Hollis Wayne Fincher has no Second Amendment right to possess a machine gun and a sawed-off shotgun, a federal appeals court ruled Wednesday.Of course he does. And a federal appeals court has no legitimate authority to rule otherwise.
That it does speaks to something being terribly, dangerously wrong.
[Via ken3949]
[More on Wayne Fincher from WarOnGuns]
8 comments:
Maybe gun owners need to learn from the much-derided drug user community. Just because something's ILLEGAL doesn't mean it has to be RARE. This "not in common use" ploy... they could never use it to challenge drug possession. They could never have used it to challenge maintaining a still during that other Prohibition. In one month, North Carolina agents destroyed 218 stills. I don't think Prohibition works.
Since handguns have been banned in DC for 40 years, semi-auto pistols could continue to be banned because they're -- that's right -- NOT IN COMMON USE.
"Why are you afraid of the water?"
"Because I can't swim."
"You should learn."
"I would, but I'm afraid of the water."
That's the reasoning of a CHILD, not a government official.
The rights of the individual trump the circular reasoning of a lawbook-worm.
The Second Amendment doesn't require us to specify WHY we want a gun, only that we cannot be interfered with if we decide we DO.
The trend is in the other direction. We may have to explain it to them. Then we'll be Rep. Henry Waxman's nightmare: "If these people are going to use these kind of weapons to defend their rights, I don't like them having guns at all!"
A local open-government advocate objects to the way government provides some documents on its Web site complete with citizen Social Security numbers. You know, the number that, when it was begun, was never to be used for identification outside the retirement system?
Anyway, she has in turn posted the social security numbers of the unresponsive officials, which she found on an official government Web site, on HER Web site. They object. They could fine her $70,000. Now it's dangerous and an invasion of privacy and invitation to identity theft.
Social Security numbers are "in common use." What's their objection?
It's always different when it's THEM.
It's funny how the other gun owners are backing the thugs who kidnapped and abused this man.
I'm going to say something bold, but I hope you all take it to heart.
HUNTERS ARE NOT OUR FRIENDS.
These NRA-joining, beer-swilling, deer-shooting jackasses are not an asset to those of us who wish to preserve our rights. Now, there's nothing wrong with beer or hunting, but these people want guns protected only so long as they have the right to shoot quail. No fascist regime has ever banned hunting!
These people will gladly sell ALL of the gun rights that we have up the river just to save their own sorry tails, even though they're not at risk! They won't help us. They aren't our friends. They ARE NOT ON OUR SIDE.
Yeah, John, we know. That's why we call them Fudds.
They're the ones who constantly admonish us:
"Be vewy, vewy quiet!"
Hmmm...some people prefer to "speak softly and carry a big stick". Me, I prefer to "speak loudly and carry an even bigger stick and I'll use it too."
I'd still say you'd be better off with a commercial rifle in a NATO caliber in the long run. To each his own.
Defender said "Maybe gun owners need to learn from the much-derided drug user community. Just because something's ILLEGAL doesn't mean it has to be RARE. This "not in common use" ploy... they could never use it to challenge drug possession."
Defender, you're forgetting the "lawful purpose" language. The Heller standard is what's "in common use FOR A LAWFUL PURPOSE." So, no matter how common you make something, so long as it is "illegal" it won't be kept for a lawful purpose (so the clever judges will say) and therefore is "not protected." (because the Second Amendment lays that all out in plain English - right?).
Besides, no sense trying to figure out how to hold judges to their own holding (or their own dicta). They'll just dance around your arguments, seizing on some obscure dicta somewhere.
What we have here is dicta piled on top of dicta (truly nonsense on stilts). The Fincher Court just used the dicta in Heller regarding machine guns, and the "common use for a lawful purpose" bit in Heller itself was just taken from dicta in Miller, which the Heller court used to entirely gut the actual holding in Miller. That's how it is done.
The actual holding in Miller set forth a test of what was militarily useful, but the Heller Court ignored that and instead focused in on one little passage in Miller talking about the historic practice of militia men bringing their own arms, those they kept at home for lawful purposes (which likely meant arms they did not use in crimes, I would guess - nothing to do with what kinds of guns they were, since there were no prohibitions on certain types of arms that I am aware of until this century).
Stewart
Post a Comment