PERSECUTION OF PATRIOT DISTURBING

Feds Target 60-Year-Old Militiaman For Stance on Second Amendment

By Ralph Forbes

Why is the government afraid of a retired, overweight, elderly man with respiratory problems?

At the bond hearing for Hollis Wayne Fincher, known as “the gentlegiant,” the federal court conceded it was at heart a free speech case—but from the government’s standpoint Fincher had uttered “scary” free speech, so his bond was set at $250,000, equal to the deed to his 120-acre homestead, which has been in his family for three generations.

Fincher has been accused by the federal government of possessing three illegal machine guns. However, many believe the case has more to do with Fincher’s writings and beliefs than it does any firearms he owned.

Yes, it is a First Amendment case, the inalienable rights to freedom of speech, assembly and petition. But it is equally a Second Amendment case, securing the God-given right of self-defense, which protects every American from having his or her right to keep and bear arms from being infringed by the government.

In the spirit of America’s patriots of 1776, in 1994 Fincher and others founded the Arkansas Militia, realizing that the fundamental right to protect all other rights is the right of the people to keep and bear arms.

Recognizing that the best security of a free people lies in the people, not the government, Fincher wrote The Silver Bullet, a treatise showing that infringements upon this basic right stem from the poison tree of unconstitutional perversions of law.

The Arkansas Militia then sent copies of this nearly 300- page elucidation to Gov. Mike Huckabee (R) and a host of other officials, including county sheriffs, to educate them on the law of the land.

No one said it wasn’t correct.

On March 18, 2006, The Morning News of Northwest Arkansas published an Anti-Defamation League (ADL) approved story on Fincher, The Silver Bullet, and other patriots.

Mark Pitcavage, a Columbus, Ohio-based “fact-finder” for the ADL, an unregistered agent of Israel, said the ADL “monitors” Americans that it deems “potentially dangerous,” especially if they have “extreme views” and/or are “heavily armed.”

The ADL was particularly concerned about the Washington County Militia, Fincher and The Silver Bullet. So eight months later, on Wednesday, Nov. 8, 2006, federal agents from the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (BATF) and FBI, aided and abetted by Arkansas State Police, the Arkansas State Bomb Squad, the sheriffs of Washington and Madison counties and the police departments of Fayetteville and Springdale, raided Fincher’s home and arrested the 60-year-old man.

Rest of article at:

http://www.americanfreepress.net/htm...f_patriot.html

__________________
"All truth passes through three stages. First, it is ridiculed. Second, it is violently opposed. Third, it is accepted as being self-evident." - Schopenhauer

And for those of you who found T-B's link just a little, shall we say, lacking in balance and details, there's this:
http://www.nwaonline.net/articles/20...7fzfincher.txt

The man had three unregistered machine guns, which he made himself.

And if the nuisance lawyering exhibited in his appeal is any indication, I can understand why the Silver Bullet is gobbledygook. Did he challenge any of the evidence? No. He attacked the original indictment on a frivolous technicality -- that it didn't invoke the interstate commerce clause -- and challenged the court's jurisdiction in the case.

Some details from the case:
http://www.nwaonline.com/articles/20...7fzfincher.txt

Gotta love this legal argument:

A major issue has been whether the Militia of Washington County is a valid state militia for second amendment purposes. Hendren ruled it's not.

A state militia is an arm of the government under the governor who appoints officers at his discretion, according to case law. Former Gov. Mike Huckabee provided prosecutors a letter saying there was no recognized relationship between the state and the Militia of Washington County.

Fincher argued the group notified the governor it was forming and acquiring weapons and when he didn't respond in 10 days, they had the state's approval.

Argue that the public should be allowed to own machine guns? Fine. Express surprise, outrage and predict the demise of the Republic when the government enforces 70-year-old gun laws? No.

__________________
Man up.

Who did he kill with them? Who did he rob with them? It was a victimless crime - a bogus crime. The man was no threat to any peaceful person.


In your statist, government-worshipping opinion.

It didn't - that's explained here:

http://www.originalintent.org/edu/federaljur.php

How dare he, raytri!!! How dare anyone challenge a court!!!! LOL. The court didn't have jurisdiction. As the Supreme Court once said, "The laws of Congress in respect to those matters do not extend into the territorial limits of the states, but have force only in the District of Columbia, and other places that are within the exclusive jurisdiction of the national government.":

A thorough explanation is here:

http://www.worldnewsstand.net/today/articles/3US.htm

And a few good points here:

http://www.constitution.org/juris/fedjur1.htm

The courts exercise their "power" due to deceptions created in the legal codes - which happened because there's no law prohibiting Congress from making deceptive laws - and due to the ignorance of the general population, but the fact of the matter is that the Feds have no jurisdiction in the 50 states other than in specific federal enclaves. The "trickery" is via the Buck Act and the creation of "shadow" states - State of Alaska, State of Florida, etc. when shifting definitions as in the end of the link above - instead of the actual area - Alaska state, Florida state. It's all legal trickery. This case demonstrates it:

WYOMING SHERIFFS PUT FEDERAL OFFICERS ON CHOKE CHAINS

County sheriffs in Wyoming are insisting that all federal law enforcement officers and personnel from federal regulatory agencies must clear all their activities in a Wyoming county with the Sheriff's Office. Speaking at a press conference following the recent US District Court decision (case No 2:96-cv-099-J) Bighorn County Sheriff Dave Mattis stated that all federal officials are forbidden to enter his county without his prior approval.

"If a sheriff doesn't want the Feds in his county he has the constitutional power and right to keep them out or ask them to leave or retain them in custody." The court decision came about after Mattis & other members of the Wyoming Sheriffs' Association brought a suit against both the BATF and the IRS in the Wyoming federal court district seeking restoration of the protections enshrined in the United States Constitution and the Wyoming Constitution. The District Court ruled in favor of the sheriffs, stating that, "Wyoming is a sovereign state and the duly elected sheriff of a county is the highest law enforcement official within a county and has law enforcement powers exceeding that of any other state or federal official."

http://www.freerepublic.com/forum/a387ec3ea6413.htm


But not according to the Founders and the original intent of the Constitution:

"The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. A well regulated militia, composed of the body of the people, trained to arms, is the best and most natural defense of a free country" - James Madison, Annals of Congress

"What, sir, is the use of a militia? It is to prevent the establishment of a standing army, the bane of liberty . . . Whenever Governments mean to invade the rights and liberties of the people, they always attempt to destroy the militia, in order to raise an army upon their ruins."- Rep. Elbridge Gerry of Massachusetts

"I ask, sir, what is the militia? It is the whole people, except for a few public officials." - George Mason

"A militia when properly formed are in fact the people themselves and include all men capable of bearing arms. To preserve liberty it is essential that the whole body of people always possess arms and be taught alike, especially when young, how to use them." - Senator Richard Henry Lee

__________________
"All truth passes through three stages. First, it is ridiculed. Second, it is violently opposed. Third, it is accepted as being self-evident." - Schopenhauer

I was trying to figure out how to best defend my home, and I came up with the idea of a Nuclear weapon. No one would dare attack my family at home because of the MAD principal. It worked out well during the cold war, and I would like to use the 2nd Amendment to support my rights to have nuclear weapons.

In fact, everyone should have nuclear weapons because according to MAD, no one will ever attack another person again. Seems like a perfect solution.

My question is:

Does the 2nd Amendment guarentee my right to have nuclear weapons?

Ixtellor

Your Straw Man is thoroughly rebutted here:

"Why can't I own nuclear weapons? The Second Amendment guarantees it!

This argument comes up from time to time during gun control arguments. An anti-gun person who intends to use it as a strawman argument usually offers it facetiously or sarcastically. A strawman is a logical fallacy in which a debater exaggerates an opponent's position, directs arguments at this exaggerated position, and claims to have defeated the opponent's real argument.

The Second Amendment guarantees individual citizens the right to keep and bear arms. Even professors who can only be described as extremely left-wing have come to this conclusion. For example, the prominent law professor Laurence Tribe, has reluctantly concluded that this Amendment explicitly upholds the right of citizens to keep and bear arms.1

The writings of our Founding Fathers reveal that there were two sociological reasons to uphold this natural right: To prevent crime, and to defend against a rogue domestic government.

Rest at: http://www.freerepublic.com/forum/a3b4d03ea2636.htm

__________________
"All truth passes through three stages. First, it is ridiculed. Second, it is violently opposed. Third, it is accepted as being self-evident." - Schopenhauer

Obviously I am baiting you. But it is not a strawman. It gets to the heart of the argument. What constitutes "Arms" The founding fathers could not have envisioned nuclear weapons.

Since any sane person will admit that citizens do NOT have the right to bare ALL "arms" you have already conceded that it is a matter of interpretaion and common sense when decided what "arms" we can possess and those that we can not.

So unless you believe that we have to right to bare any and all "arms", I would say what is your criteria for determinging which "arms" are ok to have and which are not.
Rocket launchers?
Future ray guns?
Laser guided crowd seeking projectiles?
Smart bullets?
Howitzer?
Quad .50's?
Telekinitic brain activated head sets that instantly disenagrate whoever you think about?

None of these are strawmen. They all fall under "Arms". They all have been or might be invented.

Ixtellor

BUt that does not answer the question of why a nuke is not a protected peice of military hardware for homeowners.

Would it prevent crime? Yup who the hell is gonna break into a house if the guy is going to launch a nuke at his/her house when he dinds out who did it or for that matter gets a suspicion who did it!

Would it protect one from a rogue gvt? You betcha hard to have a ruby ridge standoff if the guy in question can take out the nearest city let alone the surounding agents!

As to it being a strawman I don't think it is as the prog gun militia crowd routinely makes the case that ALL gun/armed militia laws should be overturned and the issue should be left to the individual or the state. BY its very nature that argument means that nukes could be on the tabel if available....

Quote:

But shouldn't there be some limits on gun ownership? No. Such limits don't reduce crime. They either render innocent people defenseless, give the police more power than they should have, or they are simply stupid, unenforceable laws.

http://www.harrybrowne.org/articles/gunlaws.htm


So if there should be NO gun laws (remember guns in this case are "Arms" which cover much more then guns) at all according to the gun nuts then nukes are in fact on the table.

Yes, it is.

Nukes, as weapons of mass destruction, are not a valid class of personal weapon. All rifles, shotguns, pistols, are. Thus, there is no valid constitutional reason to to ban the possession on personal wepons by free citizens.

Constitutional defense: the Bill of Rights is is designed to protect the individual rights of individual citizens. The 2nd Amendment is premised on the belief that free citizens can be trusted with deadly weapons (among other things). It does NOT legitimize the seizure or restriction of these weapons by any branch or any level of any government.

It's not really a matter of interpretation in regards to personal weapons. It's a matter of understanding that every single human being on earth has an innate right to self-defense - a right to protect their lives - and the right to own weapons to facilitate that right. I don't fully agree with the following, but it does clearly show that any weapon usuable in self-defense was protected by the 2nd amendment. And ultimately, that's your argument. You're trying to say the government has no limitations in determining what is a legal arm to possess, and that's just false:

What "Arms" Are Protected?

As the Oregon Supreme Court recently opined, in the state constitutions adopted between 1776 and 1802 "the term 'arms' as used by the drafters of the constitutions probably was intended to include those weapons used by (p.15settlers for both personal and military defense. The term 'arms' was not limited to firearms, but included several handcarried weapons commonly used for defense."[53] Under the second amendment, all commonly possessed arms which an individual could "keep and bear" would be constitutionally protected. Both then and now, these arms include firearms, edged weapons, and blunt instruments.[54]

The most clearly protected firearm is the rifle, the use of which for self-defense even in urban areas is protected by the second amendment "guarantee of the right of the individual to bear arms."[55] The modern descendent of the musket, the rifle is the classic militia firearm. The shotgun is also protected by the second amendment.[56] The short-barreled shotgun is the descendent of the blunderbuss, a classic home defense arm,[57] in contrast with the long-barreled hunting shotgun known traditionally as the fowling piece. While it may not be within judicial notice that the short-barreled shotgun is a militia arm protected by the second amendment,[58] such an arm has been factually determined to fall within a state constitution protecting the right of citizens to "keep and bear arms for their common defense."[59]

The arm most commonly possessed for self-defense is the pistol,[60] due to its ease of storage, carriage, and accessibility. "'[P]istol' ex vi termini is properly included within the word 'arms,' and ... the right to bear such arms ... cannot be infringed."[61] Its short barrel makes it difficult for an assailant to grab, and its size, weight, and simple mechanism makes its use viable for women, the elderly, and the handicapped. Smaller pistols have particular utility for smaller people.[62] The smallest handgun designed by Smith & Wesson "was such a small revolver that it was nicknamed the Ladysmith, since (p.159)it seemed to be more suitable for a woman's small hand."[63] The relatively high cost of rifles as compared to pistols suggests that a ban on ownership or possession of low-caliber handguns would effectively negate any right of the poor to bear firearms for their self-defense.

There has been little scholarship concerning whether certain edged weapons and blunt instruments are "arms" in a constitutional sense. The knife is one of mankind's oldest tools and weapons.[64] Pocketknives were in use when the second amendment was adopted. It is questionable whether "switchblade" knives with the modern convenience of a spring-assisted blade may be banned any more than could modern firearms which no longer rely on a flintlock mechanism.[65] The staff and the club, mankind's oldest defensive weapons, are clearly constitutionally protected.[66]

Since "arms" under the second amendment are those which an individual is capable of bearing, artillery pieces, tanks, nuclear devices, and other heavy (p.160)ordnances are not constitutionally protected.[67] Nor are other dangerous and unusual weapons, such as grenades, bombs, bazookas, and other devices which, while capable of being carried by hand, have never been commonly possessed for self-defense.[68] Blunt and edged instruments and firearms are capable of being used against a violent assailant in such a manner as not to endanger the innocent. In contrast, explosive devices may be incapable of pinpointing an aggressor, thus harming the innocent as well as the guilty.[69]

Article and full cites from court cases and period manuscripts are here:
http://www.guncite.com/journals/hal-lin.html


Cool. I want one.

Assuming that people continuously improve through evolution - whether you see it as a purely physical or a spriritual (reincarnation) thing - one day, millions or billions of years in the future, EVERYONE will have the intelligence to create nuclear weapons or even more powerful weapons with minimal effort and equipment. How will you stop the spread of nuclear weapons then?

__________________
"All truth passes through three stages. First, it is ridiculed. Second, it is violently opposed. Third, it is accepted as being self-evident." - Schopenhauer

"The very atmosphere of firearms anywhere and everywhere restrains evil interference - they deserve a place of honor with all that's good." - George Washington, original gun nut

__________________
"All truth passes through three stages. First, it is ridiculed. Second, it is violently opposed. Third, it is accepted as being self-evident." - Schopenhauer

Again the phrase is the right to bare "ARMS" arms include guns, swords, knives, nunchuks and Nukes.


GIven that the gun nuts have called time and again for the repeal of ANY law that infringes on their right to bear arms then nukes are on the table.

Your post did nothing to disprove the assertion nor did it show just why Nukes could not be considered legitimate arms for those who want no regulation at all on there right to bear arms....

Just asking for clarification...not quotes from brainy quotes or where ever else y ou culled it from.