Jump to content

Recommended Posts

Interesting... I know there are a few lawyers here, I'd sure like to here from them on this.

 

It seems to me though that in the context of the 2nd that any gunowner would have a hard time getting on a jury. Its been my experience that they are always looking for ignoramuses with no opinions.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Sometimes it's better to be judged by 12 than carried by 6.

I'm not a lawyer...yet...but I would never count on jury nullification. Cobra is right that sometimes it's better to be judged by 12 than carried by 6, but only in extreme circumstances. And Racegal is correct about trusting 12 people that can't get out of jury duty. The sampling will often exclude anyone that is busy and important enough not to be there (generally, wealthy, higher-educated conservatives). And even if there are a gun advocate or two on the jury, what will that amount to? A small minority of jurors aren't going to be able to convince the rest to acquit. They might be able to hold out and force a new trial, but that takes time that they are giving up from their lives to fight for a losing cause. I believe a juror gets paid $12 a day last I checked? If they're trying a self-defense/murder case it will take weeks of trial, often sequestered from family, work, and life. Jurors want out of there, they won't want to try to fight an uphill battle that is costing them time and money.

 

The judge will also make it very easy for jurors to give in: instructions to the juries will not mention jury nullification and may not include any sentencing guidelines. So they are told to answer a simple finding of fact: "Did Mr. Smith shoot Mr. Jones in Commifornia with a shotgun that was capable of accepting a detachable magazine?" It's a yes or no question, and it's an easy question to answer. Jurors won't know that "yes" means 10 years in jail-they are there to determine fact, not apply law or consider sentencing.

 

Gun laws have to be challenged in the legislature, not the court system.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Stupid laws need nto be challenged-----

 

EVERYWHERE. Put it out there every day, in every way!

 

As gun knowledgeable gun owners we are the ones that should be driving publick opinion-whenever we can.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Interesting... I know there are a few lawyers here, I'd sure like to here from them on this.

 

It seems to me though that in the context of the 2nd that any gunowner would have a hard time getting on a jury. Its been my experience that they are always looking for ignoramuses with no opinions.

 

 

I served on a Jury in 06. One of the questions during jury selection was "do you own any guns?" Of course I did, and I gave them a complete rundown of my arsenal. They were shocked, but I was chosen.

 

It's a damn good thing, too, because they would have convicted the man, had I not been there to explain to them that it is perfectly legal to have a loaded pistol in your car either in the glove box or in the center console.

 

Morons.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Interesting... I know there are a few lawyers here, I'd sure like to here from them on this.

 

It seems to me though that in the context of the 2nd that any gunowner would have a hard time getting on a jury. Its been my experience that they are always looking for ignoramuses with no opinions.

 

 

I served on a Jury in 06. One of the questions during jury selection was "do you own any guns?" Of course I did, and I gave them a complete rundown of my arsenal. They were shocked, but I was chosen.

 

It's a damn good thing, too, because they would have convicted the man, had I not been there to explain to them that it is perfectly legal to have a loaded pistol in your car either in the glove box or in the center console. (emphasis added by Aethelbert)

 

Morons.

 

Good for you! Score one for shedding some light amongst the non-gun-owners on the jury!

 

Here in NC it is a bit different from where you live. Here you can carry a loaded firearm with you provided it is carried openly (CCW permit, of course, changes that) if you are not in your car. If you are in your car (and do not have a CCW permit) the loaded firearm can be carted about quite legally... provided it is open to view on the seat next to your own seat. The moment it is placed in the glove compartment or the center console it becomes a 'concealed' weapon and you could be arrested by an unsympathetic LEO even if it is not loaded! Placement of a handgun in either the center console or glove box is permitted only to CCW permit holders. The fact that the handgun is unloaded is viewed as legally irrelevant -- still illegal unless you have a CCW permit.

 

Strange how some seemingly basic things are viewed so differently in different states -- or even different counties or cities -- across the US, isn't it?

Edited by Aethelbert
Link to post
Share on other sites
I served on a Jury in 06. One of the questions during jury selection was "do you own any guns?" Of course I did, and I gave them a complete rundown of my arsenal. They were shocked, but I was chosen.

 

It's a damn good thing, too, because they would have convicted the man, had I not been there to explain to them that it is perfectly legal to have a loaded pistol in your car either in the glove box or in the center console.

 

Morons.

 

Nice! Good show!

Link to post
Share on other sites
Gun laws have to be challenged in the legislature, not the court system.

 

You are correct. That is the best way. But it sure hasn't stopped any of the Federal District Courts. The 5th and 9th District Courts spring to mind.

 

DocV

Link to post
Share on other sites

BlenderWizard were you in Fulton County? I served on a murder trial about 10 years ago. It is easy to get off criminal jury duty in Fulton. If you are male, over 30, white, live in Buckhead or North Fulton, say you vote republican, love capital punishment and own a gun and if you manage to work in you think the mayor is satan incarnate you get a bye.

 

I did not know this and had the misfortune of being the first questioned. One of the questions was

 

D.A. 'Have you or anybody you know been in your opinion been unjustly treated by the court system'.

 

Me. My cousin.

 

D.A. Why you think he was treated unfairly?

 

Me. 17 years old first offense snf they threw the book at him.

 

D.A. what did he do?

 

Me. Burgled the D.A.'s house?

 

That got a huge laugh from everybody and I guess that got me on jury duty. Honestly I did not mind and consider it an experience and part of civic duty.

 

As far as nullification by jury it has a long history both good and bad. It is one of the tools we as citizens can use to challenge laws we just will not agree with. The state puts their case before 12 people and for their own principles or motives they can say yeah or nay regardless of what the evidence is. It cuts both ways. It is another one of those 'archaic' things like amendment rights that annoys the hell out of beaurocrats and other 'professionals'. Isn't a panel of judges good enough? Surely the government employee is much more unbiased and fair than 12 unwashed citizens. Don't you think?

Link to post
Share on other sites
As far as nullification by jury it has a long history both good and bad. It is one of the tools we as citizens can use to challenge laws we just will not agree with. The state puts their case before 12 people and for their own principles or motives they can say yeah or nay regardless of what the evidence is. It cuts both ways. It is another one of those 'archaic' things like amendment rights that annoys the hell out of beaurocrats and other 'professionals'. Isn't a panel of judges good enough? Surely the government employee is much more unbiased and fair than 12 unwashed citizens. Don't you think?

There's a ton wrong with our current court system. The 7th Amendment preserved trial by jury as it existed in 1791, NOT 2007. In 1791, only citizens were allowed on the jury. Being a citizen meant they were educated, respected in the community, responsible, and felt obligated to further social policies and justice.

 

Today, a jury of peers is often uneducated, unknown, irresponsible people that choose one way or another based only on their whims without any recourse. Trial by jury isn't by peers, it's by 6-12 individuals who make decisions based on their personal bias who can quickly fade back into anonymity once they've pissed all over the meaning of justice. A juror from 1791 (1) knew much more about the law ; (2) felt obligated to uphold justice by social and moral pressures--neither is the case anymore.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
  • Chatbox

    Load More
    You don't have permission to chat.
×
×
  • Create New...