Posted on 01/12/2007 2:09:53 PM PST by Wasichu
How did you decide that? Size? I guess all handguns are for armed robbery not defense. What a gun is use for is decided by the intent in the mind of the possessor. Guns don't have intent guns fire projectiles and will do so for any purpose the one who has it chooses.
A friend of mine carried a sawed off shotgun as a Marine in Vietnam. I have seen pictures of soldiers in Iraq with sawed off shotguns. These days they are outfitted with folding stocks, lights and other tactical goodies but they are still sawed off shotguns.
That's the part that gets me. It seems that if there is a time a person should be able to have "free speech", then that time oughta be when you are defending your good name!
If any evidence is not alowwed to be presented, seems that would be an appealable issue itself.
I am also curious and haven't seen the details about whether he was pro se or not.
Don't think so...Sawed off refers to barrel length not folding stocks. The sawed off shot guns laws are actually minimum barrel length requirements. Typically sawed off weapons are used by gangbangers as robbery weapons and intimidation weapons.
Then it wasn't a military issue weapon. The standard issue SG in Vietnam was the Remington 870 Express, a 12 gauge pump. The modifications weren't length but chokes, duckbills, stocks and camouflage. There were a few Winchester and Stevens but they were 12 gauge pumps too.
That is exactly the point. In his trial he was forbidden to raise constitutional issues because they are appellate court process. He was in a federal district court. NOW he may raise constitutional issues if Fincher decides to appeal his conviction in an appellate court.
I don't know if my friend's shotgun in Vietnam was mil issue or not. I know he also carried a revolver that his folks sent him from the states. I believe it was a .357 and probably a S&W but it was years ago that he told me about it so I may have forgotten calibre and make. You are simply wrong about sawed off shotguns not being used by U.S. troops in war. Whether they are standard issue or not is irrelevant. They are legal and are used.
Well, seems to me that to not be able to say anything in court in your own defense violates basic due process. No matter what the charge.
This statement is just ignorant tripe.
Given that the jury probably never heard WHY no defense was presented, (due to the judge's ruling probably being rendered with the jury absent,) they probably assumed he had none to offer. when left with that assumption, what else could they conclude?
The Gov. Org. found a "judge" who was happy to do their bidding, preventing the defense from putting their intended case, or even mentioning the Constitution, 2nd Amendment, true definition of "Militia", his own states definition of "Militia", Jury Nullification, etc.
IOW, he was railroaded with the help of a compliant "judge".
I have been following the details of this case, it serves to prove that "Fair Trial" in America is now a quaint MYTH!
This will be a very interesting read, book mark this one
I remember listening to the tapes between Bill Clinton and Gennifer Flowers. She kept asking him because she knew she was being investigated "What should I say?"
Clinton kept answering "Whatever you do, don't lie, deny".
Odd thing to say, what?
If you "lie", they might be able to prove it. If you "deny", you have somehow shifted or expanded the burden of proof. (In your favor).
It's a subtle difference. But it's the kind of games losers oops I mean lawyers play.
And Clinton, luv him or hate him, was one heck of a lawyer.
They were explicit and narrow, tailored to ensure a guilty verdict.
The jury was spoon fed a false, dumbed down version of the law's.
There were so many false statements made by the prosecution and upheld by the "judge" that several inditements' of the prosecution and judge should follow, but will not.
One example, the "judge" ruled that our RKBA is a COLLECTIVE right not applicable to individuals!
This despite the Ashcroft DOJ's very clear and public determination that the 2nd. IS in fact an individual right!
Of course now we have Gonzo, who is as anti-RKBA as anyone in the Bush administration can be.
" Fincher had the machine guns and they weren’t registered as required by federal law. "
Here is the quote I find applicable-
""No one is bound to obey an unconstitutional law and no courts are bound to enforce it. The general rule is that an unconstitutional statute, though having the form and the name of law, is in reality no law, but is wholly void, and ineffective for any purpose, since unconstitutionality dates from the time of its enactment, and not merely from the date of the decision so branding it."?16th American Jurisprudence 2d, Section 177 late 2nd, section 256:
Hadn't read 313 in a while. Good catch. I stand corrected.
True.
But if they insist on second amendment protection, they'd better be members of a well regulated State Militia with officers appointed by the state.
Yeah, that's why the U.S. Supreme Court in US v Miller kept making references to "The Militia".
It is a right of the people -- said right being protected by the state. Since the state didn't protect his right to possess a machine gun, he turned to the second amendment for protection. The judge essentially said, "Nice try, but no".
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.