Why is it the The Federal Courts don't allow The U.S. Constitution and The attached Bill of Rights to be .....

Question

used by a defendent as evidence of innocense in a criminal proceeding? A man In Northwest Arkansas was charged and convicted for violating federal firearms charges. He was not allowed to present the second ammendment to the constitution as a defence. Is this possibly a point of a future appeal? Or is his fate sealed?

Wolfgame 30. He was the commander of his county's local militia. He believed that he had the right as the military does to own Nation Firearms Act regulated weapons without having to got through the BATFE liscensing and tax stamp procedures. He owned shotguns with barrels less than 18" and fully automatic weapons. He also believed that because the constitution defines the right to keep and bear arms by the people and a well regulated militia which he commanded that he had the right to "keep and bear these arms" under the constitution. He was not allowed to present The Second Ammendment in court.

Norteno. I am a life member of the NRA. I've read it a couple of times.

Kevin K. under this premise. All firearms can be banned. Correct?

Hardwoodrods: Ithink it was in white county, not sure. It was in The Arkansas Semocrat Gazzette over the last few months.

Who decides what is a well regulated militia. The county, state, or feds? Who should have power over there jurisdiction.

halstrm: any info would be appreciated.

UriK: I don't know where you live or how many police you have personally guarding you but I am 25 minutes hard driving from the nearest police station. I am originally from California, where the state decided that there were certain firearms that I didn't need to own to defend myself. Thats when I loaded up myself and all of my semi-auto clones of modern military weapons and moved to Arkansas where the folks in the state government feel a bit differently. I'm not sayin the guy is right or wrong, although I feel the U.S. Constitution is in his favor. I believe that he was not a very smart cookie for not getting federal tax stamps since he didn't have a criminal record and now he is serving the standard six years on his conviction. I just wanted a little feedback on how the average American feels about the fact that the Constitution is being gutted everyday.

Hardwoodrods: I agree. Every right left in this country comes down to privilege and whether a person can afford to purchase it. The little man and woman are screwed as usual. So much for "government of the people for the people".

There's to many spirts floating around out there with their own ideas. That's why the Bill of Rights is spelled out with letters in plain and straightforward English for all to understand.

I invite everyone of you to join me in THE ALL AMERICAN PARTY. A grass roots political party out to restore the Constitution to it's original plain and simple meaning as it applies to the masses.

Yes Matt. I know that if there is justice to be found it will be here in this jurisdiction. This is a historically constitutional rights district. Most everyone in this state that cares about this case is questioning the judges verdict. I feel that it will be overturned on appeal.

halestrm: I mispelled the paper, it is The Arkansas Democrat Gazzette. If you can't find it there go to Mike Masterson @ the same adress. He writes on the op ed column. If you can't find it there go to I think it's KATV 7 archives or search engine. I'm with you 100% on The Constitution of The United States of America and The Bill of Rights to The Constitution of the United States of America and the fact that the only way to change it is set forth in it. Nothing in the document expresses in any way that it should be interpreted through time any differently than it's original language was interpreted at the time of it's conception.

If it makes anybody feel any better, since Yahoo! is not bound by the U.S. Constitution I have reported myself for "Grandstanding"!

Answer 1

I would love a link to the story. Sorry, but without some research my answer would be useless.

I will star in the hopes of getting info.

THX

UPDATE
OK, I am trying VERY hard to find the story, but the updates do not give me much direction. The paper name you gave doesn't google. Help me! This is an issue close to my heart, I am a constitutionist before any political party. Please, I just cannot find the story. Can you give me a name, a paper, a charge, a city, heck, maybe even a county. Timeline would be great.

I WANT TO KNOW MORE!

UPDATE
Urik
Sorry, but the letter of the law is the law. Judges are not suppose to figure out what the law was suppose to say, they are to judge based on the law.

The constitution is NOT a living, breathing, changing doc. Sorry, but the constitution states very clearly how to update it. I will fight changes to the MY constitution tooth and nail and I will fight judges telling me that although it says this it means..... We are so lucky to have a limiting and defining document like the constitution, why are we so willing to bastardize it so that it fits "our" needs?

Answer 2

This will seem odd, but i think that adjustments had to be made as weapons increased in killing power and accuracy. The spirit of the law and the letter of the law are two very different things. The spirit of the law would mean that obviously there should be limits on what a single person or organizations can possess in terms of firearms. For instance it doesn't take an assualt rifle for self preservation. The letter of the law would however say that no matter the weapon any individual should be allowed to possess them. I dunno about you but i'd prefer that lunatics not get their hands on automatic weapons. That is the reason that laws like the one this man is being charged under were made, and for a law to be proper and constitutional it has to apply to everyone.

Edit: apparently a few don't understand the concept which i'm using in saying why the second amendment isn't usable as a legal defense. The spirit of the law is what was intended by the law, but is not necessarily the literal reading of the law. The letter being said literal reading. Judges may or may not choose to let someone walk for not following the letter, but still following the spirit of said law, and laws do not always cover everything in writing. The laws that are seemingly in violation of the second amendment basically change the situation completely. For instance they don't mention anything about registration which is i think what the case is about and that allows further restrictions to be made without violating the constitution. Another part of the case i'm making is basically that the second amendment isn't meant to be a huge blanket allowing people to collect large private weapon caches. So the letter and spirit of the law are thereby different in a case such as this. That is the thinking behind all the gun laws created since then and why he will probably be found guilty though i would need a few more details to decide personally.

Answer 3

The Constitution has always been allowed in court (most defendants plead the 5th amendment and don't take the witness stand). As for the man in Arkansas it's hard to tell what happened without more information. If he was charged with violations of federal firearms charges then it could be anything from not having the proper paperwork to having a machine gun to selling illegal weapons or something in between.

Answer 4

Federal courts have already ruled on the scope of the second amendment. The second amendment is NOT a blanket guarantee that gives anyone and everyone the right to bear whatever firearms they wish. If he wasn't allowed to present it as a defense, it is likely that a higher court has already heard a similar case and determined that this defense is not applicable to this situation.

Answer 5

Can you post a link?

Edit - Your right based on the info at hand, he was part of a well regulated milita, hence the second amendment should apply. It will be intersesting to see what happens on appeal. I don't think his fate is sealed just yet, however it is not in the interest of the government to allow weapons possession by the populace. It is much easier to rule when no one else has a gun.

Answer 6

As long as his lawyer made sure be preserved the objection, he can argue the constitutionality of the law on appeal. The jurisprudence on the Second Amendment is sparse and there is no way of knowing if any appellate court will be sympathetic to his argument.

Answer 7

The right to bear arms does not guarantee what type of weapons may be bared. Automatic weapons are illegal unless you pay for a special license. Pistols that fire shotgun shells and several other weapons are illegal for good reason.

If the man was a convicted felon at the time of his arrest, then he is pretty much screwed.

Answer 8

need a lot more detail than what you gave. What caused the charges? did he have illegal fire arms. Were they received threw the proper channels? Did he have a criminal past? etc

Answer 9

This Amendment does not give him the Right to break a City Ordinance or any other as a fact.
When this bill is excersised appropiately, there is no offense.

Answer 10

They don't care.