Defendant is accused of having 'militia' weaponry

[Bartholomew Roberts]

I'd like to think that a US citizen could at least use the founding document of our system our government in his defense

Fincher can (and did) use the Second Amendment in his defense. The judge ruled that the jury could not hear arguments that the Second was an individual right (because that is a matter of law). Fincher will have to make most of the legal arguments on appeal.

It should be easy for Stilley to show that since the Hale opinion claimed that Miller's conviction was upheld by the supremes when in fact it was only remanded that undue prejudice was put on Miller and thus on any opinion that relied on Hale.

Well, I certainly agree that the Hale opinion stretches things by saying SCOTUS upheld Miller's conviction when they reversed and remanded telling the court to consider evidence of whether the weapons in question had a reasonable relationship to a well-regulated militia. I might even use that as an intro to distinguish all the ways Fincher's case is different from Hale if I thought the judges wouldn't consider it nitpicking their decision and take offense.

The problem though is that the 8th Circuit did consider in Hale whether the weapon in question had a reasonable relationship to a well-regulated militia and they said no. They even went so far as to say "'Technical' membership in a state militia (e.g., membership in an "unorganized" state militia) or membership in a non-governmental military organization is not sufficient to satisfy the "reasonable relationship" test. Oakes, 564 F.2d at 387. Membership in a hypothetical or "sedentary" militia is likewise insufficient. See Warin, 530 F.2d 103."

So you are going to have to show them why Fincher's case is different and you will have to prove a reasonable relationship to a well-regulated militia. One thing that Fincher has going for him is that his lawyer has actually tried to present evidence along these lines according to your article. Hale's lawyer made the argument; but presented no evidence at the trial level.

 

[Bartholomew Roberts]

I'd like to think that a US citizen could at least use the founding document of our system our government in his defense

Fincher can (and did) use the Second Amendment in his defense. The judge ruled that the jury could not hear arguments that the Second was an individual right (because that is a matter of law). Fincher will have to make most of the legal arguments on appeal.

It should be easy for Stilley to show that since the Hale opinion claimed that Miller's conviction was upheld by the supremes when in fact it was only remanded that undue prejudice was put on Miller and thus on any opinion that relied on Hale.

Well, I certainly agree that the Hale opinion stretches things by saying SCOTUS upheld Miller's conviction when they reversed and remanded telling the court to consider evidence of whether the weapons in question had a reasonable relationship to a well-regulated militia. I might even use that as an intro to distinguish all the ways Fincher's case is different from Hale if I thought the judges wouldn't consider it nitpicking their decision and take offense.

The problem though is that the 8th Circuit did consider in Hale whether the weapon in question had a reasonable relationship to a well-regulated militia and they said no. They even went so far as to say "Technical" membership in a state militia (e.g., membership in an "unorganized" state militia) or membership in a non-governmental military organization is not sufficient to satisfy the "reasonable relationship" test. Oakes, 564 F.2d at 387. Membership in a hypothetical or "sedentary" militia is likewise insufficient. See Warin, 530 F.2d 103."

So you are going to have to show them why Fincher's case is different and you will have to prove a reasonable relationship to a well-regulated militia. One thing that Fincher has going for him is that his lawyer has actually tried to present evidence along these lines according to your article. Hale's lawyer made the argument on appeal; but presented no evidence at the trial level.

 

[bogie]

Stretchman, at the time of the framing of the Bill of Rights, the term "regulated" essentially meant "functional." Ever notice old clocks with the words "regulator" on 'em? That implied that they were accurate.

And machineguns are not illegal. They are taxed, and if they were built without the correct paperwork since (date of choice...), then they should be, at the most, treated as untaxed items... In the best of all possible worlds, we'd go back to the days before 1934... the days when there was a LOT less crime, and children could go for a walk without their parents worrying about their safety.

You may now go back to the Democratic Underground.

 

[poor_richard]

The law states, “the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.” That's the law, and any law or statute that contradicts it is a violation of said law. The Second Amendment doesn’t address it as the right of the Militia, or the right of the States, or the right of the United States. It’s the right of the people. In it’s wording it recognizes that the people have this right, and further stipulates that this right “shall not be infringed”.

If these statutes are not violations of that law, then one must accept that; we aren’t “people”; guns aren’t “arms”; and being arrested, thrown in jail, and having your property (gun) confiscated are not “infringements”. Personally, I believe, no, I know that those are all bold-faced lies.

People can argue the legalities of this endlessly. Unfortunately, they all too often let their own personal agenda (however deeply buried it may be) interfere with any objectivity. That’s just human nature (even among judges).

Whether or not you agree with the legal, or moral aspect of the case is of little importance to what it actually represents. DEMOCRACY (the same old story of a sheep and two wolves voting for what will be dinner). The founding fathers warned us not to go down that path because it leads to tyranny. Yet, we as a country and society embrace it despite their warnings.

People in this thread have suggested that this country is doomed, but it isn’t because of anything that will happen in this trial. It’s because so many Amerikans (the minority) are so willing to take away their neighbors rights just because they don’t approve of them, and so many other Amerikans (the majority) are unwilling to stand up for those whose rights are being oppressed or taken away. They’ll use all kinds of excuses like, “it’s for the children”, or “there will be blood in the streets”, or “we can’t have just any maniac owning a gun”, or “as long as they can prove they are properly trained and qualified”. The excuses are many, but represent the same concept. Cowardice. It took me a long time to reach that conclusion because I honestly just didn’t want to believe it. I wanted to believe that there were legitimate reasons for such assaults on our freedoms. I ran out of excuses on that front.

If they can throw Fincher in jail, then they can do it to any of us, and they don’t need to catch us with a shorty shoty, or fully automatic rifle to do it.

If ye love wealth greater than liberty, the tranquility of servitude greater than the animating contest for freedom, go home from us in peace. We seek not your counsel, nor your arms. Crouch down and lick the hand that feeds you; and may posterity forget that ye were our countrymen.
-- Samuel Adams

 

[Stretchman]

Stretchman, at the time of the framing of the Bill of Rights, the term "regulated" essentially meant "functional." Ever notice old clocks with the words "regulator" on 'em? That implied that they were accurate.


Ok, but at the time of the framing of the bill of rights, there was no standing militia regulated by the states, either. Now, states have their National Guard. I also don't have a problem with the Governor, or whoever, appointing or commisioning personnel in times of need, much like a sheriff who can deputize people, but it isn't something that someone can simply decide to do for themselves.

And possesion of a machine gun without the proper licensing ( not a tax ) is a criminal offense. Otherwise, this guy wouldn't be in trouble for it. And no, I am not a Democrat.

I also understand that the people have the right to keep and bear arms. But in the days when that statement was written, I don't expect that anyone could have imagined a machine gun, or what a machine gun is actually capable of. And if that isn't bad enough, what criminals do with them. Being from Miami at one time, I got to see first hand the handiwork of some of the cocaine cowboys with their UZis shooting up the city. Bad times then. Machine guns are illegal now because there's no real purpose in having one for civilian usage. Same goes for modifying a shotgun by cutting down the barrel. There's a reason why they are against the law. People who have an understanding of firearms and their purposes shouldn't really require an explanation.

I am all for people standing up for their rights. I am all for the Governement to regulate firearms of type that have no common usage. Common sense dictates what can happen to an arsenal of weapons that are in the wrong hands, or fall into the wrong hands. Myself, I cannot see what people have their shorts in a bundle about when it comes to this. Really simple. Obey the rules, stay out of jail. And nothing about those rules seem like a danger to my frreedoms. In fact, quite the contrary. They do more to preserve my freedoms than they are a threat to them. I am glad the magazine ban is over now, though. There are some things that were done that are beyond stupid.

If it was up to me, everyone who is able bodied would have and have to qualify with a military type rifle of specified caliber. Yearly. That would end this debate for good. And it would make provisions for regulation a whole lot easier.

Stretch
Quit cigs 1W 22h 30m ago. So far saved $47.62, 317 cigs not smoked.and counting .

 

[nobody_special]

Stretchman, you're showing an astounding ignorance of how this country is supposed to work.

Ok, but at the time of the framing of the bill of rights, there was no standing militia regulated by the states, either.

That depends on whether or not you use the modern definition of "regulated."

According to federal law, there are two militias: "organized" and "unorganized." The "unorganized" militia is all able-bodied males between 17 and 45. By the definition of "well-regulated" at the time the 2nd amendment was written, Filcher is a member of a well-regulated militia.

Now, states have their National Guard.

...which didn't exist until approximately the beginning of the 20th century. So explain to me, where were the "well-regulated militias" before that time?

I also don't have a problem with the Governor, or whoever, appointing or commisioning personnel in times of need, much like a sheriff who can deputize people, but it isn't something that someone can simply decide to do for themselves.

Why not? Where is that written in the Constitution?

Indeed, the Constitution protects the right of the people to peaceably assemble, and to bear arms in a militia.

And possesion of a machine gun without the proper licensing ( not a tax ) is a criminal offense. Otherwise, this guy wouldn't be in trouble for it. And no, I am not a Democrat.

He's in trouble because Congress passed a law which says it's illegal ($200 tax which is not accepted for post-1986 manufacture, etc.). But where is it written that Congress has the right to pass such a law? The government relies on the interstate commerce clause for these cases... do you see any interstate commerce involved in this case? I don't.

Congress passes unconstitutional (i.e. illegal) laws all the time - they don't care. The laws are probably written by lobbyists half the time anyway. Sometimes these laws are overturned by the courts. And sometimes, the courts make bad decisions.

I also understand that the people have the right to keep and bear arms. But in the days when that statement was written, I don't expect that anyone could have imagined a machine gun, or what a machine gun is actually capable of.

You're absolutely correct there, but Congress can't (err, shouldn't be able to) just make it illegal by passing a bill. The 2nd amendment can only be modified by passing another amendment. The Constitution can not be over-ridden by a bill of Congress.

Machine guns are illegal now because there's no real purpose in having one for civilian usage. Same goes for modifying a shotgun by cutting down the barrel. There's a reason why they are against the law. People who have an understanding of firearms and their purposes shouldn't really require an explanation.

The purpose is in military use. And the point of the 2nd amendment is that the citizenry shall be able to protect themselves from enemies (including the federal government) via military means. A militia is, after all, a non-professional military organization.

I am all for people standing up for their rights. I am all for the Governement to regulate firearms of type that have no common usage. Common sense dictates what can happen to an arsenal of weapons that are in the wrong hands, or fall into the wrong hands.

That's a fallacious argument. First, these weapons have a purpose... indeed, all weapons do. Second, if weapons "fall into the wrong hands" sure - there is a problem; but by that argument, why stop with NFA-restricted firearms? Let's ban all guns, and knives, and pointy sticks. After all, they're dangerous in the wrong hands...

Ooops, maybe not. How about an alternative proposal? Put the "wrong hands" in prison.

Myself, I cannot see what people have their shorts in a bundle about when it comes to this. Really simple. Obey the rules, stay out of jail. And nothing about those rules seem like a danger to my frreedoms. In fact, quite the contrary. They do more to preserve my freedoms than they are a threat to them.

Why do people have their shorts in a bunch? Well, we have domestic wiretapping, signing statements (including the recent one about opening mail), unjustifiable invasions of foreign countries, the Patriot act and national security letters, CIA prisons and gitmo, torture of prisoners, confiscation of property without a trial or conviction... I could go on and on and on. Our rights, our freedoms are already gone. And "the rules" are getting pretty restrictive. Have you tried to fly lately? (Without an ID?) Have you been stopped at a DUI checkpoint and had officers shine flashlights into your car, or have dogs sniff it, while you get your license and registration? Have you tried to openly carry a couple thousand dollars in cash through a DUI checkpoint? (It'd be confiscated, and you probably wouldn't get it back.) Have you tried protesting a speech by the President? (Within view of the podium?)

Obey the rules, stay out of jail.

What if the rules are wrong? What if they are unreasonable? What if you try to follow them but end up in jail anyway? Oh, but that couldn't possibly happen. It's okay for the police to have machine guns and APCs and military training, they wouldn't ever serve a no-knock warrant on the wrong house, or shoot the wrong person, or abuse their power. Or shoot 51 times at unarmed people in a car, or taser a student in a library 6 times. So give up your rights... do it for the children. If you have nothing to hide, what are you afraid of?

Whatever.

I am glad the magazine ban is over now, though. There are some things that were done that are beyond stupid.

Actually the magazine ban would probably be a more effective method of preventing mass-murders than a ban on automatic weapons. It's difficult to fire full-auto for long if you only have 10 in the mag.

Is it a good idea for fully-automatic weapons (or short-barreled shotguns, RPGs, artillery, etc.) to be readily available to the public? I'm not sure. I don't have one, and I don't particularly want one either... but they were legal before the NFA in the 1930's, and it wasn't a problem until Prohibition. Maybe the problem is that people in this country are treated as criminals when they shouldn't be. (And, have you noticed how Prohibition required an amendment to the Constitution, while the War on Drugs did not? Why do you think that is? It couldn't be because Congress exceeded their authority and the courts failed to uphold the law, could it?)

And maybe the 2nd amendment needs to be re-visited in order to make the law more clear and uniform. In that case, I'm not sure what I'd support in terms of fully-automatic weapons. But the present CA ban on certain "evil" features, and the DC/NYC/Chicago (?) bans on handguns, are almost certainly unconstitutional... as is current law regarding NFA firearms. And the courts should support the rule of law - starting with the constitution - rather than whatever happens to be the current politically correct attitude.

 

[A. Patriot]

This is how the fed. gov wins these kind of cases. Prohibit the defense from defending the defendant and prohibit defense witnesses from testifying.

Pretty easy to win this way.

 

[cropcirclewalker]

Once again, I will quote from the NFA '34 Hearings to try to show what happens when you dance with the devil.

http://www.keepandbeararms.com/NRA/NFA.asp

McCormack is a .gov weasel, Fredrick is the president of the NRA.

Page 56
Mr. McCORMACK. What do people buy weapons for?

Mr. FREDERICK. People buy weapons for several purposes; one is for the protection of the person or property.

Mr. McCORMACK. That class of people have no fear about reasonable license requirements.

I am jumping in here since the statement seems pretty innocuous when written. Here McCormack is trying to tell Fredrick not to fear because this legislation is only aimed at removing these nasty weapons from criminals. The real harbinger here is that Fredrick should have noticed that the .gov weasel called it a license instead of a tax. This was supposed to be a tax bill.

The testimony continues....

Mr. FREDERICK. Not reasonable requirements.

Mr. McCORMACK. They have no fear of reasonable regulations as to licenses, if the weapons are necessary to meet a challenge to organized society.

Mr. FREDERICK. They buy pistols also to use for the purpose of training, in the event of military necessity.

Mr. McCORMACK. Those persons need not fear reasonable regulations.

Once again, McCormack lies to Fredrick that law abiding citizens who have no criminal aspirations need have no fear. "Don't worry old fella, it's John Dillinger and those other bad guys wer'e after. Not some old coot in Arkansas who thinks he is protecting the citizens of a county." (Pats Fredrick on the head)

Mr. FREDERICK. I beg your pardon?

Mr. McCORMACK. Those persons need have no fear of reasonable regulations.

Mr. FREDERICK. I think our difference may turn entirely upon what is reasonable.

Yes, those persons (insert Fincher here) have need have no fear of reasonable regulations. The third time must have been the charm. Fredrick rolled over to get his tummy rubbed.

Mr. MCCORMACK. You are not opposed to regulation?

Mr. FREDERICK. Not at all; I have advocated it.

This repartee will forever convince me that .gov is evil.

Well, forever until maybe Mr. Paul get elected pres. and shuts down the atf and excludes all the weasels working there from seeking a position of public trust from then on.

 

[Malum Prohibitum]

Stretchman

Are you contradicting yourself on purpose?

Machine guns are illegal now because there's no real purpose in having one for civilian usage. Same goes for modifying a shotgun by cutting down the barrel. There's a reason why they are against the law. People who have an understanding of firearms and their purposes shouldn't really require an explanation.
. . .

If it was up to me, everyone who is able bodied would have and have to qualify with a military type rifle of specified caliber.

 

[antsi]

-----quote-----
the quicker the next revolution starts...
---------------

How exactly are you going to have a revolution unless you have the mass of public opinion and support on your side? Small revolutions by tiny factions without popular support do not succeed.

 

[SWMAN]

After reading the information presented on this thread, I understand that the legal precedent interperting the 2A as a collective right by the Eighth Federal Circuit Court of Appeals is that the Federal Government could ban the private ownership and possession of weapons by individuals within the 8ths borders?

What are the practical implications of this ruling by the 8th, not the SCOTUS for indivdual gun owners?

Then why don't the Feds do it? Doesn't this ruling give cover to the Feds to do this, at least in the 8ths area of jurisdiciton or would the SCOTUS have to be the one ruling a collective right before all the US is affected?

 

[AndyC]

Machine guns are illegal now because there's no real purpose in having one for civilian usage. Same goes for modifying a shotgun by cutting down the barrel. There's a reason why they are against the law. People who have an understanding of firearms and their purposes shouldn't really require an explanation.

First, machineguns aren't illegal - restricted, perhaps, but certainly not illegal.

Second, using your logic as to "real purpose", why should people be allowed to own sports-cars if they're not permitted to drive faster than 70 mph anyway? How about I come to your house and point out all the stuff you don't "need"? You'd have very little left, I assure you - after that, you can tell me how it feels to have someone else decide for you what you "need".

As for understanding firearms and their purposes, I'll match my experience against yours any day, pal.

 

[cropcirclewalker]

Judge refuses to allow militia leader's testimony

http://www.nwaonline.net/articles/2007/01/12/news/011207fzfincher.txt

Machine gun case headed to the jury
This article was published on Thursday, January 11, 2007 10:15 PM CST in News
By Ron Wood
The Morning News

* Email this story
* Print this story
* Comment on this story

FAYETTEVILLE -- Hollis Wayne Fincher's machine gun trial will go to the jury today with the defense having presented no evidence or witnesses to the jury.

The defense rested Thursday after U.S. District Judge Jimm Larry Hendren ruled Fincher's proposed testimony inadmissible.

Fincher testified for more than an hour with the jury out of the courtroom so Hendren could decide if his testimony was admissible.

Hendren has repeatedly ruled the defense can attack the government's evidence but not the law that applies to the case. He also ruled, based on U.S. Supreme Court precedents, laws passed by Congress to regulate firearms do not violate the Second Amendment.

After hearing Fincher out, Hendren decided the testimony was aimed at challenging the legality of federal gun laws, not if Fincher had illegal, unregistered firearms in his possession.

Fincher maintains possession of the guns, which he does not deny, should not be criminalized because their possession was "reasonably related to a well regulated militia," based on the Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution.
*

Fincher said the group would have been "derelict" not to use inexpensive, available and effective military weaponry to protect their homes and state.

According to police, Fincher had two .308-caliber machine guns, homemade versions of the Browning model 1919. The other firearms were 9 mm STEN design submachine guns and a sawed-off shotgun.

"They were an ideal machine gun for a militia," Fincher said.

While the defense has tried to make the case an issue of the Constitution versus federal gun laws, the government has tried to make the case as simple as possible for jurors -- Fincher had the machine guns and they weren't registered as required by federal law.

A major issue has been whether the Militia of Washington County is a valid state militia for second amendment purposes. Hendren ruled it's not.

A state militia is an arm of the government under the governor who appoints officers at his discretion, according to case law. Former Gov. Mike Huckabee provided prosecutors a letter saying there was no recognized relationship between the state and the Militia of Washington County.

Fincher argued the group notified the governor it was forming and acquiring weapons and when he didn't respond in 10 days, they had the state's approval.

Hendren said members appear to have the best interest of their state and country at heart, but the outfit is, at best, an unorganized and unregulated militia.

Thursday morning, a federal firearms expert testified guns seized by federal agents at Fincher's Washington County home are machine guns as defined by federal law and are not properly registered.

"It's a machine gun," Earl Griffith, a firearms expert with the federal Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms, told jurors as he examined one of the guns seized.

Fincher said he had assembled about 10 of the Brownings and 50 of the STENs for the militia.

The Browning 1919s were originally made for the U.S. military and later sold to Israel, where they were modified to fire a .308-caliber round, Griffith said. They were later decommissioned and sold to dealers, who can legally sell the guns in the United States as "parts kits," minus the right-side plates that allow them to function as a fully automatic machine gun.

Plans and templates for the side plate are readily available on the Internet and were seized from Fincher's house, Griffith said.

The STEN-type guns were likely decommissioned guns from Britian sold as parts kits that were assembled here, Griffith said.

The shotgun, a common Remington design that was modified, is too short to be legal unless properly registered, Griffith said.

It's been illegal for civilians to own machine guns without permission from the U.S. Treasury Department since 1934.

Federal law permits the public to own machine guns manufactured and registered before 1986 under certain conditions. Guns made or imported after that date can be bought by law enforcement agencies but not the public.

Each new weapon is subject to a manufacturing tax and must be registered with the bureau's National Firearms Registry.

Both sides will present closing arguments to the jury this morning.

Hendren said he is concerned about sending both guns and ammunition to the jury room. He said he'll advise jurors not to explore how the guns operate without a U.S. Marshal present.

Legal Lingo

Precedent

Legal principle, created by a court decision, which provides an example or authority for judges deciding similar issues later. Decisions of higher courts are mandatorily precedent on lower courts. Decisions of the U.S. Supreme Court are generally binding on all other courts in the United States.

Source: www.lectlaw.com

Can you say "KANGAROO"?

All of Fincher's testimony got presented to the judge. The transcript will show it for appeal. Mr. Stilley's brief and points of law got presented to the court and if the judge screwed up by not letting the jury hear the testimony the appeals court will straighten him out.

There could still be some jury nullification too.

It's not hopeless yet.

Then we get sentencing. That when the townspeople could start showing up with the torches.

 

[LAR-15]

Hendren said he is concerned about sending both guns and ammunition to the jury room. He said he'll advise jurors not to explore how the guns operate without a U.S. Marshal present.

Just wow.

 

[cassandrasdaddy]

why

wow?

 

[ServiceSoon]

:banghead: I have had a Revelation. This method is not going to work. The facts are being twisted. If you read the federalist papers all of your questions will be answered. I have to ask...why did prohibition end? That is the only way that change will ever occur with respect to the topic at hand.

 

[Stretchman]

Ok, I'll clarify. ( Still have no idea how to quote ) on the statements I made.

Machine guns are illegal ( illegal is why this guy is on trial ) if you don't own them legally. They have no real civilan purpose. But, if you want to say that a militia member can be construed to be any able bodied person between ages blah, then they should own and have to qualify yearly with a military type weapon of specified caliber. When I qualified with the old M-16 ( .22 cal adapter ) in the USAF way back in the early 80s, we did not fire full auto. Militia members would not have to qualify with, or own, a machine gun. And this may fulfill the requirements of well regulated. Of course, calling them up for duty in Iraq might change their minds quite a bit about wanting to be members of any militia. Even if they did have a machine gun.

Glad I am 45 now. As far as weapons experience is concerned, I can only say that the F-111s I used to work on carried quite a bit more than any machine gun ever would, and they could hit a gnats butt from miles away without ever being seen or heard. The new planes they have now are much better.

And don't bother me while I'm adjusting the satellite dish. You'll make me spill my beer.

Stretch
Quit cigs 1W 1D 13h 17m ago. So far saved $51.32, 342 cigs not smoked and counting ...

 

[cropcirclewalker]

Fincher Guilty In Machine Gun Case

Duh!

http://www.nwaonline.net/articles/2007/01/12/news/011207fincherguilty.txt

This article was published on Friday, January 12, 2007 3:37 PM CST in News
By The Morning News

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 police, Fincher had two .308-caliber machine guns, homemade versions of the Browning model 1919. The other firearms were 9 mm STEN design submachine guns and a sawed-off shotgun.

The defense tried to make the case an issue of the Constitution versus federal gun laws. The government tried to make the case as simple as possible for jurors — Fincher had the machine guns and they weren’t registered as required by federal law.

A major issue was whether the Militia of Washington County is a valid state militia for second amendment purposes. Judge Jimm Larry Hendren ruled it’s not.

Somebody asked...."When do we know it's started?"

 

[Desertdog]

Quit cigs 1W 1D 13h 17m ago. So far saved $51.32, 342 cigs not smoked and counting ...

Congratulations. Keep up the good work. I quit, cold turkey, 19 July, 1981. They were like $0.35 a pack at the time. I guess I have save a fortune to spend on something else, like guns and ammo.

If I could, anybody else can.

 

[A. Patriot]

Guilty

Fincher Guilty In Machine Gun Case Friday, January 12, 2007 3:37 PM CST

Why am I not supprised? Very unfortunate.

 

[Outlaws]

nm

 

[crazed_ss]

This was a no-brainer.. has anyone ever been in violation of a gun law and successfully used the 2A as a defense?

 

[DKSuddeth]

well, this is extremely disheartening. When did we become a nation ruled by the judiciary?

 

[cropcirclewalker]

has anyone ever been in violation of a gun law and successfully used the 2A as a defense?

Yes.

Guy's name was Miller. 1939. Right there in N.W. Arkansas.

The U.S. District Judge dismissed the case. Claimed that NFA'34 was unconstitutional. Violated the second amendment.

Maybe even the same courtroom as this weasel sat in.

 

[Derby FALs]

I still have one question. Who decided these guys were the militia, and who are they regulated by?

reg·u·late Pronunciation (rgy-lt)
tr.v. reg·u·lat·ed, reg·u·lat·ing, reg·u·lates
1. To control or direct according to rule, principle, or law.
2. To adjust to a particular specification or requirement: regulate temperature.
3. To adjust (a mechanism) for accurate and proper functioning.
4. To put or maintain in order: regulate one's eating habits.


US Code Collection

TITLE 10 > Subtitle A > PART I > CHAPTER 13 > § 311 Prev | Next

§ 311. Militia: composition and classes
How Current is This?

(a) The militia of the United States consists of all able-bodied males at least 17 years of age and, except as provided in section 313 of title 32, under 45 years of age who are, or who have made a declaration of intention to become, citizens of the United States and of female citizens of the United States who are members of the National Guard.
(b) The classes of the militia are—
(1) the organized militia, which consists of the National Guard and the Naval Militia; and
(2) the unorganized militia, which consists of the members of the militia who are not members of the National Guard or the Naval Militia.

I also understand that the people have the right to keep and bear arms. But in the days when that statement was written, I don't expect that anyone could have imagined a machine gun, or what a machine gun is actually capable of. And if that isn't bad enough, what criminals do with them. Being from Miami at one time, I got to see first hand the handiwork of some of the cocaine cowboys with their UZis shooting up the city. Bad times then. Machine guns are illegal now because there's no real purpose in having one for civilian usage. Same goes for modifying a shotgun by cutting down the barrel. There's a reason why they are against the law. People who have an understanding of firearms and their purposes shouldn't really require an explanation.

At that time quite a few cannons were owned by individuals. Ever see what a cannon loaded wit grapeshot will do? I think I'd rather have someone shooting at me with an Uzi. LOLOL

Machineguns are not illegal. The .gov does require a tax be paid in the sum of $200. Sounds like infringement of right to me.