CCW Holder in TROUBLE in MA!!!!!!

[Al Norris]

Rick, you directly quoted from my post and then, in the same post, directly asked for my "verdict" if I were a Juror.

I've read this thread from the start. It wasn't until now I thought I could contribute some sanity to it. My form of sanity happens to be pragmatism. It is not yours, or you would not be going on as you have.

One would think that you being on the opposite side of my argument would have taken the hint in page one.

Since we aren't in a shoot-out, I took my time in making an informed opinion. If that's a "dodge," so be it.

Is it wrong that people should be deprived of the most effective means of self defense in todays USA? Most assuredly the answer is, Yes.

So what do you advocate? Breaking the law and suffering no consequence? Which laws? Just the ones you don't like?

You call these laws unconstitutional. Did I miss something? Are you in reality a Supreme Court Justice? (sarcastic and rhetorical question. No need to answer, Rick) As much as I disagree with several of their decisions, the fact remain that what they say, is.

The actual Jury didn't agree with you though, did they? So just who are you, from AZ. that can say that the MA. laws are unconstitutional? You don't believe that the States can have their own laws? You would rather that fed.gov law trumped all state law?

These questions are all valid, since you have taken the stand you do.

 

[tyme]

I'm sorry for mistaking MA's non-resident permit policy. The fact remains that he didn't think he'd be going to MA enough to justify the $100/yr pay-off, and when his friend's dad got sick he didn't have time to get a permit even if he'd wanted to. Maybe he went to MA often and he was lying, but if so there doesn't seem to have been evidence supporting that presented in court.

He could have remembered the gun and left it at home. Could he have secured it in his van? The FOPA protection only applies if you're travelling through a state, right? Which was not the case in this instance. So he would have to obey MA state firearm transportation laws. Although I don't know what they are, nobody else has quoted or cited them, so it's hasty to say that he could have complied. It's also a stretch to expect someone like him to know other state's safe transport laws. He could have tried to comply if he had a lockable container, but he might still have been charged... if he'd been beaten up and robbed by the thugs, and the police had consequently searched the van for some reason.

It's repeatedly argued in this and other fora that self defense is more important than obeying concealed carry laws. Yet a wide variety of folk are here condemning someone for not obeying the law, even though his non-observance of an unconstitutional* law very possibly saved him from injury or death.

* Antipitas, regarding constitutionality, what would your suggestion be? Do you think it's subjective to claim that these laws are unconstitutional? Is the language of the 2nd amendment and 14th amendment so open to interpretation that they might not together prohibit a state from restricting concealed carry? Would you like us to avoid such claims and instead argue for VT/AK-like ccw laws on a pure policy basis? That's not easy to do, because the emotional anti-gun reaction when people are killed with guns is difficult to overcome with pragmatic/utilitarian self-defense arguments.

I don't think there's any doubt that racism and social segregation would be worse today if blacks had worked within the system to try to get their rights, rather than arguing ideology and using various extra-legal tactics.

It's the ideological argument that's important. Those who support the RKBA on a utilitarian basis are weak allies, and can't be relied to stand firm when the winds change. I don't think those sorts of allies are worth cultivating, which is why I cringe every time someone cites Lott's studies.

Since the threshhold for using lethal force in that situation was rather low given the physical disparity between the attackers and their victim, why did the state of Massachusetts waste taxpayer money trying to convict him for the homicide? Couldn't they have charged him with fleeing the scene or evidence tampering or something? Even then, I don't know if I'd support a conviction on any charges. Although he shouldn't have fled or disposed of evidence, by all appearances it was a good shoot. What he did afterward was out of fear of what the state would do to him if they found out he'd defended himself with an illegally-carried gun.

His post-op prognosis wasn't certain at the time. If you were in that situation, would you want to spend possibly the last days of your life defending yourself against an illegal ccw charge?

Unless you believe he wasn't acting in self defense, why not give the man a break?

 

[Little Wolf]

Ok, a couple points here. Firstly, MA's non resident CCW permit is a VERY slow process, often taking up to 6 months for both new issues and renewals alike.

Two,

If this guy had reported and waited for the police to arrive, he may have had a better chance at trial. No. 1 may have then been allowed to be admitted in defense as the law of compeating harms. I'd just about bet that the Judge wouldn't allow that because of No's. 2, 3 and 4. (does anyone know what the prior precedent involved, that Ayoob mentioned in the article?)

Actually, he wouldn't have stood a better chance at the trial. This is MA we are talking about here. He would be going to trial either way, unlike some states. And he wouldn't have been discovered either if he wasn't stupid enough to throw his GUN away, this is the evidence which lead to linking him with the incident.

If he did have an aware jury, however, they may have gotten him off his one year mandatory jail sentence through Jury Nullification. This seems like the perfect incident where this would apply.

 

[RickD]

Rick, you directly quoted from my post and then, in the same post, directly asked for my "verdict" if I were a Juror.

Which you didn't give then, and still don't give. I quoted from a post which contained something I needed to address. I rarely keep track of who said what. Doesn't matter.

So what do you advocate? Breaking the law and suffering no consequence? Which laws? Just the ones you don't like?

Why should someone "suffer a consequence" for breaking a law? If you are doing 85 on the Loop 101 (like 80% of the people), because you are late for work, would you later call 911 and report yourself? Or do you just do it until you are caught on photo-radar? Any thought to the fact that the speed limit there is set lower than people tend to drive thus driving up enforcement revenue? Funny how people, on the same freeway can drive 80mph in low density traffic and then slow down to 20mph when the traffic becomes stop-and-go, all without the need for the speed limit signs to change down from 65mph. Amazing, that.

As to which laws, I'd say those laws which violate Natural Rights would be fine candidates for ignoring, don't you think?

The Fugitive Slave Law. A great law to break. Those operating the "Underground Railroad" hold a place of honor. I'd wager very few of them were caught and so, they didn't "pay the consequences." Is that a good thing or a bad thing? Are they more or less honorable because they didn't "pay" for their crimes? I know, "it depends."

Rosa Parks? What is more important to you -- that she refused to give up her seat to a white man, or that she went to court with NAACP lawyers in her corner and was convicted by a bunch of white guys?

The folks harboring Jews in WWII were breaking the law as well. Thumbs up or thumbs down, Cesear?

I wonder if any Japanese-Americans were hidden from the FBI sweeps to intern them in concentration camps in the desert. Good thing or bad thing? The USSC later ruled it was unconstitutional, so at least those criminals would have that defense -- eventually.

The Brits, increasingly since 1953, have been unable to use the right of self-defense. Now, even common items such as canes or umbrellas can't be used for self-defense. Now, if an English Gentleman, using his walking stick, beat the snot out of a mugger and then, in a panic, decided it was in his best interest to toss that stick into an incinerator, given the history of multi-year sentences being handed down for "taking the law into your own hands" and "using excessive force," do you think it prudent for him to leave the scene and destroy the evidence that would link him to his "crime?"

As much as I disagree with several of their decisions, the fact remain that what they say, is.

Yes. I have the ability to form an opinion as to whether someone's right to self-defense has been infringed. I can do it here, I can do it on the jury box (how would you have voted, again?) I can do it with my checkbook as I pay for JPFO dues or someone's legal defense fund. Could you see yourself donating to someone like him in this case? Or do you need more information? I know, I know, "it depends."

The actual Jury didn't agree with you though, did they?

OJ's jury didn't agree with me either. The fact remains, the Rhode Islander's rights to KABA was infringed. That *you* don't think it an important thing to defend speaks volumes about you.

So just who are you, from AZ. that can say that the MA. laws are unconstitutional?

Let me get this straight, I have to live in a state before I can say that a law violates a person's right to KABA? Homey don't play that. I gunnie buddy of mine is a transplant from Mass. He thinks Mass law violates individual rights too. Is that good enough for you, or do we both need Mass D/Ls to qualify for commentary?

You don't believe that the States can have their own laws?

They can have all sorts of laws but if they violate their constitutions, and/or Natural Rights, you might be hearing from me.

You would rather that fed.gov law trumped all state law?

That is the situation now. 14th Amendment (not yet incorporated to 2a). Supremacy Clause, etc. Recall the California/US Justice Dept fight over marijuana. One side increased individual rights, the other squashed individual rights. Can you guess which side I'm on?

The answer is not, "it depends."

Rick

 

[Al Norris]

Here's some of my reasoning on this particular incident, tyme. From the article by Ayoob:

Situation: A justifiable homicide goes downhill when a panicked citizen flees the scene and disposes of the pistol.

Lesson: Don't leave the scene, never dispose of evidence, make sure you have a permit, and it's not enough to just get training ... you have to follow the training.

Sounds pretty much as I laid out what he did wrong, yes? Even though I often disagree with Mas, this is one time I do agree. The guy makes a series of tactical mistakes that eventually cost him.

Rick called into question a few things I said, which were a reiteration of what Mas wrote:

Had he remained at the scene and said a few basic things to responding officers, I have little doubt that the case would have ended with the Grand Jury proceeding.

That sort of clears up the doctrine of competing harms bit I offered as an exculpatory defense. Even though this particular judge would not allow that defense, I still believe it was because of A)the defendant had taken the proper precautions on three other sojourns into MA (which means he was in fact aware of MA law), and B)the fact that the defendant fled the scene, and C)the defendant attempted to destroy evidence.

My opinion and my stance on all this also has to do with history.

Since the invention of hand held firearms, who is it that has always concealed their arms in the first place? Who is it that always conceals them today? Crooks are the answer. The public has a definite reason to fear concealed carry, historically, whatever we may think. Honest law-abiding citizens, up until recently, have always worn their firearms exposed for all to see.

The reality is that restrictive laws on concealed carry have always been in place and the presumption has always been that such a person was a bad guy. We have about 300 years of ingrained behavior to fight against.

Regardless of how we may feel about our right to carry, we are fighting an uphill battle. Such a fight does not get help when some person violates laws that a particular State and its people, believe to be a genuine reasonable restriction, given the historical facts of concealed carry.

Many States have rethought the reasonableness of such restrictions and have passed laws that now allow citizens to legally carry concealed. Yet, ask any run-of-the-mill citizens and you will find that they still consider concealed carry to be a cover for some type of nefarious action on the part of the bearer.

It is this perception, by the public, that we have to fight. We can't fight that perception by holding up someone who runs from the scene of an otherwise good shooting, who attempts to destroy the evidence of his act, as a poster boy for concealed carry.

I don't know how many times I have read on these boards how a member would go ahead and carry, despite the fact that it was unlawful for the area the member was in. Said members have always said that they would suffer the consequences should it become known they carried unlawfully, through a good shoot.

Here, Robert Tessitore knew that carrying into MA was wrong, and acted in the same manner that a few have said they would do. After the shoot he panicked however, instead of standing up and taking responsibility for his actions. For those that say he would have been charged and convicted anyway, I have to say... We just don't know. Because he didn't do what those have said they would do.

So yes tyme, it is the ideological argument that's important.

 

[Al Norris]

Which you didn't give then, and still don't give.

Yes I did, Rick. It was in post #37:

While I would lean towards nullification on the one charge of unlawful possesion...

 

[Rob P.]

The idea of jury nulllification is wonderful in theory. However, in practice it is something entirely different.

Juries are charged with following the law. If someone is charged with a crime and all the elements of that crime are presented sufficiently well, then the jury has no choice but to follow the law and convict the accused.

Allowing the jury to pick and choose what laws they will or won't follow is anarchy in the extreme. Imagine the result if the system becomes one in which people believe they can do anything because they can argue for nullification and suceed. At what point does it stop? Minor transgressions? Murder? Cultural or religious boundaries? Where?

You couldn't KNOW and thus you can't know for certain if your actions would be punishible. Without the possibility of punishment, there is no internal desire to conform.

Plus, even hinting at jury nullification in some jurisdictions can get you tossed in the pokey even if the option is "legal" in that jurisdiction. Been threatened that way a few times by the judge personally even though I had no intent to ask for or hint at it from the jury.

 

[RickD]

Yes I did, Rick. It was in post #37:

Where you said, "it depends." "Leaning" toward something isn't good enough. Too much wiggle room. Tell us whether you would vote to convict or acquit.

Juries are charged with following the law.

It didn't used to be that way. In fact the seminal case in the late 1800s (Sparf v US, 1885) concerned an appeal because the judge failed to instruct the jury that it could disregard the law and his instructions. While noting the power of the jury to ignore law, facts, and instructions, the Court ruled that such instructions were not required. This, then, evolved into the current system where the judge boldly says that HE judges the Law and the jury judges the facts.

This began a few decades prior when courts were having difficulty convicting Underground Railroaders under the Fugitive Slave Act. The juries commonly voted to acquit. That is when the judges began changing the rules.

So, if you want to come down against fully-empowered juries, go right ahead, but history puts you on the side of the usurpers.

then the jury has no choice but to follow the law and convict the accused.

You're operating under a fiction. What happened to the OJ jury when they voted to acquit him? Nothing. What happens when a jury votes to acquit in the face of the Law, evidence, and the judge's instruction? Nothing.

Allowing the jury to pick and choose what laws they will or won't follow is anarchy in the extreme.

Who says anarchy is bad? You'd prefer the rigid legalism of Mass? Soviet Russia was quite stable, but wouldn't you prefer the current alternative? Yes, freedom is scary to children. Time to grow up.

You have obvious problems with understanding the traditional purpose of the American Jury. It is not to rubber stamp decrees from corrupt judges or ursurping legislatures. It is to fight bad law. I'm not going to rehash fully-empowered jury, FIJA, or fully-informed juries here. It has been discussed here, at GT, and THR many times. Do a search and figure it out for yourself. Come back when you have a working knowledge.

To spur your interest:

Way back in 1735, John Zenger published "seditious" pamphlets which were against the law in New York. In his trial for "seditious libel" his jury disregarded the judge's instructions which said that even though the pamphletes stated truth, it was no defense. The jury ignored the instructions and acquited Zenger.

Was that a bad thing or a good thing?

Imagine the anarchy, you say? Imagine the brute force of tyranny, unchecked by a fully-empowered jury. (We're actually living in it).

You also assume that juries will be throwing out charge after charge. Juries tend to consider seriously such crimes as murder and robbery -- there is little debate about that when random juries are selected (which the OJ jury was not). What the fully-empowered jury is designed to check, are political laws and trials, where there will be a chasm in thought.

I feel like I'm casting pearls to swine, right now. So, I'll give it a break.

Plus, even hinting at jury nullification in some jurisdictions can get you tossed

That's just a branch of government flexing its muscle, unconstitutional though it may be. Keep your mouth shut in the jury box and the jury room if you intend to acquit.

Here are some quotes from FIJA's web site:

As recently as 1972, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia said that the jury has an " unreviewable and irreversible power... to acquit in disregard of the instructions on the law given by the trial judge.... (US vs Dougherty, 473 F 2d 1113, 1139 (1972))

United States Court of Appeals for the District of Maryland: "We recognize, as appellants urge, the undisputed power of the jury to acquit, even if its verdict is contrary to the law as given by the judge, and contrary to the evidence. This is a power that must exist as long as we adhere to the general verdict in criminal cases, for the courts cannot search the minds of the jurors to find the basis upon which they judge. If the jury feels that the law under which the defendant is accused, is unjust, or that exigent circumstances justified the actions of the accused, or for any reason which appeals to their logic of passion, the jury has the power to acquit, and the courts must abide by that decision." (US vs Moylan, 417 F 2d 1002, 1006 (1969)).

I tire of your bootlicking.

Rick

 

[Rob P.]

Come back when you have a working knowledge.

After several YEARS in litigation as a trial attorney I believe I have a better working knowledge than you give me credit for.

Who says anarchy is bad

I quit. It's impossible to debate anything with someone who would make this sort of comment. You win, I lose. Enjoy your victory cake.

RobwhoreallyDOESgiveadamP. (<-- hay, that was fun to do )

 

[rangermonroe]

From a similarly enlighted poster, this bit of "advice:"

"shoot, shovel and shut up."

Probably the most cretinous, dangerous and assinine suggestion one could make in these circumstances.
__________________

Apparently, tongue in cheek sarcasm, during a philosophical discussion is lost on some of us.

The defendant CCW may have been a degenerate imbecile, for all I know, so I do not defend his motives, character, or state of mind.


But I do know that he had to pass a background check in his home state to possess a CCW there.

He also had a duty to protect his life and freedom.

He was "carrying illegally" and was violating a statute that is juxtaposed to the Bill of Rights. Furthermore, I do not believe that he had a duty to report himself.

His destruction of evidence, I believe prudent, considering the alternative.

The only charge of which he is guilty is "illegal CCW in MA" and CYA in general.

Had MA granted CCW reciprocity, like they do for marriage and driver's licenses, he would not be guilty of the first, and perhaps not committed the latter. In which case, I would not defend him for the latter.

But, facing the foreseen outcome of prosecution, he chose to hide his "crime" and by doing so committed another. I fail to see the flaw in his logic.

Compliance or obstruction...the penalty was the same.

 

[Al Norris]

Where you said, "it depends." "Leaning" toward something isn't good enough. Too much wiggle room.

Making a decision that will affect a man's life without knowing all the facts is infantile at best, whereas deciding issues based upon your emotions are what the anti's do.

Your multiple references to the OJ Simpson Trial is a case in point. It probably never occurred to you that the Jury rendered a fair verdict, given that the prosecutor botched his own case.

I won't play that game. Nor will I play your game of becoming offended because you denigrate those who hold an opinion that differs from yours.

Who says anarchy is bad?

Are you listening to what you are saying? You would prefer the state of utter lawlessness that comes with the absence of the rule of law?

I'll stick with reason and logic over your constant appeal to emotion.

 

[rangermonroe]

No Rob P. , Don't Go!

No debate is worthwhile when only those in agreement participate!

Even we cretins appreciate arguement from enlightened opposition.

Although I agree with Rick D.'s position here (even if his a little left of mine), I do want to hear from those who feel he and I are dangerous and asinine.

And, also, why?

 

[Al Norris]

rangermore, I've given the historical basis for some restrictions on the right to carry. Have you an opposing view? Rick must not, as he completely ignored that part of my post.

My argument is simple. If the historical restrictions are valid, then the conclusion that the MA law was also valid cannot be argued.

 

[rangermonroe]

At first blush, I have no restrictions of right to carry.

After a moment's consideration...criminals should not, crazy folk should not (crazy enough to be institutionalized).

But that's only afer a moment's thought. Maybe there should be more...


Blanket bans by a state for all but the privledged few...not a chance.

I am a state's rights supporter, but not in violation to the USC.

 

[RickD]

After several YEARS in litigation as a trial attorney I believe I have a better working knowledge than you give me credit for.

You mean you are used to judges refusing to allow fully-empowered jurors which violates the principles upon which this nation was founded -- and you've accepted it. Shame on you.

Quote:
Who says anarchy is bad

I quit. It's impossible to debate anything with someone who would make this sort of comment.

The poster is unable to separate the concept of anarchy from chaos. Given the choice of anarchy vs the thumb of a tyrant government, I'll take anarchy, any day. Your order requires that an old man go to jail for the mere act of having the very tool to defend his life against career criminals. This wasn't a hypothetical, "Yer Honor, I carry a gun in case I might get robbed." This guy was actually attacted. Your order requires that a jury rubber stamp an appointed/elected governmens official's view of the law. Sorry, that goes against the Founding Fathers. And you know it.

without knowing all the facts is infantile

PUNT !!

It probably never occurred to you that the Jury rendered a fair verdict,

Actually, it did. Right up until I heard the jury members giving interviews to the press when they talked about white guys settin' up brothers.

Mmmm hmmm.

you denigrate those who hold an opinion that differs from yours.

This is a debate. Only a weenie would object. Your opinion would hold men unable to defend themselves at the whim of an anti-gun govnerment in a silly little state like Massachusetts. My opinion supports their ability to be free men. Which would you choose? "It depends," right?

You would prefer the state of utter lawlessness that comes with the absence of the rule of law?

We are already living in a state of anarchy. I call it "slow-motion" anarchy where the government is taking away rights, bit by bit because of their lawless contempt for the Constitution(s) and the concept of Natural Rights. How has that First Amendment faired under McCain-Feingold 60-days before an election? How is that 2A doing in California and D.C.? Property rights? Jury trials? Search and Seizure?

I'll modify: "organized slow-motion anarchy."

I'll stick with reason and logic over your constant appeal to emotion.

The appeal to emotion to which you refer are historical references. If they cause some synapses to fire, so much the better.

If the historical restrictions are valid,

They are not valid. Anti-concealed carry laws were passed in the south because of the many Abolitionist rallies where the local pro-slavery thugs were afraid to rough up the attendees because they were carrying concealed weapons and didn't know if it was safe to go after them. At this point, open-carry only laws were passed which allowed the bad guys (government) to take a census of their foes' ability to resist.


I am quite aware of the "only a criminal would want to carry a concealed weapon. Let a real man carry openly" arguments of 250 years ago. But, as it turns out, real men, and women, do want to carry concealed. And they aren't criminals. Indeed, as we know, criminals are thwarted by the confusion that happens when they don't know who is armed.

What you have done is given us the slippery-slope argument in reverse. Since you want to extrapolate one supposedly accepted precident, you want us to give a tip o' the hat to the mess in Mass. Sorry. If you want to do that, it becomes very easy, no, it is required for us to end your silliness -- nip it, nip it, nip it. That's how I've learned to deal with over-reaching Sarah Brady types here in Arizona. And that's how I will deal with you.

From William Rawles --

William W. Rawle, A View of the Constitution 125 (2d ed. 1829)

"In the Second Article, it is declared that a well regulated militia is necessary to the security of a free state: a proposition from which few will dissent. Although in actual war, the services of regular troops are confessedly more valuable, yet ... the militia form the palladium of the country .... The corollary from the first position is, that the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. THE PROHIBITION IS GENERAL. NO clause in the Constitution could by any rule of construction be conceived to give Congress a right to DISARM THE PEOPLE." Such a flagitious attempt could only be made under some general pretence by a state legislature. But, if in any blind pursuit of inordinate power, either should attempt it, this amendment may be appealed to as a restraint on both."

 

[rangermonroe]

I disagree with your position thusly...

Since the invention of hand held firearms, who is it that has always concealed their arms in the first place? Who is it that always conceals them today? Crooks are the answer. The public has a definite reason to fear concealed carry, historically, whatever we may think. Honest law-abiding citizens, up until recently, have always worn their firearms exposed for all to see.

When is recently? Gun racks in the back of p/u trucks (ok), at the mall, convenience store...When did law abiding citizens carry openly...in the past 50 - 75 years?

If I am not mistaken, around the turn of the century, .32 pistols were all the rage for ladies to carry. Twenty-five prior to that, parlor pistols were quite in vogue. Vis~a~vi the advent of the .22CB.

Saturday night specials by today's standards.

"Today's standard" is defined by hollywood and CNN (I know...tinfoil hat..etc)

Of course, my mother in law is afraid of "silencers" and "assault wpns"...that's what Tony Soprano's boys use. Dan Rather told her that she should fear "sniper rifles" as well as ".50 caliber"..."things".

Misinformed public apprehention should not be a benchmark for freedom.

Regardless of how we may feel about our right to carry, we are fighting an uphill battle. Such a fight does not get help when some person violates laws that a particular State and its people, believe to be a genuine reasonable restriction, given the historical facts of concealed carry.

Not so long ago, most reasonable folks believed that women didn't have the sense to vote properly; albeit, more than the less than human Negro.

Oh, and the damn Irish, too!

History has laid open the folly of "public perception" on those issues.

 

[Rob P.]

I know it's futile but I just can't help it.....

You mean you are used to judges refusing to allow fully-empowered jurors which violates the principles upon which this nation was founded. Shame on you.

Shame on ME??? For not doing something which in my jurisdiction would be ILLEGAL to do? ESPECIALLY after being warned about it by the judge?

Who the HELL do you think you are to advocate to ME that I break the law? And don't bother to chide me because I'm willing to put my own views aside and STAND UP for the idea that we're supposed to follow the law instead of believing in anarchy and barbarism.

Your witless attempt to use out of context historical quotes to bolster your position is insane. You posit that juries are supposed to be given the lattitude to outthink and outguess our elected representatives who followed the rules, debated, opinied, submitted, and codified the laws that define our society and are the laws which both authorize and impower the jury yet are the very self same ones they are supposed to ignore at their whim just because they FEEL like it? How insipid. How innane. How mortally dense can one become.

WE, as a society, stand for the rule of law. To advocate that the laws which create our societal framework are alterable at a whim or desire defeats the very purpose of the existence of those laws. We stand for the rule of law. Not the lack of it.

Think on this the next time you need to stop for a stoplight. Under your ideal, you need not stop because you could argue to the jury that the law was inconvenient and therefore shouldn't apply to you. Never mind about those other's who you ran off the road and caused so much destruction to as a result. YOU shouldn't be held accountable because it's just too bothersome.

RobgetstuffedP.

[/thread]

 

[rangermonroe]

Rob p.,

I think that at blowing a red light at 5pm on a whim is a little different than at 5am, after looking both ways, don't you?

"the law is the law is the law"

Both are equally against the law, but folks with common sense can see the difference.

Even a dog knows the difference between being kicked and tripped over.

I expect my Da to as well, but when he has a political agenda, he is not serving the electorate. He is now serving to re-elect himself.

In this instance, he does so at the expense of freedom, in the name of the law, and at the threat of anarchy.

If we cannot expect that the Law to protect us, the Lawabiding, Why should we protect the law?

 

[tyme]

Yet, ask any run-of-the-mill citizens and you will find that they still consider concealed carry to be a cover for some type of nefarious action on the part of the bearer.

Can you point to such a survey? Concealed/open carry bias is a lot more complicated than that, or State laws would not be such a CF. Your "open carry is perceived as good, concealed carry as bad" theory does not explain why only a handful of states allow open carry with minimal restrictions and state preemption of more restrictive local laws.

AFAIK, the histories of both concealed and open carry laws are disgustingly intertwined with racism and selective enforcement, so any historical precedent for preferring one over another is automatically suspect.

You call these laws unconstitutional. Did I miss something? Are you in reality a Supreme Court Justice? (sarcastic and rhetorical question. No need to answer, Rick) As much as I disagree with several of their decisions, the fact remain that what they say, is.

True, what the SCOTUS justices decide becomes de facto law of the land, but are you also saying that one cannot vocally disagree with them on matters of constitutionality, to the point of saying they're idiots who too often let their ideological prejudices interfere with their comprehension of the English language?

The actual Jury didn't agree with you though, did they? So just who are you, from AZ. that can say that the MA. laws are unconstitutional? You don't believe that the States can have their own laws? You would rather that fed.gov law trumped all state law?

If a state passed a law banning concealed carry of a laptop without a license, and the courts upheld it, would you feel any differently about that than about MA's ccw law? Would you reject opposing arguments from people living in other states? Would you claim it's the state's prerogative to pass such a law?

 

[RickD]

Shame on ME??? For not doing something which in my jurisdiction would be ILLEGAL to do? ESPECIALLY after being warned about it by the judge?

Would the judge warn you for posting pro-FIJA statements anonymously on this forum? Time for some cajones, Counselor.

Who the HELL do you think you are to advocate to ME that I break the law?

And yet you have no problem with legislatures violating the Constitution and judges tampering, nay, bullying juries.

...STAND UP for the idea that we're supposed to follow the law instead of believing in anarchy and barbarism.

As I stated earlier, I find the piecemeal disemboweling of individual rights to be the true anarchy. Let me add to say that the SYSTEMATIC disarming of good citizens aids the barbarism of criminals. Indeed, it is barbarism in and of itself...it's OSHA for Criminals and job security for police, judges, prosecutors, defense attorneys, and the prison industry.

Your witless attempt to use out of context historical quotes to bolster your position is insane.

Please place them back into context, Oh Witty One.

You posit that juries are supposed to be given the lattitude to outthink and outguess

Yes. That's what (randomly selected, not vior dere-stacked) juries were supposed to do in prior to 1895, and is why Zenger and the Underground Railroaders went free.

...our elected representatives who followed the rules, debated, opinied, submitted, and codified the laws that define our society

These are the same elected ones who took bribes, do back-room deals, and are corrupt enough to confiscate lakefront property so they can give it to their benefactors? The Framers did not hold a vote of 50%+1 in a higher regard than they did Natural Rights which are above mere acts of a legislature.

and are the laws which both authorize and impower the jury

Laws? Here I thought juries pre-existed these laws and the Constitution itself, though the Bill of Rights aptly mentions them in Amendments 6 and 7.

...yet are the very self same ones they are supposed to ignore at their whim just because they FEEL like it? How insipid. How innane. How mortally dense can one become.

"Inane?" Dense?" It doesn't sound like you're describing Justice John Jay as he gave instructions to a jury which sat in a rare instance within the US Supreme Court:

1794 case of Georgia v. Brailsford

“It may not be amiss here, Gentlemen, to remind you of the good old rule, that on questions of fact, it is the province of the jury, on questions of law, it is the province of the court to decide. But it must be observed that… you have nevertheless the right to take upon yourselves to judge of both…On this, and on every other occasion, however, we have no doubt, you will pay that respect, which is due to the opinion of the court… But still both objects are lawfully within your discretion” (quoted in Conrad 1998, 52-53).

We stand for the rule of law. Not the lack of it.

We stand for Individual Rights which the Framers intended to be out of reach from legislative meddling.

Think on this the next time you need to stop for a stoplight.

In our neighborhood, there is a fourway stoplight on a rarely traveled road. The stoplight takes ten minutes to change when a normal vehicle travels over the sensors and may not change at all for motorcycles or lifted trucks. I routinely will stop, look for traffic, and travel through. This is a clear violation of the law, and yet, somehow I don't feel bad about it at all. You?

Is it my imagination, or have y'all (on the side of evil) been unable, or unwilling to address my points?

Rick