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.
According to the courts, the second amendment only protects your RKBA as part of a militia.
That's a collective right, as it only exists in relation to a government-established group. Absent the gov't-organized militia, the individual has no right (in your arguments) and the gov't can ban private arms ownership.
I think he's sort of a logic-savant, emerging from his dysfunctional haze to trip over gems the rest of us have overlooked.
'-- We, as a society, decide which rights we will protect --- We can choose not to protect your right to arms.
If and when a majority of the people decide that we should, then we will. Given that we're a self-governing nation, there's nothing to stop the majority from deciding this as the state pretty much has free reign to pass whatever laws they wish. --'
Our anti-gun collectivist FReekers never give up.
Dude, you already posted the same thing to the same guy at 225!
Anyone know what is involved in getting a permit to own a machine gun?
So the 2nd Amendment only protects a "right of the people to keep and bear arms" IF the government deigns to organize a militia? No gov't-organized militia means no 2nd Amendment?
(Please answer this one. This is key for me understanding your view.)
Touchy, touchy! I wasn't really upset, just yerking your chain a little.
It does square with 6th Amendment interpretation in this country. I've read your link. The only cases that were cited in that link in which attorneys successfully argued for jury nullification are pre-constitutional cases.
Indeed, most telling is Zenger's case, which was cited in your link. Tell me, do you read much? Have you read Zenger's case? The Crown in Zenger's case argued (and the justices agreed, in fact) that there was no right of jury nullification. In fact, Zenger's first two attorneys were disbarred for criticizing the Court, in many instances on its stance against jury nullification. It was really only Hamilton's reputation that allowed Zenger to present his defense at all.
Your link, again, confuses the issue of the POWER to nullify and the right to ARGUE for nullification. I suggest you learn the distinction, along with the FIJA. Of course, I suspect that the FIJA is well aware of the distinction, but is more than happy to dupe the folks that fail to grasp such minute, but important, details.
It is still proper to argue constitutionality. But it is argued to the judge, not the jury. This didn't change in 1934.
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.
It does not square with the Constitutional law of the 6th as written.
It does square with 6th Amendment interpretation in this country.
Yes indeed, we have been arguing about "6th Amendment interpretation" since the 6th was written, -- and again, that ~is~ the issue here.
The issue here is whether a party [Fincher] can inform the jury about the law he is accused of violating.
The judge said no, and this does not square with the supreme law [the VI amendment] that has applied in this country for at least a couple hundred years.
The 'interpretation' you advocate does not allow the accused to have an "impartial jury" -- "informed of the nature and cause of the accusation" -- "against him".
Parse the language of the 6th as you will, but the intent is clear;
-- except to those who back a gov't using un-delegated powers.
Lawyers swear oaths to uphold the principles of our Constitution, not 'interpretations' that deprive their peers of the liberty to own a machine gun. -- I suggest you learn that distinction.
The issue here is whether a party [Fincher] can inform the jury about the law he is accused of violating.
The judge said no, and this does not square with the supreme law [the VI amendment] that has applied in this country for at least a couple hundred years.
The 'interpretation' you advocate does not allow the accused to have an "impartial jury" -- "informed of the nature and cause of the accusation" -- "against him".
LL; -- why do you argue against your own right to defend yourself in front of a jury by informing them of an unjust law?
Where? What law? You provide a link that cites to Zenger's Case (a case that pre-dates the Sixth Amendment by 60 years, incidentally), in which the Crown and the Justices make crystal clear that jury nullification is not appropriate for the jury.
Chief Justice Delancey's instruction to the jury:
The great pains Mr. Hamilton [Zenger's attorney--PV] has taken to show how little regard juries are to pay to the opinion of judges, and his insisting so much upon the conduct of some judges in trials of this kind, is done no doubt with a design that you should take but very little notice of what I might say upon this occasion. I shall therefore only observe to you that as the facts or words in the information are confessed, the only thing that can come in question before you is whether the words as set forth in the information make a libel. And that is a matter of law, no doubt, and which you may leave to the Court.
Again, as I have stated before, the FIJA only provides examples of instances in which juries have nullified.
I ask again: where is the "Sixth Amendment interpretation since the Sixth was written" that demonstrates that attorneys have the right to argue nullification? Where is that law?
No problem. It can be hard to tell humor from actual ire, for both of us, evidently.
Latest story from Arkansas:
Fayetteville : Militia’s Fincher to fight verdicts on gun charges --- BY SHARON C. FITZGERALD
Posted on Saturday, January 13, 2007
URL: http://www.nwanews.com/adg/News/178705/
FAYETTEVILLE — A Washington County man faces up to 20 years in federal prison after a jury convicted him Friday on illegal weapons charges.
Hollis Wayne Fincher, 60, smiled at relatives and supporters after the verdict was read in U. S. District Court in Fayetteville. He will remain in the Sebastian County jail in Fort Smith and will be sentenced within 45 to 60 days.
The jury deliberated more than four hours Friday before convicting Fincher on charges of possessing machine guns and possession of a firearm not registered in the National Firearms Registration and Transfer Record.
Wendy Johnson, assistant U. S. attorney, said the investigation of the Militia of Washington County continues.
“[Fincher and his supporters ] are good people, and they believe very strongly,” Johnson said. “Those beliefs are just contrary to the laws of the land.”
Defense attorney Oscar Stilley said he plans to appeal the case “until we get a not-guilty verdict.” He said jurors appeared to have wrestled with the law as they deliberated.
The jury sent three questions to U. S. District Judge Jimm L. Hendren, including one asking how they could reconcile being unable to make a unanimous decision on the registration charge. They concluded deliberations two hours later.
“I don’t feel like they were happy about this [decision ],” Stilley said. “There were no smiles on their faces and no laughing.”
Fincher is the lieutenant commander in the Militia of Washington County and never denied owning the guns. Other militia members expect to be arrested on federal gun charges, Stilley said.
The U. S. Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives began investigating Fincher in May, several months after he appeared on the front page of a newspaper holding a machine gun.
“[Mr. Fincher’s ] beliefs are so strong, and it’s in his heart and in his soul,” Stilley said. “”Why else would you stand in front of a camera holding a machine gun ?”
The defense is planning to ask Hendren to sentence Fincher to 30 months in federal prison, the sentence prosecutors offered Fincher if he would plead guilty, Stilley said. “There are a lot of prices you have to pay to have your day in court,” Stilley said. The defense put no witnesses on the stand. Hendren barred Stilley from introducing evidence that Fincher believes the U. S. Constitution allows him to build and own machine guns and sawed-off shotguns. Fincher was arrested Nov. 9 after federal agents seized 15 illegal machine guns and sawed-off shotguns during a search of his Washington County home. All of the guns were examined and found to be in working order. “Our strong belief in God will get us through this,” said Wanda Walker, Fincher’s sister. “This isn’t the last of Hollis Wayne Fincher. We believe that justice will be done in his case.”
To contact this reporter: sfitzgerald@arkansasonline. com
Allow me to clarify:
According to the lower federal courts, the second amendment only protects your RKBA as part of a militia.
The 2nd Amendment protects the right of the people to keep and bear arms as part of a well regulated militia from federal infringement. IF the state government deigns not to organize a militia, there's no need for second amendment protection, is there? If the state later organizes a well regulated militia, the second amendment is there, ready and waiting to provide protection from federal infringement.
True, but his stupidity is unmistakable.
Of course there is. The people must be able to arm & train themselves in preparation for need, even if their representatives are foolish enough not to sponsor organization thereof outside impending crisis.
Put another personal way: I may be called up as part of the militia. Facing great and urgent need, the standing military may be inadequate, but need for soldiers still be pressing. Unable to provide suitable equipment, and having no time for training, I could face what other conscripts have found: as depicted in "Enemy at the Gates", my training could amount to "run that way", and my gear amount to "here's 5 rounds, pick up a rifle if the guy ahead of you drops his" - hardly a recipe for effective national defense. Far better I have - even if it's on my own dime and time - a good-condition M4, suitable ammo, and leisure to learn their use, so when called up I'm ready to be effective instead of merely a bullet sponge.
Thus: my right to keep and bear arms should not be infringed, as a well-regulated militia can be most rapidly and efficiently achieved to protect the security of a free state by having a populace already self-armed and self-trained, regardless of how inept and negligent the government may be in exercising its power to equip and organize a militia in less urgent times.
I finally, after years of following your posts, understand your view. I can confidently say with certainty: you are wrong, as such a view - implemented in law and upheld by courts - amounts to national suicide by codified willful ineptitude. You would have us as a populace disarmed by leaders who hold their "subjects" in contempt ... only to, in times of great crisis, call them out for defense only to find them empty-handed and incompetent. We are a country "of and by the people", and only a populace free to equip and train independent of government-organized militia can truly be "well regulated" as the Founding Fathers meant the term.
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.