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}
I am trying to be gentle but mojave is so dense nothing sinks in.
Must be a product of public schools.
Which is what the socialists want.
An uneducated populace that does not know how to reason and will believe whatever the government spews.
I have not disputed any facts, only your moronic interpretatiion which is laughable.
Actually I feel sorry for you. The older you get the harder it will be for you to learn to think.
While I've refuted your falsehoods.
WOW
That's rich.
Your pretense that Tench Coxe was discussing the meaning of the 2nd Amendment in 1788 was poor.
Never made that pretense.
You set the tone with your first post. Doncha like it?
stm - post #5 Hey retard, when the Second Amendment was written, there were no such thing as machine guns. If you want to own a machine gun, fine. Drop the four grand it takes for a Class III license. If you don't and you get caught then take your punishment and have a steaming hot cup of STFU.
If you don't want people to talk to you in six year old-ese then you should try posting like an adult in the first place.
No suprise when he can't even present a defense. I hope they appeal, they need to.
The 14th Amendment.
LMAO. Great rebuttle.
"After declaring that state and national citizenship coexist in the same person, the Fourteenth Amendment forbids a state from abridging the privileges and immunities of citizens of the United States. As a matter of words, this leaves a state free to abridge, within the limits of the due process clause, the privileges and immunities flowing from state citizenship." --Adamson v. California, 332 U.S. 46
75 years passed before activist courts starting using the Due Process Clause of the 14th amendment to selectively incorporate some of the BOR and make them applicable to the states. The second amendment has not been incorporated.
The 14th amendment was meant to make it clear [by nullifying Barron] that the Bill of Rights applied to States.
After ratification, both legislators and the courts defiantly continued to apply the BOR only to the federal government.
75 years passed before courts starting using the Due Process Clause of the 14th amendment to apply some of the BOR and make them applicable to the states, under the legally laughable theory of 'incorporation'.
The second amendment has not been 'incorporated' because our governments, - and the majority rule Statists who run them, -- fear well armed citizens.
Barnett and other advocates of a “strong” Fourteenth Amendment view that amendment's Privileges or Immunities Clause as the sword in the stone that, once freed, can be used to strike down meddlesome state and local laws that inhibit economic and personal freedom. But surely the Left will be eager to wield that sword, using it as a weapon for social engineering and redistribution. As Justice Thomas noted in his Saenz dissent, the majority's decison raised "the specter that the Privileges or Immunities Clause will become yet another convenient tool for inventing new rights, limited solely by 'the predilections of those who happen at the time to be Members of this Court.'"http://www.mises.org/journals/scholar/Healy6.PDF
He was a delegate to a State Constitutional convention. His writings appeared in published journals.
Makes him a hell of a lot more of a founding father than some Judge deliberatively misinterpreting the plain text of the Constitution decades, even centuries later.
No. You are promoting the current legal fiction. Which, demonstrably has nothing to do with original intent.
Demonstration not available on request. Ever.
[T]he advantage of being armed, which the Americans possess over the people of almost every other nation, the existence of subordinate governments, to which the people are attached, and by which the militia officers are appointed, forms a barrier against the enterprises of ambition, more insurmountable than any which a simple government of any form can admit of. Notwithstanding the military establishments in the several kingdoms of Europe, which are carried as far as the public resources will bear, the governments are afraid to trust the people with arms. - James Madison Federalist No. 46
Arms discourage and keep the invader and plunderer in awe, and preserve order in the world as well as property... Horrid mischief would ensue were the law-abiding deprived of the use of them. - Thomas Paine
"I would rather be exposed to the inconveniencies attending too much liberty than to those attending too small a degree of it." - Thomas Jefferson to Archibald Stuart, B.22.436
Fincher wasn't appointed by the governor to his fake rank in his counterfeit militia organization. Shot yourself in the foot yet again.
so only those appointed by a governor have Rights? Roscoe-troll, you never cease to live down to my expectations of you.
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.