"Run away! Run away! Run away! Run away! Run away! Run away! Run away!"
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}
That's 'ordnance'. LTS.
Not running away just not wasting any time with moronic incoherent thinking.
The only way you could avoid that is a coma.
WOW!
Just stunning reasoning.
Are you proud of yourself?
The 2nd Amendment was ratified in 1791. Read a book.
Apparently you have absolutely no clue of reality.
I am not wasting my time with your moronic pseudo-reasoning.
Poor Roscoe, trying to defend the indefensible, gun control.
Apparently, you're math and history impaired. 1791 is after 1788.
I never gave you any dates.
Now you are making things up.
I think you are projecting.
I hope yuo are able to overcome your limitations.
Perhaps some therapy would help.
The quote was from 1788. Poor you.
You made the quote.
I never cited any dates.
Perhaps you should have stayed in school and learned how to use the grey matter between you ears before it liquified.
Most rational people think that our RKBA's is not limited to sporting weapons roscoe:
_ Yes, I support the Second Amendment. And I make no bones about its purpose or to whom it applies. It was not put in place so Bill and Hillary Clinton could go duck hunting with a shotgun or so Barbara Steisand could carry a derringer in her purse to stave off overzealous fans.
It's there because the founders wanted to ensure that we the people (ie, individuals) should remain armed to defend ourselves from a government gone bad.
As far as I'm concerned, we should be allowed to park fully operational Sherman tanks in our garages and commute via fighter planes (if we wish). Now, personal nukes capable of taking out large cities.... hmmmm.... I don't know if I want to trust some of the crazier antiwar libs with those.
1,219 posted on 04/17/2003 5:04 PM PDT by Jim Robinson
So what? The quote was 1788, the 2nd Amendment didn't exist till 1791.
Have someone read you a book.
I think I will quote someone.
W.C. Fields;
"Go away little boy you bother me".
"Run away! Run away! Run away! Run away! Run away! Run away! Run away!"
Obviously I haven't run away.
You can't even see that.
I noticed. You keep saying that you're leaving me and then you come crawling back.
Apparently you are not very bright.
I will not address any of your moronic arguement, if it can be called an arguement.
That is what I am not coming back to.
Does everything have to be explained to you?
Nothing could help roscoe. He is a cheerleader to FR's gun control faction, -- who all 'project' Brady bunch reasoning. -- Their's are useful idiocies, so be gentle.
Yep. You've proven yourself to be incapable of addressing the facts.
BTW, it's spelled argument.
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.