FirstFreedom
Moderator
It's actually an extraordinarily specific hypothetical. Any details you want me to refine, just ask. Why would you call a specific question "general"?
How many would throw their fellow lawbiding gun owners in jail....
- Thread starter FirstFreedom
- Start date
- Status
Would jury nullification in any way effect precedence or would it just be cause for a mis-trial
I'm going to use that, if you don't mind
I still believe that if you knowingly break the law for your own purposes, whatever they may be, then you should not whine when you are taken to task for it
but I also believe that the law has the burden of proving itself worthy of depriving someone of their freedom and because " congress says so and the courts agree" doesn't wash anymore after Kelo
Last edited:
oldbillthundercheif
Moderator
I called it general because it is general as hell
Which law prohibiting possession? Felon in possession? Possession of unregistered NFA weapons? Possession of unregistered destructive devices? Possession of unregistered suppressors, flamethrowers, and tactical nukes mounted on a stolen M1 tank?
If it's any of those, probably, but you didn't specify. I assume you mean something a little more pedestrian like "possession of a handgun in Chicago" or "possession of a SKS with one too many foreign parts", but you know what happens when you assume, right?
You make an "ass" out of "u" and "me".
Which law prohibiting possession? Felon in possession? Possession of unregistered NFA weapons? Possession of unregistered destructive devices? Possession of unregistered suppressors, flamethrowers, and tactical nukes mounted on a stolen M1 tank?
If it's any of those, probably, but you didn't specify. I assume you mean something a little more pedestrian like "possession of a handgun in Chicago" or "possession of a SKS with one too many foreign parts", but you know what happens when you assume, right?
You make an "ass" out of "u" and "me".
FirstFreedom
Moderator
Actually, I said "possession of a firearm" outside the home, period. No other modifiers were added, for a reason. The law in this hypothetical state is "thou shalt not possess a firearm outside the home, unless hunting outside the city limits during approved seasons", ok? Period. No need to make it complicated. It is not. So you may indeed assume there are no other details...no other relevant ones anyway. OK, there's probably a money fine levied against the defendant, in addition to the jail time, but it's a minor one.... 
Then why would you assume that there is chance that he could be a felon in possession of a firearm
Or that he was in possession of a destructive device or a nuke,
or that he had stolen anything or violated any federal firearms law(those would be separate charges)
I am so sorry but I just could not resist
oldbillthundercheif
Moderator
I was just busting his chops because the poll seems kind of strange until you read the first post. A well-worded poll setup is self-explanatory and does not require extra digging for info.
I don't think FF was offended by my wisecracking. He's used to it by now, I'm sure.
I don't think FF was offended by my wisecracking. He's used to it by now, I'm sure.
If the jury acquitted, then for that trial and that specific person, on that specific charge, the game is over.joab said:
What a lot of people don't understand about nullification is that in order for it to actually work (by that, I mean, "change" the law), juries all over the country (or State, if the law was a State law) would have to acquit the defendants of the same charges in the same circumstances.
State legislatures (or Congress) take note of the fact that a law they passed was being subverted by juries across the spectrum. They would then either change the law of rescind it.
At least, that is the theory behind what the founders believed.
As a single case or even many multiple cases, such nullification does not "change" the law. It merely signals the citizens displeasure of the law. It carries no precedential value at all.
So the only precedence would be set by the media who would report this as headline news.
Possibly others would hear about it and be emboldened to do the same or their curiosity would be piqued enough to research it and then if it came up in their future they would know that it was an option
It's a start
The start of a pipe dream maybe but at least a start
Possibly others would hear about it and be emboldened to do the same or their curiosity would be piqued enough to research it and then if it came up in their future they would know that it was an option
It's a start
The start of a pipe dream maybe but at least a start
FirstFreedom
Moderator
I also find it interesting that out of 408 who have viewed the poll, only 50 have voted - only 12% of board members are voting - hopefully the other 88% are just thinking about it and will come back and put their two cents in. oldbill, no that's fine - yes I'm used to it. But joab makes good points of course.
And yet I am to understand you voted "Yes", Antipitas?
But joab makes good points of course.And yet I am to understand you voted "Yes", Antipitas?
Richard Hanson
New member
In these United States, every person deserves justice, that is those who are guilty of a crime deserve to be convicted and punished and those who are innocent of a crime deserve to be exonerated and set free.
This is not always possible.
As laws dispossessing the people of their natural right to self defense, their right to keep and bear arms, are unconstitutional, and as those accused of breaking such laws deserve justice, a man of good conscience is faced with a difficult moral dilemma. He can either purger himself when questioned during jury selection, thus becoming a criminal himself, or he can stand aside and let an innocent man be convicted of breaking a law that violates his fundamental human rights.
In all honesty, I do not know what choice I would make.
I do know that once empaneled on such a jury I would not convict as the law itself is immoral and tyrannical, it does violence against the liberties of my countrymen. All those who would convict in this instance, either out of ignorance of our rights or out of blind obedience to the political establishment, I hope that you would search your conscience and carefully reconsider your position.
Respectfully,
Richard
This is not always possible.
As laws dispossessing the people of their natural right to self defense, their right to keep and bear arms, are unconstitutional, and as those accused of breaking such laws deserve justice, a man of good conscience is faced with a difficult moral dilemma. He can either purger himself when questioned during jury selection, thus becoming a criminal himself, or he can stand aside and let an innocent man be convicted of breaking a law that violates his fundamental human rights.
In all honesty, I do not know what choice I would make.
I do know that once empaneled on such a jury I would not convict as the law itself is immoral and tyrannical, it does violence against the liberties of my countrymen. All those who would convict in this instance, either out of ignorance of our rights or out of blind obedience to the political establishment, I hope that you would search your conscience and carefully reconsider your position.
Respectfully,
Richard
Edward429451
Moderator
The problem is that statutory law is supposed to be based on fundamental law and a jury of your peers (who know you and can testify as to your character) and it is not.
This 'by the book' statutory law leaves no room for personal conscience or discretion of either the LEO's or the citizens, or the jurors. No one can be law abiding the way they write the strict and vague statutory laws.
And you'll never get on the jury if you smell like you have a conscience of your own.
This 'by the book' statutory law leaves no room for personal conscience or discretion of either the LEO's or the citizens, or the jurors. No one can be law abiding the way they write the strict and vague statutory laws.
And you'll never get on the jury if you smell like you have a conscience of your own.
JuanCarlos
New member
I'd have a very hard time agreeing to convict somebody of a crime that has no victims and that I don't agree with. Doubly so if I think it's directly unconstitutional.
I'm also not one to lie to the court, which means I'd never make it onto the jury in the first place.
As a sidenote, the number of views does not reflect the number of viewers...I'm pretty sure each time somebody "re-loads" the thread, due to new posts for instance, it counts that as a new viewing.
I'm also not one to lie to the court, which means I'd never make it onto the jury in the first place.
As a sidenote, the number of views does not reflect the number of viewers...I'm pretty sure each time somebody "re-loads" the thread, due to new posts for instance, it counts that as a new viewing.
FirstFreedom
Moderator
No, I don't think so, JC - I'm pretty sure the software can tell if it's the same person clicking or not, from cookies - those are all different. I have tested that.
In any event, the hypothetical assumes that you DID make it onto the jury - now you have your choice to make.
In any event, the hypothetical assumes that you DID make it onto the jury - now you have your choice to make.
A law is the law until rescinded or changed by the Legislature or the Courts.
Break it at your own peril.
(And just one judge reversing the law doesn't rescind it, it just changes that single case. It will need to go through the whole appeal process to be found unconstitutional.)
As for the "the supreme court has already ruled that any law repugnant to the constitution is void". That particular case was a very narrowly defined 1st Amendment religious decision and not intended as a general statement on the Bill of Rights. (Try reading the whole case sometime, not just cherry-picking what you want to use.)
Another thing, what makes anyone here think they are qualified to decide what is constitutional or not? I don’t see any SCOTUS Justices responding to the polls.
Break it at your own peril.
(And just one judge reversing the law doesn't rescind it, it just changes that single case. It will need to go through the whole appeal process to be found unconstitutional.)
As for the "the supreme court has already ruled that any law repugnant to the constitution is void". That particular case was a very narrowly defined 1st Amendment religious decision and not intended as a general statement on the Bill of Rights. (Try reading the whole case sometime, not just cherry-picking what you want to use.)
Another thing, what makes anyone here think they are qualified to decide what is constitutional or not? I don’t see any SCOTUS Justices responding to the polls.
JuanCarlos
New member
n any event, the hypothetical assumes that you DID make it onto the jury - now you have your choice to make.
I voted accordingly.
Thanks for the heads-up, BTW, on the view counter. Interesting.
Would that be the same SCOUTUS that ruled it was acceptable to remove people from their property so that a country club could be built and decided that freedom of speech was no longer in in effect thirty days out from an election
I took an oath once to support and defend the constitution from all enemies foreign or domestic, do I qualify now.
The paraphrased comment is from the Marbury v Madison decision that reads specifically
Not a mention of a particular amendment or section of the constitution we are to honor but only to the constitution as a whole
In reading the decision I can not find a specific section that is held free of repugnant law so I must deduce that it was the constitution as a whole that the court was trying to protect.
As another poster has already touched on
Are we subject to the whims and rules of the gods of congress or do they answer to us
I have full authority to determine what is constitutional or not, just as a court has full authority to submit my findings to a group of 12 peers for their approval
Hrmmm....
Yes
The Constitution gives us the right to own and bear arms, law and the Courts have placed the burden of when and where you can carry it on the states. So if the law and precedent say you cant carry one at that time and place, you should be arrested. A responsible gun owner should be aware of the laws in his local area and obey them.
If he gets arrested he has the right to due process, if the process finally finds him guilty then thats the final word.
Yes
The Constitution gives us the right to own and bear arms, law and the Courts have placed the burden of when and where you can carry it on the states. So if the law and precedent say you cant carry one at that time and place, you should be arrested. A responsible gun owner should be aware of the laws in his local area and obey them.
If he gets arrested he has the right to due process, if the process finally finds him guilty then thats the final word.
- Status