[Rockabillykid]

Could we collectively, as gun owners, and when serving on a trial jury, agree to never convict anyone of firearms violations? Sure, we would convict for other parts of the crime (robbery, homicide, threatening behavior, etc), but not convict on the firearms portions (i.e., carrying in the wrong place, treating a misdemeanor as a felony because it involved firearms, etc).

Not sure about the rest of you, but I see the 2nd Amendment as trumping any state or local legislation to the contrary. Almost see it as my duty to stand by it.

 

[Ski3918]

That's kind of a broad brush approach. I would want to treat every case individually, but I do understand what you are driving at.

 

[NJ1108]

Truth be told, we would probably never end up as a juror on a case involving a gun. Any District Attorney worth a salt would be sure to ask prospective jurors what their views are on guns in general. I don't know about anybody else but I'm not going to lie about owning guns, liking guns, etc.

 

[clem]

Appeared for juror selection in a Federal case a couple of years ago.
Court introduced the bad guys .....drug dealers.
Court introduced the good guys .....BATF.
Judged asked if any of the prospective jurors were members of the NRA .....I said yes, and was excused.

 

[Wes Janson]

Simple: don't be a member of the NRA, but support them nevertheless. If you really wanted to, you could try to downplay or avoid answering those questions. But I'd imagine the DA is going to be fairly thorough in a firearms case, on weeding out any jurors who have ever had anything to do with firearms.

 

[fixer29]

Appeared for juror selection in a Federal case a couple of years ago.
Court introduced the bad guys .....drug dealers.
Court introduced the good guys .....BATF.
Judged asked if any of the prospective jurors were members of the NRA .....I said yes, and was excused.

Anyone's membership in any oragnization is that persons business. To assume
that being an NRA member makes one unable to judge facts is simply 2nd
amendment bigotry.

 

[major caliber]

Jury nulification

I believe, and people can see the proof as to the power that a jury has, jury nulification has to do with more then just nulifying the firearms portion of the charge, the jury has the power to judge the law itself.

One of the classic cases showing why this is needed was of Bernard Getz, who successfully defended himself from 4 or 5 muggers on the NY subway, but was subsequently charged, and convicted of carrying a concealed firearm. NYC deliberately made it next to impossible to get a carry permit, I believe the requirement was "carrying over 10,000. dollars, when Mr. Getz applied, so NYC denied his permit. Had jurors "rejected this carry permit bureaucratic red tape," this man would have been saved prison. How is it be legal to defend yourself, and yet be possible to be convicted for carrying a weapon to defending yourself?

So he served several months in jail, after being acquitted for his using a gun for self defense, for not having a carry permit. BS.

I believe I have the right to judge the law, seeing if it is appropriate, then decide if it is something that is applies to the crime. The legal system needs reform, but neither the judge nor prosecutor will do it. That is why our founding fathers wanted trials by jury, so that they could avoid kangeroo courts by the King's lackeys.

 

[major caliber]

the jury questioning process

I believe another fact is that these questions asked to jurors can be "discovered," that is others can see how you answered. so if the ask you how many assault rifles, and high cap mags you have, and they have made them illegal, and you live in Ca. or other low rights States, you might have this information used against you.

Remember how they discredited Detective Mark Furman in the Simpson case? They dug back around 10 years and found out he once gave a deposition on his compensation claim, mentioning black men in a unfavorable light.

 

[Xori Ruscuv]

I would not lie under oath or knowingly misrepresent another person (whether under oath or not).

However, I would indefinitely hang a jury if I thought that someone was being unjustly punished - for instance:
- Justifiable violence against anyone
- Posession/carrying of ANY weapon assuming that it could could not be proved that the weapon was stolen; and if it can not be proven beyond a reasonable doubt that the individual intended to harm someone - in which case I might vote to convict on conspiracy to murder/fraud/whatever, but I still would not convict for a firearms violation. I don't care if it was a guy walking down the street with a full auto mini uzi under his coat. I would not vote to convict. His actions say nothing of his intentions, and I feel that he was exercising his right to keep and bear arms.
- I'm sure there are other cases I'm thinking of here.

 

[Paje]

Jury Nullification

Good idea in that jury nullification was meant to be the last validity test of law

WHY DID OUR FOUNDING FATHERS EXPECT CITIZEN JURIES TO JUDGE OUR LAWS AS WELL AS THE GUILT OF THE INDIVIDUAL ?

Because: "If a juror accepts as the law that which the judge states then that juror has accepted the exercise of absolute authority of a government employee and has surrendered a power and right that once was the citizen's safeguard of liberty." (1788) (2 Elliots Debates, 94, Bancroft, History of the Constitution, 267)

"Jury nullification of law", as it is sometimes called, is a traditional American right defended by the Founding Fathers. Those Patriots intended the jury serve as one of the tests a law must pass before it assumes enough popular authority to be enforced. Thus the Constitution provides five separate tribunals with veto power -- representatives, senate, executive, judges and jury -- that each enactment of law must pass before it gains the authority to punish those who choose to violate it. Thomas Jefferson said, "I consider trial by jury as the only anchor yet imagined by man, by which a government can be held to the principles of its constitution."

~ also a jury by your peers. Peers used to equate to people who know you and could better judge your character, standing in the community, etc.,. Nowadays I think *they* move the trial anywhere they can to avoid that scenario. :hrm:
And by they, I mean the de-facto controllers of trial procedure. The judges and lawyers are all members of a corporation known as the Bar. When I was summoned for jury duty I was handed a bit of propoganda from the Bar that advised "the concept of jury nullification could put you in legal jeopardy". I was quite looking forward to correcting their errant assumption (not to mention confronting the intimidating technique) but they only allow "US citzens" to serve, apparently. And I, being a U.S. National (as defined in U.S.C. 1408) was dismissed. I am certain that is discriminatory but I did not pursue it.. so much corruption, so little time. :mummy:

Victimless crimes? Illegal things? (how can an inanimate object be illegal?!) Compelled performance, fragrantly unconstitutional policies, etc. ,etc., ~> The underlying issue here is the U.S. courts have long since moved from trials of law to administration of public policy (color of law). The suspension of the gold standard, and prohibition against paying debts, removed the substance for our Common Law to operate on, and created a void, as far as the law is concerned. This substance was replaced with a "Public National Credit" system where debt is money (The Federal Reserve calls it "monetized debt") over which the only jurisdiction at is Admiralty and Maritime. - See House Joint Resolution 192 1933.

May Grace covet your heart and guide you hand to Remedy,
Paje

 

[Gatman]

I like the idea. I would support this. But at the same time we have to realize that the firearms violations are what we are always complaining about. That they drop the charge when a crackhead or violent felon doesnt get charged. I would say on a case by case basis it is a good idea. And we should not say whether we support the 2nd. We should say we support all the rights of the people. The attorneys will question us but we can hide it. I dont know whether it is against the law to lie during the jury selection. Any attorneys around to answer that.

 

[stillwater]

We should say we support all the rights of the people.

And use sound judgement.

(Common Sense)

There is a case being made nationally by gun proponent groups that we have enuff gun laws on the books if they are enforced. The dissemination of opinion that there may be a conspiracy to not uphold gunlaws (any gun laws anywhere) selectively by gun freeks may backfire on same should anyone not a gun freek get wind of it. It is however; always wise to exercise common sense.

Maybe folks could promise each other to do this (latter) rather than offer gun opposition groups another truckload of ammunition (they have quite enough, thank you anyway). :hrm:

 

[norton]

I was once asked by an attorney during jury selection if I felt I could send a person to jail even if I disagreed with the law he had broken. I answered that I would not send a person to jail that I felt had done nothing wrong. Much discussion between the attorney and judge ensued and I was dismissed without the attorney having to use one of her no votes.

What really surprised me was how all the rest of the potential jurors answered that they were willing to send a person to jail even if they disagreed with the law. Sheeple.

 

[Riddick]

If you use the politically correct terminology such as, "Sportsman" etc. Then they won't excuse you. If you act like a ******* (no insult to ********, in fact my neck is redder then a stop sign) then they will excuse you.

I enjoyed jury duty, I was on it for 30 days in supperior court. Luckily the company i work for pays you for it. But it really was a great experience to see how the system worked.

I'm also glad that on our jury there was only 2 or so [email protected]# liberals, so it wasn't to bad do get a decission.

 

[Gatman]

Read this http://forums.1911forum.com/showthread.php?t=74078

 

[Robert Hairless]

.

 

[Whofan]

I was the jury foreman for a murder trial where a pistol was used.

The question of what we thought about firearms ownership, etc. never came up during jury selection.

There were, however, many questions about what we thought about "diminished capacity" posed by the defense.

The prosecutor asked numerous questions about the jury pool being victims of violent crime. He also dismissed anyone who had served on a murder trial previously.

When we were in the jury room, it became evident that the state was not able to prove murder. We settled on manslaughter. There were two that held out for outright acquittal and two who held out for murder in the first degree.

The other eight of us were in the manslaughter area. We had to convince the other four of the correctness of our ways.

The biggest bone of contention was the armed criminal action charge that was stacked on top of the murder charge. It seems, IIRC, that Missouri law automaticaly adds this to any crime committed with a weapon.

I believe that if we found the defendent guilty of killing his wife, we had to convict on the "armed criminal action" charge as well. The problem, for our jury, was that the punishment for this charge could be a longer sentence than the killing (manslaughter) itself.

The guys that held out for murder now used this charge to try and get the maximum sentence. It was during this time that the anti-gun bias of these guys showed up. They could not get over the fact that a firearm was used in the killing. To the rest of us the women was illegally killed and the method/weapon used to kill her was immaterial.

After some contentious debate we finally recommend some sentence to the judge. I don't know what the guy eventually recieved because he was sentenced several monthe later and the jury was not involved at that point.

PS I hope that I did not hijack this thread too much!