Hollis Wayne Fincher

Status
Not open for further replies.
H

H23gsr

Member
Joined
Feb 8, 2007
Messages
73
Location
DFW, Texas
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
 
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.
 
He was denied a the right to defend himself in court.
Judge found that the constitution was not grounds for defense.
Click to expand...
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?
 
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.
 
If the U.S. Constitution and its attendant amendments is not law, what, exactly, is it?

Jefferson
 
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?
 
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?
Click to expand...

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.
 
And I take it you're not a fan of jury nullification?
Click to expand...

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.
 
Last edited:
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
 
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.
 
Not a universally held opinion.
Click to expand...

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?
 
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?
Click to expand...

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
 
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.
Click to expand...

"[...] 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.
 
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
 
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?
 
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?
Click to expand...

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.
 
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.
 
While I personally think that the '86 ban should be ruled unconstitutional, I wish he would have put more thought into his approach.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top