How many would throw their fellow lawbiding gun owners in jail....

Would you throw your fellow gun owner in prison?

  • Yes - He/she is guilty of the law as charged

    Votes: 21 17.4%

  • No - The law prohibiting possession in unconstitutional, and I would vote not guilty

    Votes: 100 82.6%
  • Total voters
    121
Status
Not open for further replies.
F

FirstFreedom

Moderator
for merely exercising their constitutional right to carry a handgun, in contravention of state weapons laws?

You are on the jury. The defendant is a person with no prior record of any crime. He/she is charged with one sole count of "possession of a firearm" outside the home. He doesn't have a CCW license because the particular state has no CCW law "allowing" citizens to carry guns. The defendant testifies that he was merely carrying the gun concealed for self-defense purposes...just in case. He further states that he believes the law under which he is charged is an illegal and unconstitutional law because the 2nd amendment to the US Constitution gives him the RIGHT to KEEP and BEAR arms. The punishment for the crime with a guilty verdict is minimum of one year in the state penitentiary.

Would you vote "guilty" or "not guilty" of illegal possession of a firearm?

Thank you for your participation. :)

If I made a forum mistake, and this fits better in Legal & Political, in the view of the moderators, then you may please be so kind as to move it there for me. :)

P.S. Option 1 should say "[....] guilty of the law violation as charged."
 
Sorry but I can't vote. They would never let me on that jury because I won't live in a oppressive state like you mentioned.
 
Last edited:
Unfortunatly, the law is the law however unfair. There would be other ways to express that unfairness other than not convicting this person. I doubt he would go to jail anyway.
 
Don, it's a hypothetical, so you're allowed to vote.

Revorick, so did you vote?

Majic - so if the government makes criticizing politicians' policies illegal, and you proceed to do just that, are you law-abiding? And did you vote?
 
so if the government makes criticizing politicians' policies illegal, and you proceed to do just that, are you law-abiding?
Click to expand...
No because you have broken the law no matter what you think of it. You can't pick and choose what laws should be obeyed.
And I didn't vote because the jury can ask for considerations in punishment, but the person is guilty.
 
OK, good. Thank you for answering. Your answer is "NO, I would not be law-abiding" for your act of criticising the politician when it is made illegal. Interesting. In other words, you'd be a criminal for criticizing that politician. That is what you're saying, correct? Want to make sure I understand your answer.

Next question: If the government made teaching your children anything about religion, or even attending church illegal, and you did so, are you law-abiding?

What if they made eating more than one meal per day illegal, and you did so. Are you law-abiding?

And I didn't vote because the jury can ask for considerations in punishment, but the person is guilty
Click to expand...

No, not in my hypothetical, they can't. In my hypothetical, the required minimum sentence, under the sentencing guidelines, is one year in prison.
 
I'm a non citizen so doesn't apply to me, but that still doesn't stop them sending me a jury summons and wanting to data mine me for all my details to sell off for money on the form I have to send back telling them to bugger off.
 
FirstFreedom you stipulate the law then have someone break that law. How can you then call that person lawabiding as they haven't abided by all the laws?
The government has a law against armed robbery. A person goes into a Mom and Pop corner store, pulls a handgun, points it at the couple and demands the money from the store. Is that person lawabiding? The government enacts a 55 mph speed limit. You are caught doing 63 mph. Are you a lawabiding citizen?
A law enacted by the government is the law no matter what you personally may think of it. If you are caught breaking that law you could very well be punished and you are no longer lawabiding.
 
No. I wouldn't vote to convict.

"All laws which are repugnant to the Constitution, are null and void." Chief Justice Marshall, Marbury v. Madison, 5, U.S. (Cranch) 137, 174,176

badbob
 
It's not hard people just answer the question, it's not a trick question

If a person is charge only with carrying a gun without a permit or without being registered or whatever scheme this state has and was only picked up because it was discovered with no connection to any other crime, then I could not vote guilty because the supreme court has already ruled that any law repugnant to the constitution is void

Sorry Bob I was checking my facts before posting and you beat me to it
 
No. Unconstitutional laws are not laws at all and without a victim exactly what would be the violation? Would he not have the right to face his accuser/victim?
 
I think you're right, Edward."No evidence of an injured party" or something. Doesn't seem to stop the steamroller "justice" system, though.
Sorry Bob I was checking my facts before posting and you beat me to it
Click to expand...
No need to apologize, joab. I keep the quote "handy".:)

badbob
 
When I replied there was no poll at the top. I have now voted. He broke the law, he is guilty as charged. He should find the appropriate avenues to change the law. I believe the law in his state is unconstitutional.
 
No need to apologize, joab. I keep the quote "handy"
Click to expand...
I drew a blank and could not remember if it was a framer or justice that made it

I had Patrick Henry stuck in my mind and knew that that wasn't right

And whenever I think of Marbury I get A Christmas Carol stuck in there
Marley-Marbury
 
The problem is that we would never get on the jury
The first questions asked in selection would be do you on firearms and/or do you have a CCW

A friend served on a jury involving a crime committed with a firearm they went into much details in the questioning to find out as much as they could about the jurors thoughts on the matter

In this case they loaded the jury with permit holders and the guy got convicted. I bet Mr. Defense lawyer doesn't make that mistake again
 
RevoRick said:
He broke the law, he is guilty as charged. He should find the appropriate avenues to change the law. I believe the law in his state is unconstitutional.
Click to expand...
One of those "appropriate avenues" is to be arrested, convicted and appeal the conviction.
 
I absolutely would not. An unconstitutional law is not really a law at all in this country, as the Constitution is the highest law in the land. It doesn't matter how many traitors to the Constitution enforce it or support it.

The constitutionality of some laws is iffy and should be left to the courts for interpretation. Other laws are obviously just and sensible, such as laws against rape, murder, theft, etc. And when it comes to laws that are obviously unconstitutional -- and neither the Second Amendment nor the Founders' commentary on it is difficult to understand -- every American has a duty to oppose those laws. Jury nullification is a great way to do that without resorting to violence (the cartridge box is the last resort after the ballot box and the jury box).

If "the law is the law" and must be obeyed no matter what, then what you're saying is that those who make the laws are gods who deserve to be obeyed no matter what. Even if laws are determined by the majority, what gives the majority the right to rule over you? If the majority voted to make your religion illegal or to enslave your ethnic group, would you go along with it? This is why we live in a constitutional republic rather than a democracy or autocracy. "Get the law changed" implies that an ordinary individual has the power to change the minds of the majority, which he does not.

Good men once risked everything to give us our Constitution, and it saddens me that there are those who would aid the enemies of that document.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top