Posted on 01/12/2007 2:09:53 PM PST by Wasichu
Fincher Guilty In Machine Gun Case Friday, January 12, 2007 3:37 PM CST
It took a jury just under five hours to find Hollis Wayne Fincher guilty of owning illegal machine guns and a sawed-off shotgun.
Closing arguments in federal court in Fayetteville wrapped at mid-morning and the case went to the federal jury about 10:30 a.m. The jury returned its verdict about 3:20 p.m.
Nice to see more people ignoring the deceitful parasite.
There is no law against sawing off a shotgun, only against making the barrel length or overall length too short.
The utility of a short (in overall length), short barrelled shotgun has been rendered moot by the penalties proscribed for those who posess one which has overall and barrel lengths under the lawful minima without a permit by the penalties imposed.
It is as if one passed a law requiring the amputation of hands for posessing a fork and then maintaining that forks were the tools of criminals and every respectable person only needed a spoon.
Same flawed logic.
Let the 'shorty' become the modern day 'carriage gun' and the carjacking (and numerous carjackers) would become a thing of the past.
As I am not in a position to readily mount a Constitutional challenge, all my arms are in compliance with the applicable laws, so no, I do not own one.
If jurors set aside the popularity of criminal and victim, there is definitely room for jury nullification based upon the popularity of the law in question.
The Founding Fathers did not in the slightest intend that the government should pass and enforce laws which were supported by 51% of the population and despised by the other 49%. Laws which are widely despised corrosively undermine the public's faith in government.
If the level of strong disapproval for a law is such that the government would be consistently unable to get convictions from a jury that understood nullification but was not biased toward the defendant or against the victim, then I would consider that a strong sign that the law in question is a bad one and should be repealed.
To be sure, giving jurors such powers today might produce anarchic results, but that would largely be cause so many of the laws today are in fact bad laws and should be repealed.
A sadly forgotten fact is that prior to the ratification of the Articles of Confederation, many of the original 13 colonies were soverign states.
My ancestors swore an oath to the soverign State of Maryland in that time period, as did many others.
The idea has been obfusticated or ignored by many because it makes later States Rights issues somewhat inconvenient.
Yeah....That's the blue light signal your dealing with a bonafide black helo, bunker dwelling fruitcake when you hear the "gold fringe on my flag, this court has no jurisdiction" moonbats.
They remind me of the "reparations now" loons on the left or the PETA lobster liberators...
I sense a strong libertarian bent emerging in your posts.If There is strong discontent with a law there is a mechanism remediate the problem. Elections and legislation.
The notion that a juries could routinely set aside there their bias to engage in reasoned nullification is a leap of faith unimaginable to me. Hell...They struggle to deal with their own bias with a PROHIBITION on nullification now.
Perhaps we can coin a new phrase...Anarchodemocracy. Where the entire apparatus of democracy can be nullified by a jury on a whim.
To acquit someone requires twelve jurors. The most that a single juror can do is force a mistrial. If the prosecution correctly believes that the existence of a holdout juror is a fluke, the only effect of a mistrial will be to increase the defendant's legal costs as he has to go through a second trial where he'll likely be convicted.
Jury nullification really only becomes a major factor when disapproval for a law is sufficiently widespread that the prosecution has trouble getting 12 jurors who are willing to convict. And I would argue that such unpopularity is a good sign that a law shouldn't be enforced.
To be sure, jury nullification adds an unfortunate level of chance to trial proceedings, but for the most part not an outrageous one. If support for the law in question is so widespread that a mistrial would simply result in a retrial and conviction, a juror who's outnumbered 11-1 would likely drop his objection. By contrast, if the law is so unpopular that repeated trials would simply beget repeated mistrials, a prosecutor would likely be disinclined to push the case in the absense of external political pressure (which is another subject entirely).
Republic is our form of government. Democracy is our political mechanism. They are not interchangeable ideas.
Republic is our form of government. Democracy is our political mechanism. They are not interchangeable ideas.
Well Tom ...we will just have to leave it at that I suppose. I believe in the rule of law and you believe in notional right that apparently the courts do not subscribe to. You share Mr.Fincher's perception. In the end neither you,I or Mr. Fincher will decide the matter. The matter will be decided by black robed men and women chosen by our elected leaders to interpret the laws as the founders and good sense will.
You may disagree or agree with their decisions but you ignore them at your legal peril. Mr. Fincher has discovered this as well. I often disagree with the courts reasoning myself. I recognize however that I am bound by those decisions unless I wish to roll the dice and risk imprisonment.
My candid impression is Mr.Fincher's quest is as quixotic as his self appointed status as a " Lieutenant Commander" in his Arkansas militia. His appeal would be fun to argue as an appellate lawyer I'd think. Hopeless but fun. But At 400-500 an hour Appellate lawyers don't come cheap. If you wish you could send a check to LCDR Fincher to help him defray the costs of his appeal.
And Tom...If you would kindly dispense with the cut and paste please. That would be helpful. If we are to have a conversation I insist it be with you and not the unattributed work of others. Paraphrasing ,however awkward, will do fine. Thanks.
Our founders created a constitutional republic that respected the right of individuals to own a 'short' shotgun, --- and to a jury trial of fully informed peers if a misguided democratic majority tried to infringe on that right.
You don't. - And you've admitted that. Be ashamed.
...we will just have to leave it at that I suppose. I believe in the rule of law
No, you've admitted you do not believe in 2nd & 6th Amendment laws; -- fully informed juries, or our RTK&B 'short' shotguns.
In the end neither you, I or Mr. Fincher will decide the matter. The matter will be decided by black robed men and women chosen by our elected leaders to interpret the laws as the founders and good sense will.
No, if the matter is not decided in support of individual rights, it will have to be decided with either civil disobedience, or uncivil means, outlined in our Declaration.
You may disagree or agree with their decisions but you ignore them at your legal peril.
Ignore our constitutional principles at your peril, tom.
Mr. Fincher has discovered this as well. I often disagree with the courts reasoning myself. I recognize however that I am bound by those decisions unless I wish to roll the dice and risk imprisonment.
You are bound to support & defend our Constitution, not the opinions of "black robed men and women chosen by our elected leaders to interpret the law". -- Be ashamed that you will not defend your own liberty to own a 'short' shotgun, --- and to a jury trial of fully informed peers.
In the end it comes down to which you value more, Tom. The rule of law or a short shotgun. Me?...I'll go with the rule of law. The law says possessing a shotgun below a specified barrel length is illegal. Thus, my three shotguns will remain long and legal. Choose as you will.
As noted before if you Google "News, sawed off shotgun" This is what you get.
http://news.google.com/news?hl=en&ned=us&q=sawed+off+shotgun&btnG=Search+News
A long list of gangbangers, drug dealers, and armed robbers. Not one Constitutionalist arguing on behalf of the second amendment and sawed off shotguns. Pretty compelling to me...
No one said anything about concealing a shotgun under clothing. You introduced that on your own to confuse the issue and support your shaky contention. A red herring.
In 1999 the US adopted the Joint Services Combat Shotgun, ...Benelli M4 Super 90 / M1014 JSCS (Italy)
Benelli M4, with closed buttstockType: gas operated, semi-auto
Gauge: 12 (chamber 3" - 76 mm)
Length: 1010 mm (extended stock), 886 mm (34.88 inches)(closed stock)
Barrel length: 470 mm (18.5 inches)
Weigth 3.8 kg unloaded
Feeding: 6 rounds in underbarrel tube magazineBenelli M4 Super 90 is developed in Italy by Benelli Armi Spa., and imported in the USA by Heckler&Koch USA,inc. In early 1999, US AARDEC (Army Armmament Research and Development Center), avarded contract for XM1014 Joint Service Combat Shotgun to Heckler&Koch USA,inc. Initially, some 20.000 units wil be shipped to US Marine Corps.
Note; barrel under 20 inches, no bayonet lug, no sling swivels and no barrel handguard. In addition it brings us to this era, this war in Iraq and Afghanistan or where ever U.S. Marines might be in the world today.
(also from the same website...)USAS-12 shotgun (USA / South Korea)
USAS-12 with 20 rounds drum magazineType: gas operated semi-auto or selective fired
Gauge: 12 (2 3/4 in shells - 70 mm chamber )
Length: 960 mm (37.79 inches)
Barrel length: 460 mm (18.11 inches)
Weight 5.5 kg empty, 6.2kg loaded with 10 rounds
Capacity: 10 rounds box or 20 rounds drum detachable magazines...During late 1990s, RAMO Defence Co began to assemble USAS-12 shotguns from Korean and US-made parts for sale on domestic market, but then again, sales of this weapon were limited to government agencies only. ...
Barrel less than twenty inches, no bayonet lug and it's selective fire full auto. Good enough for some unnamed government agency but not for you or me. Well, not me anyway, robert.
So would either of you care to compare U.S. Marines to gangbangers and armed robbers or forward the assertion that these short shotguns aren't useful for defensive purposes? I'm happy to end your confusion over short ('sawed off' in common vernacular) shotguns.
Note that Scott was already recognized as a free man with the privileges and immunities of the State he was captured from. The question, and Taney's elaboration pertained to whether, or not Scott was a citizen of the US, one of "the people". Here's what Taney says about that:
"In discussing this question, we must not confound the rights of citizenship which a State may confer within its own limits and the rights of citizenship as a member of the Union. It does not by any means follow, because he has all the rights and privileges of a citizen of a State, that he must be a citizen of the United States.""
Note, that Taney describes what a white man could do in his travels from State to State by virtue of his US citizenship, as one of "the people". He did that, because he was illustrating what a white man could do and what a negro could do, were he regognized as a US citizen, one of "the people". A white man, one of "the people", could, "keep and carry arms wherever they went".
The shotguns you cite both have barrels over 18" and an overall length of over 26", the minima specified in NFA'34. On the other hand, I am unaware of anything to suggest that a shotgun with a 17.9" barrel would be qualitatively less useful than one with an 18.11" barrel.
Indeed, any military firearm is going to involve tradeoffs among ballistic performance, weight, balance, and convenience of handling. A firearm which optimizes those properties for a particular individual may not be optimal for another. The logistics of trying to supply every soldier a shotgun optimized for his own personal measurements would be horrendously complicated--far better to issue everyone one a gun optimized for the median soldier. On the other hand, if a person is equipping himself with his own weaponry, there's no reason why he shouldn't choose whatever combination of weight, balance, and size work best for him--especially if it's compatible with common ammunition.
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.
