Friday, January 05, 2007

"Free Wayne" Signs Popping Up All Over: Get Yours Today

Demo-Zette columnist Mike Masterson has reported that "Free Wayne" signs are popping up all over NWA. They refer to Wayne Fincher, the 60 year old Washington County man who has mananged to go all his life without being a criminal, and who the feds would now like to turn into one. His "crime" was that he manufactured and possessed a "machine gun". That is, he took a perfectly legal gun that fires once each time you pull the trigger and made it into one that will keep firing as long as you hold the trigger down.

There is nothing illegal about that either, lot's of people have such guns, but the Feds say you must buy a license (from the Treasury Department) to possess such a weapon. Fincher's team maintains that since the feds used their Constituional right to regulate "interstate commerce" to make the law saying a federal license is required, a gun manufactured and posessed in a single state does not fall under the law, and is instead protected by the Constitution's 2nd amendment. Any laws regulating possession of firearms made and held in-state would have to be state laws.

Outrageously, the feds are trying to exclude the use of the Constitution as a defense at the trial. We had a long debate on this thread over the propriety of that effort, and of whether or not Judges should (as they claim now) be the sole determiner of questions of law. I stand by the position that every defendent should be able to make Constitutional defenses to a jury in a trial. I understand that today's lawyers have been indoctrinated to the opposite belief, but I hope many of them have shaken off that brainwashing. To any that haven't: you don't want to debate me on that issue.

There are some reports that Mr. Fincher is not doing well in custody, that they are not allowing him to see his lawyer, and that their have been inordinate delays in getting him medication at the Sebastian County Jail (they are contracted with the feds to hold prisioners, unless they are illegal aliens I guess, because we always here stories about how the feds say there is "no room" to detain illegals arrested by local authorities). I am "dismayed" by such reports, to put it non-profanely.

The government wants to make an example of this case. It is getting to where I do too. I think I will get a "Free Wayne" sign for our yard. I will update this report when I find out how to get one in case you want one too.


Anonymous Anonymous said...

Though I'm often the closest thing to liberal on my occasional visits here, this is one where I am in agreement.

I don't own a gun. Don't intend to. Haven't carried a gun since I was in high school and have no reason to want to.

But the constitution has meaning. The courts have dodged the the second amendment often and the regulation of interstate commerce has been read very broadly to get a desired result.

The second amendment to me can only be logically read to leave the regulation of fire arms to the states and even that regulation rests upon the hook of the second amendment speaking of a well regulated militia.

If Arkansas wanted to ban the sale of any fire arm except ones having a specified caliber or bore size in the case of shot guns, it can. If the state wants to regulate the minimum barrel length, it can.

The US government though it outta luck. If the Feds want to limit the movement of fireams (or certain types) between the several states that is permissible. Absent some showing of an impact on interstate commerce the Feds are over-reaching.

If the Feds want to outlaw or require licensing or registration they can do what they have done with traffic safety and tie it to the spending power. In other words if you want this federal turnback money adopt these standards.

The interstate commerce argument though is bogus.

8:26 AM, January 05, 2007  
Blogger Mr. Toast said...

Outrageously, the feds are trying to exclude the use of the Constitution as a defense at the trial.

The object of ridicule our court system has become! You are guaranteed a trial before your peers, but the very constitution which guarantees such a trial is not allowed to be referenced in court!?

To what else shall a defendant appeal for justice? Shall he recite from the pages of Homer as a defense? Should the latest Journal of Science be used for an acquittal?

What good is a trial when the accuser gets to define the law!? That a man's neighbor would enjoy such an advantage in court is absurd enough, but when the government is the plaintiff, it's an outrageous conflict of interest!

8:40 AM, January 05, 2007  
Blogger rob_star said...

I would like one of those signs when you find out where to get them. The right to keep and bear arms is probably the only thing myself and the regular readers of this blog agree upon. If a law abiding citizen wants to make and keep a jacked up automatic rifle then who's business is it other than his? The ATF as well as several other federal agencies of dubious constitutionality to begin with, would like you to believe that this man is a criminal. I don't know him nor would I ever join a militia but I will stand up for his RIGHT to BE a crazy hillbilly.

I personally think everyone should be packing heat, I know I am.

10:12 AM, January 05, 2007  
Blogger Mark Moore (Moderator) said...

It looks like secular left and religious right have found common ground here.

The threat from the clear enemy of all of us- a huge state- puts us in the same boat on this one.

On this one, it is not whether you are left or right, its where you are on the up or down measure of human freedom vs. statist control.

4:53 PM, January 05, 2007  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

8:26am- Why do you think the defense's interstate commerce argument is not valid?

5:14 PM, January 05, 2007  
Blogger Mark Moore (Moderator) said...

I think they meant that the government's case, that it can use the interstate commerce clause to arrest a guy who makes and posesses a MG in one state, is bogus.

7:28 PM, January 05, 2007  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Precisely, if the gun is never moved between states and no evidence exists of such movement the argument is bogus.

Yet the fact that gun came from out-of-state and MIGHT be moved after alteration is the core of the government's case.

10:25 PM, January 05, 2007  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

What a crock. The guy builds machine guns and doesn't apply for and buy the license to do so. That's the law of the land that your elected legislators agreed to years ago. This nut-bag cleary committed a felony -- throw him into the pokey, and throw Masterson in there with him as well. the two would make a perfect couple. The could "Free" each other from the bounds of heterosexuality. What a load -- Mark, you and yours are so conservative, so support the law and the power of strict "constructionism" -- to hear you say things like this makes the head spin.

5:08 AM, January 06, 2007  
Anonymous Mark M said...

Any "law of the land" that violates the Constitution should be null and void. The Constitution IS the law of the land.

You should 1) find a less repulsive way to express yourself and 2) get a dictionary and look up "construtionism". I don't think it means what you think it does.

8:28 AM, January 06, 2007  
Anonymous Mark M said...

"Yet the fact that gun came from out-of-state and MIGHT be moved after alteration is the core of the government's case."

If that is the core of the government's case then we are dangerously close to a police-state right now: the Constitution is ignored and people are sent to prison because of what they "might" do? I can't believe that is the core of their case. More likely they just want to ignore the constitution altogether.

8:31 AM, January 06, 2007  
Blogger hairy hobbit said...

Just found your blog searching for "Free Wayne"
Since every other group and cause of the moment have a ribbon I quickly, and quite poorly made one up for Wayne.

9:30 PM, January 08, 2007  

Post a Comment

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home