Gun Owner Unity?

[texican]

Jury nullification is an act of a jury (its verdict) intended to make an official rule, especially a statute, void in the context of a particular case. In other words, "the process whereby a jury in a criminal case effectively nullifies a law by acquitting a defendant regardless of the weight of evidence against him or her."

As a supporter of the 2nd Amendment and holding in the belief that such is the highest firearm-related law of the land, I commit to all of you that should I ever sit on a jury, I will refuse to convict on charges of "illegal" carry or possession of firearms.  There is no such thing to me as "illegal" carry or possession.

Now, I'll surely convict on other elements of criminal charges as appropriate, but not on the discrete points on firearm ownership or possession.  Rob a store with a gun and I'll convict you of robbery and of threatening with violent force, but not for "illegal" firearm possession.

And I hope all of you will stand with me on this sort of thing.

Remember, a jury is 12 individuals, and it takes all 12 to convict.  All it takes is for 1 to be a gun enthusiast who believes in freedom and believes that the 2nd Amendment trumps lesser ordinances which are contrary to this freedom.  Arguably, "jury nullification" is the lawful approach to upholding the law in this regard.

There are many ways gun owners can show unity, and sitting in lawful judgment in court is one of them.

[chiuszeto]

texican,

Excellent point, but this is just common sense and basic civic duty when serving in the capacity of a jurist. It is everyone's civic duty to exercise good sense and represent the will of the common people via the jury role. Just like in the situations of:

- Banking, where there are people (hello regulators) who just need to be locked up
- Massachusetts with the Uzi, that parent needs to be locked up

And the list goes on... Hopefully these nutty times help in bringing folks back to common civic and patriotic sense. Big business/banking, our poor choices in electing incorrect politicians (the Senator who openly admits that he does not know his job) and our collective lack of political as well as civic awareness/concern (hello Reaganomics, NAFTA, etc.) has played key roles in getting us to where we are now.

[drscooter]

So let me understand this Tex, a person commits a crime, robs a store, shoots your mother whatever, however, you will not convict if the charge includes, "illegal" carry or possession because you believe there is no such thing? So I'm a bit fuzzy here, a convicted felon gets a gun shoots your child in the head is charged Murder One and Illegal Possession and Use of a Gun and you will "hang" the Jury and let this person walk rather than include the charge of Illegal Possession?

I am sorry in advance, as seemingly I'm not allowed to disagree with any pro-gun opinion. Seems as if last time after pro-gun people came to the conclusion that anyone who considers any type of gun registration even in polite discussion of opinions is as I recall, just to stupid to even remove a splinter from a pro-gun persons finger regardless of ones training and experience in an ER. So, seemingly since the bad behaviour is not moderated, feel free to just call me an idiot and then after that in the name of harmony lock down the thread.

Can't hang with you as to unity on this point, I think illegal possession of a firearm should apply in specific cases. Without too much detail seems as if a person has a felony conviction for armed robbery then selling this person a legal handgun the day he gets out of prison seems like a poor choice to me. Then again, I'm an idiot.

[Rainier42]

Sorry, but I agree with drscooter on this one.  Couple of points ... 1)Supreme Court has ruled that yes, private citizens do have a right to keep and bear arms, however, the States have the right to put in place control/registration laws based on local circumstances; 2)The 2nd Amendment is not the only Constitutional right taken away from felons ... many States restrict voting as well.  The fact is the Founding Fathers passed the Constitution for a virtuous citizenry, and this did not include criminals.  Under the law at that time, felons were civilly dead and had no legal rights what so ever (of course they were subject to execution, which made their rights kind of irrelevant, eh?) .

[dgspurge]

And it is not just the 2nd Amendment that is restricted/interpreted at both the Federal and State levels.  In fact, the vast majority of cases that reach the Supreme Court are related to various restrictions/interpretations of the Bill of Rights (and subsequent amendments).  Just a few examples: school prayer, free speech (yelling fire! in a theater), capital punishment, Miranda, and of course the 10th amendment (which gives the States the rights not listed or specifically delegated to the Federal Govt. or specifically restricted in the Constitution), so as it pertains to District of Columbia v. Heller (affirming an individual's right to bear arms) the States do have the right to pass laws that make it difficult (but not impossible) to own guns...and it goes on and on. 

[75Plus]

Let's see....The Bad Guy has a legal right to carry the gun that he uses for the commission of a crime? I wouldn't think so!

Joe

[dgspurge]

See...that is the tricky thing...we can't put the cart before the horse.  He does have the right to own (perhaps carry) the gun until he commits the crime...then his rights are forfeit.  He only becomes the 'bad guy' after the crime.  What was that movie that would prosecute people before they committed the crime?  It was set in the future and Big Brother could tell you were a criminal before you did anything.

[drscooter]

No I don't think that this is tricky, the original point;

As a supporter of the 2nd Amendment and holding in the belief that such is the highest firearm-related law of the land, I commit to all of you that should I ever sit on a jury, I will refuse to convict on charges of "illegal" carry or possession of firearms.  There is no such thing to me as "illegal" carry or possession.

This implies only that there is "no such thing to me as "illegal" carry or possession" and I think that as a society we have come to conclude that (this is just an example) if you are a convicted felon you then loose the right to own or possess a gun. Clearly a person who has never committed a crime has not lost this right, neither is any attempt being made to look into the soul of a person as whether he might commit a crime. The original question (I could be wrong) seemed the the whole A2 thing according to Tex again is There is no such thing to me as "illegal" carry or possession and while there are other restrictions, seems that current law in general, makes it illegal for a convicted felon to carry a gun. That seems to be a good idea in general even if it has some potential for abuse. Again, good citizen carries a gun, no problem. Then this citizen holds up a store with that gun, is convicted in a Court of Law. No longer is he a good citizen and no longer can he carry a gun, his rights are lost only after the fact.

So if after his conviction he commits yet another crime and has a gun seems he should be charged with that crime AND illegal carry and possession, further anyone who is not willing convict on all counts (assuming he is guilty) does not belong on a jury.

[chiuszeto]

"It is everyone's civic duty to exercise good sense and represent the will of the common people via the jury role."

Blind polarization in either direction just confuses the issues. Both the "gun control folks" and the "NRA types" are equally guilty in being so zealous that they confuse the issues for everyone else. There needs to be some "good common sense" on both sides to hopefully come to a reasonable medium ground. There are "not so bright folks" on both sides that each sides can point out about the other side...

[texican]

So let me understand this Tex, a person commits a crime, robs a store, shoots your mother whatever, however, you will not convict if the charge includes, "illegal" carry or possession because you believe there is no such thing? So I'm a bit fuzzy here, a convicted felon gets a gun shoots your child in the head is charged Murder One and Illegal Possession and Use of a Gun and you will "hang" the Jury and let this person walk rather than include the charge of Illegal Possession?

I am sorry in advance, as seemingly I'm not allowed to disagree with any pro-gun opinion. Seems as if last time after pro-gun people came to the conclusion that anyone who considers any type of gun registration even in polite discussion of opinions is as I recall, just to stupid to even remove a splinter from a pro-gun persons finger regardless of ones training and experience in an ER. So, seemingly since the bad behaviour is not moderated, feel free to just call me an idiot and then after that in the name of harmony lock down the thread.

Can't hang with you as to unity on this point, I think illegal possession of a firearm should apply in specific cases. Without too much detail seems as if a person has a felony conviction for armed robbery then selling this person a legal handgun the day he gets out of prison seems like a poor choice to me. Then again, I'm an idiot.

No, here's my view, and again I'm not thinking of felons, but rather folks who are unjustly barred carrying a firearm due to some city ordinance (like in NYC or D.C.).  (Also, Drscooter's points sort of fit with mine, I think.)

Current view:

Robs a store:  Is a crime
Threatens folks:  Is a crime
Felon with gun:  Is a crime
Not felon, but with gun and has committed crime above:  Is a crime

My view:

Robs a store:  Is a crime
Threatens folks:  Is a crime
Felon with gun:  Is a crime
Not felon, but with gun and has committed crime above:  The "carry" part is not a crime, since the offender is not a felon (yet).

My main issue with gun control and where it is going is that the feds are taking a "pre-crime" approach by profiling folks and banning firearms ownership with the threat of a felony charge.  Take our soldiers, for example.  Anyone that has gone to war will come back with some degree of Post Traumatic Stress Syndrome.  Yet our new "Veterans Disarmament" Act basically denies some of our brave servicemen and servicewomen their freedom; freedom they bled for so we could have.  These  people go to war as citizens with the privileges of the 10 Bill of Rights and come back with only 9.

This is wrong, very wrong.  To avoid maybe one "postal" situation, we are going to bar a million citizens from owning firearms?  This is silly.

We have incremental gun control in our society which can make it a crime for driving by a school on the way to the shooting range, carrying openly, or just plain carrying, even when the person in question is a law-abiding citizen.

I will generally not convict for "carry" laws.  I could not convict a law-abiding veteran for exercising his freedom in the face of an unconstitutional law such as the Veterans Disarmament Act.

And I'll add something for everyone.  It is time we turned this around on the feds.  Perhaps we should pass state laws disarming federal officers and agents as long as they hold American citizens under siege to unconstitutional federal gun control laws.  Let's see how the feds go about their duties without their own firearms.

Sorry, I am just fed up with the federal government (pun not intended).  More and more, I see them the same way that American colonials saw Britain in the 18th century; just as some occupying power to be tolerated for a time.

[drscooter]

Well okay Tex, I'm willing to hang a bit closer now. However, I must say ANYONE who uses a gun in the commission of a crime, regardless of the fact if he is pre or post being a felon before this act, should be charged (IMHO) with Armed Criminal Action. Again, IMO that should have some stiff consequences. If only because, that the use of a gun in any crime, whether it's something like a robbery where the gun is just a tool, or flourishing a gun, (let us just say out of "Road Rage") where the mere act of exposing a CCW is the crime, significantly raises the level of a threat to a lethal encounter. While I'm aware that many things can be used as a lethal weapon. I would use an example of a person who whips into "your" parking spot that you waited for at your local mall while the prior person pulled out. So you're mad, who wouldn't be? You step out of your car and tell the SOB move or I'll kill you, that's a bad thing and could be considered a crime. Next version, you step out with a ball bat and say the same thing. While we will assume in either case you do nothing more than make a verbal threat, clearly by the fact that you are armed, you have raised the threat level. Should a local LEO see this, clearly he has to respond, case one he might say "chill out dude" case two is now Armed Criminal Action. Display a gun in this same scenario could put one up the proverbial creek.

Robs a store:  Is a crime
Threatens folks:  Is a crime
Felon with gun:  Is a crime
Not felon, but with gun and has committed crime above:  The "carry" part is not a crime, since the offender is not a felon (yet).

True, until he does ANY of the above at which time since he "has" a gun, my logic is it is now Armed Criminal Action and should be charged. Seems like a good rule to follow is if you are legal to carry a weapon, don't commit a crime.

[armoredman]

I will add my own twist - remove the gun, and make it "weapon". So, now, the deliberate misuse of any item as a weapon to casue the threat of death or grave bodily injury is the same offense. I believe Vermont has a great idea with thier one and only gun law - it is illegal to carry a firearm with the intent of committing a crime. Thier crime rate seems to bear out that this notion is a good one - 48th in the nation, I believe,

[brokenarrowjbe]

the Veterans Disarmament Act is a card trick to be played by sneaky underhanded people. Is there any data to back up PTSD as a reason to stop someone from owning a gun? What if you are not a vet? Aren't rape victims and survivors of tragic accidents victims of PTSD? Owning and carrying a gun should not be any more of a crime than owning and carrying a knife or a baseball bat, until you use it as a weapon. And not in self defense either. Some people have been educated above their level of intelligence. John

[trstafford]

Amazing how irrelevant this argument would have been when the Constitution was written. Our founders would have tried the criminal for murder, hanged him and went on with business.

[BobC]

Isn't the important distinction this -- having a gun versus committing a crime with a gun?

If a guy is sitting next to me in a bookstore, and is a convicted, or even an escaped felon, and he has a concealed gun, but he is reading "Guns & Ammo" quietly while sipping an espresso, I don't give a bleep that he has a gun.  I won't know he's a bad guy unless he does something bad.

I carry legally, but what if I suddenly make the decision to do bad things with my gun?  Then I'd be exactly the same as the convicted felon who does bad things with his gun.

About 10 years ago, I was almost selected for a case where a guy was accused of having a gun in his glove box, not in a holster/sheath/case, with no CCW permit.  The arresting cop was there, a young kid.  I didn't think too much about this at the time, but when we all had to state our name/occupation etc. AND WHAT GUNS IF ANY WE OWNED for jury selection, one 55-ish woman stated she owned a long list of rifles, shotguns and handguns.  The judge asked her why she had so many guns.  She answered, "I just like to shoot."  This made the judge and most everyone else laugh.

She got selected for the jury.  I assume it's the defense who wanted her.

If I'd been selected, I'd probably have voted "guilty" assuming the accusation was true.  If it was true, he WAS in violation of the law, period.

Nowadays as a gun owner, active shooter and CCW permit holder, I would have to vote guilty but I'd have a whole lot more going through my mind as I deliberated.  Those of you who have served on juries know that you are given instructions not to vote according to WHAT YOU THINK THE LAW SHOULD BE but according to WHAT THE LAW IS.

So as far as what I think the laws should be...

My leanings these days are toward letting everyone carry, everywhere.  We don't have that in AZ nor most anywhere else, but I'll bet we'd somehow survive as a society if we did.