How many would throw their fellow lawbiding gun owners in jail....
- Thread starter FirstFreedom
- Start date
- Status
Not guilty. Plain and simple.
For the life of me, I don't get why anyone on this board would vote otherwise. They talk about the law and upholding it...but let's face it, the laws are made and changed constantly by those who have power, wealth and privilege and who want to steal what little is left over from the rest of us. If I have a say in the matter (being on a jury), then I say if Feinstein has the "right" to carry and bear arms, along with her tax-payer paid entourage, then so do the rest of us.
For the life of me, I don't get why anyone on this board would vote otherwise. They talk about the law and upholding it...but let's face it, the laws are made and changed constantly by those who have power, wealth and privilege and who want to steal what little is left over from the rest of us. If I have a say in the matter (being on a jury), then I say if Feinstein has the "right" to carry and bear arms, along with her tax-payer paid entourage, then so do the rest of us.
RSublime4Life
New member
I voted no. I would have a problem sending someone to jail for a victim-less crime and breaking a law I don't agree with. That said, if the guy were were simply carrying a concealed weapon and otherwise continuing to be a upstanding productive member of society I find it unlikely that he would have be caught with the gun. What was he doing when he was caught with the gun? He did something to catch the attention of law enforcement to be caught with the gun.
There are quite a few "victimless crimes " out there, are you so sure that you would vote Not Guilty in all of them? That was your solution.
I'm sorry, but at the point that someone begins to quote a state law as "thou shalt not" it becomes obvious to me that their decision has been made, and that they are couching the argument in a manner designed to support their decision.
If it were that simple, it wouldn't be worthy of discussion. We're asked to suspend any other information requests, and supply a yes or no vote based on the narrowest of subjects. Does that seem MSM, for some odd reason?
Sorry, I'm not, after reflection, going to vote. I'd hate to see my choice used to support an MSM-like "report".
I'm sorry, but at the point that someone begins to quote a state law as "thou shalt not" it becomes obvious to me that their decision has been made, and that they are couching the argument in a manner designed to support their decision.
If it were that simple, it wouldn't be worthy of discussion. We're asked to suspend any other information requests, and supply a yes or no vote based on the narrowest of subjects. Does that seem MSM, for some odd reason?
Sorry, I'm not, after reflection, going to vote. I'd hate to see my choice used to support an MSM-like "report".
Edward429451
Moderator
Like a breakdown or out of gas scenario? Thats happened to me twice but luckily CO is open carry and the weapon was in plain view so I didn't get hassled. It does not have to be a violation to attract the LEO attention.
In '85 a friend was coming out of a department store.
The way the sun was shining rendered the cover shirt almost transparent.
A cop who happen to be entering the store saw the gun and arrested my friend for carrying a concealed firearm.
No other crime had been committed or charged and no body was ever in any danger
A very good and creative lawyer got my friend off completely.
When asked how the officer knew that he was carrying a concealed weapon the officer said that he saw it clearly.
No misdemeanor charge of open carry was made so case was dismissed
This is why this poll is so interesting to me
using French words makes me feel so metropolitan
It was once illegal to aid a slave in escaping.
It was once the law to force American citizens into prison and confiscate all that they owned based on the fact that their parents came from a certain country. This law was never passed by congress, but was a "law," nonetheless.
It was once illegal for a man to drink from a certain water fountains, or sit at certain tables in restaurants based on the color of his skin.
It was (and still is) legal for the police to pull over your car, search it, confiscate your money at gunpoint, and release you without charging you with a single crime. Therefore, it is illegal for you to resist the police officer who does this.
It was the law in a certain city that the police could come into your home, placed you in custody, confiscate your firearms, then release you. It was illegal for you to resist.
No wise man obeys an unjust law. I would not vote to convict a man for any of the above "crimes."
It was once the law to force American citizens into prison and confiscate all that they owned based on the fact that their parents came from a certain country. This law was never passed by congress, but was a "law," nonetheless.
It was once illegal for a man to drink from a certain water fountains, or sit at certain tables in restaurants based on the color of his skin.
It was (and still is) legal for the police to pull over your car, search it, confiscate your money at gunpoint, and release you without charging you with a single crime. Therefore, it is illegal for you to resist the police officer who does this.
It was the law in a certain city that the police could come into your home, placed you in custody, confiscate your firearms, then release you. It was illegal for you to resist.
No wise man obeys an unjust law. I would not vote to convict a man for any of the above "crimes."
computerguysd
New member
I'd vote not guilty although I'm sure this actually happens in states like IL, where their firearms laws are even more whacked than CA or MA...
I would vote not guilty, as a law that is blatently unconstitutional is null and void from its inception, thus one cannot have broken a law that effectively doesn't exist in the first place.If the legislature and/or courts show they are unwilling to strike down, or allow to be passed in the first place, unconstitutonal laws, then it is a jury's duty to nullify it.The govrnment cannot always be trusted to do the right thing, or to have the people's best interests at heart when they do things...
The government often does things they KNOW are uncontitutional, but do them anyway for personal, politcal, cotrol, etc, reasons.This should NOT be allowed.
The government often does things they KNOW are uncontitutional, but do them anyway for personal, politcal, cotrol, etc, reasons.This should NOT be allowed.
Slaves obey the law because they are afraid not to. I am a Free man, I obey laws that benefit the society in which I live. As a free man I have the right to judge whether a law is constutional or not. I can read, and understand the constitution of the United States. I don't need a lawyer to interpret for me. I will disobey the law if I think it is unjust or unconstitutional. I don't expect anyone to agree with me, and anyone who wants to jail me for it is welcome to try.
I don't go out of my way to rub anyone's nose in my rebellion, but I will not follow the herd just to stay out of trouble. My family came here to escape the British in 1746 when they (the British) were decimating the Highlanders in Scotland. We fought them in 1776,and 1812. We fought in the civil war, the Spanish American war,WWI,WWII, the cold war, Vietnam,and in the Gulf. My son is in the Navy now. I will fight opression here or anywhere I am. If you want to put me in jail for exercising my rights, Bring it on.
Out of my cold,dead,hand
I don't go out of my way to rub anyone's nose in my rebellion, but I will not follow the herd just to stay out of trouble. My family came here to escape the British in 1746 when they (the British) were decimating the Highlanders in Scotland. We fought them in 1776,and 1812. We fought in the civil war, the Spanish American war,WWI,WWII, the cold war, Vietnam,and in the Gulf. My son is in the Navy now. I will fight opression here or anywhere I am. If you want to put me in jail for exercising my rights, Bring it on.
Out of my cold,dead,hand
Wildalaska
Moderator
Hey you know my views, which may not be mainstream here (yet) but sure as hell are mainstream "out there"..
WildtakesyourchancespaysyourpriceAlaska
WildtakesyourchancespaysyourpriceAlaska
FirstFreedom
Moderator
Frankly, WA, I am shocked that you have as many co-horts as you do (almost 17%), so though you are definitely in a small minority, you are not in a negligible or insignificant minority as I suspected. I thought it would be closer to 3-5%. So I'll give you that concession - you are not a *total* troll on this issue, having 17% of folks in your camp 
- near on 1 in 5 folks would go along with "zhust vollowing orders". :barf:
To them I say...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Flock_of_sheep.jpg
http://images.google.com/imgres?img...microsoft:en-us:IE-SearchBox&rlz=1I7DVXA&sa=N
- near on 1 in 5 folks would go along with "zhust vollowing orders". :barf:To them I say...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Flock_of_sheep.jpg
http://images.google.com/imgres?img...microsoft:en-us:IE-SearchBox&rlz=1I7DVXA&sa=N
rellascout
Moderator
First why the name calling? Does it prove your point? I don't think so. To imply that someone who would convict is a Nazis, a sheep or a lemming is BS. It only serves to make you look foolish.
I believe that people have the right to defend themselves in public with a gun with or without a permit but if you knowingly break the law then you must be willing to face the consequences.
The idea of personal responsibility for ones actions has to be taken into account here. The jury box is not the place to right or change laws. If you want change it has to be done before you enter that box. Once you do you have only one job. Determine the guilt or innocence of the person in front of you relative to the statue and case at hand.
It seems that there are 2 schools of thought here.
A> Just or unjust, the law is the law.
B> The law is but a guideline, there are bad laws, justice is really what matters.
I'm in camp B. Historically, there have been many, and I do mean MANY, instances where the law is just flat-out WRONG. Even law that was enacted in accordance with the will of the people by whatever means. Just because a law is on the books doesn't mean it is a good law or a just law. In our system, we have 3 ways to resist such bad laws:
A> We can strive to have said bad laws repealed by the same mechanism that got them enacted in the first place.
B> We can work to have sad bad laws overturned by way of appellate court appeals.
C> We, the common citizenry who occupy jury boxes, can exercise the right of jury nullification.
Barring action on A> or B> above (as is likely the case here), that leaves only C>, which is exactly what I'd do. I happen to believe that any law which removes the right of any otherwise peaceable, law abiding citizen to be armed is inherently wrong and unjust and I will refuse to vote to convict. Period.
A> Just or unjust, the law is the law.
B> The law is but a guideline, there are bad laws, justice is really what matters.
I'm in camp B. Historically, there have been many, and I do mean MANY, instances where the law is just flat-out WRONG. Even law that was enacted in accordance with the will of the people by whatever means. Just because a law is on the books doesn't mean it is a good law or a just law. In our system, we have 3 ways to resist such bad laws:
A> We can strive to have said bad laws repealed by the same mechanism that got them enacted in the first place.
B> We can work to have sad bad laws overturned by way of appellate court appeals.
C> We, the common citizenry who occupy jury boxes, can exercise the right of jury nullification.
Barring action on A> or B> above (as is likely the case here), that leaves only C>, which is exactly what I'd do. I happen to believe that any law which removes the right of any otherwise peaceable, law abiding citizen to be armed is inherently wrong and unjust and I will refuse to vote to convict. Period.
rellascout
Moderator
Nicely put but I think that you have too greatly simplified the vote of those who would convict. It is not that a law is the law but instead a question of venue.
P.S. You will never make it onto the jury if you answered pre trail questions honestly.
- Status