Pro-gun activism

More
15 years 7 months ago #1453 by Hank in Arkansas
Pro-gun activism was created by Hank in Arkansas
2nd Amendment advocates have a powerful tool in their hands IF they can learn to use it and apply it widely and carefully. It is the simple legal concept of "jury nullification". For a detailed explanation of the concept, see the info posted in Wikepedia, and/or other sources. Briefly, what it means is if you're serving on a jury, you have a fundemental right to find a defendant "not guilty", regardless of the facts and law, IF you believe the underlying law is unjust. Judges will NEVER inform you of this right, and attorneys are prohibited from mentioning it at trial. In fact, many judges will find you in contempt if you openly assert "jury nullification". However, as a juror, you can make your guilt or innocence decision as you see fit. Just don't give "jury nullification" as your reason.

How would it work? Simple. If you're ever on a jury with a defendant accused of a gun crime, but a crime you don't agree with, don't vote for conviction no matter what. Obviously, if the defendant clearly did act in a criminal way, such as a robbery or murder, find the SOB guilty. But if the accusation is something like "carrying concealed in the courthouse", or "carrying without a license", or "having an unregistered machinegun", or "possession of a 15 round magazine where prohibited", etc., etc., make up your mind ahead of time that you'll NEVER vote for conviction. Just keep your feelings to yourself. Don't sound off to another juror and risk getting booted off the jury or held in contempt by the judge. Don't ever utter the words "jury nullification". Simply argue with fellow jurors that you won't convict, and stick to your decision. In some trials, a unanimous jury isn't required, so there it might not work. But whenever 12 votes are needed to convict, or where you can persuade other jurors to your point of view, it can result in saving someone from an unjust conviction for a gun crime that should never have been brought before the court.

I'd like to see this become a nationwide grass roots idea, but with we 2nd Amendment supporters being smart enough to use it wisely and to make sure we aren't telegraphing our intent so as to get dismissed by judges before trials even begin. To put it bluntly, when asked by the judge about an absolutist view of the 2nd Amendment, or about "jury nullification", lie with the utmost humility. Tell 'em what they want to hear, but vote to preserve gun rights as part of a jury no matter what the judge or law says, except of course for real crimes by real criminals.

Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.

More
15 years 7 months ago #1454 by crux
Replied by crux on topic Re:Pro-gun activism
I think you bring to light an interesting occulted right of the people. It's always interesting to find bits of history that have been suppressed. I'd have never noticed the following were said:

John Adams: "It is not only his right, but his duty...to find the verdict according to his own best understanding, judgment, and conscience, though in direct opposition to the direction of the court."

Alexander Hamilton: Jurors should acquit even against the judge's instruction "...if
exercising their judgment with discretion and honesty they have a clear conviction that the charge of the court is wrong."

John Jay: "The jury has a right to judge both the law as well as the fact in controversy."

That said:

Hank in Arkansas wrote:

To put it bluntly, when asked by the judge about an absolutist view of the 2nd Amendment, or about "jury nullification", lie with the utmost humility. Tell 'em what they want to hear, but vote to preserve gun rights as part of a jury no matter what the judge or law says, except of course for real crimes by real criminals.


I can't stand with the word "lie". Certainly I can endorse not volunteering any more information than neccessary, but personally I can't "lie" in a court room. If a judge were to ask (pre-Heller or if Heller had gone the other way) "Do you believe the 2nd amendment confers and individual right to keep and bear arms", I have personally no choice but to answer yes (based on consistency with the rest of the bill of rights). I'd sooner be thrown off a jury and have an opportunity to explain how a judge suppresses dissenting political views than corrupt myself and answer falsely. YMMV. Also, I believe one who answers contrarily to what other people or one's public papers can attest to are your beliefs, is rightly placed in danger of contempt of court for lying.

That said, I have no problem with a don't ask don't tell policy, and if a judge never asks such a point blank question, I have no problem minding my own business, and reserving my right to judge if a law is just, or justly applied in a certain circumstance.


An interesting bit of info Hank.

Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.

More
15 years 7 months ago #1457 by Hank in Arkansas
Replied by Hank in Arkansas on topic Re:Pro-gun activism
Maybe the word "lie" isn't the right one. My point is that lawyers and judges are often looking to dismiss jurors who hold strong views on such things as gun rights, capital punishment, states rights, right-to-life, etc. Their aim is to excuse all jurors who have strong feelings on these matters. For me, I will always temper my answers so as not to reveal my exact feelings on such matters. That's the only way I could expect to remain in the mainstream of the legal system. I've served on a jury before (attempted murder trial), and I felt from the get-go that the judge and lawyers were manipulating all of us jurors, trying to squeeze us into a very narrow and limited role. They wanted us to empty our brains before we went into the jury box, and limit our discussion and latitude to just what they wanted.

Our country and our rights are under assault. Armed resistance isn't on the agenda now, but unarmed resistance sure is. I also hate lying and liars, but it's time to pull out all the stops short of violence. The left wing took this path a long time ago.

Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.

More
15 years 7 months ago #1486 by Hank in Arkansas
Replied by Hank in Arkansas on topic Re:Pro-gun activism
If you guys are watching the news, you've probably heard about the pharmacist in OK City who was the intended victim of a robbery. He shot and killed one of the goblins. He's being charged with murder, because the DA feels that the last few rounds he fired were after the threat had ceased. In short, his tactical decisions under stress are now being used to charge him.

To me, this is a perfect case where -- if I were on the jury -- I'd apply "jury nullification". And a single holdout juror could keep this guy out of prison. He's an innocent citizen assaulted by 2 goblins, and now faces prison because his adrenelin pump was working in overdrive, and he wacked a goblin MAYBE too many times.

Unless I learn something about the case I don't know now, this case illustrates my proposition: 2nd amendment advocates must stand firm to exonerate gun owners who commit technical violations of laws. Remember, a generation ago this pharmacist wouldn't have even been charged. Until about 40 years ago, cops could shoot people fleeing arrest! The "anti-self-defense" movement is winning; it's time to stand up for out right to defend ourselves and not get 2nd guessed by arm chair tacticians.

Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.

More
15 years 7 months ago #1487 by BUILDING MY SASS
Replied by BUILDING MY SASS on topic Re:Pro-gun activism
You know Hank, you are right about alot of that, where I live if someone breaks into your house you are supposed to hide in the closet and dial 911 while they do what ever they want to whom ever or what ever. I believe that a criminals rights end at the door! Anyway I am not one to go looking for it, but given my training I can see it coming. Here is a little something I picked of another site and I believe it to be a true statement.

"Fight back! Whenever you are offered violence, fight back! The aggressor does not fear the law, so he must be taught to fear you. Whatever the risk, and at whatever the cost, fight back!"
- Col. Jeff Cooper

I think that sums it up, or we can all move to Texas where you have the right to defend your self...............

Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.

More
15 years 7 months ago #1492 by Hank in Arkansas
Replied by Hank in Arkansas on topic Re:Pro-gun activism
Amen, brother. I run into a lot of younger shooters who don't even know who COL Jeff Cooper is. He, along with the late Jack Weaver, are the fathers of the "modern technique of the pistol". Virtually every cop and every IPSC, IDPA, etc., shooter is using what these pioneers taught us. But COL Cooper (also now deceased) also wrote the book on the principles of self-defense. The far-left liberals are attacking the very notion of a "right" to self-defense. In England, they're pushing the notion that "the masculine notion of a need to defend oneself must be erradicated from out society". In a generation or two, the notion that one should actively plan and train to resist violent crime will be a quaint memory of "the old days".

We must all become activists. Passive resistance, "monkey wrenching" the system, political activism, training youngsters, etc., must become our mission. And resist armed criminals at all costs!

Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.

More
15 years 7 months ago #1495 by crux
Replied by crux on topic Re:Pro-gun activism
Hank in Arkansas wrote:

We must all become activists.


That has certainly been the tactic and success of the anti-rights crowd. Somehow in the U.S. a pervasive fog of "let someone else organize/advocate for our core principles" seems to have come about. This is not sufficient. Each person must know their constitution, know the history and writings from the founding, and practice an ability to share/defend/spread the understanding of these things so that the heritage of our independance is not left to activists who gloss over history, manipulate data, and ignore/suppress facts.

Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.

More
15 years 6 months ago #1540 by featherblue
Replied by featherblue on topic Re:Pro-gun activism
These liberals who advocate not defending oneself are also the people who see the extinction of the human race as a positive thing.

They hate themselves and anyone who stands for "good". Liberalism thrives on deviant behaviour, i.e., unlimited abortion, child molestation, rape, murder, etc., etc.

These people think the 3000+ murdered by the Islamic terrorists on 9-11 deserved to die. Liberals hate the USA.

Right now history is repeating itself. Hitler came to power in the early thirties by portraying himself as a benevolent "father" figure who would "cure" all of Germany's ills if elected Chancellor. The people (many anyway) believed him and in '33 the World had a serious problem on its hands.

There is a huge difference here in the USA however in that WE, you and me and several million other true Americans love OUR country. We also have a military with DEEP, DEEP traditions in American values. And they are on OUR side. BHO and his cronies realize this and want to counter the military with a force built on their own blueprint and run directly from the White House. Something like Hitlers "Brown Shirts". If this starts to materialize we have big problems indeed. There will be NO US Constitutional protection.

That's when things will start to get very interesting. We will see who the real Patriots are because if these "brown shirts" become a force, you and I and our loved ones will be targets for arrest and confinement.

Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.

More
15 years 6 months ago - 15 years 6 months ago #1548 by crux
Replied by crux on topic Re:Pro-gun activism
I'm personally not pursuaded that we should expect "Brown shirts" terribly soon. I suspect politicians will continue looking for increasing ways to extend their influence and profit from the productivty of the American people. Where the American people really stand up and say "no more" I expect them to retreat for the moment. Look at the AWB that was promised. More than six months of people voting with their pocket books buying guns and ammo at likely record rates and volumes appears to have effectively sent a message that now isn't the time to try and restrict these rights. Anti-rights minded folks will try again, but later. That is why eternal vigilance is the price of liberty. It's critical however we focus on the soap box, ballot box, and jury box, and do everything possible to ensure things never come to an ammo box. I'm concerned by a small crowd who seem obsessed with the last box, without putting everything they have into the first three. That last box is horror and ruination.

Separately, of growing concern is a populace that isn't raised to understand or be passionate about liberty the nation's founders graced us with, who continue supporting an ever increasing welfare state. If this continues it will ultimately cripple the economy, and lead to a government with massive debts and no productivity to extract the interest payments from. That's not a pretty picture either. Ulitmately however, the leaders we get and what they do are merely a reflection of the people, and if they lead us to shame it is the shame of the people. If we wish to avoid these fates, it is the people that surround us that each of us need to reach.
Last edit: 15 years 6 months ago by crux.

Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.