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}
Of course, I know you won't. You'll just spin, obfuscate, and lie. Like you have always done on these threads.
But you are the one cheerleading their decision, supporting it, and using it to try and over turn the opinions expressed here by your constant repetition.
Also, I didn't make the rules of grammar, but I'll take the word on words of a published English professor over a judge any day. Funny that you wouldn't...
Nice try, but Dead Corpse isn't about to let facts get in the way of his inventions.
Oh STFU you stupid troll.
"But it is universally understood, it is a part of the history of the day, that the great revolution which established the constitution of the United States, was not effected without immense opposition. Serious fears were extensively entertained that those powers which the patriot statesmen, who then watched over the interests of our country, deemed essential to union, and to the attainment of those invaluable objects for which union was sought, might be exercised in a manner dangerous to liberty. In almost every convention by which the constitution was adopted, amendments to guard against the abuse of power were recommended. These amendments demanded security against the apprehended encroachments of the general government--not against those of the local governments." --Chief Justice John Marshall
Hey, brain trust, how 'bout an ice cold bowl of frozen outhouse stew?
The crackpot not only wasn't appointed to his fake rank by the governor, he actually had the gall to send the governor a notice claimiing that he and his counterfeit militia were entitled to use mortars and anti-tank weapons against the federal government.
I am stating the facts. Period. I am telling it like it is.
You're the one with the lies. You're the one stating your opinions as though they were facts. You're the one who ignores what is in favor of what should be.
In order to secure and expand our gun rights, it's important to know the source of our protection. You insist it's the second amendment. I say you're wasting your time at that level.
Ask the California FR gun owners how well the second amendment is protecting their rights. Ask the FR gun owners in Vermont if they credit the second amendment for their protection.
Wow that was a lucid, well writtnen and well informed comment.....for a six year old. Does your Mommy know you're on the computer so late at night?
So what terrible weapons would you infringe upon. None?
First of all the actual quote is, "Congress have no power to disarm the militia. Their swords, and every other terrible implement of the soldier, are the birth-right of an American ..."
Second, the quote is from Tench Coxe, a friend of James Madison. Mr. Coxe was not a Founding Father.
And third, the quote was from 1788, years before the 2nd Amendment was enacted.
If you are implying that because the statement was made before the 2d was enacted it doesn't count then your statements are hundreds of years after so they don't count either.
Maybe then the only comments that count are those made on the day the 2d was actually enacted.
Pretty ludicrous reasoning on your part.
Exactly. The 2nd Amendment exists now, it didn't exist then.
What in the world do you mean?
The reasoning FOR the 2d had to happen BEFORE it was enacted.
Are you implying that the 2d was thought up in one day and that nobody thought about it before that day?
Tench Coxe didn't write it, didn't propose it and wasn't presenting "reasoning" for the then non-existent Amendment.
Are your arguments always so flacid?
So then was Tenche Coxe the ONLY PERSON with any thoughts on the 2d and why it should be written the way it was?
Your reasoning is just plain bizarre.
He wasn't even talking about the 2nd Amendment.
Your intellect is so seriously flawed that a dialogue with you is impossible.
Run away, run away.
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.