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}
Sounds like you need a good lecturing to.
No matter your own horn tooting resume'. Which, btw, is unseemly for a true soldier.
With your piss-poor attitude, I'd wonder why you'd be so against "civilians" owning so-called machine guns. Your authoritarian streak simmers not so far below the surface. Perhaps, you'd be not so adverse to following orders and firing on civilians, should the crap hit the fan in some dire national emergency. It sure wouldn't do to have someone firing back with somewhat equal firepower.
In case you hadn't realized, the "people" are the militia in this country. You should try to remember that. If you have any problems with that, I'd suggest you have a chat with your CO and become educated on just what your true role is as a service-member. Failing that, I do hope you retire this year. I'm sure there's a position on some FBI or ATF special ops team where you can flaunt your supposed superiority to the unwashed masses.
Don't lecture me, I have spent more than half my life protecting the rights of Americans, been in two wars, shot twice and have two Purple Hearts and two Bronze Stars to show for it.
But laws are laws. If you don't like them, then try to get them changed. But in the meantime, if you don't follow them, then expect to find yourself being judged by a jury of your peers.
Civilians have no need whatsoever to own machine guns. If you choose to own one, you get the proper license. The law says that no civilian, except under certain licensing, can manufacture or convert a weapon into a machine gun. Militia "bubba clubs" have no authority vested in them whatsoever by any agency to fall under the same weapon classification categories as real militias, the State's National Guard.
I look forward to the day when one of them starts playing the fool and have to be punkslapped back to the stone age.
661 posted on 01/14/2007 12:29:44 PM PST by stm
To: stm
You are certainly not above being lectured.
No matter your own horn tooting resume'. Which, btw, is unseemly for a true soldier.
With your piss-poor attitude, I'd wonder why you'd be so against "civilians" owning so-called machine guns. Your authoritarian streak simmers not so far below the surface.
Perhaps, you'd be not so adverse to following orders and firing on civilians, should the crap hit the fan in some dire national emergency. It sure wouldn't do to have someone firing back with somewhat equal firepower.
In case you hadn't realized, the "people" are the militia in this country. You should try to remember that. If you have any problems with that, I'd suggest you have a chat with your CO and become educated on just what your true role is as a service-member. Failing that, I do hope you retire this year. I'm sure there's a position on some FBI or ATF special ops team where you can flaunt your supposed superiority to the unwashed masses.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Well said thumper. This self touted 'hero' is looking "-- forward to the day when one of them" -- [an unorganized militia of US Citizens] -- " starts playing the fool and have to be punkslapped back to the stone age. --"
What more can or need be said? -- The man is blatantly violating his own oath to support and defend our Constitution.
Civilian? Finchley claimed to be a Lt. Commander.
Keep your comments on the point of the post, it you are able.
Thumpers remark that:
"-- With your piss-poor attitude, I'd wonder why you'd be so against "civilians" owning so-called machine guns." -- Was entirely apropos.
Your own silly comment is just sour grapes at seeing your 'punkslapping hero' put in his place.
Patience,
Maybe in 2008, We'll have Janet Reno for Attorney General again and make your big dreams come true.
I'm certain there are many Napoleons in padded cells across the land writing orders to invisible Generals.
You got lost and wound up on the wrong thread? This is a discussion of the Finchley case.
First of all, my post was not directed towards you. It involved another poster and his comments.
If you feel the need to become relevant, donate blood at your local Red Cross facility. Even with that, I believe you will continue to be out of tune with what I, and the other poster were specifically discussing.
Your signal to noise ratio has reached zero. That's one way of fleeing debate.
"Militia" leaders.
Therefore, since there is no compelling reason to continue, I choose to end this exchange.
It is my sincere hope you are not too upset when free people choose to arm themselves in a manner that they deem sufficient to ensure their safety, and the safety of their families and communities. Be that by arms not approved by you, so be it. Your standards are not a yardstick by which a free people measure their needs by.
Sorry, you're not that important or relevant.
Cheers!
Have you any cleaner strong enough to dislodge it?
Had that same turd on my shoe.
Just had to shake it off.
Facts are not your friend.
The BoR protects pre-existing rights.
The BoR, at minimum, restricts the federal government from abridging those rights.
Even if the BoR does not apply to the states, the rights still exist and the states are obligated to protect, or at least not infringe on, those rights.
References to specific points of the BoR being applicable to the states is a shorthand way of stating that the states are obligated to recognize those rights.
Regardless of whether those particular words legally apply to the states in a nuanced fashion is largely irrelevant, as the rights still exist.
Some Founding Fathers wanted a Bill of Rights to assure recognition of those rights.
Some Founding Fathers opposed a Bill of Rights in fear rights would be limited to those enumerated and get bogged down in legalese.
The rights noted in the BoR generally apply to all citizens, and must be respected by all levels of government. That the Constitution's 2nd Amendment may, in technicality, apply only to the feds does NOT reduce the fact that humans have a "right to keep and bear arms" which the states must recognize, respect and protect. Don't miss the forest for the leaves.
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.