Fincher Guilty In Machine Gun Case

The Morning News ^ | 01-12-2007 | Ron Wood

[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.

[labette]

Wow! Busted early November...Convicted early January.

Such efficiency. Is someone trying to maintain a schedule here?

[RKV]

Don't bother to post to me, RP. Your language and failure to argue logically on prior threads has been such that I won't be answering you, ever.

[robertpaulsen]

"According to this judge, unless you have a letter from your Governor stating that you are in the Militia, you are not."

Well, anyone can call themselves a militia. It is true that "we the people" are the citizen militia.

But, if you want second amendment protection of your RKBA, then you better be a well regulated Militia with officers appointed by the state. Or have a letter from the Governor.

"This directly contradicts the Constitution"

No, it directly affirms the Constitution. Article I, Section 8 refers to a State Militia with officers appointed by the state and the second amendment refers to a well regulated Militia.

"but reinforces the argument that the "National Guard is the militia."

In about half the states, the National Guard IS the State Militia. The other half of the states have a National Guard AND a State Militia (called a State Defense Force or a State Guard). The second amendment protects the right of the states to form and arm these Militias.

[robertpaulsen]

"Don't bother to post to me, RP."

Stay off the threads and I won't post to you.

But if you come on a thread and post BS, I'm going to address it. If that embarrasses you, tough.

[Major_Risktaker]

How the in HELL does that square with innocent until proven guilty?

_______________________

Maybe the flag had the "gold fringe" look.

Patriots are subjected to much ridicule when they object to [Admiralty flag] the flag that appears in every government office and courtroom in the land. That flag is the United States flag... with one seemingly minor cosmetic difference - a knotted golden fringe on three sides.

Government officials and judges adamantly refuse requests to remove the gold fringed flag and replace it with the constitutional flag of the United States as defined in 4 U.S.C. Section 1,2, and 3 - which has NO fringe.

GET THAT GOLD FRINGE OFF MY FLAG!

[spunkets]

Re: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".

I was wrong here. Sorry, about that.

"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."

I also, don't know what they were arguing, but since the letter from the Gov. denying Fincher was a member of some State militia was so important, it appears the judge was of the collective persuasion. The prosecution obviously is, from the reports of their presentation and ignored this DOJ memorandum from the AG.

[spunkets]

"if you want second amendment protection of your RKBA, then you better be a well regulated Militia with officers appointed by the state. Or have a letter from the Governor."

No. See the DOJ memorandum I posted in #86. From the memorandum:

"These decisions(the collective right conclusion) did not analyze, at least not in depth, the Amendment's text or history. Rather, they relied on Tot or Cases (or their progeny), claimed support from Miller, or both. As the Ninth Circuit recently recognized in the course of adhering to its collective-right position, these earlier decisions reached their conclusions "with comparatively little analysis," "largely on the basis of the rather cursory discussion in Miller, and touched only briefly on the merits of the debate." (31)"

It appears the same thing wasdone in the case. No analysis, just a simple rejection of the facts. The 2nd Amend says, "the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed". It does not say, "the right of the States to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."

"The second amendment protects the right of the states to form and arm these Militias."

Ridiculous!

[fso301]

Lord knows he really hurt people by keeping those guns in his house. /sarcasm

That's his problem. They should have been kept in a well oiled flower bed.

[spunkets]

"They should have been kept in a well oiled flower bed."

Mr Fincher's purpose was to challenge the the govm'ts violations of the 2nd Amend directly in a decisive way. Note that he is not a criminal, was not engaged in criminal enterprise and produced the guns with the sole purpose of mounting a challenge to the laws.

[robertpaulsen]

"See the DOJ memorandum I posted in #86."

The DOJ memorandum has no legal status. Would you honor a DOJ memorandum under a Democrat administration stating that it was a collective right?

"The 2nd Amend says, "the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed"."

No it does not. If that's what it said, there would be no debate. The second amendment says, "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

Every lower federal court in every gun case (save one) over the last 100 years has ruled that the second amendment protects a collective right (ie., an individual RKBA as part of a Militia).

Now, maybe every single one of these judges is wrong. Maybe they're just a bunch of ignorant, activist, liberal gun-grabbers who hate the United States of America.

But that don't change the facts, amigo.

[fso301]

Mr Fincher's purpose was to challenge the the govm'ts violations of the 2nd Amend directly in a decisive way. Note that he is not a criminal, was not engaged in criminal enterprise and produced the guns with the sole purpose of mounting a challenge to the laws.

Ok. Unfortunately, he'll receive the same treatment as prior challengers have received. USSC hasn't shown much interest in rolling back anti-full auto legislation. Judge Robert Bork says as much in his book "Slouching Towards Gomorrah".

[spunkets]

"The DOJ memorandum has no legal status."

That's correct, but it does indeed contain extensive, detailed and logically correct legal analysis supporting the conclusion that the 2nd Amend protects an individual right. Just as I pointed out before that the Tanney Court did in the Dred Scott Case. The Tanney Court just rejected the claim that Scott was one of the people.

"Would you honor a DOJ memorandum under a Democrat administration stating that it was a collective right?"

I've already made a determination in the matter. The 2nd Amend protects an individual right. The same determination and conclusion was reached by various Ds. The DOJ memo I linked to makes note of that. It also makes note of the lack of analysis and logical contradictions in the collective right view, which holds that the "States may have guns".

"Every lower federal court in every gun case (save one) over the last 100 years has ruled that the second amendment protects a collective right (ie., an individual RKBA as part of a Militia)."

The DOJ memo covers that. It shows how those decisions were made with little, or no analysis, and were logically bad. Now the Tanney Court, which was a SCOTUS ruling said, the Amend covered an individual right. These lower court rulings stand in opposiiton to that ruling. Are they justified in doing so, because the Tanney Court failed to ID Scott as "people"?

[spunkets]

"Ok. Unfortunately, he'll receive the same treatment as prior challengers have received.

Maybe, maybe not. What matters is that his concern and his method of mounting the challenge in a peaceable way consistent with Constitutional remedy.

"USSC hasn't shown much interest in rolling back anti-full auto legislation. Judge Robert Bork says as much in his book "Slouching Towards Gomorrah"."

Bork is a collectivist in the matter and claims the Amend protected the States rights to arms only. He's also an authoritarian activist in judicial temper, in the same way Warren, or any of the lib judges are.

[tomcorn]

Oh yeah?


http://news.google.com/nwshp?ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&hl=en&tab=wn&q=Sawed%20off%20shotgun

[fso301]

Maybe, maybe not. What matters is that his concern and his method of mounting the challenge in a peaceable way consistent with Constitutional remedy.

I hope he is successful but knowing what happened to prior "peaceful tax challengers and 2nd amendment challengers", I don't hold much hope bit really do admire his conviction and understand the importance of men and women like him for the maintenance of a free society.

[Still Thinking]

I would love to hear the instructions the jury was given.

The decision not to allow that defense would have been made without them present. As far as the instructions, and any explanation as to the lack of a defense, there probably either wasn't an explanation given, and they were left to draw their own conclusions, or they were told the defense "chose" not to present a defense (IOW, one the court would allow). Personally I would have voted for acquital, just to throw a wrench in the cogs of the "justice" conveyor, but Freepers probably aren't allowed on a jury.

[tpaine]

RKV wrote:

Don't bother to post to me, RP. Your language and failure to argue logically on prior threads has been such that I won't be answering you, ever.

You have been told to -- stay off the threads and then you won't be posted to; -- but, -- if you do come on a thread and post BS, it ~will~ be addressed.

What an amusing hypocrisy. -- Not too long ago I addressed someone 'who cannot be named' much as you have been.
In return I got a notice, backed by a moderator, saying I could never again 'post to or about' the hypocritical complainant.

Isn't it amazing that a hypocrite can post BS on a thread, -- which some of us cannot address, -- yet you are told by that same hypocrite that your 'BS' ~will~ be countered ?

[Still Thinking]

Bacon, Lettuce, Onion, Avocado, and Tamato?? Yes, I know they're very good, but how can you think of food at a time like this?

[tpaine]

The issue has gone beyond mere "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)





"-- If a juror accepts as the law that which the judge states, then that juror has accepted the exercise of absolute authority of a government employee and has surrendered a power and right that once was the citizen's safeguard of liberty."

(1788) (2 Elliots Debates, 94, Bancroft, History of the Constitution, 267)

"Jury nullification of law," as it is sometimes called, is a traditional right that was rigorously defended by America's Founding Fathers. Those great men, Patriots all, intended the jury to serve as a final safeguard; a test that laws must pass before gaining sufficient popular authority for enforcement.
Thus the Constitution provides five separate tribunals with veto power; representatives, senate, executive, judges;
and finally juries.

Each enactment of law must pass all these hurdles before it gains the authority to punish those who may choose to violate it. --"

A History of Jury Nullification Address:http://www.isil.org/resources/lit/history-jury-null.html

[TigersEye]

But if they insist on second amendment protection, they'd better be members of a well regulated State Militia with officers appointed by the state.

Why? The BoRs limits government actions it does not proscribe any limits on 'the people.'