Jury nullification.
- Thread starter Danzig
- Start date
Wanna work for free on my upcoming challenges? I really can't tell for sure whether Wild or Stage is on the same page as I am regarding whether being near a school with a gun or building my own machine gun fall under the commerce clause, and neither seems eager to take the job. I think they might be normal or something. Not sure what they're doing here.
Wildalaska
Moderator
wHATS THE SUPREME COURT SAY
WildthatsmypositionforrightnowAlaska
The SC has never ruled on 922 (q). They ruled in Lopez on the Gun Free School Zones Act of 1990, and that decision was handed down in 1995. They did not consider the law as it is currently written.
Justice O'Connor, joined by Rhenquist and Thomas (who also wrote separately), said in her Raich dissent that the decision was inconsistent with Lopez and Morrison. She's gone, replaced by Alito, who once said that an automatic weapon is no more "interstate commerce" than a semi-auto. Rhenquist is gone, replaced by Roberts, who once said that an indigenous California toad is not interstate commerce.
Scalia wrote a concurring opinion in Raich, in which he said the Raich result did not, as the dissenters said, reduce Lopez to a drafting guide. He wrote that the national drug regulatory scheme is comprehensive, and must be taken as a whole, while the national gun regulatory scheme can be analyzed piecemeal. Or something like that.
Kennedy is still there, and wrote a long concurring opinion in Lopez, which analyzed the history of the balance of powers and the commerce clause. He said this:
So, we don't really know what the Court currently says about 922 (q). Will Kennedy change his mind in light of Raich, or for some other reason? Will Alito and Roberts vote as their predecessors did? Will Scalia even vote as he previously did, given that the law has new language specifically designed to placate a Scalia? Who can say?
Edit to add: would Thomas be consistent, and rule that 922 (q) is legitimate, and say in his dissent two words: see Raich?
No, we are in that cloudy period between Court rulings on that issue, and the "whatever the Court says" dodge won't work. They haven't said anything, and we can't predict what they would say. So, what do YOU say? Is 922 (q) within the commerce power in YOUR opinion, or not?
Justice O'Connor, joined by Rhenquist and Thomas (who also wrote separately), said in her Raich dissent that the decision was inconsistent with Lopez and Morrison. She's gone, replaced by Alito, who once said that an automatic weapon is no more "interstate commerce" than a semi-auto. Rhenquist is gone, replaced by Roberts, who once said that an indigenous California toad is not interstate commerce.
Scalia wrote a concurring opinion in Raich, in which he said the Raich result did not, as the dissenters said, reduce Lopez to a drafting guide. He wrote that the national drug regulatory scheme is comprehensive, and must be taken as a whole, while the national gun regulatory scheme can be analyzed piecemeal. Or something like that.
Kennedy is still there, and wrote a long concurring opinion in Lopez, which analyzed the history of the balance of powers and the commerce clause. He said this:
So, we don't really know what the Court currently says about 922 (q). Will Kennedy change his mind in light of Raich, or for some other reason? Will Alito and Roberts vote as their predecessors did? Will Scalia even vote as he previously did, given that the law has new language specifically designed to placate a Scalia? Who can say?
Edit to add: would Thomas be consistent, and rule that 922 (q) is legitimate, and say in his dissent two words: see Raich?
No, we are in that cloudy period between Court rulings on that issue, and the "whatever the Court says" dodge won't work. They haven't said anything, and we can't predict what they would say. So, what do YOU say? Is 922 (q) within the commerce power in YOUR opinion, or not?
Last edited:
Great. You want to help me be that someone? And how are we going to do this without landing my butt in the clink?
As I noted, the last time this became a SCOTUS issue, it was because a guy got arrested. You also suggested that I look at Morrison again. Well, I did, and here's how it starts:
Let's try to avoid any actions which will result in my being raped by 3 guys, OK?
Can enforcement of a law made without authority be "proper"?
I think that is the question over which our sides differ on jury nullification. I'm being told to ignore the fact that the government is refusing to abide by the rules and just go ahead and abide by the rules myself. In the very unlikely event that someone came before me charged with violation of 922 (q), I would see an opportunity to slap down a government which is refusing to be bound by rules. I would lie to take that opportunity, because I don't believe the law was validly made, nor do I believe enforcement of such a law can be proper.
I think that is the question over which our sides differ on jury nullification. I'm being told to ignore the fact that the government is refusing to abide by the rules and just go ahead and abide by the rules myself. In the very unlikely event that someone came before me charged with violation of 922 (q), I would see an opportunity to slap down a government which is refusing to be bound by rules. I would lie to take that opportunity, because I don't believe the law was validly made, nor do I believe enforcement of such a law can be proper.
Federalist 33 - Hamilton:
If the federal government should overpass the just bounds of its authority and make a tyrannical use of its powers, the people, whose creature it is, must appeal to the standard they have formed, and take such measures to redress the injury done to the Constitution as the exigency may suggest and prudence justify.
...
If a number of political societies enter into a larger political society, the laws which the latter may enact, pursuant to the powers intrusted to it by its constitution, must necessarily be supreme over those societies, and the individuals of whom they are composed. It would otherwise be a mere treaty, dependent on the good faith of the parties, and not a goverment, which is only another word for POLITICAL POWER AND SUPREMACY. But it will not follow from this doctrine that acts of the large society which are NOT PURSUANT to its constitutional powers, but which are invasions of the residuary authorities of the smaller societies, will become the supreme law of the land. These will be merely acts of usurpation, and will deserve to be treated as such.
If the federal government should overpass the just bounds of its authority and make a tyrannical use of its powers, the people, whose creature it is, must appeal to the standard they have formed, and take such measures to redress the injury done to the Constitution as the exigency may suggest and prudence justify.
...
If a number of political societies enter into a larger political society, the laws which the latter may enact, pursuant to the powers intrusted to it by its constitution, must necessarily be supreme over those societies, and the individuals of whom they are composed. It would otherwise be a mere treaty, dependent on the good faith of the parties, and not a goverment, which is only another word for POLITICAL POWER AND SUPREMACY. But it will not follow from this doctrine that acts of the large society which are NOT PURSUANT to its constitutional powers, but which are invasions of the residuary authorities of the smaller societies, will become the supreme law of the land. These will be merely acts of usurpation, and will deserve to be treated as such.
Last edited:
invention_45
New member
No, it's that some folks will work with the system to keep things corrupt, whilst others will lie if need be to stop it.
The count so far:
I seem to have two lawyers who agree with my position on 922 (q), but neither has expressed a willingness to act on their beliefs to help me get that law overturned, and I have one WildMarshmallow who won't form an opinion unless it comes pre-certified by the SC, so I guess he'll be no help.
Where's that Antipitas fellow, anyway?
I seem to have two lawyers who agree with my position on 922 (q), but neither has expressed a willingness to act on their beliefs to help me get that law overturned, and I have one WildMarshmallow who won't form an opinion unless it comes pre-certified by the SC, so I guess he'll be no help.
Where's that Antipitas fellow, anyway?
Here's the difference. Neither Wild nor myself advocate jury nullification. People who do, use the excuse that its their last means to assert their rights. Since neither I nor Wild make this assertion, we don't have the same obligation to actually try everything else before nullifying.
As for 922, why dont you just rent property within 1000 yards of a school, get a ccw and then sue. That ought to do it.
As for 922, why dont you just rent property within 1000 yards of a school, get a ccw and then sue. That ought to do it.
BGlaze250 writes:
Moderately off-topic, but I read this page until about page five of six, and I notice that it's now on page 16, w/o any sort of reasonable conclusion. Good luck, all.
---------------
Personally speaking, I doubt that there ever will be the "reasonable conclusion" that you mention, perhaps seek.
I believe that the reason for this is the following. Some take the position that "rules must be followed", no matter how one sided these rules might be.
Others take the following position. That the system is totally corrupt, and that should the thinking citizen actually get on a jury, that they should decide matters for themselves, without recourse to the slanted dictats of crooked judges, who are quite far removed from being impartial.
Given the possibility that the second conclusion is correct, what options other than Jury Nullification, which has the significant virtue of being peaceful, might there be?
Moderately off-topic, but I read this page until about page five of six, and I notice that it's now on page 16, w/o any sort of reasonable conclusion. Good luck, all.
---------------
Personally speaking, I doubt that there ever will be the "reasonable conclusion" that you mention, perhaps seek.
I believe that the reason for this is the following. Some take the position that "rules must be followed", no matter how one sided these rules might be.
Others take the following position. That the system is totally corrupt, and that should the thinking citizen actually get on a jury, that they should decide matters for themselves, without recourse to the slanted dictats of crooked judges, who are quite far removed from being impartial.
Given the possibility that the second conclusion is correct, what options other than Jury Nullification, which has the significant virtue of being peaceful, might there be?