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
BlueTrain, the term "well regulated" is applied to the MILITIA, not the firearms.

In this case the term "well regulated", when applied to the miitia, means "well trained and disciplined."

The Second Amendment doesn't say anything about the governemnt in relation to that "regulation" either.
 
the second admendment does not prohibit the Federal Government from regulating arms. Read it again. What does "well regulated mean"?
Click to expand...

:eek: :confused: Bluetrain??????? That's a song the antigunners have been singing since the 70s. "Well regulated milita means the National Guard and only they have the right to have guns. The government needs to regulate guns."
 
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?

Blue Train, as another poster, who was against jury nullification, correctly pointed out in a previous post - jury nullification does nothing to overturn a law. The law remains and other individuals or even the same individual may be arrested, charged, and possibly convicted under it. So, Jury nullification does not overturn a law, it is merely the act of a jury of one's peers to refuse to convict or apply the law in a specific case.
 
Gun Laws

I Like Some Of Your Thinking. Now Take Mass If You Don't Fit In You Do Not Get A Permit To Even Own.so What Do You Do? Now Where Are The 2 Milion Gun Owners Before 1998. Now Its 2007 And Only 200,000 Left.me Included In The Left.i'm Old Enuf To Remember Before All This Gun C..p.bash The Nra All You Want,remember They Were Only Started In1871 To Promote Rifle Shooting.not To Fight Gun Laws. In The Case On The Agenda.if He Is Conviced He Is Prohibited From Ever Owning Guns Or Defending Himself.he Will Be A Felon.not Only Does He Lose His Second Amendment Rights Hes Lost His 14 Admendment.laws That Are Illegal Under The Constitution Are Now Legal Because Every One Accepts Them.even When They Do Not Pass Muster.an Old Man That Been There And Saw It
IN RESPONSE TO MACK59 JURY NULLIFICATION WAS PUT IN TO PREVENT UNJUST LAWS FROM CONVICTING PEOPLE BY CORRUPT OFFICIALS THE JURY IN USA HAS THE POWER TO PREVENT CONVICTIONS.
 
Last edited:
I think it's funny that all this time it has been assumed that the gun toter was not a convicted felon. What if he had his right to firearms revoked due to his irresponsibility with the rights given him already and was illegally possessing a firearm.
 
I think it's funny that all this time it has been assumed that the gun toter was not a convicted felon. What if he had his right to firearms revoked due to his irresponsibility with the rights given him already and was illegally possessing a firearm.
Click to expand...

I interpreted that to not be the case from the premise. Though you may be correct, I don't think that was the intent.

Would you convict a man who apart from carrying illegally, was doing nothing wrong in the eyes of the law and committing no offenses to anyone? Would you send a man away for 10 years for carrying illegally? Or would you nullify that law and set him free?
 
Would you send a man away for 10 years for carrying illegally?
Click to expand...

I don't know about your State, but here in WA carrying without a permit is a misdemeanor. You're not going to get 10 years unless there are other factors involved, like a felon in possession, etc. So there goes your argument about "doing nothing else wrong in the eyes of the law."
 
If the sentence was for 10 years it could be nullified as cruel and unsusual punishmnet, even if a man were killed with nonconclusive evidence of self defense.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top