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.
You can't appeal unless you lose, in most circumstances anyway. He lost, now he can appeal. We should support the effort.
It's also irrelevant to the case, the Right in question belongs to "the People" not to "The Militia". It says so right there in the Constitution.
But, evidently this court finds the Constitution unsuitable for use in court.
If you research history you will find that prior to the enabling act of 1934 it was proper to argue the constitutionality of a law to challenge the jurisdiction of a court. From about 1912 up till 1934 there was an orchestrated effort to eliminate the ability by the sheeple to assert their constitutional rights.
There. Fixed it for them.
It's BEEN time for a while now...
I think in such circumstances, I'd be kind of "less than coherent" as well.
in court is it proper to ask the judge for his definition of 'inalienable' before arguments... or 'shall not' or infringed...
just wondering...
teeman8r
This point is irrelevant. It's being tossed in by the papers as a subtle way of swaying the public that the 2nd Amend only coveres Govm't militias. In other words so the public believes the AMend reads, the right of the States to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.
"Why didn't the defense take more time building their case?"
The defense built their case before they notified the governor and all the LEO orgs involved that they made the guns. The SCOTUS makes the rules for the fed trial court and those rules don't allow for a defense that includes, "the law is unconstitutional". The judge didn't make that determination in this case. What he did was listen to the jist of the defense proposed, and determined it violated the fed trial court rules. The defense then rested it's case, because they intend and know the trial must, and will be held in the appeal courts. The argument that the conviction was based on unconstitutional law, must be brought up in a habeas corpus appeal after conviction. Any plan for appeal would be announced very shortly after, if not immediately after conviction and sentencing.
Quote: A major issue was whether the Militia of Washington County is a valid state militia for second amendment purposes. Judge Jimm Larry Hendren ruled it’s not.
Are any of us legally Militia? It seems to me that with this case precedence has been set against us and against the Constitutional description of the Militia.
According to this judge, unless you have a letter from your Governor stating that you are in the Militia, you are not. This directly contradicts the Constitution, but reinforces the argument that the "National Guard is the militia."
What if the defendant had sought to argue that the firearms he had produced were of a type suitable for military use and thus, per U.S. v. Miller, Constitutionally exempt from NFA'34?
Scouts Out! Cavalry Ho!
Which directly contradicts 10 USC 311, the Militia Act of 1903, which clearly differentiates between the organized militia (the National Guard and the Naval Militia) and the unorganized militia (everyone else 17-45). Another case of legislating from the bench. Patriots, are you ready?
Scouts Out! Cavalry Ho!
Not that it matters, the right belongs to the people, not the militia, but states have their definitions of the militia. While the federal definition only includes males, and female National Guardsmen, and only to 45, Texas has it up to , and includes men and women, it also includes legal residents not yet citizens who have declared their intentions to become citizens.
Alas, I just checked and Arkansas' Constitution's definition is the same as that in the US code, ie males 18-45.
No. Precidence can only be set when something is determined and a ruling is made. Nothing was determined in this case, except guilt. The judge was only following trial rules set by the SCOTUS previously.
" According to this judge, unless you have a letter from your Governor stating that you are in the Militia, you are not. This directly contradicts the Constitution, but reinforces the argument that the "National Guard is the militia."
The National guard is the State militia, unless a governor designates some ceremonial unit. Some States even have some ceremonnial units that are involved in some form of emergency response. The unorganized militia is anyone 18-45, or so.
There is no US Constitutional definition of the militia. There is in the US code, which dates from just after the second amendment was passed, and there is one in the Arkansas Constitution. They are essentially the same, all males 18-45. YMMV by state. In Texas it's ordinary law, not a constitutional provision, which define the militia as all legal residents of the state, men and women alike, 18-60. Even this old cat is part of the Texas militia. (I'm also carried on the Retired Reserve list of the US Air Force).
That still would be a matter of law, and under the "new rules" not a proper topic to present to the jury. They could have asked for a dismissal based on the law not being constitutional, based on Miller. From what I've read I can't tell if they did, or if they did if the Judge refused the motion.
Your post is all in italics, but I think I understand the question. Miller was ~'34? the Scotus since about that time has taken over fed court rulemaking and Constitutional issues can;t be brought up. Whether, or not he was officially a State militia member could though. Maybe at one time this org got a certificate (ceremonial) from a governor of AK, that said congrats xxx militia for a great job, or something. In order to be a regular State Militia, they'd need much more than that. Like orders from the Gov. The trial court must make the State Militia determinaiton.
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.