I'm sure several Freepers have them.
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.
I'm sure several Freepers have them.
It's in the state's interest to have a state militia. If they have no militia, they need no second amendment protection.
"Read the 2ndA again. The right is recognized and defended so that, among other things, the gov't can call up the "militia" from a populace already armed and trained."
I did. Did you?
It says a "well regulated militia". The U.S. Constitution says "with officers appointed by the state". Their arms are protected by the second amendment.
"The Congressionally-defined "unorganized militia" can be called up, and if they are called up it will surely be at a time allowing for scant training and little equipment - those who show had better bring their own suitable stuff and know how to use it."
The U.S. Constitution provides for the federal government to supply the arms and training.
At 10 feet, what do you get with that -- about 500 fps? Hell, I can throw shot faster than that!
Um...the 2nd Amendment protects the right of "the people", not the state.
If the state has no "state militia", then do the people still have a "right to keep and bear arms"? or does it evaporate because there is, in your apparent view, no militia for those arms to be kept and born in?
And if it doesn't? As I noted: should the need for calling up the "unorganized militia" arise, it will most likely be at a time that the feds are unable to supply adequate arms and training. Isn't the core point of the 2nd Amendment to allow "the people" to "keep and bear arms" precisely so there CAN be a "well-regulated militia" called up on short order, to wit: people can arrive already armed and self-trained? shouldn't "the people" be able to provide for national/state/local/self security, even if various levels of government neglect their power to prepare accordingly?
Care to stand in front of one? didn't think so.
You bet! And that right is protected by the state constitution.
What if the state constitution does NOT protect that right?
Example: New York's constitution does not provide such protection, and NY law aggressively forbids "all the terrible implements of the soldier" (today that being MGs, DDs, etc.).
What if the federal gov't infringes that right?
Example: per this thread, Fincher has been convicted of not registering unregisterable (per 922(o)) MGs.
Almost.
The core point of the 2nd Amendment is to allow "the people" to "keep and bear arms" as part of a "well-regulated militia" to be called up on short order, to wit: people can arrive already armed and self-trained.
Then the state pretty much has free reign to pass whatever laws they wish, short of total disarmament.
Bump.
The issue is clearly NOT whether juries have a right to nullify--they obviously do. In this case, if the jury would have come back with a not guilty verdict, what could the state have done? The answer is nothing; thus, the jury has a right to nullify.
The issue, however, is whether a party can argue for jury nullification. The judge said no, and this appears to square with the law in this country for at least a couple hundred years.
How short of? muskets?
In todays real-world wars, anything short of an assault rifle (save special applications) is reasonably considered inadequate.
But if there isn't a formal militia to be part of, you're saying they can be disarmed? They can't show up armed & trained to a militia called in short order, if they're not allowed to arm and train absent a militia.
Right now, Congress has designated me a militia member (able-bodied male aged 17-45) ... but per 922(o) forbids my owning an M16. Should I be called up, odds are there won't be adequate arms and little time for training (situation will be truly desperate before they get around to calling me up). I _would_ arm & train accordingly, but would end up in the slammer for a decade if I tried (see Fincher). The US militia, outside the NG, exists only as a legal hypothetical. I can't arrive suitably armed (good/new condition M16) and trained (lots of range time with it). Doesn't that undermine the whole point of the 2ndA?
What of the natural right that the BoR recognizes (does not grant) in the 2ndA? are states free to trample rights?
The jury has to figure it out for themselves? few jurors know it's an option they have; to the contrary, most jurors think it is _not_ an option, and are told so by the judges (directly or indirectly).
I knew I'd have to Google it.
It certainly seems to be the case that jurors have to figure it out themselves. You are right that judges often instruct juries that they are required to follow the law as given by the judge, but what if they don't?
There's just no questioning that juries have the right and power to nullify.
I think we ought to be clear on this debate before we waste days on jury nullification. The issue is whether a party can ARGUE nullification.
Short of long guns, probably. Cities that have banned guns left the long guns.
Who said disarmed? I said if there was no "well regulated militia" there's nothing for the second amendment to protect from infringement.
"Right now, Congress has designated me a militia member (able-bodied male aged 17-45) ... but per 922(o) forbids my owning an M16."
If you were part of a well regulated militia they couldn't do that.
"The US militia, outside the NG, exists only as a legal hypothetical."
Yes. But, at any time, a state could reactivate one outside of the NG.
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.