It may come as a surprise to everyone, but I find it hard to disagree with Sebastian's observations. Let me qualify what I mean.
I agree that the Fincher case is not the ideal one. If I thought getting arrested to make a Second Amendment claim was a winning strategy, I'd arrange it myself. You'll notice I haven't.
Be that as it may, Wayne Fincher is correct in principle and his prosecution is nothing short of an assault on all our freedoms--as well as a thinly-disguised warning from the Masters that they will countenance no deviation from their mandates. So while I would not have picked this case, the feds picked Mr. Fincher. The man is fighting for his life, and I can do no less than to support him in every way I can.
But here's where I depart from the Fincher critics-- there is no "right case." As I've observed before about SCOTUS and 2A:
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.My prediction (albeit it's more uncertain now that the Republicans have managed to give away both houses, and it looks like they're doing their best to lose the executive branch, so forget any change to the high court that doesn't move it to the left)--is the court will rule it an individual right, but so narrowly, and with such deference to "compelling state interest" and "reasonable restrictions" as to make very little difference in terms of hampering new legislation to outlaw "assault weapons" again, "close the gun show loophole," retain and share NICS data, etc., and of course, in terms of enforcing "existing gun laws."
As for Mr. Sawders' letter, again, I agree it would not be advisable to send such a missive if the goal was to persuade Judge Hendren to "do the right thing." What I reject is that anyone is capable of writing such a letter.
The judge has proven he is a creature who considers stare decisis the supreme law of the land. He will be guided on the sentencing by what the prosecution wants and what the guidelines and precedent say.
Now if the argument is such letters will make him mad and prompt him to levy an even harsher punishment, why, such a man who would punish a prisoner for the semntiments of a supporter would be a monster, not prone to reason or sympathy, and deserving of much more than strongly-worded correspondence.
There is no "right letter."
But what will such a harsh, accusatory letter accomplish? In my view, as a standalone, not a whole hell of a lot, except to give "civil authority" an indicator that they're crossing a line, and that people demanding their rights are seeing no recourse in "the legal system." In a way, such a letter does the judge a service by letting him know this in no uncertain terms, but, again, I would not argue that it won't make him dig in his heels, especially since it is not accompanied by probably more than a dozen other pleas.
The fault is ours. Gun owners could have their rights back today if we truly wanted them, but most don't, and those who do are so hopelessly outnumbered that the likely outcome of defiance is purposefully exemplified by the treatment of Wayne Fincher.
One last observation--a personal note to Sebastian concerning this admission:
I don'’t enjoy criticizing members of our own community, especially when I think their hearts are in the right place.That's because you're a decent human being. But those of us out there offering our opinions need to expect that as a likely outcome, and when we believe someone is in error, we owe them, as well as those they influence, the benefit of our opposing views.
So again, it may surprise some to hear that admission coming from me. But I don't enjoy confronting someone whose heart is in the right place, either. Now the ones whose hearts are in the wrong place are another matter altogether...
The TRULY ironic thing about all of this. Is that all of this "discussion", "court rulings", and perverse "legislation". Was supposed to be, in reality, a MOOT point. That was the whole intended purpose of We The People's Constitution. As well as, for basing the Constitution, (and We The People's Rights, see “Agreed to found our Rights upon the Laws of Nature....”), as well as had the Declaration been. Which is on "the "TRANSCENDENT laws of nature and of natures God" - the basis which is most broad, immutable and safe. It is time to get back to basics. It is high time that We The People INSIST upon it. If we don't, then we will have to battle for it, just as the founders did.
ReplyDelete'But what will such a harsh, accusatory letter accomplish? In my view, as a standalone, not a whole hell of a lot, except to give "civil authority" an indicator that they're crossing a line, and that people demanding their rights are seeing no recourse in "the legal system."'
ReplyDeleteThere's a value in that. To be sure, as you correctly point out, there would be more value in it if it generated more than twelve letters.
To that end, I pledge to compose and send mine.
There is a "compelling state interest"
ReplyDeletein removing all of our rights. The purpose of the second amendment is to make sure that the "compelling peoples intetrest" overrides "compelling state interest".
That letter (and others like it) will not changethat judge's mind. It will, however, serve notice that he has crossed a line with the people. I am contemplating a similar letter.
ReplyDeleteYou know how to ruin a man's day. Truly depressing.
ReplyDeleteBut motivating.
You're right. Stare decisis, "prudetnial" policy-minded justices, and loose-contructionists seem to have ruled SCOTUS and high courts for decades.
You seem to be alluding to something much more assertive. Yet we are "hopelessly outnumbered." I simply disagree with you there.
Please, please, all of you that are going to write letters or have written letters, also write your elected federal officials and ask that they seek impeachment, conviction and removal of Hendren from the bench. You don't have to be from Arkansas to do it.
ReplyDeleteI am not silly enough to think they will impeach him, but if we can get them just to discuss the issue because many letters were sent to senators and representatives of all the states, then we can be sure even though we get no action (which is likely) we will receive attention.
If a large percentage of the elected elite receive the same request regarding the same person, word will get around. It may make them wonder how much too far they have gone. It may squelch implementation of their next already planned usurpation. And judges may begin to wonder at what point the fury of the people cause their abandonment by their brothers in contempt of the constitution and impeachment does happen.
Look all the players know this is about who has the power. It is not about doing the right thing for those in power. They cannot trust each other.Therefore it is time for those who depend on us for their seats in the legislature to be wary of us and their chances for continued feeding at the public trough. When that happens the judges who depend on them for their seats on the bench may decide to quit abusing the people, knowing that the elected elite are no more honorable than they are and will dump them in a hearbeat before giving up their own ride on the gravy train.
So, by all means write a letter to the judge. But also write letters to the people that can impeach and convict him. Nothing may come of it, but we know damn well it won't if we don't demand it.