Federal court Jury duty

[Spats McGee]

Originally Posted by jason_iowa

. . . .To me it just seems more inappropriate then anything. I'm not saying they are violating my constitutional rights.

Have you considered simply writing a letter to the case coordinator, or the jury panel office, or whatever office sent you the summons, and indicating that you prefer not to answer certain questions on the form? That might resolve the issue for you.

[JimDandy]

Exactly where and in what context? And picking a few sentences out of a court decision is not legal research. A court decision and any precedential value can only be properly understood in the context of the issue(s) presented by the underlying case.

It's in the same Katz decision you were quoting.

"Over and again, this Court has emphasized that the mandate of the [Fourth] Amendment requires adherence to judicial processes," United States v. Jeffers, 342 U.S. 48, 51, and that searches conducted outside the judicial process, without prior approval by judge or magistrate, are per se unreasonable under the Fourth Amendment [n18] -- subject only to a few specifically established and well delineated exceptions. [n19]

which says much the same thing you did, but as the issue was context and accuracy, I added the Court's words as opposed to the paraphrasing, because contextually "a few specifically estabished and well delineated exceptions" isn't the same as "All Sorts" and "various". I wasn't disagreeing, merely providing the words of the Court for better context.

And see post 47.

I saw post 47, but was waiting for more posters to address it in depth, so I wasn't posting back-to-back.

Originally Posted by Spats McGee

One of the things that I see going on in this thread is that: (a) several of the posters object to the question as an unwarranted invasion of privacy; and (b) are trying to shoehorn that objection into legal terms.

and

Several of the posts that I've read look like the poster is trying to find some way to squeeze "mandatory question on a form as a violation of rights" somewhere in between the Fourth Amendment and Fifth Amendment.

Any objection to this question must be put into legal terms for a legal challenge, not? If I get called, and I object to this, shouldn't I go in forewarned about where the issue stands? A great many of these 4A and 5A questions hinge on whether the person answered a question or allowed a search when they knew, or should have known they didn't have to and similar events. Like that IRS case I'm not quite remembering. The guy didn't have to identify the income source, did it because he thought he had to, then couldn't object to it afterwards, because rather than refusing, he thought he had to and could prevent it's use afterwards.

You still have not cited a federal court of appeal case saying that the simple asking of a question is a search.

No I haven't. Nor have you provided one that says requiring a person to verbally or otherwise inventory the contents of their home isn't a search. I have provided several that show a search is not limited to an officer physically entering your home and looking around himself, and that compelling production of records is a search.

Have you considered simply writing a letter to the case coordinator, or the jury panel office, or whatever office sent you the summons, and indicating that you prefer not to answer certain questions on the form? That might resolve the issue for you.

From the sounds of his other posts, that ship has sailed. I think I saw him say he'd already answered it. As such, his answers may now be public record. This Oklahoma site says various states differ some are, some aren't. I also skimmed another article about it getting recent(2011-ish) federal court attention, so I don't know where it lies now.

[jason_iowa]

Have you considered simply writing a letter to the case coordinator, or the jury panel office, or whatever office sent you the summons, and indicating that you prefer not to answer certain questions on the form? That might resolve the issue for you.

No I simply answered the question. Yes, shotgun, general use. That is the first gun I ever owned so i felt that it would suffice.

[kraigwy]

Tell them Uncle Joe told you to get a double barreled shotgun for defense.

On a serious note, that's a generic questionnaire lawyers use to weed out potential conflicts of interest.

Some really get lengthily , and very to the type of crime/suite being considered.

If this or any question bothers you don't answer it. No one will notice until you get called and its a gun related course.

You said you were in LE, so the question will never come up because the defense will have you replaced before you get to the gun question.

I've been scheduled for jury duty several times, but being retired LE, I was never allowed on a jury. Federal, state, or local. They don't like cops on juries.

Some do sneak in on civil cases though.

I got to the point I just go as far as saying I'm retired LE and don't finish filling out the form. I've never be questioned why I decided not to answer.

[davem]

Rather than all this recent legal court decisions etc. that tells us just how free or un-free we may or may not be I am looking at this from a Founding Father's view point. I have mentioned the 4th Amendment but there is the 9th and 10th and it seems to me that there are other rights vested in the citizen beyond those in the 1st to 8th. One is these is a right to privacy. Now I would say there are limits on that right but the limits must pertain to the case in hand.
For example let's say that the Supreme Court says mandatory gun registration at the Federal level is unconstitutional. SO...a bunch in Washington decides "No Problem, we'll just work it a different way" So they put a tax on all firearms which is to be added to your Federal Income tax. NOW IF YOU DON'T comply you are in violation of a federal income tax occurrence. This firearms tax requires the serial number and make of every gun in the country.
As I see matters, such a thing is unconstitutional, the purpose of the tax is to collect revenues not find out who owns a firearm. Applying this to a jury summons question that if you don't answer may put you in legal trouble- I think it is the same thing. As I said, it should not be up to the court system to start filtering jurors. They can do a criminal background check (public records) and weed out criminals but screening jurors should be something done by the DA and defense attorney, not the court system.
What to do on the summons? Man, I don't know. You are alone, all my yourself. Isn't that how government's gain power. Take us on one at a time.
Maybe write back, "I find your question unacceptable and a violation of privacy and my Constitutional freedoms. You have a right to summon me for jury duty and I will comply. tell me when to appear and I will appear. I will answer any question put to me by a District attorney or defense attorney, in seating the jury. If you wish to legally prosecute me I will demand a trial tried by a jury of my peers. I doubt such a jury will find me at fault."
QUESTION. On this government right to search without warrant. On a hunting license you agree to let a wildlife officer search your vehicle or camp. On a driver's license you agree to let an officer within reason search your vehicle, same with boats, etc. How do the rest of you see this "unwarranted" wording in the Constitution? Recently it seems the logic is "Unwarranted" means the same thing as unreasonable. Traditionally I thought it meant a law enforcement officer with a court issued warranted IN HAND that listed the law you violated and what was to be searched. If the thing to be searched was a person you may have kidnapped, etc., the law enforcement officer could not be opening up a small drawer since a human being could not be in such a place. Without a court ordered warrant in hand no law enforcement officer could conduct a search unless it was within the actual occurrence of a crime being conducted.

[Brian Pfleuger]

Originally Posted by davem

On a hunting license you agree to let a wildlife officer search your vehicle or camp. On a driver's license you agree to let an officer within reason search your vehicle, same with boats, etc.

Uh... no you don't.

[JimDandy]

They can do a criminal background check (public records) and weed out criminals but screening jurors should be something done by the DA and defense attorney, not the court system.

From what we've (or at least I've) heard and assumed based on the OP, this is a Jury Questionnaire, and part of voir dire. The questions are put there by the two sides of the case. Prosecutor/Plaintiff and Defendant/Respondent whatever the correct technical terms are.

Additionally, they may or may not do a background check or weed out the criminals. Serving on a jury, from what I remember, is a civil right that may or may not be restored depending on where you live and what steps, if any you have or have to have undertaken to restore your civil rights.


Law Enforcement (State Patrol, local police, Coast Guard for boats) may or may not be able to perform a safety inspection. This is not the same thing as a search.

For example there was a guy named Rodney Joseph Gant. He was pulled over, arrested for driving on a suspended license, handcuffed, and locked in the back of a patrol car. The courts decided that because Gant was handcuffed and locked in the back of a police car and thus couldn't get any weapons, or destroy evidence in the car, the government needed a warrant to search his car.

[davem]

One more thought. I know we are all frustrated these days with criminals "walking" because the police didn't handle matters correctly, all sorts of things along those lines. I'll agree it is a problem. Then, we all want to be good citizens, what's wrong with answering a few intrusive questions, no harm, etc. The issue is when to complain? Personally I think the time to complain has long since passed. For example in a lot of situations today you really don't get a trial by jury, you get an administrative law court judge or some type of arbitration because it is "more expedient". I've often wondered about whether such things would have been acceptable to the founding fathers? In a lot of instances there is a clever tie in to more government control. On the wildlife officer searching your vehicle. If you don't want to submit to that then fine- the attitude is just don't buy a hunting license. BUT isn't hunting an American activity enjoyed prior to the Constitution? Under pre-existing rights wouldn't it be protected by the 9th Amendment? I think the 9th has teeth, I may be wrong but I think that was what the Supreme Court used to say Slavery was Constitutional and why an Amendment needed to be passed to Constitutionally prohibit slavery.
In any event it seems to me that questions on a jury summons that have no bearing to you arriving on time to serve as a juror are not valid. Whether you will or will not be an impartial juror isn't a function of the court system, that ought to be dealt with by the two attorneys in the case.
Let me side step a little. Remember when Clinton pardoned a fugitive from justice by the name of Rich? It was on all the talk shows and all the current day experts said the often stated fact that the president's pardon power was "Absolute". Well I was listening to this over and over and then got thinking that the way the Constitution was written- very little was absolute. There is a law library not far from where I live so I went and read the cases on file. Wow! Times do change. There was case back in the early 1800's that was very similar and the Supreme Court THEN felt the pardon power could not be used to cloud the separation of powers established by the Constitution. In short, a fugitive from justice was answerable to the Judicial Branch of government, the president could pardon AFTER a conviction but he could not use the pardon power to prohibit the Judicial branch from exercising its Constitutional power to prosecute a crime. The reasoning of the supreme court at the time was pretty sound. The court felt the pardon could be used as an obstruction of justice, that without a trial facts that may implement others would never be discovered. The Presidential pardon power was the federal equivalent to a Governor's power on State level crimes.
Of course it is no longer that way but I mention that in the respect that I don't think government can just on its own hook intrude in areas beyond its function or role. So, to me at least, such questions on a jury summons are inappropriate.

[davem]

JimDandy: well if that is the situation then I'm not inflexible but it would be nice for the court to explain things, such as, "You have been pre-selected as a potential juror in Smith vs. The City of Hometown, a case involving firearms ownership. Both the District Attorney and the Defense Attorney have a right to question potential jurors and both have a right to refuse a set number of potential jurors. Accordingly, do you possess a firearm? Your answering this question insures us we have an adequate number of potential jurors that are both gun possessors and not gun possessors so that a jury can be seated""
Maybe I'll agree with that set up but its all in the name of being expedient, I think it might be better to limit the weeding out in the courtroom.

[JimDandy]

Then, we all want to be good citizens, what's wrong with answering a few intrusive questions, no harm, etc.

The harm is in the intrusive question itself. It may not be a crime to have an extra-marital affair, but stick that on a questionnaire and it may become public record for your soon to be ex-wife to use in Divorce Court. As for the firearms question, your vehemently anti-2A boss decides to fire you for answering yes, someone in your household has a firearm.

BUT isn't hunting an American activity enjoyed prior to the Constitution?

One of the professionals will have to contradict me if I get this wrong, but hunting isn't a (Federal) right. Hunting is a privilege. That's why it's legal for the State of X to charge more for an out-of-state permit than an in-state permit.

[JimDandy]

After some further searching, It appears that while we have some logic in 4th and 5th amendment questions on this privacy issue, the answer to juror privacy lies in the first and fourteenth amendment. (Yeah, aside from the 14th being one big giant catch-all I don't know) Brandborg v Lucas Unfortunately it's not a government website, and I can't be sure those are the actual words of the court reprinted so due to possible copyright issues, I won't quote anything.

Basics are: A lady got summoned. Had a questionnaire. Refused to answer 12 questions (and inadvertently overlooked a thirteenth). She went to her court date with her partially filled out questionnaire. The judge ordered her to finish it. She refused. She was taken out of court, the Judge and the lawyers talked, with both the prosecution and defense somewhere between suggesting and asking she be held in contempt. (Part of why I think it might not be a direct quote of the decision, as I can't imagine that sort of thing in the official record) She was held in contempt for a 3 day jail sentence, and a $200 fine. She appealed. Her contempt citation was set aside.

[zincwarrior]

I suppose I'd write something like, "4th and 5th Amendments, as well as Douglas's penumbra of privacy, preclude me from giving answers to these questions. If you feel like trying to compel me to answer them, they must be important for some judicial reason, at which point I'll directly invoke the 5th." If some corrupt federal judge doesn't like it, she or he can call me into court and explain on the record exactly why I should have to answer such questions on a jury survey. A much more appropriate question (like, for voir dire) would be "do you support the RKBA?" Absolutely. I think everyone not in prison should be able to carry firearms with few restrictions. Can I go home now, since you won't be needing me on the jury for this firearms case?

Effective or not, i love it! Plus you'll have the added onus of likely getting kicked off the jury by one of the attorneys.

[Frank Ettin]

Originally Posted by JimDandy

...

No I haven't. Nor have you provided one that says requiring a person to verbally or otherwise inventory the contents of their home isn't a search. I have provided several that show a search is not limited to an officer physically entering your home and looking around himself, and that compelling production of records is a search....

I don't need to cite a case. It's your claim that the questionnaire violates one or more constitutionally protected rights. Therefore, it's your burden to support that claim. The reality is that the question has been asked. You now challenge the legality of asking the question, so it's up to you to make that stick.

The cases you've cited in which the government actions were found to constitute a search involve physical intrusion or surreptitious surveillance under circumstances in which one has a reasonable expectation of privacy. They have nothing to do with the simple asking of a question.

Not every governmental annoyance or perceived impertinent question is a violation of a constitutional right.

When you get a federal judge to buy your analyses, let us know. In the meantime, you've not made your case.

[JimDandy]

Effective or not, i love it! Plus you'll have the added onus of likely getting kicked off the jury by one of the attorneys.

Like discussions of self defense situations, it's easy to write what we think we'd do in such a situation. Actually doing it is far different. And as Ms Brandborg found out could result in jail time.

It's your claim that the questionnaire violates one or more constitutionally protected rights.

To be correct and accurate, that isn't my claim. The claim was made by

Originally Posted by psyfly

2.) I'm not sure it's legal.

3.) I'm pretty sure it's a 4th A violation to ask (from a federal court)

At which point I extended the question-

Originally Posted by JimDandy

As has been mentioned, answering the question is compulsory. Couldn't that, in theory, make you an Agent Of The State?

which assumed a search of your memory of your house was similar enough to a search of your house itself. I also drew a comparison to a similar 5th Amendment/Gun Registry case with the sadly unasked question of how one would be ok, and the other not.

Originally Posted by Frank Ettin

Not every governmental annoyance or perceived impertinent question is a violation of a constitutional right.

Nor does that mean every perceived impertinent question it NOT a violation of a Constitutional right.

I'm going to assume you and I were posting at the same time, and so you haven't seen the Brandborg case I cited yet that found a juror's right to privacy in the 1st and 14th amendment apparently, at least when the questions aren't established as relevant to the case they're being used on. Or some such.

[zincwarrior]

Like discussions of self defense situations, it's easy to write what we think we'd do in such a situation. Actually doing it is far different. And as Ms Brandborg found out could result in jail time.

This is very true. The one time I had jury duty locally when I reached the "occupation?" question I put my vampirelike occupation down and stopped. I was verbally ask to confirm that, excused and not called again since.

[JimDandy]

Originally Posted by Tom Servo

It's not a government conspiracy to start a registration--it's just a question about potential viability as a juror.

Sorry Tom, I missed your reply earlier. I can't speak to the others, but I don't think this is the start of a registry. It seems like the people who yelled NRA had a registry because they collected marketing information on attendees to gun and outdoor shows. I don't see a lot of survey question/answers like

Originally Posted by What I think the average non-shooter would say about the shooter they live with.

Yes.

A big long one with pretty wood handle jobbies.

I have no earthly idea what my roomie/husband/wife/son/daughter/whatever uses it for.

from whatever portion of the population unlucky enough to be randomly selected for jury duty, is going to create a very effective registry. I see potential for abuse, but I don't see a registry, or even an overt plan to abuse it. That's still a long way from figuring out how those questions are relevant to qualifications for jury duty.

[davem]

Well lots of grey areas, I'm trying to recall one jury I was on regarding a kid arrested for drunk driving and disputing the charge. The defense attorney was asking potential jurors if we had ever worked as police men, etc- which makes sense because it was thhe kid's work against the police officer's word. It is a question directed at whether a juror may or may not be able to render an impartial decision- that's fair. No problem there. I still don't like the questionaire thing. Maybe forget the expediency aspect and stick the tradition. It's worked fine so far.
Hey how about that woman prevailing? A jury is the free citizen's final hope again injustice. Juries may be imperfect but I'll always trust my fellow citizen over elected officials. I'd trust you guys being on my jury before a government pick.

[JimDandy]

I'd trust you guys being on my jury before a government pick

You do realize a fairly high number of these guys are the government's pick right? We have a lot of LEO's and government lawyers who post on here.

The lawyers can correct me if I'm wrong, but asking if anyone was a law enforcement officer is pretty standard. They didn't ask you because it was the defendant's word against a LEO's so much as some sort of conflict of interest/bias that's assumed to reside in law enforcement as a group- i.e. if someone is arrested, they're guilty is the bias. Conflict being that both Prosecutors and LEOs are employees of the State. They wouldn't let an employee of XYZ company sit on a jury where XYZ is a party type of thing. Some combination of one or the other of those two. At least that's my understanding.

[Frank Ettin]

Originally Posted by JimDandy

...I'm going to assume you and I were posting at the same time, and so you haven't seen the Brandborg case I cited yet that found a juror's right to privacy in the 1st and 14th amendment apparently, at least when the questions aren't established as relevant to the case they're being used on. Or some such.

"Or some such"? Let's try to be more precise when discussing important legal principles.

Anyway, Brandborg v. Lucas, 891 F.Supp. 352 (E. D. Tex., 1995) is an interesting case. First, of course, it's a federal trial court case and therefore of no real value as precedent, nor does it support your various contentions up to this point. However, it does help illustrate how certain questions in a jury questionnaire could be subject to challenge as irrelevant and thus an impermissible invasion of privacy.

Ms. Brandborg was called as a prospective juror in a Texas state court. She was asked to complete a 110 question questionnaire. She answered all but 12 of those questions and declined to answer those on the theory that they were needless intrusive and violated her privacy. The questions she declined to answer related to such matters as her income, religious affiliation, political affiliation, medications she takes, and similar questions of a highly personal nature.

She continued to decline to answer even after discussion with the judge in the Texas court and even after the judge advised her that she could be cited for contempt of court. Given her continued refusal to answer she was cited for contempt. She challenged that citation in the state court and ultimately found her way to the federal district court on a petition for a writ of habeas corpus, resulting in the memorandum decision cited above setting aside the contempt order.

In his decision the magistrate judge first considers the challenge of finding an impartial jury, 891 F.Supp. 352, at 356:

...The search for an impartial juror is a balancing effort by the court between the competing parties, the public and the potential juror. Without proper consideration of the rights of each of these interests, the jury will not be the solid cornerstone of our trial system that it must be....

He also considers the constitutional right of a defendant to an impartial jury, the constitutional right of privacy derived from the First and Fourteenth Amendments, the right of the public to open proceedings and the trial court's role in protecting these competing rights.

Then, applying those principles to the instant case, the magistrate judge writes, at 360 -- 361 (emphasis added):

...To determine the outcome in this case, the Court must examine the competing interests involved. Petitioner may have a constitutionally protected right to nondisclosure of matters deemed to be private, if that right is not out-weighed by the rights of the parties to an impartial jury. Petitioner should not lose her expectation of privacy merely by becoming a prospective juror. James Lee Clark, the criminal defendant, also has a competing interest in enjoying his right to a trial by an impartial jury. Additionally, the public has an interest in keeping the proceedings open.

These competing interests must be balanced to determine whether a prospective juror should have to answer questions which are deemed to be private in nature. The questions involved in the case should have been examined to determine whether they were relevant to the underlying criminal case. The questions posed to petitioner must have some relevance to the question of whether she should be qualified or disqualified from jury service in this case because of bias or prejudice. If the questions are not directed to procure this type of information, the questions should not be presented to the prospective juror and the issue of privacy will not arise.

If the trial court finds that the questions are relevant to the question of bias or prejudice of a prospective juror, and the prospective juror raises her privacy right, the trial court should conduct an in camera hearing to determine what is the least intrusive means to procure the information and protect the rights of the prospective juror. In determining whether the prospective juror should be required to answer the questions posed, the trial court must balance the competing interests of the prospective juror, the criminal defendant, the prosecution, and the public.

Petitioner's specific circumstances do not report a proper balancing of her right of privacy in relation to the rights of the public and the parties. The trial court should limit voir dire when the parties seek information too remote from the issues in the case to warrant invasion of the potential juror's private thoughts. Barnes, 604 F.2d at 140.....

And in setting aside Ms. Brandborg contempt citation, the magistrate judge writes, at 361 (emphasis added):

...the relevance of the specific questions at issue was never considered or established. The trial court's failure to determine the relevance of the questions and conduct a balancing test of the competing interests, entitled the petitioner to refuse to answer. However, a potential juror is certainly not free to refuse to answer any question propounded when it is found by the court to be relevant, or potentially relevant, and a balancing of the competing interests is performed. If a trial court determines that a specific question is relevant and after conducting a balancing of the competing interests determines that the prospective juror's privacy rights are outweighed by the other interests, the prospective juror cannot refuse to answer the question. However, the court should provide the prospective juror with the least intrusive means to provide that information.....

[tyme]

Spats, re: trying to shoehorn objection to the firearms question on a federal jury questionnaire (which is taken online, link in jason_iowa's second post iirc, and requires selecting yes or no from a drop-down for whether there are guns in the household)...

The problem is, as I think we all acknowledge, there is no precedent (at least none I've seen cited) tying one of the rights, or expansions of rights (4th, 5th, "right to privacy", etc) to refusal to answer overbroad questions on a preliminary jury survey. So of course all such arguments are going to be without basis, until/unless someone challenges those bogus questions in court, and then the courts either will or won't find (I would hope they would) those questions to violate our right to privacy, or against self-incrimination, or some other right.

Whatever "need" the federal judiciary has to sift through potential jurors for gun cases can't possibly be met by questions about guns in the household. The questions aren't detailed enough to be useful for the purposes they'd presumably be used for, and they're an unnecessary privacy violation for jurors who aren't called or who are assigned to (the majority of) cases where gun ownership and RKBA opinions aren't relevant.

The other aspect of this is the 5th amendment situation. Because of Salinas, the rational thing to do is to declare the 5th amendment as a reason you're not answering, even if the 5th amendment doesn't apply. Since, if it does apply, and you don't mention the 5th amendment, your failure to answer might be used against you (or, in the case of a federal court form, perhaps if you get the wrong judge on the wrong day you'd be cited for contempt.)

If this all seems like unproductive fantasy to some of you lawyers, a) are questions about your guns and what you use them for on a general survey given to all prospective jurors acceptable to you; and b) if not, what would you do about it, if you were going to stand up for what you perceive to be your rights? Answer the questions, then take up the issue with the relevant authorities hoping to change the surveys for the future? That sort of non-confrontational approach may work better, but then you've answered the questions, allowing the government to violate your perceived rights.

[JimDandy]

"Or some such"? Let's try to be more precise when discussing important legal principles.

I was intentionally trying to "Bubba" it up a bit at the end, as an alternative to the whole "I'm not a lawyer, so hopefully if I'm wrong the ones who are will correct" disclaimer at the beginning.

First, of course, it's a federal trial court case and therefore of no real value as precedent,

That may be a valid point for a case in front of a judge, though I wonder if it would be at the least persuasive? Is that the correct term? Regardless, it does seem to meet the standard you yourself set:

It's your claim that the questionnaire violates one or more constitutionally protected rights. Therefore, it's your burden to support that claim. The reality is that the question has been asked. You now challenge the legality of asking the question, so it's up to you to make that stick.

and

When you get a federal judge to buy your analyses, let us know. In the meantime, you've not made your case.

Although I should also point out that your characterization of my claim is not strictly accurate which is understandable as I haven't clearly and concisely made an actual claim.

Were I to do so, I would say that such a question, if not related to the case being summoned for, could and probably would violate some level of Constitutional protection. As someone ahead of me metioned the 4th amedment, and it made some logical sense, I ran with that exploring and hypothesizing in a discutions format. In Post #11 I had already allowed there may be cases at some past, present, or future time where the questions might be relevant. In Post #35 I pointed out and added to the discussion that the fourth and fifth amendments may not apply, because of some distinction between civil and criminal actions as per a Cato paper. I had already alluded to some of this distinction in regards to the 5th amendment when I pointed out the need for risk.

You will undoubtedly disagree, but what I found most interesting was the decision was based - at least in part - in the 14th amendment, like Shelley v Kraemer.

[davem]

Frank- thanks for citing the case, etc. very helpful for me at least and I think the court did a good job on that decision, the aspect of balancing the private rights versus the need to obtain an impartial jury. I think that court decision is one that any citizen in a free country can accept.
So...with that court decision in mind, let's get back to the ORIGINAL questionnaire that Jason was sent. I can see that if a case involved an issue about firearms then asking if the juror was a possessor of firearms might be valid but what about the other questions: "what kind of a gun is it?", "What is the gun used for?". Those seem pretty intrusive to me. It seems to me that simply knowing if a potential juror is or is not a gun possessor ought to be sufficient to establish if the juror is impartial. What if the juror owns say 20 different firearms. Theoretically, to answer the questionnaire, the potential juror would have to list each firearm and what each firearm is used for- to me- that is excessive.

[Southwest Chuck]

Interesting discusion.

No biggie just answer truthfully.

Do you or anyone in your household possess a fire arm? Yes
What kind of gun is it? The kind that shoots
What is it used for? Shooting

Obviously, although truthful, the answers above reflect sarcasm in the answer and you WILL be flagged for follow-up questions, IMO. Just as the questionaire avoids using the word "own" in the question and substitutes "possess", I would take the question literally, and answer truthfully without appearing outwardly sarcastic.




1. Do you or anyone in your household possess a fire arm? Not at this time; not to my knolledge/unknown.
2. What kind of gun is it? See above
3. What is it used for? See above

1. This question is written in the present tense. Now they may assume that I currently don't own a firearm based on my answer. I am not responsible, however, for their assumptions. Now I may own a firearm, but it is completley honest to answer that I the time I filled out the questionaire, I did not have a firearm in my immediate possesion.

2 & 3 are obvious.

IMO, I don't believe the answer above would flag you as combative, sarcastic, or non-responsive, but I could be wrong about that.

For the record, I learned a lot watching Bill Clinton.

...

[JimDandy]

1. Do you or anyone in your household possess a firearm?
Not at this time; not to my knowledge/unknown.

Is that legally accurate? One concept that comes up in these discussions with some regularity is the difference between the common every-day definition of a word, and the legalese definition. Not too long ago we had a discussion about Title In Fee Simple, a virtual bundle of sticks representing the title rights, and so on. One of those title rights was possession.

I can also remember discussions on here about people losing their firearms rights somewhere, I think California, because the state decided that even though a prohibited roommate/spouse/cohabitant (don't remember the exact details on the relationship or why they were prohibited) never touched the firearm, let alone possessed it the way an everyman on the street would define it, that a transfer of possession had taken place because there wasn't any form of security (Gun Safe, trigger lock, locked door) between the cohabitant in the common area, and where the firearm was stored.

Now to be fair, that may have been alarmist reporting of an urban legend quality, I didn't pay attention to that thread very closely- but the reasoning was supported in another thread about storing your firearms at an out of state relative's home. And as I remember more, it also brings to mind some concerns about Manchin-Toomey from earlier, that a husband spending more than two weeks away from home would/could have violated the transfer laws if his wife stayed home.

What I'm getting at, in other words, is if the firearm isn't on your person, but left at home, or locked in your car in the parking garage, is it still legally in your possession? Or is it in no one's possession?

[Glenn E. Meyer]

I'm sending this back with Doc Brown in the DeLorean to Middle Ages for the Angels on the Head of Pin Council to discuss.

Closed (with a touch of staff discussion).