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.
Nope. "It" refers to the U.S. Constitution, Article IV, Section 2, Clause 1 which says, "The Citizens of each State shall be entitled to all Privileges and Immunities of Cirizens in the several states". If persons of the negro race were declared Citizens of any ONE state, then ...
"It" would exempt persons of the negro race from the operation of the special laws ...
"It" would give to persons of the negro race the right to enter every other State ...
"It" would give persons of the negro race the full liberty of speech in public ... and to keep and carry arms wherever they went.
The Dred Scott case pointed out that persons of the negro race were not citizens of anything -- not of the United States and certainly not of any individual state. The 14th amendment, ratified nine years after Dred Scott, made them (small "c") "citizens of the United States" and extended to them some basic privileges and immunities so they at least had some protections.
Congress declared the less than 18" shotgun to be a weapon of criminals and required a tax stamp.
Are you saying that some jury of 12 citizens can tell the entire Congress that they're wrong, the shotgun is indeed useful to a militia, Congress' law is therefore unconstitutional, and the defendant is free?
Shouldn't the state be bring the case to the U.S. Supreme Court? Shouldn't the state be the one saying that Congress, by requiring a tax stamp on a weapon THEY consider useful to THEIR state militia, is a violation of the second amendment?
How can we allow a jury of 12 citizens to determine which weapons are suitable for the militia of some state? That's dangerous if you ask me.
You're quoting from the Constitution now which only applies to US citizens, "the people", which are the citizens of the several States.
"The Dred Scott case pointed out that persons of the negro race were not citizens of anything "
This is irrelevant. THe whole point is that Taney described the rights of a US citizen, which I pointed out. One was that "the people" refered to in the Constitution are citizens of the US. The other was the right to keep and bear arms as they traveled from State to State.
Ah. So foreign visitors have no rights. The police can break down their hotel room door and search their room without a warrant since the fourth amendment "right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers and effects ...." only refers to citizens of the US.
Correct? This is what you're asking me to believe Taney was talking about?
You need to do some more reading.
Irrelevant. They are not US citizens, which means they are not "the people". Besides that, the President, Congress and the fed courts don't agree that they have 4th Amend rights. See the Patriot Act, which mostly refers to non-US citizens, which are not "the people" and rulings on that Act. They also don't agree that the Constitution applies to them, since their political speech is severely restricted in law and they can not vote. Practice in D areas and activities by D sympathizers, notwithstanding.
"Correct? This is what you're asking me to believe Taney was talking about?"
I pointed out clearly what Taney said and what he was referring to. I didn't ask you to believe anything. Taney said what he did in rather plain English. I just made the presentation and laid it out.
Unless you believe that the military never uses machine guns for anything, I can't see why you'd find Congress' apparent belief about the military uselessness of shotguns to be more credible than its apparent belief about the military uselessness of machine guns.
Your choice.
Well, now you're just making things up.
"It is important to note that while some provisions of the Constitution employ the term "citizens" other provisions employ the term "persons." Thus, it is safe to say that when the Framers of the Constitution wanted to use the narrow or broad classification, they did so. Supreme Court rulings affirm this plain reading of the constitutional text. See Zadvydas v. Davis, 121 S.Ct. 2491, 2500-2501 (2001); Yick Wo v. Hopkins, 118 U.S. 356 (1886); Wong Wing v. United States, 163 U.S. 228 (1896). Noncitizens have always benefitted from the safeguards of the Fourth Amendment. See Au Yi Lau v. INS, 445 F.2d 217 (1971); Illinois Migrant Council v. Pilliod, 540 F.2d 1062 (1976).
Do more reading.
For the purposes of this thread and the topic and hand, which is who "the people" mentioned in the 2nd Amend. are, foreign, non-US citizens are irrelevant. The cut you presented from Taney's opinion is irrelevant, because were talking about "the people" specifically, who Taney clearly says are citizens of the US and clearly does not mean "the States". Taney calls US citizens, "the people" of the various States. The term "Persons" is irrelevant here.
"Noncitizens have always benefitted from the safeguards of the Fourth Amendment. See Au Yi Lau v. INS, 445 F.2d 217 (1971); Illinois Migrant Council v. Pilliod, 540 F.2d 1062 (1976)."
Irrelevant. I gave examples with my statement, that qualified it. Also, that cut from the case you presented isirrelevant to both the Patriot Act(4th Amend) and the prohibitions on foreign campaign activity(1st Amend).
Hmmmm.... Who was the guy who said something about not living his life kneeling by the feet of his master in chains....?
For the third and last time, Taney says, "... who were recognised as citizens in any one State of the Union ...". Not "who were recognized as US citizens" or "who were recognized as persons" or "who were recognized as 'the people'".
I'm done. I've asked you twice to read his statement and you refused. Remain ignorant for all I care.
It's especially fiction considering that the feds provide 95% of the funding for the various state National Guards.
Let's define "sawed off." Current law says a shotgun barrel must be at least 18" long or it's illegal. Federal LE agencies regularly use shotguns with 14" barrels.
If by "sawed off" you mean ten inches or less, which I have seen, then they are just about useless. If by "sawed off" you simply mean shorter than the federally mandated 18", that's an altogether different beast. A 14" shotgun can be mighty handy for home defense.
Thumper1960 wrote:
Sure are a lot of folks who don't mind bending over at the waist and spreading them for their Masters.
Hmmmm.... Who was the guy who said something about not living his life kneeling by the feet of his master in chains....?
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Probably bending over making more inane comments about lower case 'c'itizens of the USA.
But what if the state, wilfully or neglectfully, refuses to appoint such officers? does the enumerated right evaporate just because the gov't won't do it's part?
Answer: no. Read the 2ndA again. The right is recognized and defended so that, among other things, the gov't can call up the "militia" from a populace already armed and trained. The Congressionally-defined "unorganized militia" can be called up, and if they are called up it will surely be at a time allowing for scant training and little equipment - those who show had better bring their own suitable stuff and know how to use it.
Federally, you're wrong (your state may vary). 1 simple form plus $5 tax makes it legal to buy ($200 tax to make).
I'm a freeper, and got one legally - in NY of all states. No I'm not nuts; find it a decent choice for home defense.
You are completely wrong, as I pointed out and commented at length above, especially in post #180. Taney is referring to US citizens and what they could do by virtue of being a US citizen. The partial quote you replied with cut out that part, the important part containing the subject of the sentence. The subject of the sentence is the word "It", which refers to US citizenship. You've failed to address what I said about that in your posts and cut it out altogether in your last post. Instead you've responded with avoidance, changing the subject and deception. Here's the full quote and my comment from post 180:
"Taney: "It would give to persons of the negro race, who were recognised as citizens in any one State of the Union, the right to enter every other State whenever they pleased ..."
Yes, he is indeed talking about "the people", or US citizens. US citizenship is what the word "It" refers to in the cut. "It" referrs to being one of "the people". "It", would allow him to carry weapons in any State.
I also went on to point out that no one can become a citizen, or be recognized as a citizen of any State, unless they first become a US citizen. I included that Taney was saying just that. That's why he used the word "it", he was referring to US citizenship.
"I've asked you twice to read his statement and you refused.
I commented on the full statement and did so in the context of the full ruling substatially, especially in post 180. Ignoring the whole of what was said and instead focusing on a phrase, as if it was the subject is deceptive. It is also deceptive to deliberately attempt to change the subject by introducing irrelevant points about foreigner. It is especially deceptive when those irrelevant points are erroneous, as I pointed out above. It is not surprising that you've done that, because the whole purpose of those that deny that the 2nd Amend is a right of the people is deception. It's a deception mounted in order to faciltate govm't action contrary to the Bill of Rights. It is fraud perpetrated with the intent to deny "the people" their right.
"Remain ignorant for all I care."
You haven't shown that I am ignorant in any way, shape, or form. This stands only as an ad hominem attack.
Thank you for the excellent clarification
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.