8th Circuit Court of Appeals Upholds Hollis Wayne Fincher Conviction

Status
Not open for further replies.
Any upgrade package that substantially improves the firepower and lethality of the people is just not in the cards.

I call for a new deck.

Those in government need to realize that we will only take so much infringement. If those in government wish to avoid revolution, they need to quit making it necessary.

Woody
 
I'm with Bart...

The 8th Circuit said in a footnote that Fincher loses under both his militia argument and under an argument he didn’t make

Does no one else find this strange? Where is all the screaming from the left about the courts legislating from the bench?
 
These militia jerk-offs do way more harm than good. They are a bad joke at best.
I'm a member of a militia. So you're saying I do more harm than good? That I'm a "bad joke" at best? :rolleyes:
 
Actually the court left at less one gaping, self inflicted booby trap in their ruling, for example.

Accordingly, under Heller, Fincher’s possession of the guns is not protected by
the Second Amendment. Machine guns are not in common use by law-abiding citizens for lawful purposes and therefore fall within the category of dangerous and unusual weapons that the government can prohibit for individual use. Furthermore, Fincher has not directly attacked the federal registration requirements on firearms, and we doubt that any such attack would succeed in light of Heller. Accordingly, because
-7-
Fincher’s possession of guns is not protected by the Second Amendment, the district court did not abuse its discretion in preventing him from arguing otherwise to the jury.



The federal registry by it's very nature is inherently and only populated by the legal and law abiding and as such the usage of a weapon in the registry, if not in a criminal act, is common, legal, law abiding and therefore not "dangerous or unusual".

Over 50% of the ruling is actually not about 2A but Finchers' attempt to wriggle out of paying for legal costs, misrepresenting assets etc.

I would suggest folks read the ruling in full .

http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/08/08/072514P.pdf
 
Those in government need to realize that we will only take so much infringement. If those in government wish to avoid revolution, they need to quit making it necessary.
Agree.

What people fail to realize is that, when it comes right down to it, it does not matter what any court thinks of our right to keep and bear arms. We have this right regardless of their opinions. I also believe I have a right to keep and bear a full-auto machine gun. A court may disagree with my opinion. And I may disagree with theirs.
 
Machine gun -- You apply for a Class III tax stamp and pay the $200.

It's not difficult.

Try that with a new machinegun and let us know how it turns out.
Then you'll see how "not difficult" it really is.

-T
 
from United States v. Hollis Wayne Fincher

In holding that the Second Amendment guarantees “the individual right to possess and
carry weapons in case of confrontation,” Id. at 2797,2 the Court also stated that the
right to possess firearms is not beyond the reach of all government regulation. Id. at
2799, 2816 (“Like most rights, the right secured by the Second Amendment is not
unlimited. From Blackstone through the 19th-century cases, commentators and courts
routinely explained that the right was not a right to keep and carry any weapon
whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose.”).

How in the name of the Hammers of Hell are we supposed to be able to use a court system to secure our rights when the friggin court is populated with far too many justices who cannot read and comprehend the English language? This statement from Blackstone includes "USE". The Second Amendment does not cover use; only "keep" and "bear". "(F)or what ever purpose" implicitly implies "use".

Friggin' idiots!

If they are not idiots, are they so stupid that they think there are no people out there(here?) - like me - who can read and comprehend the English language and see through their dissembling pretense and malapropism?

Bah!

Woody
 
I'm a member of a militia. So you're saying I do more harm than good? That I'm a "bad joke" at best?

I don't know. Maybe you are. I would hope not, but I would need more information. If you can stay out of headlines, you're probably harmless. Are you the author of the website linked in your profile?

K
 
Good gawdy! Yer not from 'round these parts, eh?

Naw, I'm from 'round 'hyar. Theys won't let me tipe 'bull[DELETED]' on this 'hyar inta net, is all.

Woody

If you want security, buy a gun. If you want longevity, learn how to use it. If you want freedom, carry it. There is nothing worth more than freedom you win for yourself. There is nothing more valuable to that end than the tools of the right that make it possible. B.E.Wood
 
I don't know. Maybe you are. I would hope not, but I would need more information. If you can stay out of headlines, you're probably harmless. Are you the author of the website linked in your profile?
No. But why are you using such a broad brush? Why do you insist all of us militia members "do more harm than good"? You are engaging in a tactic that is routinely used by the liberals (e.g. "all gun owners are nut cases."). Why do you do that? :confused:
 
So you can get a machine gun in New York City? What about here in Illinois? What about New Jersey?

I am sorry but the government's interference has made them uncommon and hard to get thus they are not in common use. The government has used some bad logic as others have pointed out.

All in all I disagree with judges in this case. I know it doesn't matter but I would like to voice that.
 
Those in government need to realize that we will only take so much infringement. If those in government wish to avoid revolution, they need to quit making it necessary.

I sympathize with your frustration, displeasure, and righteous indignation, however, violent militarism cannot be considered a realistic and viable option since the vast overwhelming majority of citizens lack the ideological unity, intestinal fortitude and wherewithal to take direct, decisive action.

All in all I disagree with judges in this case. I know it doesn't matter but I would like to voice that.

Please bear in mind that we are dealing with political caucuses who try to palm themselves off as a legitimate "tribunals".
 
Last edited:
I think his case would've been stronger if he'd made one M16 and said that was the common military arm of this country. We'll see what implications this case has further down the road.

Kharn
 
That law would be perfectly constitutional as the constitution explicitly gives congress the power to provide for the organizing, arming and discipline of the militia. All kinds of bad things could happen if we relied on the militia wording. If congress did indeed permit members of the militia to own firearms they could require them to be stored in government controlled armories.

I read the arguments of the Supreme court ruling. They were very clear about the fact that the 2nd amendments purpose had nothing to do with the melitia's ability to own weapons, but for highly experienced weapon users to be ready for the militia at a moments notice, thus, the 2nd amendment gage people the right to independently own, carry and use any "arm" (meaning, carry weapon) that is commonly in use during it's time by militia or civilian. That's in addition to protection from the state, though it clarified that the Congress branches have independent (to some extent) control over the militias giving the country the edge to organize the people to an uprise against the government very quickly and affectively.
I am sad to say that this guy apparently didn't even read the Supreme courts ruling. Had he read and understood it, he might have won this case.
Finally, for those of you who haven't read it, the ruling contains some strong tools to not only enable people to own guns, but to get rid of the US army as well as it was made very clear from historical notes that the US army is flat out unconstitutional and a threat to our national sovereignty and liberty.
We might be seeing some very interesting changes in this country once we get some people fighting these cases who actually knows what their doing.
What I myself think is just as important as the ruling is the fact that the high courts have been forced to look at both sides to this argument.
One thing I am worried about though is this PA II thing. Giving American citizens the general right to own any small arm they please is a bad thing if the government gets to pick and chose which Americans do and don't get gun right privileges.
If terrorist suspects are barred from gun rights, and people who talk allot about liberty and the constitution are considered terrorist suspects (which is exactly what some of our education equipment says) while all the former gun grabbers, black supremacists etc. have the full privileges.........
 
All kidding aside, all those who truly believe that their government will ever abide the proliferation of private machine gun ownership in this day and age are living in the Land of Oz.

That is a correct and rational assessment of reality. One may bemoan the nature of reality, but it is still reality.

K
 
Thanks to everallm for the link to the decision.

now now now children, the courts know best. I'm sure they considered that the unorganized militia is made up of nearly every man of 17-45 years of age who is or intends to be a US citizen. You know, the part of US Title Code 10,311

I guess the judge just missed that part.

Actually, he didn't. The 8th Circuit acknowledged that Fincher's militia was part of the unorganized militia; but under previous 8th Circuit precedent in U.S. vs. Hale, that was deemed to be "not reasonably related to a well-regulated militia."

It seems that Fincher thought he had spotted a hole in the Eighth Circuit ruling and that if he made an effort to be a well-regulated militia, he would be exempt from NFA.

It also explains a lot about the strategy.

I am sad to say that this guy apparently didn't even read the Supreme courts ruling.

No he didn't - as Fincher was convicted in District Court before Heller had even made it to the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals, let alone the Supreme Court.

As a result, his case was constrained by previous 8th Circuit precedent that said that:

1. The Second Amendment protected only a collective right

2. To enjoy that right you had to have some reasonable relation to a wel-regulated militia and being a member of the unorganized militia was not enough of a relation.

So Fincher's lawyer was stuck arguing an unwinnable case based on the facts here. Fincher essentially thought he knew what he was doing legal-system wise; but didn't have the first clue. The result is bad for everybody, especially Fincher.

The Eighth Circuit then makes a basically peremptory strike on NFA weapons by declaring them unprotected by Heller or the Second Amendment. Which all in all, isn't real surprising given the slipshod way this particularly tough case was approached.

Just goes to show why litigation is a double-edged sword for gunnies. For every Heller out there, there are three Hollis Wayne Finchers, and nine out and out criminals claiming the Second Amendment protected their actions.
 
Ever watch those clips on the web or reality TV where one of those kids does an outlandish stunt on a skateboard? He launches himself off three flights of stairs onto a railing only to crash and end up wailing at the bottom with compound fractures of several limbs.

Now, he might be a good kid, and we might feel sorry for the outcome, but we also might say, "DUDE! WHAT DID YOU THINK WAS GOING TO HAPPEN?"

I react to the Fincher situation the same way. Just as the skater dude miscalculated laws of physics, Fincher miscalculated the laws regarding automatic weapons. He makes the weapons, lets everyone know he has them, and is surprised when he ends up in jail. Now, he might be a nice guy, he might be a brave guy, but.........

DUDE! WHAT DID YOU THINK WAS GOING TO HAPPEN?

K
 
BTW, when in the history of the United States was possession of fully automatic weapons in common use? When did they ever comprise more than a tiny fraction of all the firearms privately owned in the country?

K
 
For anyone else who tries something like this, they MUST ensure their lawyers address this issue of "Dangerous and Unusual" at the very inception and strangle this idiocy FIRST.

For example as part of the discovery and presentation phase as well as at argument something along the lines of....

To ensure that a full understanding of private, legal ownership of fully automatic and burst weapons is presented to the court and to assure that findings and judgment is based upon facts and not supposition.

1. There is no direct federal prohibition of private ownership of this class of weapon.

2. There are certain sharply defined limitations around this right specifically
that the primary restrictions and regulation are via The National Firearms Act of 1934 (NFA), The Gun Control Act (GCA) of 1964 and The Firearms Owners Protection (FOPA) Act of 1986.

3. These acts do not prohibit but regulate private ownership and create and maintain a single federal register of these types of weapons along with their ownership.

4. The primary characteristics of the acts are the definition of what is a regulated weapon, the requirements to register or transfer said weapon, a one off $200 purchase and transfer tax and the closure of the registry to new weapons manufactured and registered after midnight, May 19th 1986.

5. Certain individual states apply further restrictions or prohibitions these are not within the purview of the federal legality of private ownership of a class of weapons.

6. The purchase and transfer of these registered weapons involves an extensive law enforcement background check and any individual, so long as this check reveals not restrictions or is not prohibited by the check of their local law may own and transfer said class of weapon.

It is therefore a statement of fact that all weapons of this type, when a part of the register are inherently legal as a class of weapon and owned by legal persons or entities in law.

Based upon an FOIA request the current registry has xxxxxxxx (circa 250,000) of this class of weapon recorded.

Since the enactment of, in particular the FOPA Act of 1986, there is no recorded incident of criminal activity where a registered weapon, in the ownership of it's private registered owner has ever been involved in the commission of a criminal firearms act.

Since these facts are not in question it is therefore inherently impossible to say that a class of some quarter of a million weapons, registered for over 22 years, with no direct criminal activities, can in any manner be classed as either "dangerous" or "unusual".

Based upon these facts and considering the arbitrary time based restriction of the registration and ownership of this class of weapon, it is arguably equally justifiable to say that opening the registry with the same degree of checks will but only not increase but may decrease criminal activity of this type.

Further the restriction under color of law of the closure of the registry is arbitrary at best.


I'm sure Constitution Cowboy et-al will have more legalese to add......:evil:
 
Kentak, that's funny, since YOU are a member of the militia, too. Obviously, you have zero knowledge of history or the law regarding what the militia is, so you certainly shouldn't be spouting off half-cocked. I guess YOU are a bad joke at best..... right? Or are you disputing that you are member of the militia? Are you between 18 and 45 years, and a male?
 
everallm

I'd add that the simple keeping and bearing of these or any weapon is benign and innocuous. No weapon is a danger to anyone until it's trigger is pulled.

Whether there are 250,000 or 250,000,000 out there, there is no danger presented by these arms being kept and borne.

Let's do some math here as well. Even with ten times as many of these arms out there, the ratio of their misuse is - let's see, 10 times zero - still zero. There is no evidence to indicate more would be any more "dangerous" than zero.

I sympathize with your frustration, displeasure, and righteous indignation, however, violent militarism cannot be considered a realistic and viable option since the vast overwhelming majority of citizens lack the ideological unity, intestinal fortitude and wherewithal to take direct, decisive action.

Yet. You forgot the "yet".

Woody
 
Kentak, that's funny, since YOU are a member of the militia, too.

Kentak is not referring to the militia that is provided for by law. He's referring to the members of private, unsanctioned and in 28 states illegal, paramilitary groups who have chosen to call themselves militias in order to confuse people and possibly lead them to believe that they are part of the militia that is provided for by law. Those groups are not the militia no matter what they call themselves.

Moderator hat on...The next post advocating overthrow of the government will result in the member being banned.
Jeff
 
Jeff

If you are referring to me, I don't advocate overthrowing the government. We've got the best thing going. Reminding those in government that crushing our rights is the best way to force a revolution is not advocating that we overthrow the government. I'm doing my best to prevent such action.

Even with the recent strides toward the Constitution - the ruling in DC v. Heller being a big leap - there are those who ignore or misconstrue such rulings and continue to destroy our rights. All I'm saying is, don't let them forget how independence was won in this land that allowed for the system of government we have, and not to destroy it from within. There are consequences to instituting tyranny and consequences to making tyranny possible. Disarming the people is the first step in making tyranny possible.

What I do advocate is how it's supposed to be in this country, and to vote and encourage others to vote for candidates - or become a candidate - who will take this country back to the Constitution.

In the mean time, don't forget why we have the right to keep and bear arms in the first place: To preserve our freedom.

Woody
 
Jeff White said,
Kentak is not referring to the militia that is provided for by law. He's referring to the members of private, unsanctioned and in 28 states illegal, paramilitary groups who have chosen to call themselves militias in order to confuse people and possibly lead them to believe that they are part of the militia that is provided for by law. Those groups are not the militia no matter what they call themselves.

Thank you, Jeff. You said it as well, and probably more tactfully, than I would have.

K
 
I'd like to add that one of the biggest culprits is the old mainstream media calling all those insurgencies, guerrilla groups, and terror squads plaguing the middle east militias. The militia strictly comes under the control of and serves the civil authority.

Woody
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top