Richard A. Hamblen has lost his family and his fortune because he believes in the Second Amendment. In April of 2004, Mr. Hamblen, a former commander in the Tennessee National Guard, was arrested by agents of the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) and the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms (BATF). Hamblen, who told the author that he’s never had so much as a traffic violation, was taken from his place of business and charged with the unlawful possession of nine unregistered machine guns.

Hamblen was found guilty by a trial court and sentenced to 13 months in federal prison. He served his time at the Federal Correctional Institution in Beckley, West Virginia. Upon his release, Hamblen and his attorney, Jeffrey Fensley, appealed his conviction to the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals in Cincinnati, Ohio. On December 30, 2009, that court affirmed the lower court’s ruling and held that, “Whatever the individual right to keep and bear arms might entail, it does not authorize an unlicensed individual to possess unregistered machine guns for personal use.”

Hamblen disagrees with the Sixth Circuit’s interpretation of the Second Amendment’s guarantee of the right to keep and bear arms. “There are no qualifiers on the Second Amendment,” Hamblen told the author. “There are qualifiers on the Fourth Amendment, so if the Founders had intended to restrict the right to keep and bear arms they knew how to do it,” he continued.

At trial and at the circuit court appeal, Mr. Hamblen averred that he and the soldiers under his command qualified as a militia and thus were authorized to own military grade automatic weapons. According to figures given to the author, Hamblen claims that there are only 21 such weapons in the arsenal meant to equip over 3,000 National Guard troops. Worried that such a woeful stock would hamstring the efforts of his unit were they deployed to Iraq or Afghanistan, Hamblen ordered kits that would convert the semi-automatic weapons into fully automatic ones. According to the government, this was a violation of federal law.

During an interview with the author, Mr. Hamblen demonstrated a cogent and convincing knowledge of the intricacies and inconsistencies of federal firearms laws and Supreme Court decisions interpreting these laws. It is upon two of these high court decisions that Hamblen’s arguments rest.

First is the case of United States v. Miller in 1939. In this case interpreting the National Firearms Act of 1934, the Supreme Court held that there is a right to keep and bear arms that have a “reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia.”

As for the crucial definition of “militia,” the Court additionally held that “the signification attributed to the term Militia appears from the debates in the Convention, the history and legislation of Colonies and States, and the writings of approved commentators. These show plainly enough that the Militia comprised all males physically capable of acting in concert for the common defense. 'A body of citizens enrolled for military discipline.' And further, that ordinarily when called for service these men were expected to appear bearing arms supplied by themselves and of the kind in common use at the time.”

Hamblen and his attorney believe that the Miller case applies to his case in that the weapon he was convicted of illegally possessing was a “militarily useful weapon” and one being used by a member of a “well regulated militia,” in this case, the Tennessee National Guard.

The second prong of Hamblen’s defense is found in a more recent and controversial case in the genealogy of gun control decisions. In the case of District of Columbia v. Heller, Justice Scalia — writing for the majority — held that "like most rights, the Second Amendment is not unlimited. It is not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose." Furthermore, the Court explained that the Heller decision “should not be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms."

Believing that Justice Scalia misinterpreted the Second Amendment and earlier Supreme Court rulings, Rich Hamblen has appealed the ruling of the Sixth Circuit court of Appeals to the Supreme Court. Despite his defense of the Constitution and its protection of the right to keep and bear arms, Hamblen reports that he has received no support from conservative or gun rights groups such as the National Rifle Association. “My lawyer contacted the NRA and they refused to help,” lamented Hamblen. He expressed belief that the NRA would be “put out of business” if the Court ever correctly interpreted the Second Amendment and ruled that the right to bear arms was purposefully left unqualified by the Founding Fathers.

“If you have to ask permission to exercise a right, then it isn’t a right,” Hamblen said. He has filed his appeal to the Supreme Court in order to re-establish the intent of the Founders to hold such a right inviolable and not to attach the restrictions of “reasonableness” to the exercise thereof.

Hamblen holds little hope that the Supreme Court will approve his writ of certiorari and hear his appeal. Regardless, he intends to exhaust every legal remedy in what he sees as the defense of the Constitution. “If no one ever challenges the unconstitutionality of federal laws, then nothing will ever happen,” Hamblen explained.

Hamblen, the owner of a small business in Nashville, Tennessee, has spent over $50,000 in legal fees and was dishonorably discharged from the Tennessee National Guard. He fervently stands behind his decision to assert his Second Amendment rights to the highest authority in the land. “Does the Constitution have any meaning if those charged with interpreting and applying it are conspiring to suppress the rights guaranteed by it?” Hamblen asks. He boldly and fearlessly answers in the negative. Rich Hamblen has given all in his defense of this right and whether or not the Supreme Court agrees to hear his case, he will have done all in his power to raise his voice and stand steadfastly in support of the sacred and ostensibly inviolable rights protected by our Constitution.

TrackBack URI for this entry

Comments (19)

Subscribe to this comment's feed

Ken Brenneman said:

... He should try contacting Gun Owners of America and Jews for Preservation of Firearms Ownership. NRA sides more with government and Democrats. GOA and JPFO are Second Amendment parters.

January 25, 2010

JSandman said:

... Mr Hamblen told me he already contacted GOA and JPFO, but for whatever reason, neither group helped.

January 25, 2010

Cynthia Miller said:

... I just sent a link to this article to GOA on their website as well as their Facebook fan page. Maybe if people bombard them with this story it will draw their attention.

January 25, 2010

Richard A. Hamblen said:

For a fuller explanation... ...Please go to this site, where I have posted documents related to my case: http://www.esnips.com/web/HamblenvsUnitedStates You can contact me at rahamblen@gmail.com telephone (615) 438-2397

January 25, 2010 | url

Sam Reid said:

... ....."the right to keep and bear arms SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED." The meaning of 'infringed' is to encroach upon, to trespass, or TO LIMIT. Heller specifically linked the right to possession with an arm's military usefullness. If we accept that argument, it would have to follow that a machine gun is indisputably useful for military purposes, and the government's act of limiting or banning it from possession would also indisputably constitute 'infringement.' The Constitution was artfully crafted such that ordinary mean could clearly discern its full meaning and intent. We have since arrived at the point whereby we must defer to f#@^&%$*&!*ing lawyers to tell us that, although we may think we see a giraffe, our senses have really deceived us and we are instead viewing a hippopotamus. Solution? Join the nearest 10th Amendment Movement nearest you!

January 25, 2010

Lee McGee said:

... Supporters of liberty thank you for your courage, Mr. Hamblen.

January 26, 2010

JSandman said:

... Mr Hamblen was not in the National Guard, as the article stated, but the Tennessee State Guard.

January 26, 2010

Ray Southwell said:

... My research on the courts history has clearly shown that no Government can control the gun ownership within the context of the militia. The collective right cannot be controlled. In the article, Justice Scalia statement was in the context of an individual right. He acknowledged the Heller case did not look at all the issues. The dissenting Justices believed that DC could control the hand gun ownership because it was out of the context of the collective right. (Militia) Like all of us. Justices are humans and influenced by the politics of the day. Justice Scalia understands this. He stated: "Constitutional rights are enshrined with the scope they were understood to have when the people adopted them, whether or not future legislatures or (yes) even future judges think that scope too broad" The Supreme should here this case. Study the referenced "Miller" case.

January 26, 2010 | url

john luvaro said:

NRA Ignor NRA Ignores REAL issues. Its no surprise the NRA has ignored this. I was recently involved in a firearms case concerning a clear and blatant 4th Amd violation, (illegal search and confiscation of weapons). NRA legal dept would not even return calls or email regarding the issue. Over the years Ive seen the NRA side more with the government than with individuals who’s Constitutional rights have been violated. They’re only interested in headline issues like the Hurricane Katrina gun confiscation than individual violations, which do not get them news coverage. So Ive withdrawn my NRA membership and advise others to do the same. Im not sure if there are other gun rights organizations such as GOA or JPFA that more aggressively support the 2nd Amd. But Im looking for one and would appreciate suggestions where to find one.

January 26, 2010

Paul McLaughlin said:

Mr Hamblen is a true patriot Mr Hamblen is a true patriot. I admire his convictions. I support his quest to have the 2nd amendment interpreted in the manner the framers of the constitution intended. The whole idea of having to go through this over a CLEARLY written sentence is ludicrous but what would you expect from a society that debated the definition of what "is" is. My hat is off to you Mr Hamblen. Tear 'em a new one.

January 26, 2010

JeffBinTX said:

... Life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. We have a right to life. God gave us teeth, fists, fingernails and the intellect to make tools. He endowed us with a strong will for self-preservation, just as He did all other members of the animal kingdom. The firearm is a technological advancement that enhances our defense of life just as TV and the internet enhance our freedom of speech. The constitution says that the right (which pre-dated the constitution because it comes from God) shall not be infringed. It also says "the right of the people". In all other cases in the constitution "the people" has been interpreted to mean all persons within U.S. jurisdiction - not just citizens. Some might say we need to regulate them to keem out of the hands of the mentally ill. But then why are knives, hatchets, bows and arrows, and even a can of gasoline and a match not regulated in the same way? If someone is a danger to society they should be incarcerated or hospitalized - rather than punishing the rest of society for exercising their God-given right to self-defense. The tail is wagging the dog.

January 26, 2010

Clarence Lee Cline said:

none It only takes a few hours so I would recommend that everyone should research the Constitution. Do it in the context of the times, the language (it was somewhat different), the writings and the speeches of those who wrote this greatest of man made documents. Everything is there on the internet. If more people would take the time to do this there would me much less controversy, We would know when to fire our employees (elected officials), and would have the ability to confront the trained liars (lawyers) who for some reason wish to tear down that which gives them their jobs. Go Figgure>

January 26, 2010 | url

Lost Freedoms said:

... I dropped my NRA membership when they put out an ad with mother holding her baby shooter, Lon Horiuchi. The man who murdered Vicki Weaver

January 26, 2010

JimInMT said:

Petition The Court Time! Perhaps you could circulate a petition, and submit it as amicus brief, since NRA, GOA, and JPFO seem comfortable, waxing fat in their bloated complacency, pushing unconstitutional CCW on us. There are many of us with not much money willing to sign such a petition in support of the Constitution and those who fight and suffer for it. Thanks. Sorry to hear of your plight - Jim in Montana

January 26, 2010

Mike Harris said:

consultant Mr. Hamblen Is of the metal of our founders! I urge you to stay the course with the supreme court, to show their tyrany, then work within your state to pass laws like NH is working to pass re: sovernty/ firearms, that state any federal agent(thug) that enters the state to enforce unConstitutional (any) gun laws will be arrested, and charged with a felony! When the feds declare war on the american people, I will proudly stand shoulder to shoulder with you, and your "unauthorized) firearms! :-)

January 26, 2010

Clint said:

NRA Instead of just ending your membership with the NRA, do what I did. It may never happen again but at one time they had a great deal on life membership for a litte over $100.00. I still have my membership but never send any type of contribution. That way I still get all of the perks. They use, walk all over, and take us for granted, might as well get some satisfaction from them. As for Mr. Hamblen, I am sorry for what you have lost in order keep your beliefs. I wish I could do more than just wish you good luck.

January 26, 2010

Richard A. Hamblen said:

Points of clarification and correction There are several errors of fact in this article. The true enormity of the situation does not adequately come through. I was in the State Guard, not the National Guard. That is a critical distinction. The national Guard is after all part of the US Army. I wasn't arrested, in fact I wasn't even indicted for 18 months after my "interrogation". I was even allowed to make an appointment to surrender and be arraigned. I appealed immediately upon my conviction, not after I served my sentence. I have already been to the Supreme Court once, in fact my petition for writ of certiorari was there at the very same time as Heller. I am appealing now on a writ of habeas corpus in which my trial judge said I had made a "substantial showing" that my constitutional rights had been denied. And finally, I do not allege that the Court misinterpreted the Second Amendment and Miller: I am saying the Court deliberately distorted the record of the Second Amendment and Miller to support their ruling in Heller. That's the whole point behind the conspiracy charge.

January 26, 2010 | url

Thorvald said:

Plain Meaning 1. It's clear to me that our 2nd Amendment has to do with remedies against tyranny. 2. The milita was understood as comprising every able-bodied male aged 17 and older. It was understood that the militia was needed at all times, not just as a defense against tyranny. 3. "Shall not be infringed" means "shall not be infringed". Personally, I would feel much safer with a belt-fed weapon at home. Salutes to Mr. Hamblen!

January 28, 2010

Steven Goranson said:

I'm sorry I scoffed When I was in my 30s I scoffed at the people who believed this country would turn the right to bear arms into a crime. Who would have thunk that we would be arrested for living according to the rights God not the government gave us. I see we need to start watering the tree of liberty again like Jefferson said was necessary to retain our life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. Mr. Hamblin, you're a better man than I since I'm not sure about my actions if that happened to me. I don't like the NRA's attitude about individuals who supposedly violate state or federal law. As I see it the laws that violate our rights are null and void since they go against our Founding Fathers reasons and logic. My rights don't come from the government but from God himself. Why should I have to go to the sherrif in order to get a permit to carry a concealed weapon? This is so they can get soome more money out of us and brainwash us so we get scared if we don't have a permit. After all we want to be recognised as lawful and responsible citizens. But it is our government officials who are making us unlawful just because we don't want to go through their hoops in order to be lawful..

February 09, 2010 | url