The Second Amendment

Don Hamrick, civil RICO Act Plaintiff and The Second Amendment Trial of the Century! For National Open Carry Handgun! Released Monday, May 7, 2007

Hamrick, pro se, (Non-State Actor) (U.S. merchant seaman!) v. United Nations, President Bush, et al, U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Arkansas, Northern Division, (Batesville), No. 1:06cv0044, filed September 11, 2006. Trial date set November 13, 2007 with Motion to Dismiss still pending.

4 years, 8 months of Federal Litigation with No help from the NRA or the Second Amendment Foundation! They refused to help or even publicize the existence of my case because my case conflicts with their National Reciprocity for Concealed

If I win my case for significant damages and collect I will create the American Common Defence Review to Run the NRA out of Business!

My Future Plan: The American Common Defence Review will be a non-profit organization with its own hybrid news, commentary, and policy analysis magazine taking an absolute no compromise position on gun control legislation and we will not stand for any United Nations attacks on our Bill of Rights!

Donations Desparately Needed for my Second Amendment case!

This case takes more money to fight than I can earn as a merchant seaman. Please send U.S. Postal Money Orders or Certified Bank Drafts (No personal checks) to: Don Hamrick 5860 Wilburn Road Wilburn, Arkansas 72179

Is it Common Defence -or- National Defense?

Questions for the Jury to Answer  Does the National Open Carry Handgun

endorsement on a U.S. Merchant Mariner’s Document (ID Card) benefit marine safety and security?  Does National Open Carry Handgun benefit public safety and security?  Is National Open Carry Handgun an individual right under the Bill of Rights and a power reserved to the People under the Tenth Amendment?

The Second Amendment As a Function of the Common Defence (wait 5 seconds)

Separation of Tenth Amendment Powers Legislativ Executiv Policy e e Implementati Judicial Interpretati on onof UNITED STATES – Horizontal Separation Powers Enforcement Executiv Legislativ Policy e e Implementati Judicial Interpretation on STATE – Horizontal Separation of Powers

We, the People The Ultimate Sovereign. The Source of all rights and powers to set policy.

Vertical Separation of Powers

Enforcement

Areas of Law this Case Covers  International Maritime Law  International Human Rights Law  Constitutional Law  Federal Law  State Law  Local Ordinances

The Preamble to the U.S. Constitution  We the People of the United States, in

Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.

Purpose and Effect of the Preamble to the U.S. Constitution  Although ‘‘Its true office,’’ the preamble wrote is Joseph not a Story source inof his power for

any COMMENTARIES, department of ‘‘is the to Federal expound Government, the nature and [Jacobson v. extent Massachusetts, and application 197 U.S. of the 11, powers 22 (1905)], actually the Supreme conferredCourt by the has Constitution, often referred andto not it substantively as evidence of the to create origin,them. scope, For and example, purposethe of preamble the Constitution. declares [E.g., one object the Court to be, has ‘toread provide the for preamble the common as bearing witness defense.’ toNo the one fact can that doubt the Constitution that this does emanated not from enlarge thethe people powers andof was Congress not theto act pass of sovereign any and independent measures which States, theyMcCulloch deem useful v. Maryland, for the common 4 Wheat. (17 defence. U.S.) But 316,suppose 403 (1819) the Chisholm terms of av.given Georgia, power 2 Dall. (2 admit U.S.) of419, two 471 constructions, (1793); Martin the one v. Hunter’s more restrictive, Lessee, 1 Wheat. the other (14 more U.S.)liberal, 304, 324 and(1816), each ofand them that is it was made consistent for, and withisthe binding words, only butin, is,the and United oughtStates to be, of America. governedDownes by the intent v. Bidwell, of the182 power; U.S. if 244, one251 could (1901); In promote re Ross, and 140 the U.S. other 453, defeat 464 (1891)] the common defence, ought not the former, upon the soundest principles of interpretation, to be adopted?’’ [1 J. STORY, COMMENTARIES ON THE CONSTITUTION OF THE UNITED STATES (Boston: 1833), 462. For a lengthy exegesis of the preamble phrase by phrase, see M. ADLER & W. GORMAN, THE AMERICAN TESTAMENT

U.S. CONSTITION Article I: Powers of Congress  Section. 8. The Congress shall have Power . . .  To declare War, grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal,

and make Rules concerning Captures on Land and Water;

Oxford English Dictionary Online The Spelling & Usage of Defence & Defense?  “Both the word defence and defense were used

simultaneously, as early as 1297.” Lisa E. Munson, Student assistant Librarian, Old Diminion University Library, Norfolk, Virginia  FROM THE OXFORD ENGLISH DICTIONARY ONLINE: Two

forms: ME. defens, a. OF. defens (deffans, deffenz, desfens, -fans, etc.), Ph. de Thaun 1119, ad. L. dfensum thing forbidden, defended, etc., n. use of pa. pple. of dfendre (see DEFEND); also ME. defense, a. OF. defense defence, prohibition, ad. L. dfensa (Tertullian = defensio), f. pa. pple. dfensus, analogous to ns. in -ta, -ade, -ée. In Eng. where e became early mute, and grammatical gender was lost, the two forms naturally ran together; app. the spelling defence comes from the defens form; cf. hennes, hens, hence; penis, pens, pence; ones, ons, once; sithens, since; Duns, dunce. The spelling defense is that it is now usual in the United States.

The Six Guarantees of the Preamble to the U.S. Constitution We the People of the United States (1) in Order to form a more perfect Union, (2) establish Justice, (3) insure domestic Tranquility, (4) provide for the common defence, (5) promote the general Welfare, and (6) secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America

The Ninth Amendment

 The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights,

shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

The Tenth Amendment

 The powers not delegated to the United States by the

Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

Fourteenth Amendment  Section. 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United

States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. The United States shall make orany enforce any No State shall make or enforce law which law shall abridge the or privileges or immunities shallwhich abridge the privileges immunities of citizens of of citizens of the United and shalldeprive depriveany anyperson the United States; norStates; shall any State person of life, liberty, or property, due process of life, liberty, or property, withoutwithout due process of law; of law; and deny toperson any person within its jurisdiction the nor deny to any within its jurisdiction the equal equal protection the laws. But the States shall not do protection of the of laws. any of these against the citizens of the United States. >>TRANSLATED IN AFFIRMATIVE LANGUAGE FOR THE UNITED STATES BUT IN NEGATIVE LANGUAGE FOR THE STATES <<

Resistance of Pirates by Merchant Vessels UNITED STATES CODE Title 33 – Navigation and Navigable Waters Chapter 7 – Regulations for the Suppression of Piracy  33 USC § 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

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 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

American Merchant Seamen in Harm’s Way By Don Hamrick © 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.

Modern Day Piracy Statistics 19782000 by Michael Bruyneel, February 7, 2001 http://home.wanadoo.nl/m.bruyneel/archive/modern/figures.htm

The Feds

We, The People

The State

The Second Amendment & International Treaties Corpus Juris Secundum; Volume 87: TREATIES  II. Construction and Operation  87 C.J.S. § 6. Generally

Generally, questions as to the construction, and operation of treaties viewed as contracts between independent nations are questions for the political departments of the contracting powers and not for the courts. Accordingly, respect is ordinarily due the reasonable views of the Executive Branch concerning the meaning of an international treaty. Nevertheless, since treaties in their effect on private rights are in the nature of legislative acts, and are binding on the courts, it is often necessary where such rights are involved for the courts to construe treaties. In such cases, the courts have the power, and the duty, to construe the treaty, and they have the power to determine whether a treaty is applicable to the case under consideration, and the duty to apply it if found applicable. Thus, a treaty, no less than a statute, may confer judicial power.

The Second Amendment & International Treaties Corpus Juris Secundum; Volume 87: TREATIES  III. Duration, Modification, Suspension, and Termination  87 C.J.S. § 10. Generally — Effect of abrogation.

In the absence of a showing that a treaty provision violates the Federal Constitution, the courts may not abrogate or annul a treaty provision. However, where one party to a treaty abrogates it, the other party is relieved from all obligation under it.  87 C.J.S. § 11. Modification or amendment

In the absence of a showing that a treaty provision violates the Federal Constitution, courts may not alter, amend or add to any treaty by inserting any clause since to do so would constitute an usurpation of power and would not be an exercise of judicial function.

The Second Amendment & International Treaties Corpus Juris Secundum; Volume 87: TREATIES  III. Duration, Modification, Suspension, and Termination  87 C.J.S. § 12. Manner of termination —

Termination by constitutional amendment or by Congress In the United States Congress may abrogate by a formal act or resolution directly abrogating the treaty, or by legislation which by necessary implication results in abrogation. The intent of Congress, however, must be clear. Moreover, a treaty may be abrogated by the adoption of an amendment to the Federal Constitution and the enactment of a federal statute giving operative effect to such amendment which is in conflict with such treaty provisions.

The Second Amendment & International Treaties Corpus Juris Secundum; Volume 87: TREATIES  III. Duration, Modification, Suspension, and Termination  87 C.J.S. § 12. Manner of termination —

Effect of War. Treaties may be of such a nature as to their object and import that war will put an end to them, war does not, always or necessarily dissolve or terminate treaties between the contending powers. The question whether the stipulations of a treaty are annulled by war depends on their intrinsic character, and provisions compatible with a state of hostilities, unless expressly terminated, survive, and those which are incompatible fall.

The Second Amendment & International Treaties Corpus Juris Secundum; Volume 87: TREATIES  IV. Relation To, and Conflict With, Other Laws  87 C.J.S. § 13. Generally

Without express authority from Congress, or authority otherwise clearly indicated, the courts are bound to recognize treaties as lawfully made. However, the courts have the authority to declare the invalidity of a treaty in a proper case where the rights of citizens are involved.  87 C.J.S. § 14. Acts of Congress

Treaties and acts of Congress, are placed on the same footing and are of like obligation, so that neither having any inherent superiority over the other, either may supersede the other. Even so, neither treaties nor laws passed pursuant to them are free from the restraints of the United States Constitution, such as the Bill of Rights.

The Second Amendment & International Treaties Corpus Juris Secundum; Volume 87: TREATIES  87 C.J.S. § 15. State Constitutions and Statutes

The provision of the Federal Constitution that this Constitution and the laws and treaties of the United States shall be the supreme law of the land, and binding on the judges in every state, anything in the constitution or laws of any state to the contrary notwithstanding, makes treaties superior to both the constitutions and laws of the several states, including the common law of a state, insofar as it is in conflict with the provisions of a treaty. Valid treaties are binding within the territorial limits of the states as throughout the dominion of the United States. States must adhere to United States treaties and give them the same force and effect as any other federal law, since they are considered to be of equal dignity with acts of Congress, but not superior to the Federal Constitution. A treaty must be regarded as a part of the law of a state, as much as are the state’s own local laws and constitution, and is effective and binding on the state legislature.

The U.N. Charter  Chapter I: Purposes and Principles  Article 2 - The Organization and its Members, in

pursuit of the Purposes stated in Article 1 [The Purposes of the United Nations], shall act in accordance with the following Principles.  Clause 7 - Nothing contained in the present Charter shall authorize the United Nations to intervene in matters which are essentially within the domestic jurisdiction of any state or shall require the Members to submit such matters to settlement under the present Charter; but this principle shall not prejudice the application of enforcement measures under Chapter VII [ ACTION WITH RESPECT TO THREATS TO THE PEACE, BREACHES OF THE PEACE, AND ACTS OF AGGRESSION].

United Nations Universal Declaration of Human Rights PREAMBLE  Whereas recognition of the inherent dignity and of the equal and inalienable rights of all members of the human family is the foundation of freedom, justice and peace in the world,  Whereas disregard and contempt for human rights have resulted in barbarous acts which have outraged the conscience of mankind, and the advent of a world in which human beings shall enjoy freedom of speech and belief and freedom from fear and want has been proclaimed as the highest aspiration of the common people,  Whereas it is essential, if man is not to be compelled to have recourse, as a last resort, to rebellion against tyranny and oppression, that human rights should be protected by the rule of law,

United Nations Universal Declaration of Human Rights  Whereas it is essential to promote the

development of friendly relations between nations,  Whereas the peoples of the United Nations have in the Charter reaffirmed their faith in fundamental human rights, in the dignity and worth of the human person and in the equal rights of men and women and have determined to promote social progress and better standards of life in larger freedom,  Whereas Member States have pledged themselves to achieve, in cooperation with the United Nations, the promotion of universal respect for and observance of human rights and fundamental freedoms,  Whereas a common understanding of these rights and freedoms is of the greatest importance for the full realization of this pledge.

United Nations Universal Declaration of Human Rights Article 29  Everyone has duties to the community in which alone the free and full development of his personality is possible.  In the exercise of his rights and freedoms, everyone shall be subject only to such limitations as are determined by law solely for the purpose of securing due recognition and respect for the rights and freedoms of others and of meeting the just requirements of morality, public order and the general welfare in a democratic society.  These rights and freedoms may in no case be exercised contrary to the purposes and principles of the United Nations.

TWN: Third World Network

“America’s Problem with Human Rights” By Reed Brody, May 1999 (excerpts) About the writer: Reed Brody, a Board Member of the Human Rights International, is Advocacy Director of Human Rights Watch. The above article first appeared in Human Rights Tribune (Vol. 6 No. 1, January 1999).

 By consistently behaving as if human rights law does not

apply to itself, the USA poses a challenge to the universality of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.  Unlike previous challengers, the US does not actually argue that the international bill of human rights is not of universal relevance. Rather, and more pernicously, it just consistently behaves as if human rights law does not apply to the United States.  On Ratification: One good illustration is the United States' record of ratifying human rights treaties. The US is the only country in the world - other than the collapsed state of Somalia - that has not ratified the Convention on the Rights of the Child. The US is also one of only a handful of countries that have not ratified the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination against Women. Nor has the US ratified the International

TWN: Third World Network

“America’s Problem with Human Rights”  When the US does ratify treaties, government lawyers

comb through each treaty to identify any rights that might strengthen existing guarantees under US law, and then nullify them through reservations or declarations. Thus, the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR) prohibits passing a death sentence on anyone aged less than 18 at the time of the crime. Yet a US reservation preserves its right to execute juvenile offenders. Similarly, because the US permits prolonged solitary confinement and other conditions of detention internationally considered as forms of torture or cruel treatment, it entered a reservation to the right to freedom from cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment in the ICCPR.  Finally, to guard against the possibility that the remaining rights might be construed more broadly than US law, Washington then ratifies the treaties in a way that denies US residents the right to enforce their provisions in US courts (because they are 'non-self-executing') or before the international treaty bodies charged with upholding them (because the US refuses to allow individual

TWN: Third World Network

“America’s Problem with Human Rights” Commenting on US ratification of the ICCPR, the American Civil Liberties Union lamented that 'the endorsement of the most important treaty for the protection of civil rights yielded not a single additional enforceable right to citizens and residents of the United States.'  When Amnesty International launched its report on abuses in the United States in October, there was a similar response. Representative Tom Lantos, Co-Chair of the Congressional Human Rights Caucus, protested that 'to single out the United States as a perpetrator of human rights violation, I think it's preposterous and unacceptable'.  These reactions betray a sentiment that human rights apply to 'them', 'over there', but they have no relevance to 'us', 'here'. Americans would do well to remember the words of Eleanor Roosevelt after the Declaration was adopted. She asked, 'Where, after all, do universal rights begin? In small places, close to home - so close and so small that they cannot be seen on any maps of the world. Yet they are the world of the individual person; the neighbourhood he lives in; the school or college he attends; the factory, farm or office where he works.  'Such are the places where every man, woman and child seeks equal justice, equal opportunity, equal dignity without discrimination. Unless these rights have meaning there, they have little meaning anywhere. Without concerted citizen action to 

International Bill of Human Rights  Universal Declaration of Human Rights  International Covenant on Economic,

Social and Cultural Rights

 International Covenant on Civil and

Political Rights  Optional Protocol to the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights  Second Optional Protocol to the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, aiming at the abolition of the death penalty

International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights PREAMBLE The States Parties to the present Covenant,  Considering that, in accordance with the principles proclaimed in the Charter of the United Nations, recognition of the inherent dignity and of the equal and inalienable rights of all members of the human family is the foundation of freedom, justice and peace in the world,  Recognizing that these rights derive from the inherent dignity of the human person,  Recognizing that, in accordance with the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, the ideal of free human beings enjoying civil and political freedom and freedom from fear and want can only be achieved if conditions are created whereby everyone may enjoy his civil and political rights, as well as his economic, social and cultural rights,

International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights PREAMBLE  Considering the obligation of States under the Charter of the United Nations to promote universal respect for, and observance of, human rights and freedoms,  Realizing that the individual, having duties to other individuals and to the community to which he belongs, is under a responsibility to strive for the promotion and observance of the rights recognized in the present Covenant, PART 1 Article 1  1. All peoples have the right of self-determination. By virtue of that right they freely determine their political status and freely pursue their economic, social and cultural development.

Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties between States and International Organizations or between International Organizations 1986 PART V. INVALIDITY, TERMINATION AND SUSPENSION OF THE OPERATION OF TREATIES SECTION 2. INVALIDITY OF TREATIES  Article 49 - Fraud

A State or an international organization induced to conclude a treaty by the fraudulent conduct of a negotiating State or a negotiating organization may invoke the fraud as invalidating its consent to be bound by the treaty.

Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties between States and International Organizations or between International Organizations 1986 Article 53 Treaties conflicting with a peremptory norm of general international law (jus cogens) A treaty is void if, at the time of its conclusion, it conflicts with a peremptory norm of general international law. For the purposes of the present Convention, a peremptory norm of general international law is a norm accepted and recognized by the international community of States as a whole as a norm from which no derogation is permitted and which can be modified only by a subsequent norm of general international law having the same character.

BLACK’S LAW DICTIONARY page 864 (8th ed. 2004)

jus cogens is defined as:  “A mandatory or peremptory norm of general international law accepted and recognized by the international community as a norm from which no derogation is permitted.”

RESTATEMENT (THIRD) OF FOREIGN RELATIONS LAW OF THE UNITED STATES

§ 102 cmt. 6 (1987) Explains that an international agreement that encourages, practices, or condones genocide is void under jus cogens principles.

Domingues v. United States, Case 12.285, Inter-American Commission on Human Rights, Report. No. 62/02 (2002), 

available at: http://web.amnesty.org/library/pdf/AMR510332003ENGLISH/$File/AMR5103 303.pdf.

 “The Inter-American Commission on Human

Rights, for example, recently stated that norms of jus cogens derive ‘their status from fundamental values held by the international community, as violations of such peremptory norms are considered to shock the conscience of humankind and therefore bind the international community as a whole, irrespective of protest, recognition or acquiescence.’ The Commission noted that commonly cited examples of rules of customary law that have attained the status of jus cogens norms include the prohibitions

RIGHT? By David B. Kopel, Paul Gallant, Joanne D. Eisen, Notre Dame Law Review, Vol. 81:4, 152-153  It bears noting that the father of the principle (2006)

which was eventually named jus cogens was Francisco Suárez, a scholar and Jesuit who is recognized as a founder of modern international law. Suárez’s views are, therefore, highly significant regarding which human rights should be considered so fundamental as to be jus cogens.  The record is clear that Suárez strongly believed in a natural human right of selfdefense. Self-defense, said Suárez, was “‘the greatest of rights,’” a right which belonged to individuals and to communities. This right of self-defense included a right of defense against tyrants.

RIGHT? By David B. Kopel, Paul Gallant, Joanne D. Eisen, Notre Dame Law Review, Vol. 81:4, 152-153  According to the great British historian Lord Acton, (2006)

“the greater part of the political ideas” of John Milton and John Locke “may be found in the ponderous Latin of Jesuits who were subjects of the Spanish Crown,” including Suárez.  Thus, it seems apparent that the prevention of genocide is a jus cogens norm. Moreover, the roots of the jus cogens principle necessarily implicate a natural right of self-defense against genocide.  Accordingly, the legal duty to prevent genocide would be superior to whatever limits the U.N. Charter sets on military action which is not authorized by the Security Council. Similarly, the legal duty to prevent genocide would be superior to treaties or conventions restricting the transfer or possession of

Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide, 1948 ARTICLE 2  In the present Convention, genocide means any of the following acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethical, racial or religious group as such:  (a) Killing members of the group;  (b) Causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group;  (c) Deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part;  (d) Imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group;  (e) Forcibly transferring children of the group to another group.

United States Understandings on Article 2 to the Genocide Convention  A total of thirty of the 132 nations which are party to the



  

Genocide Convention have made reservations, declarations and understandings. However, the United States is the only country to have submitted an “Understanding” on the definition of “genocide” in Article 2. Understanding #(1): That the term ‘intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial, or religious group as such’ appearing in article 2 means the specific intent to destroy, in whole or in substantial part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group as such by the acts specified in article 2. Understanding #(2): That the term ‘mental harm’ in article 2 (b) means permanent impairment of mental faculties through drugs, torture or similar techniques. Understanding # (3): Not Applicable in Plaintiff’s case. Understanding # (4): That acts in the course of armed conflicts committed without the specific intent required by article 2 are not sufficient to constitute genocide as defined by this

Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide, 1948 ARTICLE 3  The following acts shall be punishable:  (a) Genocide;  (b) Conspiracy to commit genocide;  (c) Direct and public incitement to commit genocide;  (d) Attempt to commit genocide;  (e) Complicity in genocide  ARTICLE 9 Disputes between the Contracting Parties relating to the interpretation, application or fulfillment of the present Convention, including those relating to the responsibility of a State for genocide or any of the other acts enumerated in Article 3 shall be submitted to the International Court of Justice at the request of any of the parties to the dispute.

United States Reservations on Article 2 to the Genocide Convention  Reservation #(1): That with reference to article 9 of

the Convention, before any dispute to which the United States is a party may be submitted to the jurisdiction of the International Court of Justice under this article, the specific consent of the United States is required in each case.  Reservation #(2): That nothing in the Convention requires or authorizes legislation or other action by the United States of America prohibited by the Constitution of the United States as interpreted by the United States."

18 U.S.C. § 1091 – Genocide 18 U.S.C. § 1091. Genocide (a) Basic Offense. — Whoever, whether in time of peace or in time of war, in a circumstance described in subsection (d) and with the specific intent to destroy, in whole or in substantial part, a national, ethnic, racial, or religious group as such—  (1) kills members of that group;  (2) causes serious bodily injury to members of that group;  (3) causes the permanent impairment of the mental faculties of members of the group through drugs, torture, or similar techniques;  (4) subjects the group to conditions of life that are intended to cause the physical destruction of the group in whole or in part;  (5) imposes measures intended to prevent births within the group; or  (6) transfers by force children of the group to another group; or attempts to do so, shall be punished as

18 U.S.C. § 1091 – Genocide  (b) Punishment for Basic Offense. — The

punishment for an offense under subsection (a) is — 



(1) in the case of an offense under subsection (a)(1), where death results, by death or imprisonment for life and a fine of not more than $1,000,000, or both; and (2) a fine of not more than $1,000,000 or imprisonment for not more than twenty years, or both, in any other case.

 (c) Incitement Offense. — Whoever in a

circumstance described in subsection (d) directly and publicly incites another to violate subsection (a) shall be fined not more than $500,000 or imprisoned not

18 U.S.C. § 1091 – Genocide  (d) Required Circumstance for Offenses. —

The circumstance referred to in subsections (a) and (c) is that —  (1) the offense is committed within the United States; or  (2) the alleged offender is a national of the United States (as defined in section 101 of the Immigration and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1101)).  (e) Nonapplicability of Certain Limitations. — Notwithstanding section 3282 of this title, in the case of an offense under subsection (a)(1), an indictment may be found, or information instituted, at any time without limitation.

Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties between States and International Organizations or between International Organizations 1986 SECTION 3. TERMINATION AND SUSPENSION OF THE OPERATION OF TREATIES  ARTICLE 54 Termination of or withdrawal from a treaty under its provisions or by consent of the parties  The termination of a treaty or the withdrawal of a party may take place:

(a) in conformity with the provisions of the treaty; or (b) at any time by consent of all the parties after consultation with the contracting States and contracting organizations.

Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties between States and International Organizations or between International Organizations 1986  Article 56

Denunciation of or withdrawal from a treaty containing no provision regarding termination, denunciation or withdrawal  1. A treaty which contains no provision regarding its termination and which does not provide for denunciation or withdrawal is not subject to denunciation or withdrawal unless:  (a) it is established that the parties intended to admit the possibility of denunciation or withdrawal; or  (b) a right of denunciation or withdrawal may be implied by the nature of the treaty.  2. A party shall give not less than twelve months’ notice of its intention to denounce or withdraw from a treaty under paragraph 1.

Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties between States and International Organizations or between International Organizations 1986 Article 58 Suspension of the operation of a multilateral treaty by agreement between certain of the parties only  1.Two or more parties to a multilateral treaty may conclude an agreement to suspend the operation of provisions of the treaty, temporarily and as between themselves alone, if:  (a) the possibility of such a suspension is provided for by the treaty; or  (b) the suspension in question is not prohibited by the treaty and:  (i) does not affect the enjoyment by the other parties of their rights under the treaty or the performance of their obligations;  (ii) is not incompatible with the object and purpose of the treaty.  2.Unless in a case falling under paragraph 1 (a) the treaty otherwise provides, the parties in question shall notify the other parties of their intention to conclude the agreement and of those provisions of the treaty the operation of which they intend to suspend.

Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties between States and International Organizations or between International Organizations 1986 Article 59 Termination or suspension of the operation of a treaty implied by conclusion of a later treaty  1.A treaty shall be considered as terminated if all the parties to it conclude a later treaty relating to the same subject matter and:  (a) it appears from the later treaty or is otherwise established that the parties intended that the matter should be governed by that treaty; or  (b) the provisions of the later treaty are so far incompatible with those of the earlier one that the two treaties are not capable of being applied at the same time.  2.The earlier treaty shall be considered as only suspended in operation if it appears from the later treaty or is otherwise established that such was the intention of the parties.

Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties between States and International Organizations or between International Organizations 1986 Article 60 Termination or suspension of the operation of a treaty as a consequence of its breach  1. A material breach of a bilateral treaty by one of the parties entitles the other to invoke the breach as a ground for terminating the treaty or suspending its operation in whole or in part.

Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties between States and International Organizations or between International Organizations 1986  2. A material breach of a multilateral treaty by one of

the parties entitles:  (a) the other parties by unanimous agreement to suspend the operation of the treaty in whole or in part or to terminate it either:  (i) in the relations between themselves and the defaulting State or international organization; or  (ii) as between all the parties;  (b) a party specially affected by the breach to invoke it as a ground for suspending the operation of the treaty in whole or in part in the relations between itself and the defaulting State or international organization;  (c) any party other than the defaulting State or international organization to invoke the breach as a ground for suspending the operation of the treaty in whole or in part with respect to itself if the treaty is of such a character that a material breach of its provisions by one party radically changes

Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties between States and International Organizations or between International Organizations 1986  3. A material breach of a treaty, for the purposes of

this article, consists in:  (a) a repudiation of the treaty not sanctioned by the present Convention; or  (b) the violation of a provision essential to the accomplishment of the object or purpose of the treaty.  4. The foregoing paragraphs are without prejudice to any provision in the treaty applicable in the event of a breach.  5. Paragraphs 1 to 3 do not apply to provisions relating to the protection of the human person contained in treaties of a humanitarian character, in particular to provisions prohibiting any form of reprisals against persons protected by such treaties.

Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties between States and International Organizations or between International Organizations 1986 Article 61 Supervening impossibility of performance  1.A party may invoke the impossibility of performing a treaty as a ground for terminating or withdrawing from it if the impossibility results from the permanent disappearance or destruction of an object indispensable for the execution of the treaty. If the impossibility is temporary, it may be invoked only as a ground for suspending the operation of the treaty.  2. Impossibility of performance may not be invoked by a party as a ground for terminating, withdrawing from or suspending the operation of a treaty if the impossibility is the result of a breach by that party either of an obligation under the treaty or of any other international obligation owed to any other party to the treaty.

Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties between States and International Organizations or between International Organizations 1986 Article 62 Fundamental change of circumstances  1.A fundamental change of circumstances which has occurred with regard to those existing at the time of the conclusion of a treaty, and which was not foreseen by the parties, may not be invoked as a ground for terminating or withdrawing from the treaty unless:  (a) the existence of those circumstances constituted an essential basis of the consent of the parties to be bound by the treaty; and  (b) the effect of the change is radically to transform the extent of obligations still to be performed under the treaty.  2.A fundamental change of circumstances may not be invoked as a ground for terminating or withdrawing from a treaty between two or more States and one or more international organizations if the treaty establishes a boundary.

Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties between States and International Organizations or between International Organizations 1986  3. A fundamental change of circumstances may not be

invoked as a ground for terminating or withdrawing from a treaty if the fundamental change is the result of a breach by the party invoking it either of an obligation under the treaty or of any other international obligation owed to any other party to the treaty.  4. If, under the foregoing paragraphs, a party may invoke a fundamental change of circumstances as a ground for terminating or withdrawing from a treaty it may also invoke the change as a ground for suspending the operation of the treaty.

Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties between States and International Organizations or between International Organizations 1986 Article 64 Emergence of a new peremptory norm of general international law (jus cogens)  If a new peremptory norm of general international law emerges, any existing treaty which is in conflict with that norm becomes void and terminates.  SECTION 4. PROCEDURE . . . .

The U.N. Charter  Chapter I: Purposes and Principles  Article 2 - The Organization and its Members, in

pursuit of the Purposes stated in Article 1 [The Purposes of the United Nations], shall act in accordance with the following Principles.  Clause 7 - Nothing contained in the present Charter shall authorize the United Nations to intervene in matters which are essentially within the domestic jurisdiction of any state or shall require the Members to submit such matters to settlement under the present Charter; but this principle shall not prejudice the application of enforcement measures under Chapter VII [ ACTION WITH RESPECT TO THREATS TO THE PEACE, BREACHES OF THE PEACE, AND ACTS OF AGGRESSION].

Prevent, Combat and Eradicate the Illicit Trade in Small Arms and Light Weapons in All Its Aspects (UN Doc. A/CONF.192/15) [VIOLATES THE U.N. CHARTER]

II. Preventing, combating and eradicating the illicit trade in small arms and light weapons in all its aspects  1.

We, the States participating in this Conference, bearing in mind the different situations, capacities and priorities of States and regions, undertake the following measures to prevent, combat and eradicate the illicit trade in small arms and light weapons in all its aspects:

At the national level  2.

To put in place, where they do not exist, adequate laws, regulations and administrative procedures to exercise effective control over the production of small arms and light weapons within their areas of jurisdiction and over the export, import, transit or retransfer of such weapons, in order to prevent illegal manufacture of and illicit trafficking in small arms and light weapons, or their diversion to unauthorized recipients.

The U.N. Charter  Chapter I: Purposes and Principles  Article 2 - The Organization and its Members, in

pursuit of the Purposes stated in Article 1 [The Purposes of the United Nations], shall act in accordance with the following Principles.  Clause 7 - Nothing contained in the present Charter shall authorize the United Nations to intervene in matters which are essentially within the domestic jurisdiction of any state or shall require the Members to submit such matters to settlement under the present Charter; but this principle shall not prejudice the application of enforcement measures under Chapter VII [ ACTION WITH RESPECT TO THREATS TO THE PEACE, BREACHES OF THE PEACE, AND ACTS OF AGGRESSION].

Controlling Federal Laws

The Posse Comitatus Act UNITED STATES CODE Title 18 – Crimes and Criminal Procedure Part I – Crimes Chapter 67 – Military and Navy  18 U.S.C. § 1385 Use of Army and Air Force as Posse

Comitatus  Whoever, except in cases and under circumstances expressly authorized by the Constitution or Act of Congress, willfully uses any part of the Army or the Air Force as a posse comitatus or otherwise to execute the laws shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than two years, or both.

The Militia UNITED STATES CODE Title 10 – Armed Forces (Subtitle A - General Military Law) Part I – Organization and General Military Powers Chapter 13 – The Militia  10 U.S.C. § 311. Militia: Composition and Classes  (a) The militia of the United States consists of all

able-bodied males at least 17 years of age and, except as provided in section 313 of title 32, under 45 years of age who are, or who have made a declaration of intention to become, citizens of the United States and of female citizens of the United States who are members of the National Guard.

 (b) The classes of the militia are –



(1) the organized militia, which consists of the National Guard and the Naval Militia; and



(2) the unorganized militia, which consists of the members of the militia who are not members of the National

State Defense Force UNITED STATES CODE Title 32 – National Guard Chapter 1 - Organization 

NATIONAL GUARD 32 U.S.C. § 109. Maintenance of other troops



(a) In time of peace, a State or Territory, Puerto Rico, the Virgin Islands, or the District of Columbia may maintain no troops other than those of its National Guard and defense forces authorized by subsection (c).



(b) Nothing in this title limits the right of a State or Territory, Puerto Rico, the Virgin Islands, or the District of Columbia to use its National Guard or its defense forces authorized by subsection (c) within its borders in time of peace, or prevents it from organizing and maintaining police or constabulary.



(c) In addition to its National Guard, if any, a State or Territory, Puerto Rico, the Virgin Islands, or the District of Columbia may, as provided by its laws, organize and maintain defense forces. A defense force established under this section may be used within the jurisdiction concerned, as its chief executive (or commanding general in the case of the District of Columbia) considers necessary, but it may not be called, ordered, or drafted into the armed forces.



(d) A member of a defense force established under subsection (c) is not, because of that membership, exempt from service in the armed forces, nor is he entitled to pay, allowances, subsistence, transportation, or medical care or treatment, from funds of the United States.



(e) A person may not become a member of a defense force established under subsection (c) if he is a member of a reserve component of the armed forces.

Civilian Military Activity as a Crime UNITED STATES CODE Title 18 – Crimes and Criminal Procedures Part I - Crimes Chapter 115 – Treason, Sedition, and Subversive Activities  18 U.S.C. § 2386(A) Registration of Certain

Organizations  For the purposes of this section:  “Attorney General” means the Attorney General of the

United States;  “Organization” means any group, club, league, society, committee, association, political party, or combination of individuals, whether incorporated or otherwise, but such term shall not include any corporation, association, community chest, fund, or foundation, organized and operated exclusively for religious, charitable, scientific, literary, or educational purposes;  “Political activity” means any activity the purpose or aim of which, or one of the purposes or aims of which, is the control by force or overthrow of the Government of the United States or a political subdivision thereof, or any State or political subdivision thereof;

Civilian Military Activity as a Crime UNITED STATES CODE Title 18 – Crimes and Criminal Procedures Part I - Crimes Chapter 115 – Treason, Sedition, and Subversive Activities  18 U.S.C. § 2386(B)(1) Registration of Certain

Organizations  The following organizations shall be required to register with the Attorney General: 

Every organization subject to foreign control which engages in political activity;

 Every organization which engages both in

civilian military activity and in political activity;



Every organization subject to foreign control which engages in civilian military activity; and

 Every organization, the purpose or aim of

which, or one of the purposes or aims of which, is the establishment, control, conduct, seizure, or overthrow of a government or subdivision thereof by the use of force, violence, military measures, or threats of any one or more of the foregoing.

Civilian Military Activity as a Crime UNITED STATES CODE Title 18 – Crimes and Criminal Procedures Part I - Crimes Chapter 115 – Treason, Sedition, and Subversive Activities  18 U.S.C. § 2386(B)(1) Registration of Certain Organizations

(Continued)  Every such organization shall register by filing with the Attorney

General, on such forms and in such detail as the Attorney General may by rules and regulations prescribe, a registration statement containing the information and documents prescribed in subsection (B)(3) and shall within thirty days after the expiration of each period of six months succeeding the filing of such registration statement, file with the Attorney General, on such forms and in such detail as the Attorney General may by rules and regulations prescribe, a supplemental statement containing such information and documents as may be necessary to make the information and documents previously filed under this section accurate and current with respect to such preceding six months' period. Every statement required to be filed by this section shall be subscribed, under oath, by all of the officers of the organization.

Civilian Military Activity as a Crime UNITED STATES CODE Title 18 – Crimes and Criminal Procedures Part I - Crimes Chapter 115 – Treason, Sedition, and Subversive Activities  18 U.S.C. § 2386(B)(2) Registration of Certain Organizations  This section shall not require registration or the filing of any statement with the Attorney General by:  (a) The armed forces of the United States; or

 (b) The organized militia or National Guard

of any State, Territory, District, or possession of the United States; or  (c) Any law-enforcement agency of the United States or of

any Territory, District or possession thereof, or of any State or political subdivision of a State, or of any agency or instrumentality of one or more States; or  (d) Any duly established diplomatic mission or consular office of a foreign government which is so recognized by the Department of State; or  (e) Any nationally recognized organization of persons who are veterans of the armed forces of the United States, or

The Militia UNITED STATES CODE Title 10 – Armed Forces (Subtitle A - General Military Law) Part I – Organization and General Military Powers Chapter 13 – The Militia  10 U.S.C. § 311. Militia: composition and classes

 (a) The militia of the United States consists of all able-bodied

males at least 17 years of age and, except as provided in section 313 of title 32, under 45 years of age who are, or who have made a declaration of intention to become, citizens of the United States and of female citizens of the United States who are members of the National Guard.  (b) The classes of the militia are – 

(1) the organized militia, which consists of the National Guard and the Naval Militia; and



(2) the unorganized militia, which consists of the members of the militia who are not members of the National Guard or the Naval Militia

Civilian Military Activity as a Crime UNITED STATES CODE Title 18 – Crimes and Criminal Procedures Part I - Crimes Chapter 115 – Treason, Sedition, and Subversive Activities



18 U.S.C. § 2386(C) Registration of Certain Organizations 

The Attorney General is authorized at any time to make, amend, and rescind such rules and regulations as may be necessary to carry out this section, including rules and regulations governing the statements required to be filed.

Title 27 - Alcohol, Tobacco Products and Firearms Part I - BATF, Department of the Treasury Commerce in Firearms and Ammunition 27 C.F.R. § 178.38 Transportation of Firearms Notwithstanding any other provision of any law or any rule or regulation of a State or any political subdivision thereof, any person who is not otherwise prohibited by this chapter from transporting, shipping, or receiving a firearms shall be entitled to transport a firearm for any lawful purpose from any place where such person may lawfully possess and carry such firearm to any other place where such person may lawfully possess and carry such firearm if, during such transportation the firearm is unloaded, and neither the firearm nor any ammunition being transported is readily accessible or is directly accessible from the passenger compartment of such

UNITED STATES CODE Title 18 - Crimes and Criminal Procedure Part I - Crimes Chapter 44 - Firearms 18 U.S.C. § 926A. Interstate Transportation of Firearms: Notwithstanding any other provision of any law or any rule or regulation of a State or any political subdivision thereof, any person who is not otherwise prohibited by this chapter from transporting, shipping, or receiving a firearm shall be entitled to transport a firearm for any lawful purpose from any place where he may lawfully possess and carry such firearm to any other place where he may lawfully possess and carry such firearm if, during such transportation the firearm is unloaded, and neither the firearm nor any ammunition being transported is readily accessible or is directly accessible from the passenger compartment of such transporting vehicle: Provided, That in the case of a vehicle without a

Military Sealift Command

Small Arms Training & Qualification Guide COMSC Instruction 3121.9 “The Standard Operating Manual (SOM)

 Small arms training qualification shall

be conducted annually.  MSC course deals with weapons allocated by the Navy on board MSC ships M9 Beretta 9mm Pistol  12 Guage Shotgun  M-14 Rifle 

 Use of Deadly Force

Some Quotations

General Douglas MacArthur, 1957  “Our government has kept us in a perpetual state of fear – kept us

in a continuous stampede of patriotic fervor – with the cry of grave national emergency... Always there has been some terrible evil to gobble us up if we did not blindly rally behind it by furnishing the exorbitant sums demanded. Yet, in retrospect, these disasters seem never to have happened, seem never to have been quite real.”

Ayn Rand, “The Nature of Government”  “We are fast approaching the stage of the ultimate inversion:

the stage where the government is free to do anything it pleases, while the citizens may act only by permission; which is the stage of the darkest periods of human history, the stage of rule by brute force.”

Abraham Lincoln  “We the People are the rightful masters of both Congress and

the courts, not to overthrow the Constitution, but to overthrow the men who pervert the Constitution.”

Case Law

Arkansas Case Law  Wilson v. State, 33 Ark. 557, 560, 34 Am. Rep. 52 (1878),

“But to prohibit the citizen from wearing or carrying a war arm, except upon his own premises or when on a journey traveling through the country with baggage, or when acting as or in aid of an officer, is an unwarranted restriction upon his constitutional right to keep and bear arms. If cowardly and dishonorable men sometimes shoot unarmed men with army pistols or guns, the evil must be prevented by the penitentiary and gallows, and not by a general deprivation of a constitutional privilege.”

U.S. Supreme Court Case Law  Presser v. Illinois, 116 U.S. 252, 265 (1886)

“It is undoubtedly true that all citizens capable of bearing arms constitute the reserved military force or reserved militia of the United States as well as of the states, and, in view of this prerogative of the general government, as well as of its general powers, the states cannot, even laying the constitutional provision in question out of view, prohibit the people from keeping and bearing arms, so as to deprive the United States of their rightful resource for maintaining the public security, and disable the people from performing their duty to the general government.”

U.S. Supreme Court Case Law  Simmons v. United States, 390 US 389 (1968),

“We find it intolerable that one constitutional right should have to be surrendered in order to assert another.”

7th Circuit Case Law  Bowers v. DeVito, 686 F.2d 616 (7th Cir. 1982),

“There is no constitutional right to be protected by the state against being murdered by criminals or madmen. It is monstrous if the state fails to protect its residents against such predators but it does not violate the due process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, or, we suppose, any other provision of the Constitution. The Constitution is a charter of negative liberties; it tells the state to let the people alone; it does not require the federal government or the state to provide services, even so elementary a service as maintaining law and order.”

5th Circuit Case Law United States v. Emerson, Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals, No. 9910331, Oct. 16, 2001:  “We conclude that the phrase “bear arms” refers generally to the carrying or wearing of arms. It is certainly proper to use the phrase in reference to the carrying or wearing of arms by a soldier or militiaman; thus, the context in which “bear arms” appears may indicate that it refers to a military situation, e.g. the conscientious objector clauses cited by amici supporting the government. However, amici’s argument that “bear arms” was exclusively, or even usually, used to only refer to the carrying or wearing of arms by a soldier or militiaman must be rejected. The appearance of “bear Arms” in the Second Amendment accords fully with the plain meaning of the subject of the substantive guarantee, “the people,” and offers no support for the proposition that the Second Amendment applies only during periods of actual military service or only to those who are members of a select militia. Finally, our view of “bear arms” as used in the Second Amendment appears to be the same as that expressed in the dissenting opinion of Justice Ginsburg (joined by the Chief Justice and Justices Scalia and Souter) in Muscarello v. United States, 118 S.Ct. 1911, 1921 

5th Circuit Case Law  “Surely a most familiar meaning [of carrying a firearm] is,

as the Constitution’s Second Amendment (“keep and bear Arms”) (emphasis added) and Black’s Law Dictionary, at 214, indicate: “wear, bear, or carry . . . upon the person or in the clothing or in a pocket, for the purpose . . . of being armed and ready for offensive or defensive action in a case of conflict with another person.” . . .

5th Circuit Case Law “We conclude that Miller does not support the government’s collective rights or sophisticated collective rights approach to the Second Amendment. Indeed, to the extent that Miller sheds light on the matter it cuts against the government’s position. Nor does the government cite any other authority binding on this panel which mandates acceptance of its position in this respect. However, we do not proceed on the assumption that Miller actually accepted an individual rights, as opposed to a collective or sophisticated collective rights, interpretation of the Second Amendment. Thus, Miller itself does not resolve that issue. We turn, therefore, to an analysis of history and wording of the Second Amendment for guidance. In undertaking this analysis, we are mindful that almost all of our sister circuits have rejected any individual rights view of the Second Amendment. However, it respectfully appears to us that all or almost all of these opinions seem to have done so either on the erroneous assumption that Miller resolved that issue or without sufficient articulated

U.S. Department of Justice MEMORANDUM OPINION FOR THE ATTORNEY GENERAL WHETHER THE SECOND AMENDMENT SECURES AN INDIVIDUAL RIGHT (August 24, 2004)  For the foregoing reasons, we conclude that the Second

Amendment secures an individual right to keep and to bear arms. Current case law leaves open and unsettled the question of whose right is secured by the Amendment. Although we do not address the scope of the right, our examination of the original meaning of the Amendment provides extensive reasons to conclude that the Second Amendment secures an individual right, and no persuasive basis for either the collective-right or quasi-collective-right views. The text of the Amendment’s operative clause, setting out a “right of the people to keep and bear Arms,” is clear and is reinforced by the Constitution’s structure. The Amendment’s prefatory clause, properly understood, is fully consistent with this interpretation. The broader history of the Anglo-American right of individuals to have and use arms, from England’s Revolution of 1688-1689 to the ratification of the Second Amendment a hundred years later, leads to the same conclusion. Finally, the first hundred years of interpretations of the Amendment, and especially the commentaries and case law in the pre-Civil War period closest to the Amendment’s ratification,

Practical Applications

What Can You Do?  Popular Constitutionalism -vs.- Judicial Supremacy  Right to Travel Intrastate & Interstate While Openly Armed?

Negotiated Rulemaking for Settlement of Lawsuit in Lieu of Motion to Dismiss 

Under Special Procedures of Rule 16(c)(9), Federal Rules of Civil Procedures  Under U.S. Coast Guard’s Federal Rules and Regulations for Negotiated Rulemaking in compliance with: 



14 U.S.C. § 2; § 93(a); § 141; § 631; § 632; § 633; and 33 C.F.R. § 1.05–1; § 1.05–5; § 1.05–10; § 1.05–60.

Litigating for:  The constitutional norm, and

the right and a duty to openly wear a sidearm in our American society (1) as a U.S. seaman aboard U.S. flag vessels transiting pirate waters under maritime law and, (2) as a U.S. citizen ashore in the United States in intrastate and interstate travel under the Bill of Rights.