Defendant is accused of having 'militia' weaponry

Until then, we've got the the current "it's a right! but it's the law!" duplicity.

Click to expand...

I think that duplicity stems from nothing but cowardice on the part of most gun owners. They justify the arrests of people for violations of unconstitutional laws because they're too lazy or scared to do anything about it. That's why our rights are dwindling -- because the government doesn't fear any reprisals from the sheep.

Gun laws are designed to enslave, pure and simple. Who gives a crap about following such "laws"? They're for cowardly sheep.

I'm not saying people should publicly flaunt NFA violations or such things. It's possible to have no respect for "authority" but still be mindful of the danger it can present. Few of us would have any respect for the "authority" of an armed street gang demanding protection money, but we'd still be foolish to deliberately confront one by ourselves. But if confrontation is inevitable, then the courageous choice needs to be made.

This defendant, if he really did invite the enforcer thugs to "come and get him," should have taken a few with him. I know it's easier said than done, but it MUST be done. And I'll do it when my time comes.

Civil disobedience

Civil disobedience is the practice of openly and notoriously breaking laws that you disagree with. It is one way that a person can bring about change. It is definitely not a magical insta-fix guaranted to make all injustice disappear in one speedy trial by jury, but it is an extremely effective form of protest, as forms of protest go.

It appears to me that most people on here believe that individuals have an inherent right to bear arms, and that the US constitution guarantees us this right. And, it is observable that gun legislation in the past hundred years has come along which limits our access to certain types of arms.

In this situation, it is a moral and upright thing for this man to do what he has done. It may not be the shrewd thing to do, but virtue and shrewdness do not always go hand in hand.

Would I bet on this guy to win his case? no, I wouldn't. Do I think it will make a sudden sweeping change in gun laws? probably not. But if there is solidarity among the people who share in his beliefs, public outpourings of joy and gratitude if he is vindicated or outrage if he is convicted, then the politicians will be advised of where the people with guns stand on the issue.

If people just turn a blind eye whenever they see injustice, as people are wont to do, for fear of getting involved or through an apathy stemming from the fact that it's happening to someone else, then the path will be seen as free and clear for further legislation, confiscation, and misrepresentation.

When the elections happened, I said that the people coming into power would be putting out their feelers, to see what would be popular and what would be detrimental to their careers as far as gun control goes. This is one of those feelers. Let's give them something to feel.

Mr Prohibitum,

Everybody kiss Mr. Fincher goodbye.

Click to expand...

I googled up Mr. Stilley. It looks like he might be a maverick libertarian.

May 12 in Peoria.

Is there something else they didn't report on?

"I don't think he has a Davidians chance in a Federal court but I certainly wish him well."


http://www.egmlaw.com/about/

At least one Davidian had awesome representation.

BS

The motion by the United States Attorney is that the jury decides matters of fact, not law and that the judge should hear and decide any Second Amendment arguments - not the jury. Fincher will get to make a Second Amendment argument.

BS. The jury judges the law as well as the facts. Another founding principle that the government has tried (and largely succeded) in abolishing. A jury of peers has also largely fallen by the wayside. Today's jury must know nothing. If you show signs of intellegence, judgement, or knowledge, you get thrown off the jury. As a point, there will be no one on that jury who would know a machine gun if you beat him over the head with it. It will be explained to them by a government "expert".

cropcriclewalker said:

Is there something else they didn't report on?

Click to expand...

My guess is that Malum is referring to the idea that firing your criminal defense attorney to replace him with a solo practioner tax attorney whose one big case with a chance to see the Supreme Court is one where he is suing a federal judge because he was issued Rule 11 sanctions by that judge is probably not indicative of a carefully planned legal attack or a high probability of success.

Unspell , Damn skippy .

http://www.fija.org/

Mr. Dunagin was representation that had been appointed by the U.S. Magistrate initially involved in issuing the warrant.

Isn't that like a public defender?

Mr. Stilley looks to be a lawyer that is not afraid to take on the .gov.

I say "Good on him."

At least the trial will be public.

I would think that since 922(o) is based on the commerce clause, a tax attorney would probably be best suited, no?

Wouldn't it be slick if the forms that the f-troop wanted us to submit for our permission slips didn't have an OMB number on them either.

Way cool.

Is there one on them?

I would think that since 922(o) is based on the commerce clause, a tax attorney would probably be best suited, no?

Click to expand...

If a tax attorney was best suited, then it would have been wise to retain one prior to your arrest for a discussion of your legal strategy. Retaining counsel after you have already been arrested is typical of the type of Second Amendment challenges that have given us very bad precedent in the past.

For example, in the Eighth Circuit (where this case will be heard), we have United States v. Hale, 978 F.2d 1016 (8th Cir. 1992) cert. denied which reached the decision that "Considering this history, we cannot conclude that the Second Amendment protects the individual possession of military weapons." This same decision is repeated in about five other Eighth Circuit cases. SCOTUS denied cert in every one of those cases. Hale was also in a "militia" so it is pretty much on point for the Eighth Circuit.

So unless the Eighth Circuit decides to overturn their previous six rulings over the past 30 years, Fincher is going to lose at the District Court level and he will lose again at the Circuit Court of Appeals level. His one small chance is that the Eight Circuit will say something in their decision that his attorney can use to convince the Supreme Court to grant cert here where it was denied every other time.

Stilley may be a courageous, tenacious lawyer who never gives up; but I don't see anything in the cases that I have found that suggests to me he has the talent necessary to pull off the minor miracle I just outlined above. He would need considerable skill to pull it off as part of a planned legal assault on the collective rights theory. To pull it off after his client has already been arrested and the facts of the case set in stone, well... he will need to be much, much better than his current track record against the government indicates.

There are two ways that noncompliance with unjust laws works - one is by clogging the systems with more people than it can process. Currently, not a lot of people are attempting this method. The second way it works is to create favorable precedent to help change the law. This case will certainly create more precedent; but the chance that it is favorable to an individual rights interpretation of the Second Amendment is a decidedly small one. About the best thing I can say for it, is that there is almost no chance it will get to SCOTUS, so the bad precedent it creates will be limited to the Eighth Circuit where it won't change much since there is already plenty of bad precedent.

So there were eleven previous cites. Now there may be twelve. I don't see that as any worse than eleven.

The way I figger it, this case will never get to the supremes unless and until he wins.

Chances of that are like a fart in a hurricane but like they say in the lottery ........"You won't win if you don't play."

He's playing. Good on him.

A slim chance. Then there is still jury nullification.

That's how prohibition got stomped.

FREE WAYNE !

Chances of that are like a fart in a hurricane but like they say in the lottery ........"You won't win if you don't play."

Click to expand...

Except that when you don't win the lottery, you don't get ten years in a federal prison or create the chance that the court will say something that makes it even harder for the next guy to bring a successful case.

UNSPELLABLE - "... A jury of peers has also largely fallen by the wayside."

That's because there is nothing in law, or the Constitution about "...a jury of one's peers."


BILL OF RIGHTS - Article VI.

"In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State....."

If an accused person had a right to a "jury of one's peers" then the jury for O.J. Simpson would have consisted of 12 black, professional football players, running backs, who were either retired or active players.

L.W.

This is it, boys and girls. This is, as far as I know, one of the first NFA-related cases to come to trial on the basis of the weapons themselves, instead of some other related criminal charges tagging on (please, correct me if I'm mistaken).

This is going to cause a lot of sh*t to fly regardless of the outcome: either the NFA is overturned and found unconstitutional, the defendant is not allowed to argue his case on the Constitution, or the status quo is upheld despite the evidence - any way it's painted, it's going to cause a great deal of turmoil and anger. Moreso, I think, now that the Democrats are in power.

This is, as far as I know, one of the first NFA-related cases to come to trial on the basis of the weapons themselves, instead of some other related criminal charges tagging on (please, correct me if I'm mistaken).

Click to expand...

You are mistaken. This isn't the first case in the Eighth Circuit, let alone in general. There are at least two other cases in the Eighth Circuit with almost the exact same set of facts (military style weapons owned by someone in a private militia). In both cases, the convictions were upheld and the Supreme Court denied cert.

Like Mr. Roberts said, there are bunches of cases.

I read in the transcript of the phone conversation that the judge had with Mr. Stilley that the judge made reference to "Hale"

I googled it and I think I found the decision.

http://www.cs.cmu.edu/afs/cs/usr/wbardwel/public/nfalist/us_v_hale.txt

In reading that case (or what looks to me like that case, but I don't know if I am reading the real opinion or a rehash of it) The reference to Miller smacked me up alongside the like an albacore hung around my neck.

About a third of the way down.

Hale next argues that the indictment violates his Second Amendment rights: "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed." U.S. Const. amend. II. Relying on United States v. Miller, 307 U.S. 174, 59 S.Ct. 816, 83 L.Ed. 1206 (1939), Hale argues that the Second Amendment bars the federal government from regulating the particular weapons seized because the weapons are susceptible to military use and are therefore, by definition, related to the existence of "a well regulated militia".

In Miller, the Supreme Court upheld a conviction under the National Firearms Act for transporting a sawed-off shotgun in interstate commerce. In so doing, the Court rejected the argument that the Second Amendment protected the possession of that weapon:

Click to expand...

Is this one of the instances that I read about where a lawyer cites a case and then essentially lies about what it did?

Miller was not convicted.

Miller had his charges dismissed (demurred, whatever that means)

The case was remanded for retrial but Miller was never retried.

Miller was not convicted.

Thus, this cite, should be open to interpretation.

If what I was reading was a real opinion then there was some lyin' goin' on.

That is a good distinction that I would definitely make arguing the case. Also Judge Beam of the three-judge panel disagreed with the Court's interpretation of the Second Amendment although he concurred with the opinion. His case isn't hopeless; but it is long odds.

Would that be Carnegie Mellon University, or Central Michigan University? If it is the former, I have to laugh at the saps I know that go there. (Even if they are my friends. ) I need to go down to the law library here and see if I can't find the original United States v. Miller Circuit Court opinion.

One quote to sum it up;

In the beginning of a change, the patriot is a scarce man; brave, hated, and scorned. When his cause succeeds, however, the timid join him, for then it costs nothing to be a patriot.

Click to expand...

Mark Twain

kiss him good bye

don king hired a tax lawyer to defend mike tyson too.

I'm still disheartened by the so called 2nd supporters who are leaving this guy to hang dry. Do you people really support the RKBA?

Well, I don't have unlimited funds to spend on the RKBA. So I can spend them here to help fight a battle that has been fought and lost six times already in the past 30 years - or I can use that money and energy to support something I think has a better chance.

If somebody picks a stupid fight, are we better off as a movement to unite behind them, even though that fight is a loser, or do we back only those causes that we think will win and risk fracturing a "unified" front since people will always have different opinions on what might win?

I don't know that there is a good answer to that.

No fear.

I don't get the impression Fincher is scared of anything the Feds can do to him. He knows he's right.

And you are right, there are as many people who revel in his upcoming incarceration than would support him. It's pretty much over before it starts. The Feds burned the Davidians....and found it was all the Davidians fault....and let us see where the Federal Courts and judge really stood.

You can't support someone who won't stand. Most gunowners won't. I'm a little embarrassed to watch Fincher standing...alone. This is a rare thing.

Crockett: "First be sure you are right, then go ahead."

"No one can stop a man who is IN the right, and keeps on a-comin."

The Feds are SUPPOSED to be protecting the Constitution and Bill of Rights. Instead they are going to destroy a man who will stand on the same documents. Those documents were circumvented a long time ago. The Fed prosecutors and the court ought to be ashamed.

God Bless Wayne Fincher and his family.