If you were on a Jury, would you convict someone charged with carrying W/O license?

Would you convict a man carrying illegally

  • yes

    Votes: 39 32.0%

  • no

    Votes: 83 68.0%
  • Total voters
    122
the question was not what course of action is best to change a law but would you vote to convict someone under an unjust law if you were on a jury. While not voting to convict an individual in one particular case may not create a change in the law, it may make a huge difference in that individuals life, and that is important. Additionally, the two courses of action are not mutually or morally exclusive so it is not an either or choice.
Click to expand...
PERZACTLY!

Well said Mack. :)

I mean lets make the poll realistic.....would you vote to convict a man who is accused of illegally carrying a weapon if the law allegedly violated has been tested and held to be constituional.?
Click to expand...
Miller's been held to be constitutional to. Heck, so was slavery once upon a time.

So not necessarily. :)

If you are going to use the Holocaust in your arguments, helps if you have a full understanding of the mentality behind it.
Click to expand...
Oh, I'm aware of the sorry history of eugenic-speak and its consquences..there and here. That doesn't mean every single German was itching to kill Jews.



Or is my morality different than yours?
Click to expand...
Evidently. :rolleyes:
 
How can you carry illegally and do no wrong in the eyes of the law? You just broke the law. Part of being a responsible gun owner is obeying the laws.

If he had some defense under the law I would consider that. If he was just carrying because he wanted to and didnt think the laws are valid that gets him knucklehead points imo.
 
Miller's been held to be constitutional to. Heck, so was slavery once upon a time.
Click to expand...

OK...so whats the point of even having a Supreme Court...when its up to the individual to decide....

Great system:eek:

Oh, I'm aware of the sorry history of eugenic-speak and its consquences..there and here. That doesn't mean every single German was itching to kill Jews.
Click to expand...

Every single one in that fashion..nope...but its off topic anyway, email me and I'll give ya a reading list


WildwurmsAlaska
 
First every one today is a lawbreaker, the average person breaks about 100 laws per day and never knows it because there are over 300,000 laws nation wide.
Second rights are not granted by gov't they exsist and our Consistution was designed to limit the gov't.
Third one person ask where it was in the Consistution, show me where breating, eating, or sleeping is in the Consistution.
Fourth the elected law makers seldom read the bills they pass so yes extremely bad laws can be passed. example Albert DeSalvo was honored for his work in population control, he is also know as the Boston Strangler.
Last J.N. is important and needed for the citizens ( The bosses of this country) to have the final say.
 
Then what do we need laws for?

Interesting question - how about two questions:

What do we need laws for? and What do we have laws for?

Two different answers that tell a lot about us. But I'd really be more interested in why you believe we need laws, because I would like to understand your belief system. I believe that laws are useful and that they can be productive when they serve to encourage liberty and responsiblity. I don't believe that if space aliens came tomorrow and made congress repeal every law on the books that society would suddenly devolve into anarchy. But then laws can serve a positive function and I don't advocate abolishing all laws. Laws are sometimes a reflection of shared community or national/cultural or even cross cultural values. Sometimes they serve other functions - some people just feel safer if we pass a law - as in there ought to be a law - some laws serve to protect business or political interests - and some laws serve no purpose what-so-ever.

Or is my morality different than yours?

I can't really answer that since I am in no way qualified to speak to your moral beliefs - if what I assume you are asking is are your and my moral beliefs or understanding of morality different. However I "assume" that we share or at least pay lip service or possibly delude ourselves or mayhaps even genuinely do share many of the same basic moral values. Such as: randomly murdering, robbing, raping, or otherwise doing not so nice things to other individuals is immoral and possibly even illegal - check country and local listings. Undoubltly we also have some differences - everybody does - the law not with standing.
 
Last edited:
You are right laws that promote liberty and defend liberty are proper. Today the number of laws that exsist and many were passed to make people feel better is outragous. I believe that every laws should have a sunset date of no more than 10 years, if it is a valid law repass it in 10 years. Example in N.C. it is against the law for a man to mow his yard without a shirt on. Now why should that have every been a law, oh by the way women can mow the lawn without a shirt and it is legal. It is also illegal in N.C. to posses a lottery ticket, but N.C. has a lottery run by the state. In Texas last I knew it was a capital crime to steal horses or cattle. We as citizens are over burdened with laws that have no businees being on the books, and try to get them repealed and see how far that goes.
 
Depends on the circumstances

In some states it is impossible to obtain a CCW permit. If a person was carrying in a state where he (or she) could not legally do so, and there was not evidence that the carrying was part of the commission of a real crime, then I would vote not guilty. Since the US Constitution really does guarantee the right of the people (citizens) to keep and bear (carry) arms (guns, etc.), then any state law that infringes that right is null and void. "This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof, and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land, and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding." - US Constitution, Article VI. This means that a "law" which is passed that is contrary to the US Constitution is itself illegal. It is in violation of the supreme law of the land. I would vote according to the legitimate law, and vote not guilty.
 
jacob

"Since the US Constitution really does guarantee the right of the people (citizens) to keep and bear (carry) arms (guns, etc.), then any state law that infringes that right is null and void."
Click to expand...

Just curious.......how many sub-machine guns do you own ??
 
Just curious.......how many sub-machine guns do you own??
Click to expand...

Weak.

mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed.
Click to expand...

It's not worth it (to me) to shoot people or risk prison to force the Feds over a stupid buzzgun when I can get a perfectly servicable semi-auto rifle.

It is worth risking getting tossed off a jury or facing contempt charges or whatever else to avoid having someone else spending ten plus years in prison on my conscience when all he was doing was defending his self or his family.



-K
 
Just to keep the pot stirred, and for you strict Constitutionalists, exactly where in the Constitution does it define what is/was meant by "arms" and "bear"?
 
Depends upon the defendent's background, criminal record or not, reason for carrying, circumstances. If He/She is a decent person, clean record, gun wasn't connected with a crime like robbery or outright murder I probably would balk at a conviction, as I said, depends on the circumstances. I have always believed in a person's right for self protection and protection for their families and or others from BGs and I have carried a pistol since my late teens as a civilian, a military, person, a LEO, and later as a civilian without worrying whether my state or the US forbade it. I carry legal with CHL now.
I have never to my knowledge killed an American Citizen, fired at some as an Officer, and do not intend to agitate a situation into a gunbattle but rather live peacefully if the general population will allow it.
 
If people don't do everything the law says and instead sometimes follow their own moral compass the world will go crazy!!11 Give people guns and the brains to decide when to use them and when not to, and all the streets will run red with blood!!!!111lkdfjdslk Oh wait... There is never a jury, judge, or courtroom present when a potential shooting or a shooting situation occurs. There are rarely even law officers there if it involves two non LEOs engaged in battle. And yet, the streets are not unending rivers of blood. People decide every day when to use DEADLY force, when to potentially kill someone. Many of these people are legal CHL holders, many are not.

My morality, my moral compass, and my freedom of thought shouldn't desert me when I step into a courtroom... Rather the opposite I would say.

Not all of us can be loyal little citizens who don't use unconventional means to oppose higher authority. If we all were, America wouldn't exist.

Just curious.......how many sub-machine guns do you own ??
Click to expand...

You can't fight every battle that comes your way. I know you weren't asking me, but I don't illegally own submachine guns because I am not willing to go to prison and get raped to make a point that no one cares about and that will ruin my life forever. I AM willing to hang a jury to let a person convicted of carrying without a license under certain circumstances hopefully go home free. Before you even ask, yes, it is a matter of personal convenience. I'm not going to wage a personal war against every single thing I find unjust, because I have a life to live. When the inconvenience of fighting is outweighed by the severity of the injustice, it's time, and I get to decide that for myself.
 
OK...so whats the point of even having a Supreme Court...when its up to the individual to decide....
Click to expand...

It's my understanding, perhaps a poor one, that the SC mostly reviews technical reasons a law conforms with or departs from the constitution.

The juror using jury nullification operates on a different plane. Unlike the SC, he nullifies, if he does, because "that's just wrong".
 
well you havent convinced this half wit with your constituional analysis thats fer sure
Click to expand...

I kinda find it funny that the same people who apply a strict constructionalist interpretation of the 2nd amendment (as I do) sometimes also would like to have the federal government apply that same ammendment to the states, which is about as unconstuctionalist as you can get.:confused: The states have every right to ban guns (at lease those with no RKBA in their constitutions), and like it or not you have to follow those laws even if you know they are absurd. If you don't, you are a criminal.
 
I kinda find it funny that the same people who apply a strict constructionalist interpretation of the 2nd amendment (as I do) sometimes also would like to have the federal government apply that same ammendment to the states, which is about as unconstuctionalist as you can get. The states have every right to ban guns (at lease those with no RKBA in their constitutions), and like it or not you have to follow those laws even if you know they are absurd. If you don't, you are a criminal.
Click to expand...

BlackwaterOPS,

I am a strict constructionalist too. As a strict constructionalist, you go back to the original intent of the Founders. Like yourself, I too believe the second amendment, as it was written by the Founding Fathers, applies that the Federal Government shall not restrict the right to keep and bear arms. I agree you can't apply that to the states as far as the U.S. Constitution goes. BUT, 1) most states do have a second amendment or a RTKBA clause in their state constitutions and 2) as the men of the Founding generation understood rights, they were not something ANY Constitution GAVE anyone, but existed in and of themselves. The purpose the Bill of Rights were to PROTECT rights that already existed from the state or federal government as the case may be. Just because those rights were itemized on paper, didn't mean they didn't exist.
Finally, as has been said over and over again, the concept of Jury Nullification was something the Founding Fathers recognized as a valid means of protecting people from unjust laws or laws that were not serving justice in that case.
 
Here's a kicker for you: the second admendment does not prohibit the Federal Government from regulating arms. Read it again. What does "well regulated mean"?

So, on the basic subject, some people believe that a power of the jury, which is not elected, is to overturn laws passed by legislators sitting in deliberation and who were elected?
 
BlueTrain

"the second admendment does not prohibit the Federal Government from regulating arms"
Click to expand...

You must have skipped this part:
".....the right of the people to keep and bear Arms shall not be infringed".

"infringe" --- to encroach upon in a way that violates law or the rights of another

"encroach" -- to enter by gradual steps or by stealth into the possessions or rights of another


http://www.m-w.com/dictionary/infringe
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top