If you were on a Jury, would you convict someone charged with carrying W/O license?
- Thread starter Doug.38PR
- Start date
I'll take solace that you'll do your job and argue whichever side you are assigned. Honor bound to do your job, regardless of personal morals or personal feelings.
However, you will always have to deal with juries that use JN to some extent. Impartiality is a pipe dream, that can't be enforced.
Juries will always be influenced by the color tie a lawyer wears, or too much eye makeup on a defendant, and yes, how they personally feel about a law that they had NOTHING to do with in terms of bringing it about. Such is your lot.
Pick out those that obviously interrupt the entire legal process, sure, but there will always be those that do so unintentionally.
However, you will always have to deal with juries that use JN to some extent. Impartiality is a pipe dream, that can't be enforced.
Juries will always be influenced by the color tie a lawyer wears, or too much eye makeup on a defendant, and yes, how they personally feel about a law that they had NOTHING to do with in terms of bringing it about. Such is your lot.
Pick out those that obviously interrupt the entire legal process, sure, but there will always be those that do so unintentionally.
Why do you think that there are consultants who make LARGE amounts of money to do nothing but advise attorneys on how to pick a jury?
As far as the earlier prostitution question-
PROSTITUTES don't spread disease, people who have sex with multiple partners do, yet it is perfectly legal to have sex with as many others as you wish. It is the act of accepting money for sex that makes it illegal.
As far as the earlier prostitution question-
PROSTITUTES don't spread disease, people who have sex with multiple partners do, yet it is perfectly legal to have sex with as many others as you wish. It is the act of accepting money for sex that makes it illegal.
KenpoProfessor
New member
NO, NO, and No
I wouldn't convict anyone of carrying without a license, it is our constitutional right to do so. This poll is weak because most who have voted have the right to carry with a license in their state, no so here in the PRK. This is a MAY issue, and may being the rich, famous, and political in most counties.
Even if it was a gangbanger, as long as he/she is not committing a crime with the gun, no problem. It's the PERSON with the gun, not the gun itself.
The right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed, and laws that prohibit carry in any fashion are unconstitutional, period. The day that everyone is allowed to carry, open or concealed, will be a great turning point. I believe that crime will definitely drop knowing that anyone could level the playing field. An armed society is a polite society.
Have a great Kenpo day
Clyde
I wouldn't convict anyone of carrying without a license, it is our constitutional right to do so. This poll is weak because most who have voted have the right to carry with a license in their state, no so here in the PRK. This is a MAY issue, and may being the rich, famous, and political in most counties.
Even if it was a gangbanger, as long as he/she is not committing a crime with the gun, no problem. It's the PERSON with the gun, not the gun itself.
The right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed, and laws that prohibit carry in any fashion are unconstitutional, period. The day that everyone is allowed to carry, open or concealed, will be a great turning point. I believe that crime will definitely drop knowing that anyone could level the playing field. An armed society is a polite society.
Have a great Kenpo day
Clyde
If it is only a case of carrying illegally, not something else with carrying added on top like a cherry on a sundae, then NO.
Jury nullification is there for a reason.
The real question though is how do you get through jury selection for a case such as this...
Prosecution: "Do you belong to the NRA? Believe in the right to carry a firearm? Have a Concealed Carry Permit? Think the 2A grants a right to carry?"
You: "Yes" to any of the above.
Prosecution: "We excuse this juror."
Jury nullification is there for a reason.
The real question though is how do you get through jury selection for a case such as this...
Prosecution: "Do you belong to the NRA? Believe in the right to carry a firearm? Have a Concealed Carry Permit? Think the 2A grants a right to carry?"
You: "Yes" to any of the above.
Prosecution: "We excuse this juror."
And that's exactly what a prostitute does, has sex with as many others that pay for it. Same result. It spreads disease.
It also, breeds illegitimate children who are born into single and even disfunctional homes (if they even have a home). This affects their lives too.
I believe in some states, adultary is on the books as against the law just as sodomy is. Promiscuous and unnatrual sexual activity spreads disease.
Now granted this not something that you can put out of existance by a simple law on the book. The hearts and minds of people need to change. And such laws are a reflection of the hearts and minds of people at the time when such laws were written. It was more of a statement of not accepting such things than it was an attempt to stamp it out. Such things are a lot more rampant and open than they were 50 years ago as people's attitudes changed. But the point is that to say that you have a right to have sex with anyone, anything and anytime you want and because doesn't hurt anyone else is not true.
EDIT: Hey y'all I'm seeing a lot people simply throwing insults at each other instead of stating their case or giving an intellegent response. Lets not get this thread closed. Just state your case and move on. I'd like this poll to stay open.
" I spent blah blah time and blah blah money to get my carry permit so.... (where is the crybaby smiley)
I did so in my state as well, but I would not vote to convict someone for simply carrying a firearm.
In fact, I would be eager to use the opportunity to begin to set a legal precedent against the stupid and un-constitutional law....Process be damned indeed.
I did so in my state as well, but I would not vote to convict someone for simply carrying a firearm.
In fact, I would be eager to use the opportunity to begin to set a legal precedent against the stupid and un-constitutional law....Process be damned indeed.
invention_45
New member
It depends.
To convict, I'd have to be a juror. I'd have to see the facts of the case. I'd have to size up what the prosecution and defense were likely suppressing from my attention. I'd have to look the defendant and witnesses in the eye while they're telling me what isn't being suppressed. And then I'd have to try real hard to recall what the sentence would be if he were found guilty.
If I decided that somebody was hiding something and that I should desire either conviction or acquittal based on that and all the other stuff, I'd find a chink or two in the facts as presented and argue like hell to get others to vote the way I wanted it to come out.
To convict, I'd have to be a juror. I'd have to see the facts of the case. I'd have to size up what the prosecution and defense were likely suppressing from my attention. I'd have to look the defendant and witnesses in the eye while they're telling me what isn't being suppressed. And then I'd have to try real hard to recall what the sentence would be if he were found guilty.
If I decided that somebody was hiding something and that I should desire either conviction or acquittal based on that and all the other stuff, I'd find a chink or two in the facts as presented and argue like hell to get others to vote the way I wanted it to come out.
#1 form of Hypocrisy on shooting forums...
Those who seem to be such staunch advocates of individual freedoms and the Second Amendment often seem to balk when those indivdual freedoms are things they are not so fond of...
The irresponsible behaviour of a minority of citizens with a firearm is NEVER seen as grounds to justify blanket laws applied to all restriciting personal liberty here.
If that "irresponsible behaviour" though concerns sexual practices not preferred by some then a blanket sodomy law seems to be justified. If one disagrees with prostitution morally for themselves (or blames it for disease spreading) they ignore the posiblity of legalizing it and regulating it in favor of keeping it illegal. If one disagrees with drug use, even when those using are not affecting others, many here think it proper for the governemtn to tell individuals what they can do with a joint in their own home.
How very sad that as a community we fail to see our own hipocrisy.
FYI, I have never even smoked a cigarette let alone marajuana. I am not a homosexual nor have I patronized prostitutes.
I do know there is clean and legal prostitution operations in Nevada and in parts of Europe. The legal operations are not responsible for the spread of dissease or rampant increase in single parent children (we seem to have accomplised that feat without any help from prostitution).
I have know many casual drug users who bother nobody and are a danger to none. The majority of casual users in this naion are not crack heads who have abused themselves. They are also not a threat to others except that their money supports a criminal empire created by the US government's illegalization of drugs.
I know and have known many homosexuals. I grew up around several. The majority of the ones I have known, male and female, have been in long term committed relationships which have at this time outlasted most marriages. How does a law against sodomy, meant specificaly to target homosexuals, do anything but persecute those responsible citizens.
Apply the logic behind the sodomy, drug and prostitution laws to guns though!
An AR type rifle was used in the Beltway Sniper murders around Washington DC. BETTER BAN ARs!!!
High capacity autos were used by the Columbine killers. Ban automatic handguns!
Oswald used a bolt action sniper rifle in a military caliber. Ban all sniper rifles!
Take actions against all gun owners for the illegal/irresponsible actions of a few and you incite a firestorm here.
Take actions against responsible homosexuals, responsible drug users, and legalized/regulated prostitution due to the actions of irresonsible people and you get a pat on the back.
Those who seem to be such staunch advocates of individual freedoms and the Second Amendment often seem to balk when those indivdual freedoms are things they are not so fond of...
The irresponsible behaviour of a minority of citizens with a firearm is NEVER seen as grounds to justify blanket laws applied to all restriciting personal liberty here.
If that "irresponsible behaviour" though concerns sexual practices not preferred by some then a blanket sodomy law seems to be justified. If one disagrees with prostitution morally for themselves (or blames it for disease spreading) they ignore the posiblity of legalizing it and regulating it in favor of keeping it illegal. If one disagrees with drug use, even when those using are not affecting others, many here think it proper for the governemtn to tell individuals what they can do with a joint in their own home.
How very sad that as a community we fail to see our own hipocrisy.
FYI, I have never even smoked a cigarette let alone marajuana. I am not a homosexual nor have I patronized prostitutes.
I do know there is clean and legal prostitution operations in Nevada and in parts of Europe. The legal operations are not responsible for the spread of dissease or rampant increase in single parent children (we seem to have accomplised that feat without any help from prostitution).
I have know many casual drug users who bother nobody and are a danger to none. The majority of casual users in this naion are not crack heads who have abused themselves. They are also not a threat to others except that their money supports a criminal empire created by the US government's illegalization of drugs.
I know and have known many homosexuals. I grew up around several. The majority of the ones I have known, male and female, have been in long term committed relationships which have at this time outlasted most marriages. How does a law against sodomy, meant specificaly to target homosexuals, do anything but persecute those responsible citizens.
Apply the logic behind the sodomy, drug and prostitution laws to guns though!
An AR type rifle was used in the Beltway Sniper murders around Washington DC. BETTER BAN ARs!!!
High capacity autos were used by the Columbine killers. Ban automatic handguns!
Oswald used a bolt action sniper rifle in a military caliber. Ban all sniper rifles!
Take actions against all gun owners for the illegal/irresponsible actions of a few and you incite a firestorm here.
Take actions against responsible homosexuals, responsible drug users, and legalized/regulated prostitution due to the actions of irresonsible people and you get a pat on the back.
Muskateer, the gun is only an instrument, in and of itself it is not bad. How it is used is. If you use a gun to commit murder, then you are a murderer, the gun itself has nothing to do with it. A gun can also be used to save lives, hunt, feed and recreate
It's the same thing with sex. Sex per se isn't a bad thing, it's how a husband and wife come together, it's how life is formed. It's a good thing. BUT if you use it irresponsibly, you are hurting other people. Prostitution, sodomy, adultary etc. all affect other people and as I said spread disease and breed illegitimate children.
Prostitution and such isn't a right. We have a right to do what is fruitful and good and productive. Live, Liberty and Property. The RTKBA has to do with protecting all three of those.
It's the same thing with sex. Sex per se isn't a bad thing, it's how a husband and wife come together, it's how life is formed. It's a good thing. BUT if you use it irresponsibly, you are hurting other people. Prostitution, sodomy, adultary etc. all affect other people and as I said spread disease and breed illegitimate children.
Prostitution and such isn't a right. We have a right to do what is fruitful and good and productive. Live, Liberty and Property. The RTKBA has to do with protecting all three of those.
Sorry Doug38PR but that is purly your opinion. The church you were raised in may have dictated that sex is only acceptable and good between husband and wife but that is only a single view. The vast majority of sexual relations between responsible adults who are NOT MARRIED is in no way dangerous or destructive.
Regulated prostitution as practiced in Nevada and parts of Europe does not contribute to either illegitimate (a loathsome term in and of itself) children or disease. Those would be byproducts of ILLEGAL prositution where protection is not required and INDIVIDUALS are irresponsible. Those practicing the "oldest profession" responsibly are not harming anyone.
Sodomy is also less responsible for the transmission of disease than unprotected intercourse. Its illegal status only exists in certain states where ingrained church attitudes made their way into legislation. It is nothing but the age old persecution of homosexuals and any act not deemed acceptable by the church in power at the time.
Adultry has no place in criminal law. It can easily be handled civilly as a breach of contract where apprpriate between a married couple. The attempt to legislate fidelity is assinine.
Only when it's unregulated.
Only when it's unregulated.
The only thing that spreads disease is lack of education perpetuated by the close-minded fools that view everything as taboo and expect young adults to ignore completely natural biological instincts.
Sodomy laws are ridiculously unjust. Government has NO business saying what I can do in my bedroom. NONE.
If you view liberty and property as rights then prostitution most certainly fits the bill. My body is MY property, no one elses. If I want to sell it, that's my right. Simple as that.
Once again people refuse to accept the concept of personal responsibility. Liberals and conservatives alike: "oh it's ok to have government nannies as long as they're only banning stuff WE disagree with."
Musketeer, Redworm,
Gentlemen, what church I was raised in or what the church says is not what this is about. (for the moderators eyes: That is something YOU Muskateer brought up btw) All I can say is that y'all are kidding yourselves if you believe what you say. Those things can and do affect the lives of other people and it can and does spread diseases. Why do you think we have so many sexually transmitted diseases these days? Why do you think we have so many illegitimate children who have no father or mother or both and hence have no upbringing or if they do it's a horrible upbringing? Why do you think we have, I think, a 50% divorce rate? Because all of the things that you call "a right" are acceptable and widely practiced these days. If you choose not to believe that, then that is your problem.
I am not going to get into a war about this as it will drift this thread off topic.
Let's keep this on topic of if you would convict a man for CC w/o a permit. A man exercising his RTKBA under the 2cond amendment is not something I am going to send him to jail for. I agree it is smart, with the law as it is now, to go ahead and take the course. For whatever reason he might not be able to do that or maybe he wants to be a test case.
Gentlemen, what church I was raised in or what the church says is not what this is about. (for the moderators eyes: That is something YOU Muskateer brought up btw) All I can say is that y'all are kidding yourselves if you believe what you say. Those things can and do affect the lives of other people and it can and does spread diseases. Why do you think we have so many sexually transmitted diseases these days? Why do you think we have so many illegitimate children who have no father or mother or both and hence have no upbringing or if they do it's a horrible upbringing? Why do you think we have, I think, a 50% divorce rate? Because all of the things that you call "a right" are acceptable and widely practiced these days. If you choose not to believe that, then that is your problem.
I am not going to get into a war about this as it will drift this thread off topic.
Let's keep this on topic of if you would convict a man for CC w/o a permit. A man exercising his RTKBA under the 2cond amendment is not something I am going to send him to jail for. I agree it is smart, with the law as it is now, to go ahead and take the course. For whatever reason he might not be able to do that or maybe he wants to be a test case.
Playboypenguin
Moderator
I would have to know alot more about the situation before i made a decision. that is why juries are used.
If it was just some guy that wanted to carry a firearm but did not want to go to the same hassle I had to go to to get my license I would definately convict him.
If it was someone involved in a domestic violence situation or similar circumstance where they had reason to feel their life was in immediate short term danger I would be more likely to find them not guilty. I feel that self preservation sometime over rules everything else.
Kind of how I would lock away my neighbor if I found out he was cooking and eating hookers but I would not lock him up is he was standed in the alps with a hooker and had to cook and eat her to survive.
If it was just some guy that wanted to carry a firearm but did not want to go to the same hassle I had to go to to get my license I would definately convict him.
If it was someone involved in a domestic violence situation or similar circumstance where they had reason to feel their life was in immediate short term danger I would be more likely to find them not guilty. I feel that self preservation sometime over rules everything else.
Kind of how I would lock away my neighbor if I found out he was cooking and eating hookers but I would not lock him up is he was standed in the alps with a hooker and had to cook and eat her to survive.