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}
Then the constitutin is meaningless.
Whatever laws or restrictions any government can get away with are just fine.
Then we don't need a Supreme Court to determine if any laws are "unconstitutional" because any restrictions are reasonable. Like California passing a law that says bayonet lugs and pistol grips are illegal.
According to your logic the phrase "shall not be infringed" actually means "may infringe where necessary".
I always thought the phrase "shall not" meant what it says shall not, not, may not.
There is no safety and security to be obtained from disarming a free and peaceable people.
Re: There are no 1st Amend restrictions on broadcast media, outside of the unconstitutional McCain Feingold. EM allocation restricts no one's rights. No one has a right to broadcast with EM. It's a privilege obtainable though bidding."Yet once gained, the government can control the speech and has used sanctions often. In other words, it can regulate free speech.
Your reply can only apply to McCain-Feingold, because EM allocation does not infringe on anyone's free speech rights, just as laws against murder, insurrection, armed robbery and firing in certain places infringe on no one's right to keep and bear arms. McCain Feingold is an unconstitutional infringement of free speech. It matters nt that the SCOTUS said it wasn't and that's clear, because I can read the plain language of the 1st Amend. The same bogus ruling came out of the SCOTUS in Plessy vs Ferguson in the late 1800s. IT took until the 1950s to straighten that situation out. At no time, however was Plessy vs Ferguson valid. It could only stand by the coercive power of govm't and the authoritarian thugs that supported it. The greivous harm imposed on the minorities effected was called fair and justified by the arbitrary and empty terms law, order, safety and security.
""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."
I'd prefer to go down fighting by exercising those rights, than to live under any kind of slavery.
Now, as to who may keep and bear those weapons they didn't say. Everyone? Militia members? The state itself in an armory?
They did say during all the references about the militia that you like to claim ties the right to militias. In their statement they gave a history of militias and that militias were male citizens of certain ages. Therefore, they stated that citizens are the ones that have the right.
From what I understand back then "well regulated" meant well equipped, or well running like a clock that is well oiled and keeping time. That the "militia", i.e. us were to be well equipped with weapons that were well maintained and functioning when needed. So that if called the farmer or other person didn't have a rusty weapon and no ammunition and would be useless.
I see absolutely no weapons in action in Iraq acting to destabilize and destroy there society. I see authoritarian Arab culture and religion motivating the action. Your comparison of American gun owners with authoritarian jihadis is contemptable.
Hey Retard, seven states allow machine guns and I live in one, Montana. The Federal Tax Stamp to own one is $200, further the Second Amendment talks about military weapons of the time and at one time single ball black powder rifles were military weapons so were lever action rifles, bolt action rifles, clip fed semi autos, and machine guns as firearms evolved. It would be nice if we could come into this room without the name calling.
"well-regulated" does not mean an organized militia or a standing army.
Sorry, but you can't have it both ways. Equal treatment under the law and due process would preclude that.
Definitions of license on the Web:
a legal document giving official permission to do something otherwise held to be illegal.
freedom to deviate deliberately from normally applicable rules or practices (especially in behavior or speech)
excessive freedom; lack of due restraint; "when liberty becomes license dictatorship is near"- Will Durant; "the intolerable license with which the newspapers break...the rules of decorum"- Edmund Burke
the act of giving a formal (usually written) authorization
authorize officially; "I am licensed to practice law in this state"
A license or licence is a document or agreement giving permission to do something. The spelling license is usual in American English. In British English, licence is the noun form, and license is the verb, so a when a licensee has a licence, they are licensed by a Licensing Authority. In Canadian English, the spellings denote different meanings (e.g. a licence to drive would refer to a legal permission, whereas a license to drive could refer to a permission of circumstance).
Since when is bearing arms Illegal?
The second Amendment makes no reference to type or style of arms and it does not do so on purpose. It does so to reflect changing times and technologies. Our Founding Fathers were intelligent men, far more intelligent than the crop(crap) of leaders we currently have.
You need a License to carry a gun? Only if bearing arms is illegal, and according to the Supreme Law of the Land (The Constitution), it is neither Illegal or Licensable.
Revisiting this quote, might help to clear it up.
"when liberty becomes license dictatorship is near"- Will Durant"
pinging you for more education :)
Wrong, the government does things every day to give reason to fear it. Ruby Ridge and Waco are a couple of reasons to. The no knock warrant searches that have killed innocent people is another. The GOVERNMENT should fear CITIZENS. How can it do that if we are barred of the same weapons that it would use on use if we tried to use our Constitutionally protected right to rise up against it?
Watched Minority Report a few too many times? Why not just make the US a police state and put cops in everyones home? That would prevent crimes and nefarious incidents. Tell me how you prevent an accident? Force everyone to take the bus or train? They have accidents. Stop weather from happening? Preventing accidents is impossible.
" No, it helps ensure that only law abiding citizens legally have arms."
You don't get to define legal terms and determine what legal concepts mean. Licensing applies to privilege, not right. The only thing it insures is that those in power are the only ones able to enjoy their right.
Re: Emancipation
"None of that is in the 2d Amendment. You are merely stating that certain restrictions are valid even if not stated in the Amendment."
You can't even grasp the concept of emancipation. I'm not surprised then, that you can't grasp anything else.
Re: They can not regulate ownership, other than as given above. They can regulate use, except to deny effective self defense.
"They can not regulate ownership, other than as given above. They can regulate use, except to deny effective self defense. In other words, according to you, even though restrictions are not mentioned in the 2d Amendment, certain restrictions are constitutional as long as those restrictions are in agreement with your philosophy. Do I have that summarized correctly?"
No. The 2nd Amend doesn't cover use whatsoever. I covers ownership and bearing. It does not forbid law governing murder, insurrection, armed robbery, firing in various places, ect... In other words, according to you, even though restrictions are not mentioned in the 2d Amendment, certain restrictions are constitutional as long as those restrictions are in agreement with your philosophy. Do I have that summarized correctly?
"Again, you seem to agree that regulation of certain weapons is okay, but others are not. That is the whole issue with the machine gun trial."
The Constitutional issues in this trial regard the commerce Clause and the 2nd Amend. The 2nd Amend. says no restrictions can be placed on the people's right to keep and bear arms. It doesn't apply to regulation of commerce, unless the people's right is violated by that applicaiton. In this case, the people's right has been clearly violated, since a machine gun isn't a weapon of mass destruction and poses no substantial risk in and of itself, as does nuke mat'ls and explosives.
That doesn't mean what you are trying to make it mean. It isn't a qualifier, it's an example. Kind of hard to have a citizen militia to call on if your citizens can't own their own weapons.
Treat? I don't understand your question.
The Militia Act, written one year after the Bill of Rights was ratified, detailed what was expected of state militias -- organization, armament, training, etc. That is what was meant by a well regulated militia.
Grammer? Golly, I was going by the ruling of every federal court that said that it is a qualifier.
The law is not your strong point, is it?
Are you making some type of claim that the Second is a collective/group right? I strongly disagree with that limitation. I believe it declares the individual AND the collective right.
If you disagree with any or all of this, why not proclaim your position boldly?
Ummmmm...you left out Letters of Marque...(Which implies civilian ownership of warships......)
Greg is Inter-Fraternity Council President Greg Marmalard.
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.