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}
Only a complete chuckle-headed gun grabber like you could construe the above as saying Fincher's group would "attack".
Sez who? Just a matter of money. You might be rather surprised how some private boats are outfitted.
This entire conversation is getting more f*cking stupid by the thread.
The bottom line is this guy thumbed his nose at the law, laws that have been deemed "constitutional" against challenges, and he is being held accountable for his actions. Chances are he will wind up in an orange jumpsuit and rightfully so. You do the crime you do the time. It's as simple as that.
You really need to learn about NFA law before continuing the thread.
Blackpowder muzzle-loading cannons are entirely legal (your state may vary) without particular restrictions.
Howitzers etc. ARE legal. The prices are high and the marketplace small, and ammo is very expensive, but if you want it you can get it.
Go to Knob Creek and you'll be surprised at what's privately - and legally - owned.
I've studied the subject in depth. They have not so been deemed. The last serious case was Miller, which was ejected on a technicality - most likely because the defendant wasn't there and SCOTUS didn't want to make a final ruling on the subject.
Fincher is just trying to get to the same place that Miller got to on appeal - but actually be alive to testify.
From other comments it's clear you don't understand NFA law. Until you can articulate what 922(o) is and its relevance to this case, and how a sawed-off can be legal, please refrain from telling others they're wrong on the NFA subject.
Here's a 75mm pack howitzer. I would love to see you hump this one
75mm pack howtizers garnered their 'Pack' designations by the idea that pack animals could carry the lightweight 2000 lb. system. (most common in World War One but not uncommon in World War Two for either side).
The system was designed to be easily taken apart in multiple pieces (the M1 carriage could be taken down to a total of six parts while the gun system could be taken down to nine parts, none over 200 lbs) for this very purpose.
A mule could carry 200 lbs. So can 2 grunts, if they really hump it. But it's become apparent you don't know much about grunts.
This entire conversation is getting more f*cking stupid by the thread.
The bottom line is this guy thumbed his nose at the law, laws that have been deemed "constitutional" against challenges, and he is being held accountable for his actions. Chances are he will wind up in an orange jumpsuit and rightfully so. You do the crime you do the time. It's as simple as that.
Nope, the bottom line is that ~you~ are contending, -- while thumbing your nose at our right to own & carry [military type] arms, -- that this guy broke the 'law', --- laws that have been fought as unconstitutional since they were enacted.
He is being held accountable for his actions without being able to inform a jury of the 'legal' basis for the charges against him..
Chances are he will wind up in an orange jumpsuit and rightfully so.
No, "- rightfully so -" is the point at issue. -- A point you should be defending according to your oath.
You do the crime you do the time. It's as simple as that.
Constitutionally, gun control never has been that "simple".
Only gun grabbers think so.
Sadly, only the Grinch walks the streets of the average man.
Those laws have only been "deemed" Constitutional via judicial malfeasance and never by the SCOTUS. You can try and redefine "shall not be infringed" all you want, but you should know that it just makes you look even more like a complete retard and possibly even one of the very socialist scum this forum was dedicated to fighting.
Now, where does that leave an idiotic like Brady Bunch wanna-be like yourself? Up a creek without a paddle...
Who said they would make good on their empty threats? Their posturing has no more credibility than yours.
Your inaugural post on this thread kinda shot your credibility to hell NEWBIE. You've got a few more years here before you can wave your tiny little fist at me.
That's just it. There was no threat. It, like a lot of your opinions, was all in that tiny little head of yours.
No honesty in you.
"We bring to your attention the possibility of conflict with some predatory agencies employed within the federal government who scoff at we, the people, and consider themselves immune to our states laws and boundaries."
Congratulations. You made Dead Corpse pee himself again.
In the confines of his private property, what crime did he commit?
As for Fincher, that isn't a threat. It was foreshadowing.
Naw.... I'm just pissing in your cornflakes again. But, you seem to like that taste.
I can smell your dishonesty from here.
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.