yeah, another thread on this topic that art will probably close after a few posts, because gun nuts aren't proving to be more nuts than guns these days...
but this article http://www.nwaonline.net/articles/2007/01/02/news/123006fzfincher.txt
makes some interesting points that i didn't see discussed.
this case will potentially decide TWO fatal issues. it's bad enough that the federal government doesn't respect the 2A or constitution in general, but they're apparently also trying to (I assume) set a precedent against "juror's rights".
I could be wrong (there may already be precedent against it) but while I can't fault fincher for fighting for his rights, i doubt he has the wherewithall to successfully fight the government's argument that the jury has no role in deciding legal issues.
that means that as a juror, you'll only be able to say that "he made a machine gun" is or is not a fact. and duh, everybody knows he made machine guns. you won't be able to say "that law against making machine guns is illegal".
edit: one of you lawyers correct me if i'm wrong, but the gov wouldn't be arguing the roles of the court and jury if that was already firmly decided, right?
but this article http://www.nwaonline.net/articles/2007/01/02/news/123006fzfincher.txt
makes some interesting points that i didn't see discussed.
FAYETTEVILLE -- A man charged with possessing illegal machine guns shouldn't be able to make constitutional arguments at trial, according to a motion filed Friday by federal prosecutors.
Hollis Wayne Fincher, 60, a lieutenant commander of the Militia of Washington County, is charged in U.S. District Court with possessing three homemade, unregistered machine guns and an unregistered sawed-off shotgun.
Trial is set for Jan. 8 in Fayetteville.
Assistant U.S. Attorney Wendy Johnson filed the motion asking U.S. District Judge Jimm Larry Hendren to preclude Fincher and his attorney, Oscar Stilley, from arguing matters of law to the jury as a defense. The government believes Fincher wants to argue the gun charges are unconstitutional and that the prosecution must prove an "interstate nexus" for the firearms, according to the motion.
The government is arguing that it is the court's role to decide matters of law and to instruct the jury. The jury's role is to then determine and apply the facts to the law as instructed by the court. The jury has no role in deciding legal issues, according to the motion.
The government also wants the court to order Fincher to disclose items the defense intends to use as evidence at trial, the results of any physical or mental examinations or experiments to be used at trial and provide written summaries of witness testimony the defense intends to use.
this case will potentially decide TWO fatal issues. it's bad enough that the federal government doesn't respect the 2A or constitution in general, but they're apparently also trying to (I assume) set a precedent against "juror's rights".
I could be wrong (there may already be precedent against it) but while I can't fault fincher for fighting for his rights, i doubt he has the wherewithall to successfully fight the government's argument that the jury has no role in deciding legal issues.
that means that as a juror, you'll only be able to say that "he made a machine gun" is or is not a fact. and duh, everybody knows he made machine guns. you won't be able to say "that law against making machine guns is illegal".
edit: one of you lawyers correct me if i'm wrong, but the gov wouldn't be arguing the roles of the court and jury if that was already firmly decided, right?