Saturday, January 6, 2007

Trial Will Debate 2nd Amendment Rights

A lawyer whose client is on trial for having "militia" weaponry says he'll ask questions and raise arguments about the 2nd Amendment, and then let the judge rule whether or not the Bill of Rights can be discussed in a federal courtroom these days.

A federal prosecutor in the Arkansas case against Hollis Wayne Fincher, 60, who's accused of having homemade and unregistered machine guns, has asked the judge to censor those arguments.

But lawyer Oscar Stilley told WND that he'll go ahead with the arguments.

"I'm going to ask questions, what else can I say?" he said. "There is a 2nd Amendment, and it means something, I hope."

"His (Fincher's) position is that he had a legal right to bear arms that are suitable and customary to contribute to the common defense. If it's a militia army, it's what customarily would be used by the military suitable for the defense of the country," Stilley said.

The objection to constitutional arguments came from Assistant U.S. Attorney Wendy Johnson, who filed a motion several days ago asking U.S. District Judge Jimm Larry Hendren to prevent Fincher and Stilley from raising any such issues.

"Yes, that is correct – the government does not want to allow the defense attorney to argue the law in Mr. Fincher's defense," Michael Gaddy wrote on Freedom Watch.

"If a defendant is not allowed to base his/her defense on the Constitution, the supreme law of the land, we are certainly doomed. If we allow these criminal acts perpetrated on law-abiding citizens to continue, we might as well turn in all our guns and scheduled a fitting for our chains," he wrote.

"Yes, Hollis Wayne Fincher goes on trial on January 8th – but so does our Constitution, our Liberty and our right to own firearms. If Mr. Fincher loses this battle, we all lose," he said.

For the full story, see WorldNetDaily.

6 comments:

E. David Quammen said...

You might have Waynes lawyer take a look at this:

"...Sec. 18. And be it further enacted, That inasmuch as the Constitution of the United States and the organic act of said Territory has secured to the inhabitants thereof certain inalienable rights, of which they cannot be deprived by any legislative enactment, therefore no religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office or public trust; no law shall be in force or enforced in said Territory respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or of the right of the people peaceably to assemble and petition for the redress of grievances; the right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects against unreasonable searches and seizures shall not be violated; and no warrant shall issue but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the person or things to be seized; nor shall the rights of the people to keep and bear arms be infringed. - Journal of the Senate of the United States of America, TUESDAY, July 8, 1856.

It leaves the court ZERO room to argue. For it summarily NULLIFIES ALL 'Gun Control' laws....

The following will help as well;

'for the common defence' (?)


"Rights of the citizen declared to be --"


“Agreed to found our Rights upon the Laws of Nature....”


The Right

Kent McManigal said...

Excellent! Although to believe that the US will obey any law (which limits their power) is probaby folly. I just enjoy seeing the laws that show how far this criminal regime has gone.

E. David Quammen said...

Kent McManigal - The fed is full of usurpers. The ones that we must get to believe are our fellow citizens. If enough of us stand up for our rights. The fed has no choice than to back down. Or, try to destroy us all.

That's why I admire what Wayne is trying to do. He had the guts to stand up to the plate, knowing the potential consequences from our evil government. He has proven himself a real servant of the Lord.

Freedom Loving American said...

Wendy Johnson is either the worst prosecutor in the world, or a sign of just how far downhill our gov't has gone.

Maybe I'm making too much of this, but when I read that a prosecutor tried to suppress a Constitutionally based argument, I don't see how any reasonable person can trust the gov't. So, am I wearing a tinfoil hat, or have too many other people had their heads up their asses?

Oldsmoblogger said...

I read this morning (someone at The Claire Files linked the story) that Mr. Fincher's attorney will be permitted to raise the Second Amendment question, but not to discuss the Commerce Clause. The prosecution is frantically (if you'll forgive the, ahem, loaded term) arguing that the jury may only deal in matters of fact, that only the court may determine matters of law.

E. David Quammen said...

The real interesting thing about it is that it is We The People's Constitution. And, that ALL of the people in government are OUR, supposed, SERVANTS. The Constitution was intended to govern the government. If the dog refuses the leash, it needs to be thrown into the kennel, or put down.....