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

[gb_in_ga]

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.

So, you are saying that it is good and just to convict someone unjustly? Because convicting someone of an unjust law is unjust itself. That I could never do. Passing the buck on to the appellate courts is just that -- passing the buck. It is good that the appellate courts are there, but it is not good to abrogate your responsibility as a just citizen to vote justly.

P.S. You will never make it onto the jury if you answered pre trail questions honestly.

Hmm. It seems that I have served on 2 major felony juries in my life so far, once as the jury foreman. And, I have been on the selection pool for several others. I was not asked any questions pertaining to jury nullification in any of those cases. In my experience, this just isn't an issue in real life. FWIW, both of those major felony cases I was a juror on were convictions.

 

[rellascout]

Hmm. It seems that I have served on 2 major felony juries in my life so far, once as the jury foreman. And, I have been on the selection pool for several others. I was not asked any questions pertaining to jury nullification in any of those cases. In my experience, this just isn't an issue in real life. FWIW, both of those major felony cases I was a juror on were convictions.

I was specifically referring to a case where someone was been tried for possession of a gun as outlined in this thread.

 

[Hugh Damright]

I don't think I'd have any problem saying he was guilty. The Second Amendment does not provide for national concealed carry.

On the other hand, if it was some other scenario ... instead of some punk carrying a concealed weapon with the attitude that CCW laws were "unconstitutional" because the Second Amendment says "shall not be infringed" ... if I instead imagine that it was a man who was carrying a shotgun for some reason, and his State Constitution declared that every person had a right to carry arms, and his defense was based upon that amendment, then I think I'd have to say "not guilty".

 

[cuate]

Not Guilty

 

[gb_in_ga]

I was specifically referring to a case where someone was been tried for possession of a gun as outlined in this thread.

A criminal trial is a criminal trial.

And from what I've experienced first hand from my repeated exposures to actual pre-trial questioning, there have never been any questions pertaining to jury nullification. For that matter, very little specifics about the nature of the trials themselves ever came out during pre-trial screening. I mean, you can figure out whether or not it is a capital murder case based on that questioning (been there, done that), or a sexual assault case (done that twice, both actual trials were sexual assault cases), but other than that there's not much in the way of specifics. The attorneys in question don't want to tip their hands or prejudice the jury pool. For that matter, jury nullification WON'T be brought up (by the prosecution) on purpose, because just mentioning that will remind the jurors that it IS an option, one that prosecutors would rather that the jury pool not be aware of.

Note also that I qualified myself about the citizen being tried being "otherwise peaceable and law abiding". Such information would not be divulged during pre-trial screening as it WOULD be prejudicial. Barring such information, I could honestly answer "Yes" to any question about whether or not I could convict someone accused of illegal carry based on the evidence presented, since I have no problem convicting someone of carrying arms who is NOT "otherwise peaceable and law abiding". Such a conviction WOULD be just.

 

[UH1-D Rotorhead]

Culpable!

 

[rellascout]

A criminal trial is a criminal trial.

This is simply not the case. If the trial concerned illegal carry of a gun in public a prosecutor or a defense lawyer will ask about prospective jurors opinions on guns and carrying in public.

If you answered in court as you have answered here you would be excused as soon as you stated all people have the right to carry a gun in public because that right is contained in the 2nd Amend.

Please do not misunderstand me I am not saying this makes you a bad person but it would make you a bad juror in this specific case.

 

[FirstFreedom]

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

That's where you went wrong, rellascout. Just plain incorrect. That's what jury nullification is all about. Obviously, you disagree. But praytell, how should the Jews in Germany in 1939 changed the laws against them before entering the jury box?

And you'll have to clearly define what you think "name-calling" is, exactly. If the name used is symbolism and highly apt, is it still "name-calling"? For example, if you called me "Einstein" to express the pleasure of reading my cogent unassailable arguments (which would make sense to me), are you "name-calling" me? I don't think so, since the symbolism is apt. Likewise, my examples. Didn't say being sheep or lemming is necessarily a BAD thing. I'm quite sure sheep are reasonably happy, and it works for them, since they are fed and protected by their shepherds.

 

[rellascout]

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
That's where you went wrong, rellascout. Praytell, how should the Jews in Germany in 1939 changed the laws against them before entering the jury box?

Please you are comparing apples to airplanes. These two scenarios are not even in the same realm, they are not even close.

As Jew your use of the this apology simply rings hollow to my ears. It is borderline offensive to belittle what happened in Germany before and during the war to people carrying guns illegally in the US.

Using extreme absurd analogies does work any more than name calling and please do not go all passive aggressive on me and try to imply that you call people sheep or lemmings was not ment as an insult. To do so is intellectually dishonest. When you insult others you should at least man up to it. It simply pushes you further and further into a corner.

 

[FirstFreedom]

No, you are incorrect again. It's an extraordinarily good analogy, but you're just not making the connection.

Minority group: law-abiding gun owners
Minority group: law-abiding Jews

Both oppressed because the powers that be just don't like them (albeit for different reasons), and the general public is not sympathetic to their plights. Successive, incremental, oppressive laws restricting their rights and freedoms. At some point, it's "too late" to do anything through the legal channels, because the entire government and media propoganda machine has generated too much inertia to turn the propoganda tide back to the way the framers of the Constitution intended. There's no way the political process can work as intended to undo the damage done, if you go to far and cross the point of no return.

We're not there YET, as the Jews were in 1939, but we're ON OUR WAY there, slowly but surely. That's one difference, granted. But it doesn't make the analogy absurd - we're just at a differenc point in time along the chronology of events. This is but one incremental step in the process, getting the geneal public, including almost 1 out of 5 conscientious gun owners, to convict their fellow man for

CLEARLY

Unconstitutional laws.

What part of the "the right to keep AND bear arms shall NOT be infringed" don't you and others get?

So if we don't jury nullify on this one, there's the next step and the next step and the next, and one day all of a sudden ALL guns are banned, and then rellascout and WA say, you know, we tried working through the political process and that didn't work, and so NOW it's time to jury nullify before actually taking up arms to resist violently, right? Guess what - at THAT point in time, it will be too late to jury nullify. NOW is the time to take back our rights.

So the analogy is ANYTHING but absurd or extreme. It's about violations of our basic fundamental human rights like speech, press, religion, association, RKBA, etc., just EXACTLY as happened with the Jews in Nazi Germany, and incrementally chipping away at those, while propogandizing the general public against us until it's too late to do anything about it through the political process OR through jury nullification. Which leaves the *highly* undesirable two last remaining choices of violent revolt or just Bohica and become a fascist state. And over 83% of folks on this board seem to think there's a reason jury nullification is in order here - I submit most likely because they understand my analogy is perfectly analogous, in all relevant respects.

 

[gb_in_ga]

This is simply not the case. If the trial concerned illegal carry of a gun in public a prosecutor or a defense lawyer will ask about prospective jurors opinions on guns and carrying in public.

And, should they ask the appropriate question (Could you convict based on the evidence presented?), I could honestly answer "Yes", because of the qualifiers I pointed out earlier. In all cases I've been on, there HAVE been questions about whether or not I could convict based on the evidence presented in court, and it is phrased as such. It was always posed as a "yes or no" question. Asking about opinions like that in particular is something that can lead to overturning a conviction on appeal, since it is a blatant attempt at slanting the jury pool on a political/ideological basis. The resulting jury becomes non-representative of the general population, slanted against those who might be pro- 2A rights. Or, pro- or con- of whatever the issue might be in the general case.

However, if I find that, based on the evidence, the application of the law in question is itself unjust in that particular case (your "typical" acquital), or that the law itself is itself unjust based on the evidence presented in court (jury nullification), then I would find it my duty to vote to acquit. This applies not only to 2A cases, but in any other case as well.

FWIW, you don't get an actual reading of the law until the trial begins. Hence, during pre-trial you really CAN'T answer one way or the other about whether the law itself is just or not unless you happen to be a member of the bar.

Again, a criminal trial is a criminal trial. 2A trials are no exception.

Along these lines, the gray area in my mind is what happens when a real perp -- one who justly deserves conviction as he is NOT peaceable or law abiding -- is being tried for an unjust law such as illegal carry. Would I find that it should be sufficient to convict the perp based on the non-peaceable/non law abiding actions and still nullify the bad law? Would I add my own personal "provision" to the law on the books, along the order of it being illegal to carry if one is not being peaceable or law abiding? Would I heap on the punishment from the unjust law along with the punishment of the just law? I haven't decided on that one just yet.

 

[rellascout]

By all means Freedom keep preaching to the choir. Continue to paint the issue as a do or die imminent danger.

What I don't understand is why people like you continue to paint such a bleak picture.

We currently have more shall issue states then ever before. More states recognize or have codified the castle doctrine. The assault weapons ban was allowed to sunset. The DC is winning back its rights to own handguns.

If you really look closely we are not loosing at all. We are making progress. Are we back to a day of unlicensed unfettered access to any and all weapons of choice. No of course not. Are we where we want to be? The answer to that one is also no but to run around like chicken with its head cut off screaming that the sky is falling the sky is falling and that we are one law away from confiscation is intellectual dishonest and only serves to marginalize your position instead of strengthen it.

You are entitled to your opinion and I respect that. In principle I agree. We simply differ on our approach. I do not attempt to prove my point by personally attacking the individual who I disagree with nor do I engage in poorly constructed straw man arguments that simply do not apply. These types of tactics are logically flawed on their face and therefore lack any weight.

 

[FirstFreedom]

I will concede that you are right on the name-calling issue - I shouldn't pretend that it wasn't meant as derogatory. Touche and mea culpa. However, I stick by that Duetchland '39 is apt analogy (ultimately). Oppression is oppression, just at varying stages.

On optimism vs. pessimism due to the political climate, though you have a good point there, too, it seems that this is just a temporary upward blip in the radar contrary to the general trend down the tubes. The Dow takes little hits all the time, but it's still continually setting record highs, so the longterm trend is in one direction only. So I still do not have faith in the political process ALONE. I think jury nullification is our right and in fact DUTY at the same time as working within the political process.

 

[rellascout]

I will concede that you are right on the name-calling issue - I shouldn't pretend that it wasn't meant as derogatory. Touche and mea culpa. However, I stick by that Duetchland '39 is apt analogy.

I understand that you are passionate about the issue and that leads you to the Duetchland 39 analogy but for those of us whose family lost members to the Germans in the camp it rings a little hollow.

Again I fully understand why you are using the analogy I just think it is too extreme. Like I said we do not differ so much as one might think. We only differ in our approach. Thanks for a great discussion and starting this thoughtful topic.

 

[gb_in_ga]

However, I stick by that Duetchland '39 is apt analogy. Oppression is oppression, just at varying stages.

And that actually is a very good analogy. So were the pro-Slavery laws antebellum. A more modern example would be that of laws prohibiting consensual homosexual relations between adults.

Jury nullification is one of the checks and balances that a healthy, freedom respecting republic has to have in order to remain that way. It is one of the big reasons why we have jury trials in the first place. Rhetorically combating that is an assault against one of the (few) ways that ordinary citizens can fight back against a government that has overstepped its bounds.

 

[OBIWAN]

I am with Wild on this one

The title of the thread is misleading, since by definition we are not talking about law-abiding gun owners

By all means work to change the laws

By all means encourage leniency for minor infractions

But guilt and/or innocence should not be a matter of opinion

that slope is too slippery

 

[Scott Conklin]

It's such a handy little catch-22: "Oh! He's not law abiding because he broke the law!" So in essence all government has to do is keep passing laws and they can, by this mindset, control anyone in any fashion. Afterall, they are criminals...

Of course I voted no. We all pick and choose the laws we obey every day, and then there are the laws we don't know about. In a nation with this many laws EVERYONE is a lawbreaker and most of us are felons. I have no problem with that.

 

[OBIWAN]

"We all pick and choose the laws we obey every day"

And we all pick and choose the ones we want to get "bent" about

Everyone has bias...the smart people recognize it

"all government has to do"

Excuse me...but we are the Govt....don't like laws....elect someone that will help change them

So just like the most ignored/broken law...speed limits.....

Think the road outside your house should have a higher limit?

You can either complain (everyone's favorite) or work to get it changed

While ignoring it, of course...but oh yeah....you still get the ticket

 

[buzz_knox]

Actually, many laws have been changed over time because the public recognized they were meaningless or wrong, ignored them, and the state got nervous about prosecuting them. After a while, the law was repealed.

 

[Carryabigstick]

I would vote to nullify. He would be guilty but nullification would say that he shouldn't be punished.