Fincher
David notes that Hollis Wayne Fincher was sentenced to six and a half years. Finscher was in possession of machine guns and a short barreled rifle without paying taxes on them. He fought the case on second amendment grounds and lost. See prior posts here.
Update: In comments, Wesley clarifies:
I would probably have said, He tried to fight the case on second amendment grounds but wasn’t allowed to and lost.
Ayup.
June 23rd, 2007 at 9:31 pm
Cue “I fought the law”…
June 24th, 2007 at 1:55 am
I predicted this, but it fell on deaf ears.
June 24th, 2007 at 8:43 am
I think a lot of people knew it was going to happen. What’s sad is that no one around Mr. Fincher told him what a bad idea it would be and what the end result was bound to be. But still, putting this man in prison isn’t really going to accomplish anything. I was hoping maybe they’d go easy on him because of his age, and offer house arrest or probation.
June 24th, 2007 at 10:22 am
“He fought the case on second amendment grounds and lost.” I would probably have said, He tried to fight the case on second amendment grounds but wasn’t allowed to and lost.
It’s sad that this happened to such a person.
June 24th, 2007 at 7:58 pm
But even a first year law student could have explained to him why his strategy would be a failure. This is why you really need to have a lawyer handy before you start antagonizing the federal government.
It is possible to win but you have to have a coherent plan before you gather your plaintiffs and go about setting up standing to sue. You want to control as much as possible to maximize your chances of winning and not having your case tossed out for technical reasons or decided on grounds you don’t care about. Doing things this way has the benefit of not risking your liberty if you lose the case.
Fincher had no plan, no understanding of the legal system nor any coherent strategy for his defense before he was arrested and dragged before a judge. By breaking the law, he opened himself up to prosecution at a time and in a manner of the government’s choosing. He handed them a slam-dunk case and they took it.
I agree with him that these laws violate the 2nd amendment, but his circuit has precedent that says this isn’t so. A supreme court decision overturning this precedent is some ways off, even in the increasingly unlikely event that DC decides to appeal Parker.