Can you believe the courts are doing this?
Thanks to Sloan R for the heads up on this article
What’s the 2nd say?
By Mike Masterson of the Arkansas Democrat-Gazette
Now that a federal district court jury has decided (apparently with some anxiety) to convict Hollis Wayne Fincher of Fayetteville for owning illegal weapons, I want to make certain readers fully understand my deeper concerns on this issue.
I don’t know Wayne Fincher personally. Never met the man. I also don’t think it’s necessarily wise for American citizens, or their self-styled militias, to keep homemade machine guns, hand grenades, SAMs or bazookas. Doing so just naturally sounds extreme and fringy doesn’t it?
And, hey, with drug dealers and organized crime armed with high-powered automatic weapons, why would we want law abiding American citizens legally possessing similar arms to protect their own homes and lives?
Answers:
The point of having a right to bear arms is to keep our leadership aware that revolution is always an option to an unjust or unresponsive government, and that revolution is what (long ago) put this style and set of leaders in place to start with.
I think of it sort of like the case for nuclear deterence: It is one of those things where you hope they never get used, but merely having them in place DOES have an effect.
As you point out, disarming the honest and law abiding is comparitively easy, but disarming the ill intentioned is much less certain... *IF* we could go back to a world without nuclear arms, that would be great! But if we can't, I prefer to be as well armed as my competiors for resources, so I don't get conquered for them... If we could go back to a world without repeating firearms, that would also be great... It is tough to do a drive by with a knife!
But like virginity, once it is gone, it is gone.
Point One. Whatever this defendant called his organization, it was not a militia. The militia is a very specific term in law governed by very specific provisions of Article I.
Point Two. The general rule in all courts in this country is that it is the role of the jury to find facts not to determine the law. To the extent that the federal statute is invalid,that is a question of law to be determined on appeal. The sole question for the jury is did this defendant break that law. It applies not just to this statute but to all statutes.
Point Three. The language in the Second Amendment is no more absolute (and actually is less absolute) than the language in the First Amendment. (The First Amendment begins "Congress shall make no law".)Yet the courts have consistently interpreted the First Amendment as having exceptions.
The guy sounds like a lunatic from the hills of arkansas!!
We have every right to bear arms, but legal ones. The only reason why he wants his homemade guns is to do something wrong with them.
If he planned on using guns legally, without hurting anyone, he would buy legal ones like everyone else.
You can still protect your home, with the legal weapons on the market!!
The answers post by the user, for information only, FreeLawAnswer.com does not guarantee the right.
Answer question:
More Law Questions and Answers: