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 nice pair of shoes, being necessary to keep my feet warm, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.
A smooth running car, being necessary to get to and from work, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.
A well passel of rabbits, being necessary to keep my kids happy, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.
It's a subordinate clause, not a qualifier. You can stop with that particular lie now.
In response to the opinion of the 5th Circuit in Emerson, the 9th Circuit went ballistic in Siveira v Lockyer, with Judge Stephen R. Reinhardt ridiculing the 5th Circuit's Emerson decision in a scathing 69 page opinion declaring a collective right.
The SC did not hear that case to overturn it either.
No you didn't. You merely said the states, the courts, the prosecutors, and Congress are all "squelching" RKBA cases.
But you never said "conspiracy".
In my opinion, it doesn't allow for ANY incorporation. That's an invention of an activist judiciary.
You're right. Then stop saying & implying I did.
Just because a bunch of people of similar mindset & motivation behave in a pretty consistent manner does not mean there is a conspiracy. That a bunch of people who have reason & ideology persuading them to "squelch" a right they have a problem with does not imply a conspiracy; that I recognize their tendency to squelch that right does not mean I think there is a large-scale coordinated effort to do so.
Then what does it mean? You're pretty good at taking the plain meaning of words out of those words.
Just the opposite. The "historical stuff" says the BOR was added to extend "the ground of public confidence in the Government".
"THE Conventions of a number of the States having at the time of their adopting the Constitution, expressed a desire, in order to prevent misconstruction or abuse of its powers, that further declaratory and restrictive clauses should be added: And as extending the ground of public confidence in the Government, will best insure the beneficent ends of its institution."
-- Preamble to the Bill of Rights
Now don't you feel silly.
In half the states, the National Guard IS the State Militia. The other half have a National Guard and a State Militia (called a State Defense Force or a State Guard).
Take your "subordinate clause" argument to the federal courts -- they're the ones who ruled it was a qualifier, not me. Oh, and tell them about the commas while you're at it.
They don't understand the fine nuances of grammar like you do. I'm sure that once you point out the comma placement and subordinate clause argument, they'll slap their foreheads and rule that it is indeed an individual right.
Nooooo, of course not. The states, Congress, the courts, judges, prosecutors -- that's not a large scale conspiracy. Merely a coincidence.
I am not saying it is perfect, but the SC didn't see the decision being far enough out of line, or being a dramatic enough departure from norms to require "fixing" it. Also, before Roe v. Wade, courts found no constitutional right to privacy.
Then what does what mean?
Well, the 5th Circuit declared an individual right and the other Circuit courts declared it a collective right. Usually the SC steps in to clarify the law when that happens. Why they didn't, I have no idea -- but I'm grateful.
When the First Amendment was written, there were no such things as keyboards....should we have to drop a few grand for a license, or go back to writing with quills?
When was the last time you heard of someone being killed with a keyboard? Your analogy makes no sense whatsoever. Time for beddy-bye.
Fincher Guilty In Machine Gun Case
This article was published on Friday, January 12, 2007 3:37 PM CST in News By The Morning News
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.
According to police, Fincher had two .308-caliber machine guns, homemade versions of the Browning model 1919. The other firearms were 9 mm STEN design submachine guns and a sawed-off shotgun.
The defense tried to make the case an issue of the Constitution versus federal gun laws. The government tried to make the case as simple as possible for jurors — Fincher had the machine guns and they weren’t registered as required by federal law.
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.
Note-- A thread discussing the verdict has been started at:
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1766714/posts
You are correct. The National Guard is that state's militia. They are under the command of the Governor of that respective state unless they are Federalized by the President.
What these people want to call militias are nothing but bubba clubs where GI Joe wannabes dress up in Army surplus uniforms and gear, wearing rank they have no business or right whatsoever wearing, and run around in the woods practicing their pathetic little war games. I was invited by a friend one time to come and observe the local militia on "maneuvers". At the time he had no idea I was National Guard Infantry. I watched these idiots run around in the woods like they had fireants in their britches until I could no longer contain my laughter. When asked me why I was laughing I told them if my unit ever looked like that we would all be brought up on charges of derelicition of duty! That pretty much wore out my welcome. I laughed about that comedy routine for a week solid.
"I am not saying it is perfect, but the SC didn't see the [Emerson] decision being far enough out of line, or being a dramatic enough departure from norms to require "fixing" it."
Good point Bones..
As we see, there is no counterpoint from our 'brady faction', -- they are just grateful for being spared once again to dream their collective right dreams:
Usually the SC steps in to clarify the law when that happens. Why they didn't, I have no idea -- but I'm grateful.
EVERY SINGLE FEDERAL COURT IN EVERY SINGLE GUN CASE BEFORE IT (save one) HAS RULED THAT A) THE SECOND AMENDMENT ONLY APPLIES TO THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT AND B) IT PROTECTS THE RIGHT OF THE STATES TO FORM ARMED MILITIAS.
YOUR INDIVIDUAL RIGHT TO KEEP AND BEAR ARMS IS PROTECTED ONLY BY YOUR STATE CONSTITUTION.
I am hell-bent on crushing the notion that the second amendment protects that individual right. It doesn't. It never did.
Your right to self defense does indeed come from God and that right extends to every single human being. Your right to self defense is an inalienable right.
If you wish to become part of society, however, this natural right may be reasonably regulated by society. It all depends on the constitution of the state in which you live.
So an individual has the right to keep and bear arms ... as part of a militia. No problem.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
AS we see, collectivists agree our right to self defense does indeed come from God and that right extends to every single human being. Your right to self defense is an inalienable right. -- Except when the majority in a State decree otherwise.
The militia are males outside of the uniformed services. Otherwise the government could just lock the armories and take over.
Having an armed populace prevented any government from enacting any form of tyranny.
Simple logic says that the government does not need to tell the people not to infringe on a government "right" to arm itself.
Just because you saw one group of yahoos doesn't that all of them are that way. I know people loosely grouped that would rival any military group in their experience and capability.
If you think you know everything, you don't.
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.