|
Forum Rules | Firearms Safety | Firearms Photos | Links | Library | Lost Password | Email Changes |
Register | FAQ | Calendar | Search | Today's Posts | Mark Forums Read |
|
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
August 14, 2017, 06:40 PM | #51 | |
Staff
Join Date: November 23, 2005
Location: California - San Francisco
Posts: 9,471
|
Quote:
__________________
"It is long been a principle of ours that one is no more armed because he has possession of a firearm than he is a musician because he owns a piano. There is no point in having a gun if you are not capable of using it skillfully." -- Jeff Cooper |
|
August 15, 2017, 12:35 PM | #52 |
Senior Member
Join Date: January 3, 2017
Posts: 1,583
|
Frank,
It is apparent to me that you are a lawyer. The way you interpret the status of the constitution through laws instead of interpreting the laws through the constitution. The whole legal interpretation of our rights and what represents allowable restrictions on those rights when the bill of rights allowed for no such modification. You stand by the reasoning that the courts are the supreme judge of the law when in fact the jury is the final judge of the law and how it applies in any given case. That is why the jury's verdict cannot be overturned by any means if they decide to acquit. The juries have the final say on whether a law is just as applied to each case and whether a crime has been committed even though the evidence shows guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. We, the People, have given limited power to the federal government and to the states through the constitutions and We, the People, can take that power away and return it to the people. No lawyer or judge has the power to stop that process once it is started. In spite of your education the People hold the power and not the lawyers and judges. There is a growing number of people who understand the power of the jury and the lack of authority the government has over us. Times are changing good sir. |
August 15, 2017, 01:48 PM | #53 | |||
Staff
Join Date: March 11, 2006
Location: Upper US
Posts: 28,677
|
Quote:
I happen to be in the camp that considers that a spectacularly BAD idea. Quote:
And the fact that the Founders set up our system giving them that authority. No, we often don't like, and disagree with some of the rulings, but the system has a means to redress them, as well. And without resorting to a new Constitutional Convention. At one time, slavery was constitutionally legal, and upheld by the Supreme Court. The same system that did that also contains a mechanism allowing for peaceful change, without scrapping the whole thing and starting over. And without needing a Civil War. We got a Civil War anyway, for many, many reasons, including human ego, but we got it in spite of our Constitutional system, not because of it. Quote:
Remember the response given when the delegates left the Constitutional convention. "what have you given us?" (Franklin, I believe) replied.. "A Republic, if you can keep it." Personally, I have my doubts that, were it up to people today, we would be able to keep a republic. Most people believe /have been taught / trained, that the US is, or should be a democracy, and they go no further than that. And, their vote counts exactly the same as people who actually understand the issues involved. Three wolves and a sheep voting on what to have for dinner is also democracy. But its not a very good system, if you are the sheep.
__________________
All else being equal (and it almost never is) bigger bullets tend to work better. |
|||
August 15, 2017, 01:53 PM | #54 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: June 10, 2004
Location: Tioga co. PA
Posts: 2,647
|
Quote:
__________________
USNRET '61-'81 |
|
August 15, 2017, 02:13 PM | #55 | ||
Staff
Join Date: November 23, 2005
Location: California - San Francisco
Posts: 9,471
|
Quote:
The opinions of courts on matters of law, including what the Constitution means and how it applies in the particular circumstances of the matters before them, will affect the lives and property of real people in the real world. Your opinions on such matters and $2.00 will get you a cup of coffee at Starbucks. Quote:
__________________
"It is long been a principle of ours that one is no more armed because he has possession of a firearm than he is a musician because he owns a piano. There is no point in having a gun if you are not capable of using it skillfully." -- Jeff Cooper |
||
August 15, 2017, 03:25 PM | #56 |
Senior Member
Join Date: January 3, 2017
Posts: 1,583
|
As you well know it would take a great deal of time on my part to search for and find the examples of nullification that were used to curb government abuse but here is one that I can show you:
This was a case brought to trial before the constitution existed: When brought to trial in August of 1735, Zenger admitted publishing the offending articles, but argued that the truth of the facts stated justified their publication. The judge instructed the jury that truth is not justification for libel. Rather, truth makes the libel more vicious, for public unrest is more likely to follow true, rather than false claims of bad governance. And since the defendant had admitted to the "fact" of publication, only a question of "law" remained. Then, as now, the judge said the "issue of law" was for the court to determine, and he instructed the jury to find the defendant guilty. It took only ten minutes for the jury to disregard the judge's instructions on the law and find Zenger NOT GUILTY. A juror has the responsibility to judge the testimony he hears, the reliability of the witnesses, the law, the guilt of the defendant, and whether the law applies in the case at hand. This responsibility extends beyond the direction of the court and the court's definition of the law. No jurors oath can restrict his conscience. |
August 15, 2017, 03:36 PM | #57 | |||
Staff
Join Date: November 23, 2005
Location: California - San Francisco
Posts: 9,471
|
Quote:
You asserted: You also asserted: And when asked to show us an example of jury nullification actually curbing government abuse all you've got is a case that's more than 200 years old.
__________________
"It is long been a principle of ours that one is no more armed because he has possession of a firearm than he is a musician because he owns a piano. There is no point in having a gun if you are not capable of using it skillfully." -- Jeff Cooper |
|||
August 15, 2017, 03:45 PM | #58 |
Senior Member
Join Date: January 3, 2017
Posts: 1,583
|
As I said, like you, I have not the time nor the will to find the evidence for my case. You would have an easier time because you have better access to the information than I. As a lawyer it is in your best interest to deny that jury nullification is lawful and practiced. It shows that people have the ultimate power in the courtroom. A jury has more power than the house, senate, and courts because they can nullify the laws they feel are unjust.
So, if you feel you have the evidence to find me guilty of anything I demand a trial by jury. Yu don't have the authority to find me guilty of anything. Last edited by ShootistPRS; August 15, 2017 at 03:51 PM. |
August 15, 2017, 04:28 PM | #59 | |||
Staff
Join Date: November 23, 2005
Location: California - San Francisco
Posts: 9,471
|
Quote:
Quote:
The real questions revolve around how often it has been a factor and to what extent it has actually been a positive moral force. Quote:
__________________
"It is long been a principle of ours that one is no more armed because he has possession of a firearm than he is a musician because he owns a piano. There is no point in having a gun if you are not capable of using it skillfully." -- Jeff Cooper |
|||
August 16, 2017, 10:54 AM | #60 |
Senior Member
Join Date: January 3, 2017
Posts: 1,583
|
My lack of evidence was one case where jurors over turned a judges directive and found a man not guilty even though he had admitted to breaking a law. The jury chose to support the act and not the law.
It is evidence that it has happened. |
August 16, 2017, 11:13 AM | #61 |
Moderator Emeritus
Join Date: June 29, 2000
Location: Rupert, Idaho
Posts: 9,660
|
Shootist, Franks point was not that nullification does not exist or that it is not used. That point was that it does not nullify the actual law. It only affects that particular case. Even the case you cited did not change the underlying law. It only changed the future of that one defendant.
I think this little side trip down history has run its course, and really has no effect on Law in general. It does not speak to the OP at all. |
August 17, 2017, 10:07 AM | #62 | |
Staff
Join Date: March 11, 2006
Location: Upper US
Posts: 28,677
|
Quote:
Ok, its a rhetorical question, but consider this, a couple hundred years of immigration from all over the world, did not seek the United States because we had repressive gun laws.
__________________
All else being equal (and it almost never is) bigger bullets tend to work better. |
|
August 17, 2017, 10:20 AM | #63 |
Senior Member
Join Date: March 15, 2010
Posts: 8,235
|
Interesting point. I'm sure many immigrants at least understand the desire to defend oneself. The majority just want pursue happiness and could care less either way. I'm going to guess that the mix of attitudes will be similar to the population already inhabiting the United States.
|
August 17, 2017, 10:46 AM | #64 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: July 12, 2011
Location: Top of the Baltic stack
Posts: 6,079
|
Quote:
__________________
When the right to effective self-defence is denied, that right to self-defence which remains is essentially symbolic. Freedom: Please enjoy responsibly.
|
|
August 18, 2017, 05:24 AM | #65 |
Senior Member
Join Date: July 24, 2017
Location: Texas
Posts: 123
|
The Earth would still be the Earth without the Amazon rain forest, or the Sahara desert, or the American 2nd amendment. Rather than picking apart and questioning the individual elements of American founding documents, I would submit the idea that the whole is greater than the sum of it's parts. It is simply one aspect of the USA that signifies how unique and special it really is.
|
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
|
|