Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Trial will debate 2nd Amendment rights
WorldNetDaily.com ^ | January 6, 2007 | Bob Unruh

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}


TOPICS: Constitution/Conservatism; Crime/Corruption; Government; News/Current Events
KEYWORDS: banglist; constitution; fincher
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 681-700701-720721-740741-758 next last
To: Mojave
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 state’s laws and boundaries. One such agency is The Bureau of Alcohol Tobacco and Firearms (BATF)....

Only a complete chuckle-headed gun grabber like you could construe the above as saying Fincher's group would "attack".

701 posted on 01/15/2007 9:24:22 AM PST by Dead Corpse (Anyone who needs to be persuaded to be free, doesn't deserve to be.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 696 | View Replies]

To: tpaine
Here's a 75mm pack howitzer. I would love to see you hump this one


702 posted on 01/15/2007 9:46:52 AM PST by stm (Believe 1% of what you hear in the drive-by media and take half of that with a grain of salt)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 700 | View Replies]

To: stm
They also had warships back then and you can't own one of those either.

Sez who? Just a matter of money. You might be rather surprised how some private boats are outfitted.

703 posted on 01/15/2007 10:34:33 AM PST by ctdonath2
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 697 | View Replies]

To: ctdonath2

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.


704 posted on 01/15/2007 10:40:26 AM PST by stm (Believe 1% of what you hear in the drive-by media and take half of that with a grain of salt)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 703 | View Replies]

To: cbkaty
one is prohibited from owning a cannon now

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.

705 posted on 01/15/2007 10:44:33 AM PST by ctdonath2
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 682 | View Replies]

To: stm
laws that have been deemed "constitutional" against challenges

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.

706 posted on 01/15/2007 10:52:27 AM PST by ctdonath2
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 704 | View Replies]

To: stm
stm writes, ignorant of military history:

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.

707 posted on 01/15/2007 11:01:45 AM PST by tpaine (" My most important function on the Supreme Court is to tell the majority to take a walk." -Scalia <)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 702 | View Replies]

To: stm
stm whines:

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.

708 posted on 01/15/2007 11:22:07 AM PST by tpaine (" My most important function on the Supreme Court is to tell the majority to take a walk." -Scalia <)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 704 | View Replies]

To: tacticalogic
Seems like it's Christmas every day in the halls of power, prestige and influence.

Sadly, only the Grinch walks the streets of the average man.

709 posted on 01/15/2007 1:56:13 PM PST by Thumper1960 (Unleash the Dogs of War as a Minority, or perish as a party.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 687 | View Replies]

To: stm
Boy... you really are kind of a f*cking idiot aren't you.

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...

710 posted on 01/15/2007 2:24:37 PM PST by Dead Corpse (Anyone who needs to be persuaded to be free, doesn't deserve to be.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 704 | View Replies]

To: Dead Corpse
I would say your excoriating (you might have to look that one up) use of profanity and name calling puts you squarely in line with the folks over on the DU and a username of "dead corpse" does not exactly signify a lot of credibility.
711 posted on 01/15/2007 3:20:46 PM PST by stm (Believe 1% of what you hear in the drive-by media and take half of that with a grain of salt)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 710 | View Replies]

To: Dead Corpse
Only a complete chuckle-headed gun grabber like you could construe the above as saying Fincher's group would "attack".

Who said they would make good on their empty threats? Their posturing has no more credibility than yours.

712 posted on 01/15/2007 3:29:42 PM PST by Mojave
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 701 | View Replies]

To: stm

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.


713 posted on 01/15/2007 6:36:10 PM PST by Dead Corpse (Anyone who needs to be persuaded to be free, doesn't deserve to be.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 711 | View Replies]

To: Mojave
Who said they would make good on their empty threats?

That's just it. There was no threat. It, like a lot of your opinions, was all in that tiny little head of yours.

714 posted on 01/15/2007 6:37:06 PM PST by Dead Corpse (Anyone who needs to be persuaded to be free, doesn't deserve to be.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 712 | View Replies]

To: Dead Corpse
There was no threat.

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 state’s laws and boundaries."

715 posted on 01/15/2007 6:41:26 PM PST by Mojave
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 714 | View Replies]

To: stm; Dead Corpse

Congratulations. You made Dead Corpse pee himself again.


716 posted on 01/15/2007 6:42:54 PM PST by Mojave
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 711 | View Replies]

To: stm

In the confines of his private property, what crime did he commit?


717 posted on 01/15/2007 6:45:28 PM PST by VRWC For Truth (Defeat the traitor McCain for President. Job #1.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 704 | View Replies]

To: Mojave
Honesty? You wouldn't know "honesty" if it was crawling up your nose. Your only purpose here is to keep the flame wars going.

As for Fincher, that isn't a threat. It was foreshadowing.

718 posted on 01/15/2007 6:46:13 PM PST by Dead Corpse (Anyone who needs to be persuaded to be free, doesn't deserve to be.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 715 | View Replies]

To: Mojave

Naw.... I'm just pissing in your cornflakes again. But, you seem to like that taste.


719 posted on 01/15/2007 6:46:43 PM PST by Dead Corpse (Anyone who needs to be persuaded to be free, doesn't deserve to be.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 716 | View Replies]

To: Dead Corpse
You wouldn't know "honesty" if it was crawling up your nose.

I can smell your dishonesty from here.

720 posted on 01/15/2007 6:51:58 PM PST by Mojave
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 718 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 681-700701-720721-740741-758 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson