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}
Not the right to self-appoint yourself an officer in the organized state militia.
Blam. Another foot shot.
Er... that isn't what he's being charged with. Admit it, you don't know how to read do you...
Er... that was his defense.
That isn't what he's being charged with. Also, his defense is a claim to the Second Amendment. Militia service is secondary.
Stupid little re-tread troll. Still can't argue for sh*t...
That was his defense.
Can't quite run away from that one.
That was his defense. Fake rank, counterfeir militia.
Kindred spirit?
Actually, his defense was the Second Amendment. Period. His militia activities were incidental. But you still can't run from what he's charged with...
Stupid little Roscoe-troll. Still being an anti-gun tool. Jim should replace you with a shell script.
Nope, that was the pretense of the self-appointed fake and his counterfeit militia organization.
His militia activities were incidental.
His fraudulent position and counterfeit organization were his failed defense.
It was the whole of his defense. Which the Judge wouldn't let him present to the jury. That you claim to have inside knowledge of his testimony only makes you a liar.
Again.
Not surprising. I just wish you'd be smarter about it. At least that way, your anti-gun antics might be amusing.
"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.Finchley's "militia army" was fake.
Ie; the Second Amendment. Anything else is icing.
Unless you are a gun grabber like you...
In order to form the companies of Infantry, Cavalry, and Artillery as ordained by Article Eleven of the Arkansas Constitution, we have claimed the following:For the Infantry: Any rifle, pistol, or shotgun, by any name known, whether automatic or semi-automatic, of past, present, or future design, regardless of size, caliber, barrel length, or magazine capacity.
For the Cavalry: Including, but not limited to light or heavy armored vehicles, self-powered mobile artillery, and any fixed or rotary winged aircraft.
For the Artillery: Any cannon, all types of rocketry, anti-tank weapons, mortars, recoilless rifles, or any other such weaponry used for bombardment.
Wayne Fincher, Lt. Commander
Feel free to write him weepy letters of solidarity in prison.
Poor Roscoe... still searching for relevance and not finding it.
Yep, his actual arguments, like your own, had no relevance to the facts.
Well, yeah. Except for that whole keep and bear arms thing. I noticed you gun haters don't like that one very much.
He can keep and bear arms. Keep squirming.
Actually, no he can't. That is what he got arrested for. Arms the government "infringed" the "keeping" of. Poor you... Stupid still. Clueless always.
I sure hope you don't kiss your momma with that mouth.
In any case, when the Constitution and the Bill of Rights was written, we didn't have television, radio or the Internet. So, by your less than lucid argument, the First amendment doesn't apply to those mediums.
If undue government interference into the privacy and rights of American citizens isn't high on your list of priorities, what are you on this board for? To be a boor?
No, it wasn't. It was unregistered machine guns.
All these posts and you haven't bothered to even read the article yet?
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.