Posted on 01/12/2007 2:09:53 PM PST by Wasichu
Fincher Guilty In Machine Gun Case Friday, January 12, 2007 3:37 PM CST
It took a jury just under five hours to find Hollis Wayne Fincher guilty of owning illegal machine guns and a sawed-off shotgun.
Closing arguments in federal court in Fayetteville wrapped at mid-morning and the case went to the federal jury about 10:30 a.m. The jury returned its verdict about 3:20 p.m.
LOL It certainly doesn't look like he got a Nifong type for a prosecuter. /s
I think the defendant wanted to move this through to a higher court so I don't think he's complaining. There is a constitutional guarantee of a speedy trial as well.
Do you have any idea how many FReepers own sawed off shotguns? Al Capone smoked cigars. Does that mean most cigar smokers are gangsters? Not to mention that the subject of this thread, Hollis Fincher, doesn't appear to be a gangbanger or an armed robber. That alone discredits your logic.
BLOAT - buy lots of ammunition today (It's a very old FReeper acronym)
LOL That might have been a good idea. It appears that he wanted to make a federal case out of it though. For those who simply want to be prepared and don't want to see how far they can get standing on the intended protections of the U.S. Constitution the following link may be of use.
I'm a Freeper who knows 20 Freepers. Of the 21 of us 19 own weapons. 17 of us own shotguns. NONE of us own sawed off shotguns. Sawed off shotguns are illegal. EVERY Freeper I know is an armed law abiding citizen who has ZERO need for a sawed off shotgun. As I demonstrated to you sawed off shotguns are the signal weapon of gangbangers, drug dealers,and thugs who sell sawed off shotguns to gangbangers, drug dealers and thugs.
http://news.google.com/news?hl=en&ned=us&q=%22Sawed+off+shotgun%22&btnG=Search+News
Is this abundantly clear?
Good.
Hollis Fincher is a machinist who makes sawed off shotguns . He is also a convicted felon.
" All Capone smoked cigars"
Possessing a cigar is not a crime. Possessing a sawed off shot gun is.
Sawed off shotguns are not illegal. They have also been used in the Civil War and every one since then. If I wanted to, I could buy and own one. I could also buy and own a machine gun, if I wanted to.
"As I demonstrated to you sawed off shotguns are the signal weapon of gangbangers, drug dealers,and thugs who sell sawed off shotguns to gangbangers, drug dealers and thugs."
You demonstrated nothing. All you've done is made empty claims. Your link simply includes stories of bad guys arrested for criminal possession, and use of the weapons. The grabbers do the same to deamonize any gun.
The utility of the gun is not that it's concealable. The gun os very useful in CQ situations where it's shotness facilitates angular motions to aim, it's ability to place rounds on target is insensitive to aiming precision and it's coverage is high. It is in fact an excellent home defense weapon and has very high utility in almost all CQC situations, that includes mil ops.
Folks like you and Mr.Fincher end up in prison claiming their rights were violated because they insist, regardless of the law, they are right. People believe many foolish things for many foolish reasons.
http://www.legis.state.wi.us/acts89-93/79Act116.pdf.
Is this your rebuttal? I said he is not a gangbanger or an armed felon as per your characterisation of people who own sawed off shotguns. He is only a convicted felon because of this case and it only convicts him of possessing the guns in question. He was not and has never been convicted of any other felony. Your logic is juvenile to say the least.
ATF Raid Nets Militia Man, Weapons RapSenior ATF Special Agent Austin R. Banks said he was restricted to releasing anything beyond the news release. He did confirm Fincher has no criminal record and he was the only person arrested.
Apparently simple analogies and contextual comprehension are too difficult for you.
Your link demonstrates nothing other than your ability to Google and your inability to use HTML to make a readable hotlink.
I know. I was just kidding you a little.
"941.28(4) (4) This section does not apply to the sale, purchase, possession, use or transportation of a short-barreled shotgun or short-barreled rifle to or by any armed forces or national guard personnel in line of duty, any peace officer of the United States or of any political subdivision of the United States "or any person who has complied with the licensing and registration requirements under 26 USC 5801 to 5872. This section does not apply to the manufacture of short-barreled shotguns or short-barreled rifles for any person or group authorized to possess these weapons. The restriction on transportation contained in this section does not apply to common carriers. This section shall not apply to any firearm that may be lawfully possessed under federal law, or any firearm that could have been lawfully registered at the time of the enactment of the national firearms act of 1968.
From the WI statutes regarding the machinegun:
"941.27(2) (2)Exceptions.Sections 941.25 and 941.26 shall not prohibit or interfere with the manufacture for, and sale of, machine guns to the military forces or the peace officers of the United States or of any political subdivision thereof, or the transportation required for that purpose; the possession of a machine gun for scientific purpose, or the possession of a machine gun not usable as a weapon and possessed as a curiosity, ornament or keepsake; "or the possession of a machine gun other than one adapted to use pistol cartridges for a purpose manifestly not aggressive or offensive."
Your link doesn't work either.
"I think in such circumstances, I'd be kind of "less than coherent" as well."
They harrassed the living hell out of that man, not to mention stacking the jury.
If you find a Capone's cigar and Fincher's sawed off shotgun to be analogous then I think we have found the problem haven't we?
Mr. Fincher's reluctance to accept US law has made him a felon. Let us hope you don't make a similar error in judgment.
Shotguns became standard issue U.S. Army weapons during the Moro rebellion in thePhilippine Islands, during the first decade of the 1900s.35 In World War I, shotguns definitely were widely used by U.S. troops:"When American troops were in the heat of the fighting in the summer of 1918, the German government sent a protest through a neutral agency to our Government asserting that our men were using shotguns against German troops in the trenches. The allegation was true; but our State Department replied that the use of such weapons was not forbidden by the Geneva Convention as the Germans had asserted.Manufactured primarily for the purpose of arming guards placed over German prisoners,these shotguns were undoubtedly in some instances carried into the actual fighting. The Ordnance Department procured some 30,000 to 40,000 shotguns of the short-barrel or sawed-off type, ordering these from the regular commercial manufacturers. The shell provided for these guns each contained a charge of nine heavy buckshot, a combination likely to have murderous effect in close fighting."36
Clear enough! /stupid condescending tone
The logic was analagous to your logic. Context is still too much for you to comprehend.
"-- (right or wrong) is how our system has operated since 1895, when the Supreme Court ruled that defendants could not argue legal issues (or jury nullification) to the jury. --"
L-lib, -- the issue has gone beyond "(right or wrong)" -- Such arguments completely ignore the defendants 5th & 6th amendment rights, --- in order to prevent jury nullification.
"-- At the time of the American Revolution, the jury was known to have the power to be the judge of both law and fact.
In a case involving the civil forfeiture of private property by the state of Georgia, first Supreme Court Justice John Jay, instructed jurors that the jury has "a right to determine the law as well as the fact in controversy."
(Georgia vs. Brailsford, 1794:4)
To: Lurking Libertarian:
tomcorn wrote :
You gotta be a lawyer....
In his trial he was forbidden to raise constitutional issues because they are appellate court process.
He was in a federal district court.
NOW he may raise constitutional issues if Fincher decides to appeal his conviction in an appellate court.
Tom, tell me, -- do you contend that efforts to inform or instruct jurors that they have "a right to determine the law as well as the fact in a controversy are unconstitutional?
You were kidding about bacon? That's mighty offensive, sir. (and I'm really hungry now)
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.