There has been some discussion over at Snowflakes in Hell, first concerning the Wayne Fincher case, and then about a letter to the judge that was posted here.
It may come as a surprise to everyone, but I find it hard to disagree with Sebastian's observations. Let me qualify what I mean.
I agree that the Fincher case is not the ideal one. If I thought getting arrested to make a Second Amendment claim was a winning strategy, I'd arrange it myself. You'll notice I haven't.
Be that as it may, Wayne Fincher is correct in principle and his prosecution is nothing short of an assault on all our freedoms--as well as a thinly-disguised warning from the Masters that they will countenance no deviation from their mandates. So while I would not have picked this case, the feds picked Mr. Fincher. The man is fighting for his life, and I can do no less than to support him in every way I can.
But here's where I depart from the Fincher critics-- there is no "right case." As I've observed before about SCOTUS and 2A:
As for Mr. Sawders' letter, again, I agree it would not be advisable to send such a missive if the goal was to persuade Judge Hendren to "do the right thing." What I reject is that anyone is capable of writing such a letter.
The judge has proven he is a creature who considers stare decisis the supreme law of the land. He will be guided on the sentencing by what the prosecution wants and what the guidelines and precedent say.
Now if the argument is such letters will make him mad and prompt him to levy an even harsher punishment, why, such a man who would punish a prisoner for the semntiments of a supporter would be a monster, not prone to reason or sympathy, and deserving of much more than strongly-worded correspondence.
There is no "right letter."
But what will such a harsh, accusatory letter accomplish? In my view, as a standalone, not a whole hell of a lot, except to give "civil authority" an indicator that they're crossing a line, and that people demanding their rights are seeing no recourse in "the legal system." In a way, such a letter does the judge a service by letting him know this in no uncertain terms, but, again, I would not argue that it won't make him dig in his heels, especially since it is not accompanied by probably more than a dozen other pleas.
The fault is ours. Gun owners could have their rights back today if we truly wanted them, but most don't, and those who do are so hopelessly outnumbered that the likely outcome of defiance is purposefully exemplified by the treatment of Wayne Fincher.
One last observation--a personal note to Sebastian concerning this admission:
So again, it may surprise some to hear that admission coming from me. But I don't enjoy confronting someone whose heart is in the right place, either. Now the ones whose hearts are in the wrong place are another matter altogether...
It may come as a surprise to everyone, but I find it hard to disagree with Sebastian's observations. Let me qualify what I mean.
I agree that the Fincher case is not the ideal one. If I thought getting arrested to make a Second Amendment claim was a winning strategy, I'd arrange it myself. You'll notice I haven't.
Be that as it may, Wayne Fincher is correct in principle and his prosecution is nothing short of an assault on all our freedoms--as well as a thinly-disguised warning from the Masters that they will countenance no deviation from their mandates. So while I would not have picked this case, the feds picked Mr. Fincher. The man is fighting for his life, and I can do no less than to support him in every way I can.
But here's where I depart from the Fincher critics-- there is no "right case." As I've observed before about SCOTUS and 2A:
They couldn't rule that 2A is an unalienable right, applicable to the states as well as the national government, that shall not be infringed, because that would erode the monopoly of power--and no "authority" gives that up unless forced to. And they dared not rule that there is no individual right, because that would provoke widespread defiance and disobedience that could well get out of hand.My prediction (albeit it's more uncertain now that the Republicans have managed to give away both houses, and it looks like they're doing their best to lose the executive branch, so forget any change to the high court that doesn't move it to the left)--is the court will rule it an individual right, but so narrowly, and with such deference to "compelling state interest" and "reasonable restrictions" as to make very little difference in terms of hampering new legislation to outlaw "assault weapons" again, "close the gun show loophole," retain and share NICS data, etc., and of course, in terms of enforcing "existing gun laws."
As for Mr. Sawders' letter, again, I agree it would not be advisable to send such a missive if the goal was to persuade Judge Hendren to "do the right thing." What I reject is that anyone is capable of writing such a letter.
The judge has proven he is a creature who considers stare decisis the supreme law of the land. He will be guided on the sentencing by what the prosecution wants and what the guidelines and precedent say.
Now if the argument is such letters will make him mad and prompt him to levy an even harsher punishment, why, such a man who would punish a prisoner for the semntiments of a supporter would be a monster, not prone to reason or sympathy, and deserving of much more than strongly-worded correspondence.
There is no "right letter."
But what will such a harsh, accusatory letter accomplish? In my view, as a standalone, not a whole hell of a lot, except to give "civil authority" an indicator that they're crossing a line, and that people demanding their rights are seeing no recourse in "the legal system." In a way, such a letter does the judge a service by letting him know this in no uncertain terms, but, again, I would not argue that it won't make him dig in his heels, especially since it is not accompanied by probably more than a dozen other pleas.
The fault is ours. Gun owners could have their rights back today if we truly wanted them, but most don't, and those who do are so hopelessly outnumbered that the likely outcome of defiance is purposefully exemplified by the treatment of Wayne Fincher.
One last observation--a personal note to Sebastian concerning this admission:
I don'’t enjoy criticizing members of our own community, especially when I think their hearts are in the right place.That's because you're a decent human being. But those of us out there offering our opinions need to expect that as a likely outcome, and when we believe someone is in error, we owe them, as well as those they influence, the benefit of our opposing views.
So again, it may surprise some to hear that admission coming from me. But I don't enjoy confronting someone whose heart is in the right place, either. Now the ones whose hearts are in the wrong place are another matter altogether...