Posted on 05/16/2002 4:05:00 PM PDT by Stone Mountain
Edited on 04/13/2004 2:40:18 AM PDT by Jim Robinson. [history]
Washington -- Lawyers for John Walker Lindh, the Californian accused of fighting with the Taliban, sought Wednesday to dismiss firearms charges against him based in part on the Justice Department's new interpretation of the Second Amendment.
In papers filed in federal court, the lawyers said that charging Lindh with firearms violations would violate his Second Amendment right "as an individual" to use and possess a firearm. They are seeking the dismissal of a charge that Lindh used firearms and "destructive devices" in crimes of violence. In a recent filing with the Supreme Court, the Justice Department argued that the Second Amendment conferred a broad right to bear arms.
(Excerpt) Read more at sfgate.com ...
If not send the ATF in and bar b que.
This will be thrown out almost immediately. The Second Amendment right to bear arms does not imply a right to use arms in a crime.
Exactly.
Please tell me if you have heard anything about this Defendant using arms IN the US. I have heard of none.
These grotesquely juvenile prosecutors are trying to enforce their unconstitutional US disarmament laws against US citizens in cases where such a citizen "keeps and bears arms" in a foreign country!
These prosecutors look at their set of 'facts' and write indictments as if they were writing answers to an open ended question on a law school exam.
Shock treatments, anyone?
That's right. The crime should have been treason against the U.S. He gave aid, comfort and assistance to the enemies of the U.S., al queda in particular. There were plenty of witnesses. What did they charge him with?
"The indictment alleges that Lindh received military training in a military camp run by al Qaeda, but it does not claim that he provided anything to al Qaeda or the Taliban other than himself, which, his attorneys argue, is not illegal.
His atty. is confused, he admits his client is guilty of treason, but fails to recognize it himself.
If this wasn't treason, nothing could be.
However, nothing in the Second Amendment gives him the right to use firearms -- or any other tool -- to murder his countrymen. Why prosecutors are worrying about firearms violations when the little spoiled puke is guilty of treason is beyond me.
But it is a delicious irony that to defend him, a product of the radical liberal Left, his attorneys are using an argument straight from the canons of the Right: the right to keep and bear arms. No doubt his parents and friends fail to appreciate the hypocrisy.
In a way, i hope he gets acquitted. He doesn't realise he's a lot safer in custody than on the American Street.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.