Friday, January 12, 2007

Fincher GUILTY in Machine Gun Case

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.

Originally published at The Morning News


hairy hobbit said...

Let's just let sock puppets sit on the jury from now on. We already don't allow a defense based on the supreme law of the land.

Of course, the offense probably didn't mention that even if he wanted to he couldn't register them.

and yes, the militia IS valid.


Stan said...

A sad day in American history.

Anonymous said...

Maybe I just look at things differently. I am absolutely for the right to own fully-automatic guns, but there are legal and moral obligations that go along with that right. You MUST file for a special ATF permit to own firearms like that. There is a fine line between the good guys and the bad guys and the line of demarkaction is the law. If you break the law, you are a criminal (convicted or not). Based on this verdict, he has lost his "rights" because now, he would not be granted an ATF stamp/permit.
A good lesson to all of us. Don't be a bad apple - Be responsible, law-abiding, and safe.

NineseveN said...

The words "rights" and "granted" never belong in the same sentence, that's the problem. I don't think people like anonymous know what the term "rights" means. Rights are not granted, you have them at birth, you lose them at death; that's the long and short of it. Asking for permission negates the entire notion of a "right".

The only legal or moral obligations that come with firearms ownership as the founding fathers intended was to not use them for nefarious purposes against one's fellow citizen or the republic unless in time or tyranny and/or revolution.

Kent McManigal said...

Once the government tries to restrict, limit, license, ration, regulate, or violate a right in any way, that government has lost any legitimate authority it had to govern. Yes, there is a thin line between good guys and bad guys. Guess which side stepped across the line. It wasn't Fincher.

Anonymous said...

Please oh please tell me that there will be an appeal.

One Angry Christian said...

One more step away from being able to defend ourselves against foreign invaders ... and our own government if needed AS THE CONSTITUTION ALLOWS FOR.

E. David Quammen said...

Anonymous said...
"Maybe I just look at things differently. I am absolutely for the right to own fully-automatic guns, but there are legal and moral obligations that go along with that right. You MUST file for a special ATF permit to own firearms like that."

SHOW ME JUST WHERE IN THE UNITED STATES CONSTITUTION that what you claim is valid. I can show you EXPLICITLY where it is NOT. To Wit;

"The Right of the People to Keep ans Bear Arms Shall NOT be Infringed". Regulation, permits, special taxes and licenses ARE an INFRINGEMENT. To Wit;

"Who are the militia? Are they not ourselves? ... Congress have no power to disarm the militia. Their swords, and every other terrible implement of the soldier, are the birthright of an American. The unlimited power of the sword is not in the hands of either the federal or state governments but, where I trust in God it will ever remain, in the hands of the people." - Tenche Coxe, The Pennsylvania Gazette, Feb. 20, 1788.

(Mr. Coxe was a prominent Philadelphian and political economist who was named assistant secretary of the treasury in 1790, commissioner of revenue in 1792, and purveyor of public supplies in 1803).

"The right [to bear arms] is general. It may be supposed from the phraseology of this provision that the right to keep and bear arms was only guaranteed to the militia; but this would be an interpretation not warranted by the intent. The militia, as has been explained elsewhere, consists of those persons who, under the laws, are liable to the performance of military duty, and are officered and enrolled for service when called upon.... [I]f the right were limited to those enrolled, the purpose of the guarantee might be defeated altogether by the action or the neglect to act of the government it was meant to hold in check. The meaning of the provision undoubtedly is, that the people, from whom the militia must be taken, shall have the right to keep and bear arms, and they need no permission or regulation of law for the purpose. But this enables the government to have a well regulated militia; for to bear arms implies something more than mere keeping; it implies the learning to handle and use them in a way that makes those who keep them ready for their efficient use; in other words, it implies the right to meet for voluntary discipline in arms, observing in so doing the laws of public order."

- Thomas M. Cooley, General Principles of Constitutional Law, Third Edition [1898]. (Mr. Cooley was Dean of the University of Michigan's Law School, Michigan Supreme Court justice, and a nationally recognized scholar).


"The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed, and this without any qualification as to their condition or degree, as is the case in the British government...."

"....This may be considered as the true palladium of liberty....The right of self-defense is the first law of nature; in most governments it has been the study of rulers to confine this right within the narrowest limits possible. Whenever standing armies are kept up, and the right of the people to keep and bear arms is, under any color or pretext whatsoever, prohibited, liberty, if not already annihilated, is on the brink of destruction." - St. George Tucker, Blackstone's Commentaries, (1803).

Would suggest that you familiarize yourself with your God-gien, Inalienable Natural Right;
“Agreed to found our Rights upon the Laws of Nature....”

"Government is not reason; it is not eloquence; it is force! Like fire, it is a dangerous servant and a fearful master. Never for a moment should it be left to irresponsible action." - George Washington

"All laws which are repugnant to the Constitution are null and void." - Marbury v. Madison, 5 U.S. (2 Cranch) 137 (1803).

David said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
David said...

Some anonymous person wrote:
"Maybe I just look at things differently. I am absolutely for the right to own fully-automatic guns, but there are legal and moral obligations that go along with that right. You MUST file for a special ATF permit to own firearms like that."

Actually, that's not true. Fincher was tried under 18 USC 922(o) which makes possession of automatic weapons illegal, unless they were grandfathered in by being legally owned before 922(o) was enacted. This is not based on tax law, and there is no "ATF permit" available for such weapons.

Kent McManigal said...

I was reading your subtitle for this blog and see that you wrote that Fincher is being governmentally molested for "no crime other than possession of arms the government doesn't like." I think this is a little inaccurate. The government likes these kinds of guns; it just doesn't like anyone but its chosen thugs owning them.

ShootClayBird said...

There is so much that's wrong with the governments case against Fincher. I truly hope this case gets to the USSC.

LV said...

Wayne Fincher knowingly broke the law and is now suffering the consequences.

Kent McManigal said...

But as the Supreme Court has said in the past, any law which violates the Constitution is not a law and no one has any obligation to obey it.

Anonymous said...

After The Colapse, there will be no government to enforce rules of any kind, good or bad.

Government will be back in the hands of the gun owners.

USA Fraud said...

I somewhat expect that a militia would stay consistently within the enforceable law given the precedent set by ATF/FBI.

We've seen numerous occasions where they sweep in and rights are violated, children are killed, and mayhem ensues.

The fact that he did have firearms known to the average citizen to be illegal, it's hard to say he's entirely victimized in this particular case.

As the the IRS, we've learned over the years that ATF dosn't have to be right, but they have to be acknowledged and treated appropriately or we're going to get the short end of the stick.

This entire situation seems avoidable and that is the largest part of the tragedy.

generic cialis said...

Interesting article, added his blog to Favorites