hypothectical jury question
if you were on a jury would you convict for:
1. possesion of an NFA weapon(MG,SBR,silencer),no crime just possesion.
2. possesion of marijuana for personal use.
3. income tax evasion (tax protestor)
1. possesion of an NFA weapon(MG,SBR,silencer),no crime just possesion.
2. possesion of marijuana for personal use.
3. income tax evasion (tax protestor)
0
-
Yep me to[:0]
quote:Originally posted by tomahawk
quote:Originally posted by mateomasfeo
I could convict on all three. 50.00
I could acquit on all three. 50,000
[:D][:D][:D][:D][:D][:D]
[:o)][:o)][:o)][:o)][:o)]
[;)]0 -
quote:Originally posted by Fatstrat
You are missing my point. Prohibition was repealed because a MINORITY put it in place. And the MAJORITY of Americans were against it.
If WE THE PEOPLE rise up against unjust laws, we CAN CHANGE THEM.
But if the Majority is not on your side, you have no choice but to get w/the program.
I like to go Honkytonkin. But I can't afford a DUI. So unless I can arrange to be in compliance w/the law. I don't go. IMO it's a bummer. It restricts my right and ability to have fun on a Friday nite. But that's the way it is.
If more gun control laws are enacted, do you think the majority will want them?
Is it more civilized to up rise and revolt than to use ways in place now to change laws?
Don0 -
quote:Originally posted by dongizmo
quote:Originally posted by Fatstrat
You are missing my point. Prohibition was repealed because a MINORITY put it in place. And the MAJORITY of Americans were against it.
If WE THE PEOPLE rise up against unjust laws, we CAN CHANGE THEM.
But if the Majority is not on your side, you have no choice but to get w/the program.
I like to go Honkytonkin. But I can't afford a DUI. So unless I can arrange to be in compliance w/the law. I don't go. IMO it's a bummer. It restricts my right and ability to have fun on a Friday nite. But that's the way it is.
If more gun control laws are enacted, do you think the majority will want them?
Is it more civilized to up rise and revolt than to use ways in place now to change laws?
Don
That's the sticky wicket of the Gun control issue. The major anti-gun voting blocks are the heavily populated big cities that tend to be more Liberal. These people by an large don't hunt or shoot, and in their experience a gun going off means dead bodies in their streets. It's somewhat understandable that they desire more control.
In contrast w/the less populated rural area's where guns are used as intended and people support the right to own them.
It looks to be a close call.
I can tell you that if the 2nd Amendment is repealed, I will cross over to the Civil disobedience side. But on the issue of people owning illegal class 3 weapons, I would presently convict.
It's possible for a responsible person to still own one. If you can't meet the requirments it tells me 2 things. You either don't meet the legal requirements in which case you probably SHOULDN'T have one. Or you are unwilling to meet the financial cost of obtaining a Class 3 license. And you have chosen to break the law by owning one illegally. In which case, just like drinking and driving, you knew the risks and accepted them.0 -
Not a chance
No way
Not if it is truly evasion of the "income tax".
A beautiful illustration of "malum en se" -vs- "malum prohibitum" crimes. All those listed are malum prohibitum "crimes", e.g. bad only because someone says that they are, not bad in and of themselves.
Period, end of story.0 -
No
No
No if it were someone just trying to get by,But yes to someone making over 30,000 a year.0 -
Kinda like Gay Marriage or Illegal Immigration huh?
Same sex marriage hasn't proven to be a threat to anyone. But we oppose it on Christian moral grounds.
Illegal Immigrants are poor people just trying to better their situations. And morality suggests that we should allow them as "people" the right to do so. But them bettering themselves may lesson our prospects and damage our country. Which is better or worse? Depends on who you ask doesn't it?
You have to draw a line somewhere. Some will like it. Some will say it's too far to one side. Other's will say it's too far to the other.
It comes down to individual rights vs. what's best for society as a whole.
Does my desire to drink in a bar and drive home afterwards w/o fear of being arrested supercede society's desire to be safe from drunk drivers?0 -
quote:Originally posted by Fatstrat
Compeon and Rymos is a misapplication of the law. They were unjustly railroaded by the Govt. I agree that there are many bad laws and unjust prosecuters and judges. And that we should strive to weed them all out.
And that the jury system is in place to give one's peers an option to use their values in deciding ones guilt.
But whereas the situation may vary, the SPIRIT of demanding observation the law as it exists is still in place.
Just as in my example. A man PROVED his case for not paying his taxes and walked.
But IMO the laws regarding automatic weapons and silencers are reasonable. IMO most of us don't NEED these weapons. And the threat they present in the wrong hands justify's the laws. If you want them, aquire them LEGALLY or pay the price. PERIOD.
I don't personally agree w/the Marijuana laws. But until they are changed, I will comply as I expet everyone else should.
There are few things I enjoy more than to go to a honkeytonk, down some beers, shoot some pool, cut a rug and unwind on the weekend. But even tho I've never had a wreck from drunk driving, if I do and attempt to drive home I can be charged w/DUI. So like it or not, I don't do it UNLESS I arrange to do so within the law.
But we see politicians who often voted the laws in place get away w/it.
The law as written should be applied EQUALLY to EVERYONE.
If it's a bad law, get rid of it.
Contact your reps and tell them what you want in exchange for your vote. That's how you do it.
You just can't ignore or refuse to enforce any law you don't like.
Society as a whole sets the standards. Or we end up an unrulely mob.
Another GB Member for gun-control. Good Lord! [:(!][xx(][V]0 -
quote:Originally posted by lt496
quote:Originally posted by Fatstrat
Compeon and Rymos is a misapplication of the law. They were unjustly railroaded by the Govt. I agree that there are many bad laws and unjust prosecuters and judges. And that we should strive to weed them all out.
And that the jury system is in place to give one's peers an option to use their values in deciding ones guilt.
But whereas the situation may vary, the SPIRIT of demanding observation the law as it exists is still in place.
Just as in my example. A man PROVED his case for not paying his taxes and walked.
But IMO the laws regarding automatic weapons and silencers are reasonable. IMO most of us don't NEED these weapons. And the threat they present in the wrong hands justify's the laws. If you want them, aquire them LEGALLY or pay the price. PERIOD.
I don't personally agree w/the Marijuana laws. But until they are changed, I will comply as I expet everyone else should.
There are few things I enjoy more than to go to a honkeytonk, down some beers, shoot some pool, cut a rug and unwind on the weekend. But even tho I've never had a wreck from drunk driving, if I do and attempt to drive home I can be charged w/DUI. So like it or not, I don't do it UNLESS I arrange to do so within the law.
But we see politicians who often voted the laws in place get away w/it.
The law as written should be applied EQUALLY to EVERYONE.
If it's a bad law, get rid of it.
Contact your reps and tell them what you want in exchange for your vote. That's how you do it.
You just can't ignore or refuse to enforce any law you don't like.
Society as a whole sets the standards. Or we end up an unrulely mob.
Another GB Member for gun-control. Good Lord! [:(!][xx(][V]
And you sound like you've learned well the Liberal tactic of jumping to asinine conclusions and trying to smear anyone who doesn't agree w/your point of view.
Why aren't you compaining because the average citizen can't own a modern cannon? It's a gun isn't it? Just a BIG one.
Obviously the average citizen doesn't need a cannon. And having people owning and firing cannons would present a significant danger to society.
It's the same w/automatic weapons. They were resricted LONG BEFORE modern gun control issues for the same reasons cannons are. No one wants crimminals opening up w/MG's in our streets. Or private homeowners opening up w/a BAR on a burglar. Your legal rifle/pistol/shotgun will suffice.
Restrictions on Class 3 weapons are IMO reasonable. But that doesn't mean I favor ALL gun control. And your statment suggests to me that you're one of the fringe lunitic gun nuts that give us RESPONSIBLE gun owners a bad name.0 -
quote:Originally posted by Fatstrat
Kinda like Gay Marriage or Illegal Immigration huh?
Same sex marriage hasn't proven to be a threat to anyone. But we oppose it on Christian moral grounds.
Illegal Immigrants are poor people just trying to better their situations. And morality suggests that we should allow them as "people" the right to do so. But them bettering themselves may lesson our prospects and damage our country. Which is better or worse? Depends on who you ask doesn't it?
You have to draw a line somewhere. Some will like it. Some will say it's too far to one side. Other's will say it's too far to the other.
It comes down to individual rights vs. what's best for society as a whole.
Does my desire to drink in a bar and drive home afterwards w/o fear of being arrested supercede society's desire to be safe from drunk drivers?
My stance on homo-marriage is that I find it morally repugnant and wrong and also that the Fed has zero constitutional authority to weigh in on it. Marriage should be an issue of one's religion and one's church. The government has no business regulating (read licensing) the union IMO. Is there a jury trial associated with homo-marriage that I am unaware of that needs nullification?
As to the illegal alien invasion and its accompanying issues, what has this got to do with anything? A sovereign nation has the duty to protect its borders and to stop an invasion of third-world people which has the very real probability of destroying said nation. This is one of the few responsibilities that the Federal Government actually has and they consciously ignore the invasion, all the while restricting, regulating and oppressing our own citizens. Go figure.
Illegal aliens and their invasion have a direct effect on the nation and its citizens, therefore, the laws against illegal entry and employment are just.
How the hell are you tying illegal aliens invading America, to a question of individual rights -vs- the good of society as a whole?
That analogy is simply stupid IMO.
The DUI analogy is also stupid IMO.
Drunk driving clearly has a negative, deadly effect on others and therefore is deserving of societal controls. We don't regulate the drinking, but do regulate the operation of a vehicle while under the influence.
This clearly differs from the also stupid (IMO) analogy, about machine guns. We should not regulate the gun, we should regulate the criminal behavior in using them.
EXAMPLE: Drink all you want, but commit stupid acts under the influence (read DUI) and get sanctioned = own all the guns you wish, of whatever variety, but commit stupid acts with one (read murder, or other crimes) and get sanctioned.
Pretty basic stuff, but you'd think it was rocket science by reading some of the responses here. [V][xx(]0 -
quote:Originally posted by Fatstrat
quote:Originally posted by lt496
quote:Originally posted by Fatstrat
Compeon and Rymos is a misapplication of the law. They were unjustly railroaded by the Govt. I agree that there are many bad laws and unjust prosecuters and judges. And that we should strive to weed them all out.
And that the jury system is in place to give one's peers an option to use their values in deciding ones guilt.
But whereas the situation may vary, the SPIRIT of demanding observation the law as it exists is still in place.
Just as in my example. A man PROVED his case for not paying his taxes and walked.
But IMO the laws regarding automatic weapons and silencers are reasonable. IMO most of us don't NEED these weapons. And the threat they present in the wrong hands justify's the laws. If you want them, aquire them LEGALLY or pay the price. PERIOD.
I don't personally agree w/the Marijuana laws. But until they are changed, I will comply as I expet everyone else should.
There are few things I enjoy more than to go to a honkeytonk, down some beers, shoot some pool, cut a rug and unwind on the weekend. But even tho I've never had a wreck from drunk driving, if I do and attempt to drive home I can be charged w/DUI. So like it or not, I don't do it UNLESS I arrange to do so within the law.
But we see politicians who often voted the laws in place get away w/it.
The law as written should be applied EQUALLY to EVERYONE.
If it's a bad law, get rid of it.
Contact your reps and tell them what you want in exchange for your vote. That's how you do it.
You just can't ignore or refuse to enforce any law you don't like.
Society as a whole sets the standards. Or we end up an unrulely mob.
Another GB Member for gun-control. Good Lord! [:(!][xx(][V]
And you sound like you've learned well the Liberal tactic of jumping to asinine conclusions and trying to smear anyone who doesn't agree w/your point of view.
Why aren't you compaining because the average citizen can't own a modern cannon? It's a gun isn't it? Just a BIG one.
Obviously the average citizen doesn't need a cannon. And having people owning and firing cannons would present a significant danger to society.
It's the same w/automatic weapons. They were resricted LONG BEFORE modern gun control issues for the same reasons cannons are. No one wants crimminals opening up w/MG's in our streets. Or private homeowners opening up w/a BAR on a burglar. Your legal rifle/pistol/shotgun will suffice.
Restrictions on Class 3 weapons are IMO reasonable. But that doesn't mean I favor ALL gun control. And your statment suggests to me that you're one of the fringe lunitic gun nuts that give us RESPONSIBLE gun owners a bad name.
Simply put, my original point (in bold blue above) is valid and you are clueless to the US Constitution's Bill of Rights, as evidenced by your stated positions.
Not opinion, but fact. It is what it is.0 -
The analogy is in reference to Liberal's (judges, politicians etc) who let their own opinions supercede THE LAW they swore to uphold. Do you agree that they have that right?
And the U.S. Constitution was written long before anyone ever dreamed there would be guns that could fire hundreds or even a thousand rounds a minute.
Anyone not living in some kind of "A-Team" fantasy world where 30.06 bullets bounce harmlessly off house siding would think it reasonable that such weapons NOT be in every household. Did you know that several of the LEO's wounded during the famous Hollywood shootout were hit while hiding behind a cider block wall by bullets that penetrated it like butter? Can you imagine the carnage that could occur if people from an accidental discharge of an MG in a crowded neighborhood? Much less that of what could happen if crimminals had easy access? (which was the reason they were restricted).
I'm not against responsible gunowners LEGALLY owning Class 3 weapons. But I do think that the restrictions (not BAN) on THESE are reasonable.
I understand the Constitution & Bill of Rights very well. But I don't believe even our founding fathers would favor an all inclusive literal definition of such weapons that they never invisioned possible.
In doing so, IMO you are as guilty of considering the Constitution a "living/breathing document" as the Libs.0 -
quote:Originally posted by Fatstrat
The analogy is in reference to Liberal's (judges, politicians etc) who let their own opinions supercede THE LAW they swore to uphold. Do you agree that they have that right?
And the U.S. Constitution was written long before anyone ever dreamed there would be guns that could fire hundreds or even a thousand rounds a minute.
Anyone not living in some kind of "A-Team" fantasy world where 30.06 bullets bounce harmlessly off house siding would think it reasonable that such weapons NOT be in every household. Did you know that several of the LEO's wounded during the famous Hollywood shootout were hit while hiding behind a cider block wall by bullets that penetrated it like butter? Can you imagine the carnage that could occur if people from an accidental discharge of an MG in a crowded neighborhood? Much less that of what could happen if crimminals had easy access? (which was the reason they were restricted).
I'm not against responsible gunowners LEGALLY owning Class 3 weapons. But I do think that the restrictions (not BAN) on THESE are reasonable.
I understand the Constitution & Bill of Rights very well. But I don't believe even our founding fathers would favor an all inclusive literal definition of such weapons that they never invisioned possible.
In doing so, IMO you are as guilty of considering the Constitution a "living/breathing document" as the Libs.
Obviously you do not.
It is a fact that the intent of Amendment II was to enumerate the "UNRESTRICTED RIGHT" of the individual citizen to own and carry the same individual firearms as the (then) military had. This was expressly to afford American Citizens the ability to defend self and nation against foreign and/or domestic enemies or threats. The bottom line was to ensure that America's citizenry had the ability to band together to fight off a threat, or to throw off our own government, if it ever became tyrannical.
A little basic research and some readings of the writings and thoughts of the founders and those involved at that time, provides ample, clear evidence that what I posted is so.
I would maintain that the founders would emphatically DISAGREE with you and your position on personal modern military arms, period.
As to your postulation that my view makes me like "the libs" and viewing the document as "living and breathing". It says what it says and needs no interpretation. You seem to be the one who is interpreting Amendment II as it supposedly would relate to modern times and modern firearms. I simply call it as it actually is and was clearly intended to be. No interpretation needed sir.
Hypocritical???
Obviously, this will in no way change your mind, nor is it intended to, but again, it is what it is.
You do not have to be ashamed to be for gun-control. It merely makes you wrong on the issue and a danger to America in your own small way.0 -
quote:if you were on a jury would you convict for:
1. possesion of an NFA weapon(MG,SBR,silencer),no crime just possesion.
2. possesion of marijuana for personal use.
3. income tax evasion
1. Yes
2. Yes
3. Yes
Wether or not I beleve in a law does not give me the right to ignore the law. If any of these people broke the law them the law must be followed to it's conclusion.
I do not believe that California's 10 day waiting period and 10 round magizine restriction is constatutionally legal, but I do not realease a gun in less than 10 24hr periods and I will not sell an 11 round magazine. Why? Because it is against the law, and untill that law is changed I will follow the law.
I had a customer ask me if I could release his gun a day early so he could make the dove opener. I told him "I am not going to jail for you! If you wanted the gun for the opener you should have bought it yesterday."0 -
quote:Originally posted by dongizmo
quote:I wouldn't sit on that jury because such a law is repugnant to me and I would dutifully inform the court of that and be excused. Thus, any conviction would not be of my making. I would make my opposition to such a law be known, by whatever means at my disposal, for as long as it took to get such a law repealed or struck down by an appeals court.
Let me get this straight, You would rather have appointees making law?
quote: What I find interesting here is how willing we are to be hypocrites.
When Liberals harbor illegal immigrants and marry gay couples we talk about how this is a law and order country. And that regardless of their personal opinions, they should follow the law like everyone else.
But when WE don't like the particular law, well that's different! Circumvent that law any way you can.
I'm not saying that all laws are good and just. And obviously there are many that we disagree with. But our attitudes towards obeying the ones we like and disobeying the ones we don't are a sign that we are headed toward anarchy.
I thought the discussion was jury nullification, not civil disobedience.
I'm not in favor of judge-made positive law, as it were, but I do support judicial review and the higher courts of the land pronouncing that certain laws do or don't comport with the various Constitutions. The problem isn't judicial review itself, but unrestrained judges making up the law and various interpretations of the Constitution as they go along to favor their personal policy preferences. Judicial review, when used correctly, can be a great guarantor of liberty and consistency. When abused, as it has been recently, it leads to bad rules, inconsistency, confusion, dissatisfaction with the judiciary, etc. That needs to be remedied, but we must be careful to not throw out the baby with the bathwater.0 -
quote:Originally posted by nemesisenforcer
quote:Originally posted by dongizmo
quote:I wouldn't sit on that jury because such a law is repugnant to me and I would dutifully inform the court of that and be excused. Thus, any conviction would not be of my making. I would make my opposition to such a law be known, by whatever means at my disposal, for as long as it took to get such a law repealed or struck down by an appeals court.
Let me get this straight, You would rather have appointees making law?
quote: What I find interesting here is how willing we are to be hypocrites.
When Liberals harbor illegal immigrants and marry gay couples we talk about how this is a law and order country. And that regardless of their personal opinions, they should follow the law like everyone else.
But when WE don't like the particular law, well that's different! Circumvent that law any way you can.
I'm not saying that all laws are good and just. And obviously there are many that we disagree with. But our attitudes towards obeying the ones we like and disobeying the ones we don't are a sign that we are headed toward anarchy.
I thought the discussion was jury nullification, not civil disobedience.
I'm not in favor of judge-made positive law, as it were, but I do support judicial review and the higher courts of the land pronouncing that certain laws do or don't comport with the various Constitutions. The problem isn't judicial review itself, but unrestrained judges making up the law and various interpretations of the Constitution as they go along to favor their personal policy preferences. Judicial review, when used correctly, can be a great guarantor of liberty and consistency. When abused, as it has been recently, it leads to bad rules, inconsistency, confusion, dissatisfaction with the judiciary, etc. That needs to be remedied, but we must be careful to not throw out the baby with the bathwater.
So again, your saying it is better to have a law judged by 1 political appointee, than by a jury?
Perhaps this is where our country has gone wrong, we have lost sight of the common citizens opinion, and hold no value in their judgment, and only those who hold allegiance to the bar have the ability to pass judgment.[:(]0 -
What scares me most is the willingness of some members to OBEY authority even when the authority is flat wrong.
If you get selected to a jury and swear the oath you are indeed bound to honor it. But; your oath is not endless in its meaning. As the case progresses you are bound by the law of free men to look at the application of the law and the JUSTICE the law serves. If it is not JUSTLY applied to the case you MUST acquit. There is no way you can determine this fact until after your have heard the entire case and closing arguments.
Thersfore; you have not broken your oath and still served the higher call of justice in the case before you. Hope you are now "getting it"!!!0 -
i wouldn't convict for class 3 weapons on constitutional grounds. the constitution says we can own these weapons. why is that so hard to see?
convict a person for marijuana? are you crazy? who did he hurt? should we advise them to become alcoholics?
taxes? i don't care if it's donald trump they walk if i'm on the jury. to hell with taxes!
thats how i change the law.0 -
quote:Originally posted by dongizmo
quote:Originally posted by nemesisenforcer
quote:Originally posted by dongizmo
quote:I wouldn't sit on that jury because such a law is repugnant to me and I would dutifully inform the court of that and be excused. Thus, any conviction would not be of my making. I would make my opposition to such a law be known, by whatever means at my disposal, for as long as it took to get such a law repealed or struck down by an appeals court.
Let me get this straight, You would rather have appointees making law?
quote: What I find interesting here is how willing we are to be hypocrites.
When Liberals harbor illegal immigrants and marry gay couples we talk about how this is a law and order country. And that regardless of their personal opinions, they should follow the law like everyone else.
But when WE don't like the particular law, well that's different! Circumvent that law any way you can.
I'm not saying that all laws are good and just. And obviously there are many that we disagree with. But our attitudes towards obeying the ones we like and disobeying the ones we don't are a sign that we are headed toward anarchy.
I thought the discussion was jury nullification, not civil disobedience.
I'm not in favor of judge-made positive law, as it were, but I do support judicial review and the higher courts of the land pronouncing that certain laws do or don't comport with the various Constitutions. The problem isn't judicial review itself, but unrestrained judges making up the law and various interpretations of the Constitution as they go along to favor their personal policy preferences. Judicial review, when used correctly, can be a great guarantor of liberty and consistency. When abused, as it has been recently, it leads to bad rules, inconsistency, confusion, dissatisfaction with the judiciary, etc. That needs to be remedied, but we must be careful to not throw out the baby with the bathwater.
So again, your saying it is better to have a law judged by 1 political appointee, than by a jury?
Perhaps this is where our country has gone wrong, we have lost sight of the common citizens opinion, and hold no value in their judgment, and only those who hold allegiance to the bar have the ability to pass judgment.[:(]
what I'm saying is that a jury's role is not to pass judgment on the acceptability of a law in their role as jury. You talk as if I fanatasize about rule by judicial fiat. I'm not and I don't. I trust juries and their judgments. But their role is not to decide on the acceptability of a law. Their role is as FACT finder. Questions of law and its applicablitity, constitutionality, etc. are left to judges. It's as simple as that. I didn't make the system. The Founders and the Constitution and the writers of every state constitution made that judgment centuries ago because it works. It's not perfect, it has its problems, but it clearly divides the roles of judges and juries into their respective realms of expertise.
Lest you get too enamorded with the common sense and sense of justice of the yeoman farmer, I have 2 words for you: O.J.0 -
This is all fascinating.
Thought: If we had always followed the law, there would be no country, and so, no debate.
We had a legal government, and we were a legal Colony of England.
If anyone doesn't see this as a reasonable analogy, well I can't explain it to you.
Doug0 -
You can see the problem. Good little brain-washed citizens...blindly following the leaders.
They would leave absolutely NO WAY to regain freedom...save revolution.
ANY that believe that 'changing the laws' is the solution are entirely too dense to understand...as they spend themselves and their neighbors into oblivion trying to buy this or that politician on this or that law...the slimy politicians have passed another hundred laws restricting another dozen areas of freedoms...
Ignorant of their OWN HISTORY..too stupid to listen to others and actually investigate what the jury box was for...they increase the power of the Elites every time they step into the jury box to 'Do Their Civic Duty'...and they don't have a clue as to what that duty is.
Sad...so very sad.0 -
quote:Originally posted by Doug Wilson
This is all fascinating.
Thought: If we had always followed the law, there would be no country, and so, no debate.
We had a legal government, and we were a legal Colony of England.
If anyone doesn't see this as a reasonable analogy, well I can't explain it to you.
Doug
wow. Talk about apples and nuclear reactors.0 -
quote:wow. Talk about apples and nuclear reactors.
Suggestion;
Go learn about the three 'boxes'.
The ballot box;
The JURY Box;
The Cartridge Box.
Then several of you come on back and discuss this some more.
The pathetic ignorance of the American people never ceases to amaze me..and surely it should, after 50 years of watching it.0
Please sign in to leave a comment.
Comments
82 comments