In order to participate in the GunBroker Member forums, you must be logged in with your GunBroker.com account. Click the sign-in button at the top right of the forums page to get connected.

Round one went to the government Friday.

Wagon WheelWagon Wheel Member Posts: 633 ✭✭✭✭
Fincher found guilty of having illegal weapons
Militia leader faces prison time for machine guns
This article was published on Friday, January 12, 2007 10:07 PM CST in News
Local News for Northwest Arkansas: By Ron Wood The Morning News
FAYETTEVILLE -- Round one went to the government Friday.

A federal court jury found Hollis Wayne Fincher guilty of having illegal, unregistered weapons, including machine guns and a sawed-off shotgun.

Fincher, 60, had two .308-caliber machine guns, homemade versions of the Browning model 1919. The other firearms were 9 mm STEN design submachine guns and the shotgun.

Fincher's attorney, Oscar Stilley, vowed to appeal the verdict all the way to the U.S. Supreme Court.

"Basically, the Second Amendment got defined away so that if the government can tell us what's affected by the Second Amendment, if anything, I'd like to know what it is," Stilley said. "If this case holds up, the federal government has gone from a government of limited powers to a government that's absolutely unlimited by the Constitution, by the grant of power (by the states to the federal government) or anything else except politics."

Fincher looked at friends and family in the gallery before the verdict was read and said, "They won't defeat me." He later mouthed, "It's OK," as he left the courtroom with U.S. marshals.
Family members cried and comforted each other as Fincher was led away.

Fincher faces up to 20 years in federal prison, but Stilley said he hopes to be able to hold it down to 30 months, which he said was the plea bargain offered by prosecutors before trial. Sentencing will come in about 60 days, when a presentencing report is finished.

While the defense tried to make a federal case of the Constitution versus gun laws, the government kept the case as simple as possible for jurors -- Fincher had the machine guns and they weren't registered as required.

Prosecutors felt the law was clear in the case.

"We felt we were on very solid ground, however, the defendant had very strong beliefs," said Wendy Johnson, a deputy U.S. attorney. "They're good people and they believe very strongly, it's just different and contrary to what the law is."

It took the jury almost five hours to reach a verdict, even though the defense presented no witnesses or evidence to counter the government's case.

Fincher never denied he had the guns.

"I think the jury did a great job," Johnson said. "They took their duty and their job seriously and of course we were pleased with the verdict and the outcome."

Fincher and other Militia of Washington County members were featured in a March 2006 front-page report in The Morning News, firing the weapons. That report, according to federal law enforcement officials, was what prompted them to begin investigating Fincher and the group.

Fincher's backers said they fully expect to see more indictments issued, based on the investigation and bolstered by Fincher's conviction.

Johnson would say only that the investigation is continuing.

The trial was hard-fought and somewhat disjointed because U.S. District Judge Jimm Larry Hendren had to make so many rulings about what law and evidence the jury was allowed to hear.

Hendren repeatedly ruled the defense could attack the government's evidence, but not the law that applied to the case. He also ruled, based on U.S. Supreme Court precedents, that laws passed by Congress to regulate firearms do not violate the Second Amendment.

A major issue was whether the Militia of Washington County is a recognized state militia, exempt from federal gun laws under the Second Amendment. Hendren ruled it is not.

The judge ruled that Fincher's proposed testimony was inadmissible because it was aimed at challenging the legality of federal gun laws, not if Fincher had illegal, unregistered firearms in his possession.

Fincher maintained his possession of the guns should not be criminalized because it was "reasonably related to a well-regulated militia," based on the Second Amendment. He also testified he doesn't think there should be any restrictions on gun ownership, including what kind of guns an individual can have.

After the trial, Stilley said Fincher had obviously set out to challenge the government on gun laws because of his Second Amendment beliefs.

Since 1934, it's been illegal for civilians to own machine guns without permission from the U.S. Treasury Department.

Federal law permits the public to own machine guns manufactured and registered before 1986 under certain conditions. Guns made or imported after that date can be bought by law enforcement agencies, but not the public.

Each new weapon is subject to a manufacturing tax and must be registered with the National Firearms Registry.

To become a registered owner, a complete FBI background investigation is required.

When selling a machine gun, dealers must fill out federal registration forms. The purchase of a machine gun requires a $200 federal tax stamp every time it is transferred from one legally registered owner to another.

Legal Lingo

Second Amendment

"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

Source: U.S. Constitution
Reader Comments (2)
The following comments are provided by readers and are the sole responsiblity of their authors. The Morning News does not review comments before their publication, nor do we guarantee their accuracy. By publishing a comment here you agree to abide by our comment policy. If you see a comment that violates our policy, please notify the web editor.
Craig wrote on January 13, 2007 3:18 AM:"An expected result...the appeals process will be much more interesting. Please contact and support the Gun Owners of America, NRA, JPFA, etc., hoping that they may have some counsel to be willing to take this case pro bono. It's critical. To all those of you responding to yesterday's article, understanding the implications, thank you, from me, a private citizen. To those of you asking legitimate questions about where we 2nd Amd. supporters draw the line, and attempting to understand the issue, I especially thank you. The answers you received will do much to clarify some things for those that are interested, but for whatever reason, won't actively engage in the discussion. Per the above, I am proud to have neighbors such as my fellow countrymen that answered the real queries, politely and respectfully. The anti-gun culture has been in propaganda mode for so long, we can hardly expect anyone born before about 1950 to even be aware of their rights, as protected in our most fundamental document. Such has been the legacy of 50 yrs of liberal public educators, with notable exceptions, of course. It is why we must talk around the dinner table, not about Brittney Spears, but about the things that are crucial to our survival as a self-governing people. "
Craig wrote on January 13, 2007 3:36 AM:"Just to address the inquiry as to where we Constitutional supporters draw the line: Unfortunately, the concept of WMD's as we generally understand it wasn't supposed by our Founders. Now that they exist, we do, as a practical matter have to entrust our elected Commander-in Chief with the safe-keeping of such. If no one else had 'em, I would be for doing away with all of them, but the toothpaste is already out of the tube, there. But for all other conventional weaponry, our people should be as well armed as the Government, of course! We ARE the gov't. That folks don't understand even that basic premise is beyond me. To the retired Marine from yesterday, thanks for your service, but you don't quite seem to get it either. I, too, was military (Naval Aviation) for many years, but that doesn't give me any extra access to the truth either. I do understand that. So lets not hold up our service, which we were honored to give, as a shield of some sort. Otherwise, we Vets risk what happens to the Law Enforcement community, that "us vs. them " attitude. Its all about us, educating "us". Each other. We're all on the same side. A government increasingly without common sense readings of law and the Constitution, is increasingly NOT on our side. Read history to your kids. Explain this case to them. "

A free people ought not only to be armed and disciplined, but they should have sufficient arms and ammunition to maintain a status of independence from any who might attempt to abuse them, which would include their own government."
--George Washington

Comments

  • pickenuppickenup Member Posts: 22,844 ✭✭✭✭
    edited November -1
    Thanks for the update.
    Will have to see where it goes from here.
  • HighballHighball Member Posts: 15,755
    edited November -1
    Oh, yes, indeed...we shall see.

    There HAS to be a certain number of people rotting in the Kings' prisons...rotting because they trusted in the 'Blind Justice' insanity that the King promotes...
    They actually believe in the Constitution...and touchingly believe that some where in the Kings Court SOMEONE believes in it, too....

    History tells us that the Founders tied for many years to get a hint of justice from the King....they didn't....nor will we.
    The Beast refuses to obey the edicts/chains put upon it by the wise Founders...and whom will force them to...?????
  • dsmithdsmith Member Posts: 902 ✭✭✭✭
    edited November -1
    Highball, it couldn't be a populace as well armed as the government that keeps the government in line, could it?

    The liberals tell me that "gun rights" are just to let certain people hunt.

    I say: No gun laws. Ever.
  • HighballHighball Member Posts: 15,755
    edited November -1
    The NRA loves to tell us citizens that "Only They stop the government from banning guns"...over and over and over.

    I firmly believe that those in power still recognize that a gun ban will provoke armed rebellion across America....and they cannot win that war...YET.
    I believe also that huge sums of money and talent are being directed towards nullifing any advantage we the citizens have....
    I believe that open borders has a much darker purpose then votes or cheap labor.....
  • ObiWanObiWan Member Posts: 1,054 ✭✭✭✭
    edited November -1
    20 years in prison for failing to pay $200 in tax on private property he made.


    He will die in prison, thinking the US Supreme Court will ever hear his case...a firearm case....private property case....yeah that won't happen.

    Land of the free my @$$.
  • dsmithdsmith Member Posts: 902 ✭✭✭✭
    edited November -1
    quote:Originally posted by ObiWan
    20 years in prison for failing to pay $200 in tax on private property he made.


    He will die in prison, thinking the US Supreme Court will ever hear his case...a firearm case....private property case....yeah that won't happen.

    Land of the free my @$$.


    But remember, Der Fuhrer Reagan and the Demonkrats in office at the time said that you could no longer pay the $200 tax to register NEW machine guns. You had to transfer ones that were legally owned BEFORE May 19, 1986. There is no real way that he could have legally had a NEW full auto, unless he had become an FFL (and had a business selling full autos to the cops), paid the $500 tax to become an SOT, and had a police "request for demonstration" letter saying he could buy the gun in question. Or, if he got the other SOT, he could make a full auto himself provided he registered it. Oh, and once they stop paying the taxes or go out of business, they have to give thier "post-86 dealer samples" back to the government.

    Sick.[V]
  • ObiWanObiWan Member Posts: 1,054 ✭✭✭✭
    edited November -1
    Look up Stewart-vs-US.

    Even the 9th Circus Court ruled citizens can possess homemade machine guns they made.

    Stewart's machine guns were real home made jobbers and not simple firearm parts that could be bought and assembled....thus falling under the Commerce Clause for Govt. control.
  • dsmithdsmith Member Posts: 902 ✭✭✭✭
    edited November -1
    quote:Originally posted by ObiWan
    Look up Stewart-vs-US.

    Even the 9th Circus Court ruled citizens can possess homemade machine guns they made.

    Stewart's machine guns were real home made jobbers and not simple firearm parts that could be bought and assembled....thus falling under the Commerce Clause for Govt. control.


    I was aware of that case. However, that only applies to the one district, and I wouldn't want to be the one to test it to hold up in another court case.
Sign In or Register to comment.