transportation and was also turned down.

In the letter from Capt. J. P. Brusseau hesaid that Mr. Hamrick was very wordy and a raving lunatic. He also said that he was neither required to issue the endorsement or required to deny it but had within his sole power to do either.

Since he felt that Mr. Hamrick was a raving lunatic he was going to deny it. :what:

Now Mr. Hamrick has filed a 600 page lawsuit with the US Supreme Court to get his endorsement and has posted 45 times on OCDO raving about people to lazy to read his 600 page lawsuit. This is in addition to his 1,600 page lawsuit filed in a lower court.

This 12 page ruling may clear thing up for those of you that want to get a shorter version of the case.

http://www.websupp.org/data/EDAR/1:02-cv-01434-57-EDAR.pdf

Is this somewhere close?:question:

PT111 has committed libel, defaming my reputation and character by falsely stating the Coast Guard officer wrote that I was a raving lunatic. That Coast Guard letter made no such statement. PT111 is clearly making personal attacks with insults by passing lies as facts. This is most dispicable.

PT111 uses the Coast Guard letter was dated 2002 and the U.S. District Court in Little Rock Order dated 2007 to reach conclusions no rational personal can make with logical. PT111 makes his conclusions from an emotional prejudice evidently bent oninstilling prejudice against my Second Amendment case and to discredit my efforts. From 2002 to the present my Second Amendment case has encountered continous acts of corruption in the judicial procedures under the Federal Rules of Evidence and the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. This is why I implore people to READ the 600 page lawsuit. It is intricate and complex I cannot simplify it any further that the TABLE OF CONTENTS!

Citing the Basic Rules of OCDO by JPIERCE:

5) While you may disagree strongly with another poster based upon their opinion, we will NOT tolerate any personal attacks or general bashing of groups of people based upon race, religion, sex, or choice of occupation (e.g., being a law enforcement officer).

6) We reserve the right to remove posting for any reason, at our sole discretion.
​

I respectfully request JPIERCE deletePT111's posting above and ban PT111from this website.

 

[SIGguy229]

imported post

Lighten up Francis....er, Don.

You've been here a little over a week...jamming a 600-page document down our throat...while arguing with people about what they should do.

I understand you have invested a great deal of emotion, time, money, and effort into this document (and predecessors).

However, in doing so, you've made a critical error when it comes to a piece of writing: you believe it is the best thing ever written and you've fallen in love with your writing--anything that appears to contravene your method or position is met with immediate defense.

Instead of yelling and arguing with members you want on your side, you might want to step back and read what people are typing. We do not disagree with your position or lawsuit--because it involves 600 pages of legal terminology and prose that makes it difficult to distill in one sitting.

Like many things in this world, if you want to sell an idea, you need to package it in such a way so that others will "buy" your product. A table of contents is NOT an abstract. A ToC is just that...a table. An abstract is a concise distillation of the central theme of the document, written so that the reader will want to read the document or have a general idea of what to expect.

So far, your marketing and people skills are greatly lacking--and this is coming from people who are (conceivably, so far) on your side. You are arguing with the wrong people; thus, how do you expect to explain to people who are NOT familiar with your suit?

 

[donhamrick]

imported post

SIGguy229

Those Idiotsdon't give a damn about the Second Amendment!

Six freakin years of insults, ridicule, and harassment gives me due cause to be just as rude right back at them in my own defensive.

They are bullies, Internet Rambos,whose only desire is toremain superior in the exchange of posted messages. All they want to prove is their prowess to belittle, to insult, and to harass and humiliate their victims.

 

[marshaul]

imported post

Don, I'm not quite sure what you're hoping to accomplish with this behavior. Have you any idea how you come across to the casual observer?

 

[demnogis]

imported post

I haven't read the whole document yet...

But IMHO, remove the religious mythology jargon and it would be more fit for legal submission.

I gotta read the whole thing...

 

[cato]

imported post

"Now available in paperback andin 600 words or less 'How to win friends and influence people' by DH."





DH, I hope you win your endosement. Really I do.

 

[deepdiver]

imported post

donhamrick wrote:

Sorry Deepdiver! I beat you to it already. Scroll Up and you will see I provided the same information.

Please note that the U.S. Coast Guard letter is dated APRIL 19, 2002.

APRIL 19 is Patriots Day.

At risk of attracking more insults and ridicule I would say that the U.S. Coast Guard officially confirmed my status as a patriot in like manner to the British action in Concord and Lexington.

See, Don, this is where you are going to lose the support of people who probably would otherwise support your cause. We begged for days for you to post up an abstract or pertinent parts of your petition. You refused. So while I was (unknowingly) wasting an hour of my life going through your petition to try to find the pertinent underlying action and posting it here, you finally posted what many of us were wanting to know initially thereby negating my effort. You will note that I went further than you in that I actually not only posted the info (which I had to seriously edit as I only had a pdf copy to start with which the forum FUBAR'd when I pasted it) but also where it is located within the document as posted.

Then Don, a few posts later you paint the membership with the broad brush of "those idiots" etc.

You are obviously pissed off at someone in the firearm community but those someones are mostly not here. Or at least mostly were not here until you effectively flipped off most of the forum through your attitude and rhetoric. If you want people's support, peeing in the Cheerios of the people most likely to support your position and viewpoint isn't helping your cause.