Posted on 01/10/2007 12:44:45 PM PST by looscnnn
A lawyer whose client is on trial for having "militia" weaponry says he'll ask questions and raise arguments about the 2nd Amendment, and then let the judge rule whether or not the Bill of Rights can be discussed in a federal courtroom these days.
A federal prosecutor in the Arkansas case against Hollis Wayne Fincher, 60, who's accused of having homemade and unregistered machine guns, has asked the judge to censor those arguments.
But lawyer Oscar Stilley told WND that he'll go ahead with the arguments.
"I'm going to ask questions, what else can I say?" he said. "There is a 2nd Amendment, and it means something, I hope."
"His (Fincher's) position is that he had a legal right to bear arms that are suitable and customary to contribute to the common defense. If it's a militia army, it's what customarily would be used by the military suitable for the defense of the country," Stilley said.
The objection to constitutional arguments came from Assistant U.S. Attorney Wendy Johnson, who filed a motion several days ago asking U.S. District Judge Jimm Larry Hendren to prevent Fincher and Stilley from raising any such issues.
"Yes, that is correct – the government does not want to allow the defense attorney to argue the law in Mr. Fincher's defense," Michael Gaddy wrote on Freedom Watch.
"If a defendant is not allowed to base his/her defense on the Constitution, the supreme law of the land, we are certainly doomed. If we allow these criminal acts perpetrated on law-abiding citizens to continue, we might as well turn in all our guns and scheduled a fitting for our chains," he wrote.
"Yes, Hollis Wayne Fincher goes on trial on January 8th – but so does our Constitution, our Liberty and our right to own firearms. If Mr. Fincher loses this battle, we all lose," he said.
{snip}
It's about responsibilities that accompany the rights outlined in the Constitution's Bill of Rights, he said.
The motion seeking to suppress any constitutional arguments will be handled by making his arguments, and letting the government make its objections, and then letting the court rule.
The motion from the federal prosecution indicated the government believes Fincher wants to argue the gun charges are unconstitutional, but it is asking that the court keep such decisions out of the jury's hands.
The government also demanded to know the items the defense intends to use as evidence, the results of any physical examinations of Fincher and all of the witnesses and their statements.
Fincher was arrested Nov. 8 and has been held in custody since then on a bond of $250,000 and other conditions that included posting the deed to his home with the court and electronic monitoring.
Police said two of the .308-caliber machine guns, homemade versions of a Browning model 1919, allegedly had Fincher's name inscribed on them and said "Amendment 2 invoked."
There have been laws since 1934 making it illegal for residents of the United States to own machine guns without special permission from the U.S. Treasury Department. Federal law allows the public to own machine guns made and registered before 1986 under certain conditions.
{snip}
Ping
Oh, God forbid! /sarcasm
Hey retard, when the Second Amendment was written, there were no such thing as machine guns. If you want to own a machine gun, fine. Drop the four grand it takes for a Class III license. If you don't and you get caught then take your punishment and have a steaming hot cup of STFU.
Good, let's get this out in the open.
I wish him the best of luck, but if a liberal court causes a loss, WE don't lose, and the second stands.
The government can pass any law they want, and I WILL STAND by the second amendment.
FEDS: "In addition to not being able to argue the 2nd Amendment, we are petioning that the jury system be passed over as well..."
Needing a license is in itelf, unconstitutional.
Really? Where is that exemption written?
Are automatic weapons properly defined as arms? If not, please explain.
So you believe the 2A only applies to blackpowder firearms?
Or this: Hey retard, when the First Amendment was written, there were no such thing as television. If you want to own a television fine. Drop the four grand it takes for a FCC license. If you don't and you get caught then take your punishment and have a steaming hot cup of STFU.
v. tr.
1. To transgress or exceed the limits of; violate: infringe a contract; infringe a patent.
2. Obsolete To defeat; invalidate.
Arms are arms. No delineations in the constitution between big and little, fully automatic or semi, just arms...........Where's your howitzer? Jefferson might ask if he were to be brought back today............
bump
"If you don't and you get caught then take your punishment and....."Well, you get the idea.
Sophistry.
There were also no such things as semi-automatic rifles, bolt-action rifles, smokeless powder, jacketed bullets, etc., etc.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.