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.
Well, any shotgun with a barrel that short is a point shoot gun. If I'm using a shotgun. I'd prefer ~18" barrel and a full tube of shells.
Remington 870 shotgun (USA)
Remington military products division
Here are some variations of the Remington 870 shotgun with barrels under 20".
Remington 870 Police "Entry Gun" with 14in barrel
Remington 870MCS in "Breeching weapon" configuration, with 10" barrel and no buttstock
Remington 870MCS in 14"-barrel Entry shotgun configuration, with tactical buttstock
Obviously, you are unable to learn anything new.
Re: your link + the comment: "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...
Why do you suppose there's no lawfull owners short barrels in your list that committed crimes with the guns? Why do you suppose that since 1934, that only one crime was committed with a legally owned machine gun in the US, and the criminal that owned the machine gun and committed the crimes, including murder, was a cop wearing brass? A cop that later committed suicide?
I don't know what your point is. Your info is interesting but you jumped into a debate about whether the military uses short (sawed off) shotguns or whether only gangbangers and armed robbers do. In the last exchange it was suggested to me that barrels of 20" were as short as the military uses. Your post doesn't address that argument in any way. For even shorter barrels than the 18.5" I posted before see my last post. All manufactured for military and LEO use by Remington.
Your post makes little sense. Somehow this doesn't surprise me.
Let me get my magic decoder ring...Standby.
If that was true, you could show why your claim has any merit whatsoever.
I don't understand where the problem lies: everybody shows up and votes with shotgun.
Look, if you show up at the interview with a shotgun: you get hired right?
If you show up at a union meeting with a few shotguns: they listen to you.
If you show up at a union meeting with a few shotguns and they have .50 BMG's posted everywhere: you listen to them.
That's the "civilized" way. What else do you want?
A couple guys got buried. They had union reps.
Imagine what would happen if you had a degree here in Michigan and you applied for a bagger position? That's when the shotgun barrel is placed beneath the jaw of the supervisor, and a question is posed respecting "exploitation". Do you "need" a job (or not). Maybe the employer tells you that you're "over-qualified", but that your 10 yr old daughter would be very nice.
Question comes down to whether or not you need to eat, or wheether you like Nancy Pelosi. Because no matter how you cut it, slice it/dice it, that's how where going.
Gawd...you can't even follow simple directions. I told you to standby why I get my decoder ring. Sheesh.
Obviously.
without doubt ("obviously").
If I live in Michigan, and everybody's moving out from Michigan (after they get their state sponsored degree), what can you tell me?
If I told you that there'd be soon a tax imposed for you to believe me, or convince me? What would you say?
I want to know 'bout the 250+ people that where too poor to afford union reps. Has anybody thought 'bout how much it costs to buy a union rep?
Your post 167 indicates you believe that gun ownership results in their use as tools for interpersonal, commercial and political disputes, and that honoring the 2nd Amend would result in an arms race.
So the issues that confront all mankiknd boil down to gun ownership?
Let me get this straight: the solution to all of our problems is a larger supply of weapons?
Are you afriad to use logic to use your position? If I brought logic to bear on the matter you'd ALL look like fools.
No.
"Let me get this straight: the solution to all of our problems is a larger supply of weapons? "
No.
"Are you afriad to use logic to use your position?"
No.
"If I brought logic to bear on the matter you'd ALL look like fools."
Go right ahead and make a fool of me.
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.
You go, admittedly, with a 'majority rule of law' that ignores our 2nd & 6th Amendments.
The [supposed] 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.
That's the issue tommie, we no longer have a choice. Your gungrabbing majority has decreed short shotguns to be "illegal".
As noted before if you Google "News, sawed off shotgun" This is what you get. 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...
Dream on tommie, there are millions of sites where Constitutionalists are arguing on behalf of the second amendment. -- This is one of them, and you are obviously trolling. -- Poorly.
I wouldn't call either of those weapons "sawed-off". Plus, both are over 18". What's your point?
Congress did when they wrote the National Firearms Act. You're trying to put legal short-barrelled shotguns in the same category as sawed-off shotguns to make your argument. Ain't gonna happen.
Not in the section to which you're referring. In that paragraph about bearing arms, he's referring to citizens of a state.
"It would give to persons of the negro race, who were recognised as citizens in any one State of the Union, the right to enter every other State whenever they pleased ..."
Please read your own link. He is saying that if the Negro was recognized as a citizen of a state, the Negro would have the same rights as white citizens of that state including the right to keep and bear arms.
In that paragraph, Taney is not referring to some United States citizen.
"The use of short barreled shotguns by the military has a long and distinguished history."
An inane brady bunch type riposte:
Short barreled shotguns were not "sawed-off" so as to conceal under clothing. Let's not confuse the two. Military shotguns are sawed-off for ease of handling. - Um, - so are self defense shotguns?
Tiger replies:
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.
Another inane brady bunch type riposte:
When Congress wrote the National Firearms Act they 'found' that shotguns were "sawed-off" so as to conceal under clothing. Such findings are gospel.
You're trying to put 'legal' 18 1/8" short-barrelled shotguns in the same category as 17 7/8" sawed-off shotguns to make your argument. -- Ain't gonna happen. That 1/4" difference is a CRIME. Congress said so. -- Neener neener.
More than you think. The "sawed-off shotgun" style (actually the from-the-factory short-barreled no-stock large-caliber smooth-bore pistol) is actually the most accessible NFA ("Class III") firearm, being priced only a little more than a shotgun and needing only a $5 tax payment (plus a page of paperwork). They can be had legally.
Truly "sawed-off" shotguns require a $200 manufacturing tax (plus same paperwork).
Illegally "sawed-off" shotguns can cost the owner $250,000 and 10 years federal prison.
"Not in the section to which you're referring. In that paragraph about bearing arms, he's referring to citizens of a state.
Taney: "It would give to persons of the negro race, who were recognised as citizens in any one State of the Union, the right to enter every other State whenever they pleased ...""
Yes, he is indeed talking about "the people", or US citizens. US citizenship is what the word "It" refers to in the cut. It, referrs to being one of "the people", "It", would allow him to carry weapons in any State.
Note, that the case came before the SCOTUS, because a MO circuit court determined that Scott was a free man. The higher courts reversed and so did the SCOTUS. The MO compromise regarding slavery was tossed and it was affirmed that only the feds had the power to determine citizenship of the several States. It is impossible to be a citizen of a State and not a citizen of the US. It is only by virtue of US citizenship, that one can be a citizen of any State.
Taney:
"For, when they gave to the citizens of each State the privileges and immunities of citizens in the several States, they at the same time took from the several States the power of naturalization, and confined that power exclusively to the Federal Government. No State was willing to permit another State to determine who should or should not be admitted as one of its citizens, and entitled to demand equal rights and privileges with their own people, within their own territories."
Here's a larger cut that includes what US citizens could do, by virtue of being one of "the people". Since the States can not confer citizenship, it is only recognition that a person is one of "the people", that they can do as Taney illustrates:
"it cannot be believed that the large slaveholding States regarded them as included in the word citizens, or would have consented to a Constitution which might compel them to receive them in that character from another State. For if they were so received, and entitled to the privileges and immunities of citizens, it would exempt them from the operation of the special laws and from the police [p417] regulations which they considered to be necessary for their own safety. It would give to persons of the negro race, who were recognised as citizens in any one State of the Union, the right to enter every other State whenever they pleased, singly or in companies, without pass or passport, and without obstruction, to sojourn there as long as they pleased, to go where they pleased at every hour of the day or night without molestation, unless they committed some violation of law for which a white man would be punished; and it would give them the full liberty of speech in public and in private upon all subjects upon which its own citizens might speak; to hold public meetings upon political affairs, and to keep and carry arms wherever they went."
"In that paragraph, Taney is not referring to some United States citizen."
Yes he is.
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.