Hollis Wayne Fincher


PDA






H23gsr
April 13, 2007, 02:46 PM
What ever happened to Wayne Fincher? He was the big story but then it died away. I read that he was found guilty but that's all I could find, Thanks

If you enjoyed reading about "Hollis Wayne Fincher" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!
DKSuddeth
April 13, 2007, 04:35 PM
Hollis was found guilty and is due to be sentenced very soon.

MEH
April 13, 2007, 04:36 PM
Wasn't that the guy who was building 1919s and Stens, and then told the state to come and get him?

pcosmar
April 13, 2007, 04:48 PM
I followed this one.
He did build some arms in defiance of some unconstitutional laws.
He was denied a the right to defend himself in court.
Judge found that the constitution was not grounds for defense.
He was found guilty.
It's not over. Yet.

carnaby
June 24, 2007, 12:23 PM
Just sentenced to 6 1/2 years, IIRC.

Flyboy
June 24, 2007, 04:25 PM
He was denied a the right to defend himself in court.
Judge found that the constitution was not grounds for defense.
Would somebody--preferably with some sort of legal education--enlighten me as to what happened here? Ideally including the State's rationale for denying him such rights, if one was given, and how a judge was involved if he didn't get to go to court?

pacodelahoya
June 24, 2007, 04:43 PM
Just going on memory flyboy, but as I recall, everytime Fincher tried to bring up the 2A, the judge would stop court, and explain to the jury that we were not debating the 2A, but the LAW, and would overrule Finchers argument.

jselvy
June 24, 2007, 04:45 PM
If the U.S. Constitution and its attendant amendments is not law, what, exactly, is it?

Jefferson

ServiceSoon
June 24, 2007, 05:13 PM
I was also wondering what happen with Fincher. I know he wanted to appeal, but I’m not sure what happen with that. He was a good poster child to fight for our right to bearrrr arms. Unfortunately, this story didn't perpetuate the ideals of past American principles, which happens to be pro liberty and freedom.

For the complete story perform a search. THR law intellectuals have already discussed that went wrong or right; depending on your opinion. I would like to get an update. Does anybody have that information?

Bartholomew Roberts
June 24, 2007, 06:10 PM
Would somebody--preferably with some sort of legal education--enlighten me as to what happened here? Ideally including the State's rationale for denying him such rights, if one was given, and how a judge was involved if he didn't get to go to court?

The rationale is that the jury decides matters of fact and the judge/court decides matters of law. Because Fincher was not disputing the facts; but the interpretation of the law, the trial court excluded evidence about the law. Should Fincher appeal his case, he will be allowed to argue the interpretation of the law angle there; but the lower court is bound by the previous decision of the 8th Circuit Court of Appeals that the Second Amendment does not protect an individual right and is not free to reverse the higher court.

If you search on Fincher's name, you should find a lengthy discussion of the common law tradition of law/fact distinction here at THR. Originally the Supreme Court took the view that the jury had the power to decide both law and fact; but later the Court challenged that interpretation by making the very astute argument that it would be chaos if laws passed by the elected representatives could be voided at will by 12 randomly chosen people.

Flyboy
June 24, 2007, 09:15 PM
Thank you, Bart. I figured it would be something like that.

And I take it you're not a fan of jury nullification?

Kentak
June 24, 2007, 09:19 PM
He was a good poster child to fight for our...

http://i39.photobucket.com/albums/e161/kentak/jakeposter1.jpg

Not a universally held opinion.

Bartholomew Roberts
June 24, 2007, 10:30 PM
And I take it you're not a fan of jury nullification?


It is as good as the people who are on the jury. I would like for good citizens to have more input into our judicial process and I think it would curb some of the current trends in passing laws, not enforcing them at first, and then gradually tightening up enforcement in a manner that is often biased and designed to prevent the general populace from recognizing how arbitrarily the law is enforced.

On the other hand, jury nullification has some decidedly nasty history as well. You can look at cases during the civil rights era where grown men killed unarmed women and children in cold blood and the jury didn't convict despite ample evidence because they supported the underlying racist ideology of those cowards.

From a practical standpoint, our court system and legislation are unworkable if any law can be undone at any time by whatever 12 people happen to be on the jury. With the emphasis on jury selection applied in modern trials, I think it would be a very dangerous precedent for our republic. Instead of being a tool used for freedom, it would instead concentrate power in the hands of the parties choosing the jury. I doubt the people on this board who speculate about nullifying an unjust law would get within a mile of a jury box in that system.

jselvy
June 24, 2007, 10:35 PM
I know I have never been on a jury. I only got summoned once and they let me go after a couple of seemingly innocuous questions.

Jefferson

pcosmar
June 24, 2007, 11:02 PM
They call on me a lot, but send me home after ONE question.
Several times in Florida, once since I have been back in Michigan.

ServiceSoon
June 24, 2007, 11:03 PM
Not a universally held opinion.

Would you agree that compared to the usual criminals who commit homicides or other serious felonies who are also charged with firearm violations, he has been our best option? What did he do that was so bad?

Kentak
June 24, 2007, 11:51 PM
Would you agree that compared to the usual criminals who commit homicides or other serious felonies who are also charged with firearm violations, he has been our best option? What did he do that was so bad?

For the record. AFAIK, Mr. Fincher has never harmed anyone--with his guns or otherwise. That makes him infinitely better than the "usual criminals who commit homicides or other serious felonies who are also charged with firearm violations," as you put it. Do I believe his "crime" harmed society or warranted his imprisonment? No, *I* don't. But, he thumbed his nose at the authorities and knowingly broke a law--as wrong as he (or others) believe that law to be, and is paying a price.

Best option? No way. Like it or not, the "militia movement" resonates only with a very small minority of the public, his 2A cause will be linked in the public's mind with the wackos that identify with the same causes. "Poster Boys" should help a cause, not harm it.

K

WeedWhacker
June 25, 2007, 05:46 AM
But, he thumbed his nose at the authorities and knowingly broke a law--as wrong as he (or others) believe that law to be, and is paying a price.

"[...] an act of the legislature, repugnant to the constitution, is void." - Chief Justice John Marshall, Marbury vs Madison, 1803

"When law and morality contradict each other, the citizen has the cruel choice of either losing his moral sense or losing his respect for the law." - Frederic Bastiat, The Law

The fact that Mr. Fincher was arrested in the first place shows what a total sham our current gov't (state, federal) is. Constitution*? Federal toilet paper.


* Then there's the opinion of other learned folk that the Constitution, itself, was a trap, being formed from a stealthy constitutional convention, filled with intentionally vague and weak language, and hurriedly forced upon the unsuspecting states by a handful of power brokers headed by Alex Hamilton. Compare with the Declaration of Independence.

Kentak
June 25, 2007, 09:44 AM
Mr. Whacker, sir,

A legal system in which anyone can ignore laws with impunity because *they* interpret the law to be unconstitutional is a system with no laws at all. The law must be found to be unconstitutional by the process of judicial review, as per M v. M., in order to avoid penalty.

K

DKSuddeth
June 25, 2007, 09:58 AM
so, kentak, as long as a court says that such and such law is indeed not a violation of the constitution, then all is perfectly well and good?

fletcher
June 25, 2007, 10:03 AM
If the U.S. Constitution and its attendant amendments is not law,

Yes, I somehow recall it being "the supreme law of the land."

Kentak
June 25, 2007, 10:15 AM
so, kentak, as long as a court says that such and such law is indeed not a violation of the constitution, then all is perfectly well and good?

I don't know; I'm not a constitutional lawyer.

What I said was that I can't expect to rob a bank with legal impunity by claiming by my own warped interpretation of the constitution that such laws against bank robbery are void. If SCOTUS agrees with me, then that's a different story.

ar10
June 25, 2007, 10:18 AM
Bart:
Didn't America stop being a "Republic" sometime around the late 50's and early 60's??????.
I know we started out as a "Republic" in 1776.
sorry: Didn't intend to hijack a thread.
here's one link, there are thousands more:
http://www.serendipity.li/jsmill/baska01.htm

geekWithA.45
June 25, 2007, 10:20 AM
My opinion of Mr. Fincher's activities is that legal stunts are not for amateurs.

Had he performed even rudimentary research on the matter, he would have realized that he would be sitting in jail next to the previous clowns who tried that stunt, and who also achieved nothing larger than their own demise.

It seems this particular legal stunt gets tried every 15 years or so.

If you're gonna fight, fight smart.

H23gsr
June 25, 2007, 11:09 AM
While I personally think that the '86 ban should be ruled unconstitutional, I wish he would have put more thought into his approach.

Bartholomew Roberts
June 25, 2007, 12:11 PM
so, kentak, as long as a court says that such and such law is indeed not a violation of the constitution, then all is perfectly well and good?

I think that misses the point doesn't it? In a land of 300 million people, there are going to be varying interpretations of the Constitution. Heck, I bet there are plenty varied interpretations of what is constitutional just on THR... so who is the ultimate arbitrer of what is or is not constitutional? The one that the most people agree with?

Didn't America stop being a "Republic" sometime around the late 50's and early 60's?

No, the United States of America meets just about every definition I've seen of a representative republic. The whole point of a republic is that the elected representatives are supposed to give a voice to the people; yet by being an independent and hopefully thoughtful human being, not give in to the baser moods of the mob. To that degree, a representative is only as good as who you put in the job. This protects the minority from oppression by the majority in theory; but even under a republic, oppression of the minority by the majority isn't unheard of (ask Rosa Parks how well a representative republic was protecting her rights in the 50s).

If I was going to narrow down the problem, I would say that it is not that we don't have a republic, it is that we have too many citizens who do not have the time or inclination to monitor what their representatives are doing. I don't say that as criticism - it is a fairly daunting task for a single individual to follow everything that goes on. By contrast, corporations and businesses DO stay involved and can afford to hire people to pursue just that end. So over time, our representation tilts that way because that is who is involved in the system.

This is one reason the NRA is so powerful. They are like a corporation that can deliver not only money; but 4 million votes.

DKSuddeth
June 25, 2007, 02:30 PM
I think that misses the point doesn't it? In a land of 300 million people, there are going to be varying interpretations of the Constitution. Heck, I bet there are plenty varied interpretations of what is constitutional just on THR... so who is the ultimate arbitrer of what is or is not constitutional? The one that the most people agree with?
unfortunately, the one that I hear the most, nowadays, is that the USSC is the arbitor of what the constitution means. Sadly, the ones that should be, don't really get to say anymore.

Bartholomew Roberts
June 25, 2007, 05:11 PM
OK, so who should be the ultimate arbiter of what the Constitution means in your opinion and how does that work in a practical sense?

ar10
June 25, 2007, 11:30 PM
I just can't see how it's a republic. Presidents are elected by Electorial College, not by the people or popular vote. Our country has a lot of problems that can be worked out, however I have yet to see a single elected official that has not been corrupted in some form or another, and most are muliti-millionaires. I also see major legislation being passed that hurts majority of Americans. I also see election games played in key states where the loser actually is the winner. This is not government by the people it's government by a very, very small minority.
I also think most voters realize this and just give up voting or "go with the flow" in the false hope their jobs will be secure. I read somewhere Nations fall from within long before they're conquered from without. And I've seen that process ever since deregulation of business during the Reagan Administration. I don't think that's what the majority of Americans want now or what they wanted in 1776.

Bartholomew Roberts
June 25, 2007, 11:47 PM
I just can't see how it's a republic. Presidents are elected by Electorial College, not by the people or popular vote.

That is pretty much what a Republic is... instead of direct democracy by the people, they elect representatives who exercise that authority for the people. If the people become sufficiently displeased with their representative, they can replace them. After all the electoral college didn't come about in the 1960s, it has been here since the country was formed precisely because it represents the basic principle of a republic.

DKSuddeth
June 26, 2007, 06:01 AM
OK, so who should be the ultimate arbiter of what the Constitution means in your opinion and how does that work in a practical sense?It is 'we the people'. We wrote it, we enumerated certain powers, and we are the ones with the ability and power to amend it. Granted, we do this through our elected reps, but the courts only job is supposed to be deciding via the letter of the supreme law of the land, whether something goes beyond the enumerated powers of the constitution or not and not to decide that someone doesn't have this specific right in this specific circumstance.

WeedWhacker
June 29, 2007, 06:21 AM
The short answer is this:

Wayne Fincher built some Constitutionally-protected machines for his own use within one state... and the authorities chose an arbitrary time to come and haul him away, Mr. Fincher having harmed no one, all based on the tenous claim to the only possibly legitimate reason they have for such a farce: the interstate commerce clause.

Remember, the feds can do nothing unless explicitly authorized by the Constitution, which is why a few choice "weasel phrases" get stretched to such insane proportions.

Whether or not federal authorities arrested Wayne Fincher is of no consequence because the supreme law of the land (Constitution) protects such weapons as Mr. Fincher made, regardless of what some black-robed tyrants may or may not have said.

If you enjoyed reading about "Hollis Wayne Fincher" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!