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}
A retired Constitutional scholar babbling STFU? My my! What about semi-automatic guns? There were none of those either.
Either we are equal or we are not. Good people ought to be armed where they will, with wits (lets 'stm' off) and guns and the truth. NRA KMA and stm2
"Few would agree with that."
What is, is, regardless what anyone in particular thinks.
"Would it be unconstitutional to prohibit a 6 year old from taking a gun to school?"
A 6 y/o is not recognized as being an emancipated adult capable of acting on his own. Also the school is private property.
"How about a murderer?"
A convicted murderer is a criminal. Why isn't he in jail, or dead?
"What about carrying guns on an airplane?"
An airplane is private property and the captain is in charge.
Why are all the questions ridiculous?
One of those inconsistencies that goes along with a republican form of government. Law vary. Heck, just look at Massachusetts!
Interesting case!
It appears plainly that the govm't, in particular the Administration, has something to hide.
Should be a short trial then, huh?
I hope that's what you taught your ARVN students and not what you believe. Which part of 'shall not be infringed' confuses you?
Either we are equal or we are not. Good people ought to be armed where they will, with wits and guns and the truth. NRA KMA
I am of the school of thought which says that if someone is too dangerous to be trusted with a firearm, they should not have been released in the first place.
Law arbitrary, contradictory and repugnant to the Constitution.
There are those that would argue that those laws are unconstitutional.
Yes, a few would argue that to a very unsympathetic judiciary.
That would be because the feds are TERRIFIED that this will get to the Supreme Court.
Would that be a government school, or a private school at which the owners of the school decides who can have guns?
Would that be a government owned plane or one owned by private citizens who decide what arms shall be allowed?
If United hired a Muslim pilot are you against such a person being armed in the cockpit simply because they are Muslim? Is that the government's decision to make?
And as for the murderer, how is it that such a person can WALK at all? Isn't that a government problem with murderers that has nothing whatever to do with arms?
So if I understand you correctly, a convicted murderer should be allowed to carry a firearm after release? Given that logic, I would suggest it would be alright to permit a convicted child molester to again teach school upon his release.
What part of "shall not be infringed" can your little mind not wrap itself around?
Back then a flintlock rifle with ring bayonet was state of the art military technology.
(snip)
The faint-hearted, who fear, whose reaction is flight,
Have no comprehension of those who will fight.
To hide their own trepidation they attempt to demean
The rough men, who defend them, as barbaric, obscene.
Yet these rough men stand ready, hard weapons to hand,
To put placaters behind them, draw a line in the sand,
To preserve for the peaceniks what they won't defend,
So their own unearned freedom won't perish, won't end.
"the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed."
This says we have the right and they can't take it away. It does not say the right of the government; it clearly states people.
Police do not prevent crime they document that a crime has happened after the fact and then go after the perpetrator to bring him to justice. Police will never prevent you from becoming a victim. That is your responsibility. You carry our this responsibility by being armed and making a criminal think twice about making you a victim. It is your responsibility to protect yourself and your family, not the government's.
And the defense can argue right back that there is no Bureau of Copiers, Printing Presses and Word Processes
Bad logical argument on the part of the prosecution.
It's like arguing that I'm an imminent drunk driver because I own both alcohol and a car.
That's a fair point, and one that the defense may make. I would respond that the government's charge to secure the public safety requires making certain value judgments as to what commodities pose the greatest threat to society, in this case the machine gun, versus a bottle of wine. There are many laws already on the books prohibiting opened liquor in cars, even if the driver is not consuming them.
Not true, otherwise the federal government would have specifically mentioned it. Amendment 9 covers that. Also bear in mind that they put language for privateers into the Constituion and those certainly carried ordnance as privately armed warships.
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.