It took a jury just under five hours to find Hollis Wayne Fincher guilty of owning illegal machine guns and a sawed-off shotgun.[Via US vs Fincher]
[More About Wayne Fincher]
Friday, January 12, 2007
Fincher Guilty In Machine Gun Case
[More About Wayne Fincher]
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
16 comments:
When does the appeal process start?
Stay tuned.
This was pretty much expected. The only question for me is just how far up the appeals ladder this will get.
Does it raise any suspicion with anyone else, as to how fast and convenient he has been run through? (Railroaded).
Does it raise any suspicion with anyone else, as to how fast and convenient he has been run through?
Honestly, nope, about what I expected. The so-called jury was out longer then I expected too.
Suspicion, E. David? It's a damn certainty! Apparently, he wasn't even allowed to mount a defense! I'm sure the jury was hand-picked for a conviction, too.
The end of the republic is at hand.
What can we do about it people? We are talking about our lives, the lives of our loved ones, and our future here. The founders did it, why can't we? It has to start somewhere....
Wayne Fincher is an extremely brave man. I most certainly did/do not have the guts to be a test case.
I wish him well, and hope against all logic that in the end the courts will do the right thing and overturn the obviously unconstitutional laws used against him.
The government can't allow this to go too high during appeals. It can't afford to rule on the Second Amendment. If the Supreme Court rules that the Second Amendment does not recognize an individual right, then they will have started the revolution. If they rule that it does mean exactly what it obviously says, they will be forced to admit that all gun control "laws" are illegal. They won't do that either.
Bingo, Kent!
That SCOTUS refused to hear the case was not really a surprise. Their dilemma: They couldn't rule that 2A is an unalienable right, applicable to the states as well as the national government, that shall not be infringed, because that would erode the monopoly of power--and no "authority" gives that up unless forced to. And they dared not rule that there is no individual right, because that would provoke widespread defiance and disobedience that could well get out of hand.
You guys don't think a third option could happen? That the Supreme Court would rule the Second Amendment protects an individual right, but water it down? Think "reasonable regulations" and "compelling state interests." That way the existing gun laws, or at least some of them, wouldn't be struck down.
Honestly, I think that option is worse than the SC ruling it doesn't protect an individual right.
Eric, if you follow the link in my above comment, you'll see that's exactly what I've been saying, and for some time now, long before I ever established this blog:
I don't think such a ruling will ultimately prove useful at repealing the most offensive of existing gun laws. I believe most of those will be upheld as "reasonable restrictions" where there is a "compelling state interest."
My wory is trhat the gov't will have him killed in jail before the appeals go too high.
That's why we need to keep the publicity on this case, Crotalus.
They've already made him wait for medicine.
"compelling state interests." Is just what the second amendment is about. When "compelling state interests." override our other rights we have that one left.
Yep-understand, Vinnie, I'm not endorsing that, I'm just regretfully parroting back the mindset of our "rulers."
Post a Comment