Townhall.com, Where Your Opinion Counts
Talk Radio:   Bill Bennett   Mike Gallagher   Dennis Prager   Michael Medved   Hugh Hewitt   
BREAKING NEWS  LeftArrow - Townhall.com : Conservative, Political, Republican   RightArrow - Townhall.com : Conservative, Political, Republican  
Columns, funnies & more in your inbox!
  • Check the boxes and send us your email address to receveive your free newsletter
  • Your daily must-read of conservative columns, cartoons and news. Coulter, Sowell, Krauthammer and more.
  • Townhall.com’s weekly inside scoop on what’s happening behind the scenes in the world of politics. When news breaks, we report.
  • Signup to receive the latest daily Townhall cartoons
Friday, September 28, 2007
Sandy  Froman :: Townhall.com Columnist
Getting the Gun Vote
by Sandy Froman
Vote on It:
Average Vote:
[+] Text [-]
 
Poll
Will the Dems' health care Christmas Present to America be an improvement or detriment to our health care system?


As the premier organization representing American gun owners, the National Rifle Association (NRA) has taken center stage in the ongoing election drama. To stop anti-gun presidential hopeful Hillary Clinton, gun owners must unite to protect their Second Amendment rights. With early primaries right around the corner, there’s no time to lose.

Republican presidential candidates lined up to spend time with the NRA at its Celebration of American Values in Washington, D.C. Leading candidates of one of America’s major political parties set aside a day of campaigning to speak to NRA members.

The candidates who took part understand that the gun vote is important. They get it. How things have changed.

When I was first elected to the NRA board of directors in 1992, I could not have imagined that an exclusively Second Amendment event would draw personal appearances by major presidential candidates like Rudy Giuliani, Mike Huckabee, John McCain and Fred Thompson. Even candidates with whom the NRA has disagreed came, looking for common ground and to start a respectful and productive dialogue.

For over a generation now gun control has been a hotly-contested issue in national politics and NRA has been at the forefront of the debate. Occasionally the left has won. Anti-gun forces had their greatest success under Bill Clinton, the darkest years for Second Amendment supporters since NRA’s political apparatus went online.

But since then millions of gun owners have organized under the NRA, and the results have been astounding. George W. Bush beat Al Gore in 2000, and even Bill Clinton acknowledged the NRA played a pivotal role, especially in Tennessee, Arkansas, West Virginia and Florida. In 2002, NRA targeted anti-gun senators and helped secure a pro-Second Amendment Senate majority. In 2004, NRA targeted key states against John Kerry, and defeated Tom Daschle in gun-friendly South Dakota. Even in 2006, most Democrats who won swing seats in the House and Senate openly supported the Second Amendment.

Despite eight years of a Clinton White House, and millions of dollars funneled to anti-Second Amendment causes by leftist millionaire George Soros, MoveOn.org and the Hollywood establishment, gun ownership continues today to be an honored part of our American tradition. The NRA rightly claims much of the credit for that, and has proven to the entire political establishment that America’s 90 million gun owners demand that our nation’s leaders respect their Second Amendment rights.

More and more Americans have come to recognize and appreciate NRA’s contribution. So when NRA created a forum for presidential candidates to express their support for the Second Amendment, almost every major Republican candidate showed up.

But there’s still a lot to do and not much time left.

In Congress and the courts, the left has carefully mapped out an anti-gun agenda. All they need is a president willing to push it though. All they need is another Clinton. Continued...

1 2
| Full Article & Comments | Next >
Share:
Vote on It:
Average Vote:
 
About The Author

Sandy Froman is the immediate past president of the National Rifle Association of America, only the second woman and the first Jewish American to hold that office in the 136-year history of the NRA. The views expressed are her own and not that of any organization.

Be the first to read Sandy Froman's column. Sign up today and receive Townhall.com delivered each morning to your inbox.

Hunter Wins Texas Straw Poll


If we wish to keep our representative Republic, we must elect a President who will secure the borders and enforce the laws. The actions of the next President will determine the fate of this great nation. Texans have been on the front line of this inundation and understand its consequences. They know that Duncan Hunter is the one man who can be trusted to do what needs to be done.

The primary responsibility of the U.S. government is to protect the territorial integrity and people of this country. They have completely abdicated this responsibility. Both parties have been complicit in this. We are being told it is not possible to control our borders, enforce our laws, and thereby control our destiny as a nation. Hogwash. We are being sold out by corporations intent on importing workers for jobs that can't be exported with the taxpayers paying the true costs, financial and human. If we act like sheep and don't stop the inundation across our borders, we will lose our country without a bleat.

http://www.gohunter08.

Virginia Patriot we ....
meet again, and again I agree with you. If the people of this country let the 2nd amendment be gobbled up we can kiss the rest of the Constitution "Goodbye". Illegal immigration must be stopped and our borders secured if we are to remain a sovereign nation.

Farmer's Wife
The 2nd guarantees the rest.

David Stone
As I started reading I thought you were serious, and was getting ready to reply to your anti-gun diatribe. Then I kept reading and realized you're joking.

What you wrote would be funny if the truth of the matter wasn't so sad. You're absolutely right. The far left is ridiculous on this one.

who will be president?
I love Froman's final point. If millions of American gun owners work hard now and vote freedom first on Election Day, we can beat the Hillary machine. I just hope we all get our act together to fight for what we believe.

Well,
Giuliani's no better than Clinton on guns, my friends, sorry to tell you. So Dave Stone's tubs will be a good idea if it ends up being a Hillary v. Bald Hillary election. Buy early for a discount.

Column: "Gun owners must elect a president in 2008 who will support and defend the Second Amendment together with the rest of the Constitution"

That's not Giuliani. He thinks the 2nd Amendment is subject to federalism and local interpretation. Sarah Brady says the same thing!

On SCOTUS, Giuliani thinks "Roberts is just as qualified as Ginsburg".

????????????????????????????

Plus, that cellphone thing with his wife at the NRA event....... I mean, is the guy a total whipped weenie, or just a totally rude maroon?

Guns and crime
Clever piece, Dave Stone! I was almost drawn in by your sarcasm... or would it be irony, since it alarmingly rings truth! I shot my Taurus 24/7 40SW today (damned thing has a feed problem! Buy a Springfield Armory!) but managed to control my urge to go on a "spree" (as the Left would make you believe happens whenever anyone gets their mittons on any firearm)! The Left protects the criminals more than average citizens, necessitating the purchase of a firearm for protection they cannot provide through the passing of impotent laws which solve nothing. Better to get rid of the everyone's guns without addressing the problem of WHO IS DOING THE SHOOTING! What a wonderful nation it would be to own a firearm only for hunting or target practice... oh, that's right. They're against THAT, too. By the way, I'd prefer to hide in the mountains rather than bury my guns, though. ;-P

Time to kill the Republican Party
--
It's strictly a mercy slaying.

Right now, the Republican Party is a lost cause.

Right now, *ALL* of the leading candidates are RINOs.

Not just useless, criminal, and traitorous, but evil, stupid, or insane.

Yes, the party of Pelosi and Reed and the remaining fat slug Kennedy sliding into cirrhosis - yeah, they're bad.

But you know where you stand with the Democrats, don't you? You were warned about bending over in the shower while they're around. You know not to leave them in the same room with your kids. You know that they'll rape and they'll murder and they'll shoot fleeing children in the back.

But the Republicans are supposed to be the good guys, right?

Not hardly. On the Litmus test issue that measures *EVERY* American politician's dedication to the concept of lawful government - of his willingness to enforce the Bill of Rights as precisely what it is: the law of the land - there is no "major" candidate ready to step up and declare his dedication to the Constitution.

Rudy Giuliani? The former mayor of "Sullivan Law" City? The man who was responsible for a municipal government that offered the world five boroughs crammed full of deliberately disarmed *VICTIMS* on September 11, 2001?

That guy? You want him in charge of the whole damned *country*?

Nope.

Time to kill the G.O.P. completely.

Wipe 'em out, root and branch, and start over from scratch.

--
http://www.ncc-1776.org/tle1997/le970601-01.html


NRA supported the 1934 gun ban, 1968 ban
Let's just list the gun control that nra has helped pass.

1. The nra helped pass the 1934 gun ban which killed the 2nd amendment. http://www.keepandbeararms.com/NRA/NFA.asp

2. The nra helped pass the massive 1968 gun ban that raped the 2nd amendment's corpse. Daddy bush voted FOR it and the nra didn't even call it an anti gun vote! http://www.davekopel.com/2A/Mags/George-Bush-and-the-NRA.htm

3. The nra helped pass the back stabbing 1986 ban which was part of a bill which was insultingly named the "firearm owners PROTECTION act!" As insult to injury, nra never even mentions what happened in 1986 as if it never happened.

4. The nra helped pass (in this case that means they didn't oppose it) the Lautenberg ban under a REPUBLICAN CONGRESS.

5. NRA loves to license you because nra NEVER pushes "Vermont/Alaska" carry anywhere, even in states such as MT, WY, and NH where it would pass if they only cared.

http://i36.photobucket.com/albums/e49/bigmackdaddyboy/nraadmitsin1968thatitsupportsgunban.jpg

NRA apologists simply ignore all of this and attack the messenger. Either that or they like to use the lame strategy of saying "the nra wasn't politically savvy before the 1970s." How stupid is that!

Oh, I almost forgot that the nra was asleep and helped the Clinton semi auto ban pass by not strongly opposing it from the FIRST VOTE, and by saying they would "strip it in committee," which was a dangerous and stupid tactic, and DID NOT HAPPEN because it wasn't "stripped in committee." It became law like all the other gun bans.

By the way, WHERE is the nra...
The BATFE has been harassing Red's Trading Post over the stupidest paperwork errors for 6 months now but where the hell is the nra? The BATFE is clearly trying to shut down every gun dealer they can because banning guns directly hasn't been as successful as they'd like. If you haven't been following BATFE's blatant and incredible harassment of Reds then you have no clue what's going on. http://redstradingpost.blogspot.com/

The BATFE storm troopers combined with CANADIAN law enforcement to raid KT Ordinance and stole their inventory but KT Ordinance has YET TO BE CHARGED WITH A CRIME! Again, where the hell is the nra??????? http://www.ktordnance.com/kto/index.php

I defy Sandy Froman, who is nothing but an ignorant figurehead and a script reader, to explain why the nra is not helping Red's OR KT. Where does nra expect you to buy your guns when the BATFE thugs have put all or most of the dealers out of business?

MACpistol - Familiar with a writer..
--
...named Vin Suprynowicz?

See http://www.ncc-1776.org/tle1997/le970601-03.html for his take on "60 Years of NRA Gun Control."



--
"The president of the Ukraine may be a nice and decent fellow. But the reason the French sleep soundly at night is not because their psychiatrists are allowed to interview the president of the Ukraine weekly, but because they know, that HE knows, that they could and would hit back.

"Do I 'advocate the unrestricted right to own weapons of mass destruction'?

"No, I acknowledge this pre-existing right of all individuals. To do otherwise is to pretend we can put the Genii back in the bottle. You might as well enact legislation 'ceding to government' the right of a mother bear to use her claws in defense of her cubs.

"Morally depraved zealots possess every terrible weapon you can think of, right now. Even as we speak, half the cashiered colonels of the former Red Army are operating what amounts to one giant drive-in flea market from Odessa to Tashkent, auctioning off everything from souvenir hammer-and-sickle cufflinks to RPGs to purified plutonium to any wild-eyed Iranian or Indonesian misfit who can come up with a year's salary and a couple pounds of fish eggs."

..-- Vin Suprynowicz (15 June 1997)

Golly i hope RINO Rudy
is not the candidate. If that were the case right now, it would be a choice between hoping he's an honest ethical politician, which means when he's bought, he stays bought, and stands by the promises he made to get elected. And when did you last see one of these? Or choosing a fringe vote, hoping a Dem winner will be so rotten that the frog jumps out of the pot. What a mess.
I doubt i'll bury anything in my back yard. Too obvious. If i did bury a rifle there, and enough ammo to make a difference, i'd certainly put one somewhere else. And someone is going to have to arm the sheep who see things too late to be ready, but will ruefully join the fight when further appeasement is obviously impossible. America armed Britain after Dunkirk. the British homeguard was armed with sharp sticks until the lend lease ships full of Springfields and 1917 Enfields arrived. That famous picture of Winnie with Bowler, cigar and Thompson M1928 did not feature a British weapon.

BrianR
I see you don't believe in Rudy's gun ownership 'epiphany' - I don't for a moment either. If fact, I thought he looked rather funny, almost like Kerry with the shotgun in a duck blind.

The more I know of Guiliani, the less I believe or trust him. I think he's hit a wall - the media might give him a shot of adrenaline but I don't think he's going to do any better than he's done already. IOW, he's shot his wad.

You're right about Rudy vs the Hilldabeast - with one you have a man with a cultural mob heritage and with the other, a genunine crime family.

Some choice!

During Katrina...
I live on the border of Louisiana in Texas,I receive is Louisiana news out of Shreveport.

During Katrina the police went around New Orleans confiscating guns from ordinary citizens while at the same time looters were running wild and the police could not control them..This was one time when the second amendment should have been honored.
Just a little observation:
Louisiana is about to become a Conservative state when Bobby Jindal R.,an India/American candidate becomes governor. Why?

Because the most populated Liberal city in Louisiana no longer has the power to control the state because of it's lack of citizens.
At this time the Democrats are trying to get votes from those who left for other states in 2005..This is fact. But it will not succeed.


2nd amendment
of all ten amendments in the bill of rights the second amendment is the most important because it guarantees the other nine. an armed civilian population is the only counter weight against a tyranical government,i will never support any candidate who is anti 2nd amendment

Interesting Speculation, Globug
but wouldn't it be the lefties who stayed, while industrious folks too intelligent to continue living below sea level behind govt built dikes, were the ones who left?

Whether you agree with NRA or not...
Sandy is right about at least one thing. We can elect whoever we want to. If we don't vote, it will be our own fault.

Vote early and vote often!


(By the way, how did Guiliani keep a straight face when he was telling the NRA audience how he supports gun ownership?)


2nd amendment
the 2nd insures the other nine

THE NRA IS FLAWED!
But it is what we have. The next five years will decide the viability of the 2nd Amendment. Time to join the NRA if you are not a member. If you are a member buy three memberships for family and friends who are not members. This issue is more important than the war on terror.

Guns make bad law
We need to voluntarily get rid of all guns in AmeriKa. The reason is they cause bad giver-ment. How can our masters legislate properly knowing that on any day there are hundreds of millions of guns held in the hands of their servants.

Guns are antithetical to good giver-ment. Certainly the old South wouldn't have armed the slaves to the teeth because naturally it would have interferred with good giver-ment.

Long live the King.


MACPistol
Sandy Froman has degrees from Stanford University and Harvard Law School. As an NRA member, I've seen her give tough speeches and I've seen how she's gone up against anti-gunners on national TV. I think she ranks only second to Charlton Heston in terms of what she's done as NRA president.

Who the heck are you calling ignorant? Where did you go to school? And why are you calling her a script reader?

And NRA's political machine didn't get up and running until 1974. It became a totally different organization then, fighting for gun rights. And it's never compromised since that day.

BrianR
Whoa!

Rudy's not exactly an NRA member, that's true, but he's on a totally different page than Clinton. Rudy believes the 2nd Amendment forbids all sorts of federal gun control. Rudy believes the DC gun ban, though local, is unconstitutional and said the DC Circuit was right to strike it down. Rudy also stands with gun owners against the Hurricane Katrina gun grab.

That's not all that much, but it's a whole lot better than Hillary. Hillary says the 2nd Amendment gives no right at all for people like you and me to keep and bear arms.

Rudy was not be a big-time pro-gunner, but he's not going to be an anti-gunner either, he's looking for some common ground and we've found it with DC and Katrina. Hillary just hates us, and she wants our guns. There's just no comparison there.

NRA and info
Because of McCain-Feingold, NRA cannot mention any candidates for federal office after August 2008. It would behoove them to do a brief but comprehensive profile of all the potential candidates now and mount a big publicity campaign before the primaries. Of the 90 million gun owners Froman writes about, only four or so million of us receive direct information from NRA. The other 86 million are far less interested and sleepily vote for candidates on other issues, or don’t bother to vote at all. The NRA needs to awaken them and a TV ad campaign – maybe particularly on the outdoor oriented channels - is probably the only way to do it. If the voters in the early primary states become informed, the issue will gather more attention in the later ones.

Globug
NRA was the one who tackled the New Orleans gun grab after Katrina. I saw their video and heard the speeches.

NRA sent a team down during the grab, and went before a Bush-appointed federal judge, who ruled that the government and cops were breaking the 2nd Amendment and ordered them to stop immediately. And they did. It stopped the whole operating dead in its tracks. The judge issued a restraining order against the government.

NRA filed suit, and it's going to trial sometime early next year.

That's looking out for gun owners.

retchemprof
Actually, after last June's Wisconsin Right to Life case in the Supreme Court, NRA can run "issue ads" against the candidates right up to Election Day. The new Supreme Court (with Alito and Roberts instead of O'Connor) declared McCain-Feingold unconstitutional on issue ads. They also hinted they would do the same on election ads, as soon as some sues the FEC to give SCOTUS an election ad case.

Huge victory for the First Amemdment. Huge victory for free speech. That shows you what putting good judges on the courts can do.

That's the biggest difference between Rudy and Hillary. Hillary will put more people like Stevens and Ginsburg on the Court. Rudy said that his justices would be like Scalia, Thomas, and Alito. They're our most conservative judges, and they're pro-gun.

Radio Matt
Rudy's record is far more anti-gun than Bush 41, who gave us the "assault rifle" ban and repudiated his NRA life membership as soon as his political career was over. Is Rudy likely to show his true colors as soon as he is in office? Yes, he is. Does he believe at gut level guns in the hands of honest citizens are bad? Yes, he does. When it costs him nothing to follow this honest (but mistaken) belief, will he do it. Yes, he will. The only real effect the president has on firearms ownership is veto power and executive order. I doubt Rudy would veto anything Hilary would not. And both of them would issue the most restrictive EOs they thought they could get away with. There is no practical difference between them on the 2nd.

QParker
NRA is, unfortunately, in bed with the anti-gun crowd. They are "cooperating" with the anti's on the so-called NICS Improvement Act, ignoring the many negative ramifications of this proposal. And this, in spite of a recent NRA-ILA mass email that was headed "Poll finds 66% of Voters want no new Gun laws."

NRA's Political Victory Fund donated money to Phoenix Mayor Phil Gordon, and one of their functionaries actually scolded me for questioning this. Part of his explanation was that NRA and Gordon had worked together on "responsible firearms storage legislation." Yet in their publications, NRA leaders have often spoken out against such laws, maintaining (accurately) that they lead to government abuse, such as surprise inspections of the homes and workplaces of concealed-carry permit holders.

And NRA has consistently under-reported the routine assaults on the Second Amendment rights of people here in Maryland. When questioned about this, one of their functionaries said that NRA's plans for Maryland were different than for the rest of the country. Indeed.

May I humbly suggest that instead of spending that $35 with NRA, concerned citizens join Jews for The Preservation of Firearms, Gun Owners of America, or some other pro-gun organization that is a bit more transparent about its political agenda?


Crime - libs war against conservatives
In an efforct to destroy the constitutional republic of the USA and implement social fascism, the communists/nazis (aka Democrats) are attempting to disarm law abiding citizens only as violent criminals are similar to the Democrats' idols - Marx, Stalin, & Hitler.

Many retired people now posess pistols as the law enforcement agencies do little to prevent criminal activity against the elderly, nor do they punish the criminals appropriately, enticing more ciminal activity against elderly.

MACpistol
is right on every account he listed! I would add Project Exile to his list.

I became a Life member in 1969, but probably would not join today because of the NRA's repeated efforts to appease the gun grabbers over the years. IMO, The NRA is a political, fund raising organization with some merit - but I think they should muster ALL resources, determine the best case to present to SCOTUS and push it until SCOTUS tells us, Yes, the 2nd is absolute, as most of us here believe it to be. If SCOTUS rules otherwise, we know what must ultimately be done.

It's time to stop pussyfooting around the issue politically of the meaning of the 2nd.

You may well disagree with his listing of historical facts, but that is the history of the NRA. If you don't know, or don't believe the facts, I think you are uninformed.


Thank you MACpistol, for setting the record straight.

Stan47
I think you're right on also!!

More should join JPFO and GOA and support their unwavering support of the 2nd!

Radio MATT, methinks you'd be more credible if you attack the message, not the messinger.

The Gun Paradox.
When it is the time to "bury" our guns, is it really the time to dig them up?



Rudy is...
...the better looking of the two Hillary's. His 9-11 Conversion means nothing to me. Now a 1911 Conversion...

Jurys Are The Answer
I don't understand why folks who protest gun laws(and other unconstitutional laws) don't use their power as jurors to roll back those laws. All it takes is one out of twelve (usually) to nullify any law, in any one case. If enough people did that, things in this country would change fast. Enter "informed juries" in your search bar and get your eyes opened.

War Horse...
I agree. Why do we continue to fight these skirmishes when we have the ability to fight the final battle and be done with it? I, too, am an NRA Life Member but all I keep getting is requests for more money to fight a squabble. Take out the enemy's Center of Gravity and the war is won. The proof is in the Original Document and in each of the States Constitutions. Enough already. NRA/ILA needs to do its job and then get back to promoting shooting sports and organizing shooting teams in schools and communities across the country.

How about it, Sandy?

Sandy has a point BUT...
The NRA can be BETTER! WE (the voting members; Life and 5+ consecutive year members) are responsible for and must ensure the Board of Directors is "clean" when it comes to the 2A. One of the members has made statements suggesting that "assault weapons" (and meaning semi-autos) belong in the hands of the military and police and citizens should be limited to 5 round magazines. I'm sponsoring a recall petition (according to NRA Bylaws) and you can learn more about this here:

http://www.thehighroad.org/showthread.php?t=303582

There are links to the download and a pdf version available. There are more links that will explain what is happening.

We must send this message loud and strong to all Board members (and potential members) so we don't have to go thru this again!! The NRA can be the preeminent gun rights organization we want and need but we must oversee it!!

Some good observations
@Big Daddy - I have always thought NRA was unparalleled in the quality of training and match-organizing, which are why the association was formed in 1871. To the extent they have morphed into the "gun lobby," this other functions have suffered.

@mocus - Agreed, jury nullification is a powerful tool. The problem being that you cannot apply it systematically. Nobody controls when they are called to jury duty, or even what trial they are picked to hear. And many of us face the choice between perjuring ourselves during voir dire, or being knocked out of the box by one side of the other, over our expressed views.

mocus

You are absolutely right. And so is MACpistol. If the nra is so serious about protecting the second amendment why don't they publish articles in their silly magazines about jury nullification instead of giving away free hats? Simple, without gun laws there would be no nra. JPFO or GOA no more nra.

GUN BAN NUTS
Gun control is one of those issues where the most ignorant, emotional and biased want to pass laws affecting the most law-abiding and knowledgeable
If guns "cause" crime flies "cause' garbage
Big city mayors like Giuliani think that guns only become "evil" when they cross NYC city limits

Stan47

The nra claims 3 million members. If those members were informed about jury nullification through nra mailings (instead of free hat offers) the odds of an informed nra member getting on a jury would increase exponentially. As to voir dire, it is not illegal to "purjer" yourself since vior dire is unconstitutional anyway. It is perfectly legal to refuse to answer any of those silly questions.

mocus
You're wrong about the jury thing. I'm not sure where you read it. Laws can only be enacted by the legislature, pursuant to whatever power is granted to it by the state or federal constitution. All a jury can do is vote to find a criminal defendant "not guilty" if he they all think the criminal law he is charged with is wrong.

Very few laws are criminal laws. Federal crimes are found in Title 18 of the US Code. There are over 40 titles. None of the laws in the other titles are criminal laws.

A jury does not vote on the law. They only vote on the fact of whether the defendant is guilty. That is all they do. In court, a judge determines the law, and the jury determines the facts.

I don't know where you've been reading that stuff, but it's inaccurate.

In our constitutional system, our elected representatives make the law. It would betray the principles of republican government to allow 12 people to override the will of millions.

Acetate, Radio Matt
You are exactly right, Acetate. Watch this....



Radio Matt: I don't for one second believe anything RINO Rudy says about supporting the 2nd Amendment. As I mentioned in my previous post, Sarah Brady says the same thing, as did Kerry, Edwards, Gore, Schumer, et al. They ALL say they support the 2nd Amendment, then turn around and grab the guns, JUST LIKE GIULIANI DID AS MAYOR.

A politician can SAY anything, but what have they DONE? That's the test RINO Rudy fails. Further, he (and those others) all claim the 2nd A is subject to federalism and local interpretation. Oh, really? What other aspect of the Bill of Rights is treated this way? Is Free Speech subject to local interpretation? Free Press or Religion? Can local jurisdictions waive the 4th A requirement for a search warrant, or the 5th A protection against self-incrimination?

Of course not. The only reason RINO Rudy claims an "epiphany" right now is that since 1980 the GOP presidential nominee has won every time, and only when, endorsed by the NRA.

He wants that endorsement, and he's such a slimeball he'll say anything to get elected. The guy's got more positions than the Kama Sutra.


Radio Matt
You tell us what "they" say we are supposed to do. I'm only saying what "we the jurors" could do.

Jeff82
I've reviewed the info on Joaquin Jackson and I'll be sending you my paperwork on Monday.

Jeff82...again
We have much in common.

Gun Control vs Self Defense
I'm tired of this issue continuing to be framed as pro-gun vs anti-gun.

It's more than that.

It must be framed as pro-police state vs pro-self defense

Radio Matt

The will of millions? Like you said we are a republic, not a democracy. Seems to me the jurors would only be overriding the wills of about 485 "enlightened" individuals.

mocus
No, I'm saying "you the jurors" can do no such thing.

Who told you that 12 citizens can override the actions of a legislature elected by millions of citizens. Where did you get such an idea? What's your source?

DevilsPaintBrush
No, we are a constitutional democratic republic. That means we are a government of representatives (that's what a "republic" is), elected by the masses of voters (that's what a "democracy" is) under the system established by the Constitution, and subordinate to whatever the Constitution says. Our representatives are chosen by "we the people" and then pass laws on our behalf. The representatives thus represent the will of millions.

A jury is made up of 12 random people. They do not have the power under our Constitution and laws, or under the common law we inherited from England, to defy the laws enacted by the people through their representatives.

Only courts have the power to declare a law unconstitutional. That's their job. If you don't like the way they do it, you need to get new judges. In any event, the jury does not become the judge.

I see this urban legend all the time. It's a myth. No one can ever cite a legally-empowered source for those statements, because there is none. I'll repeat again, someone show me where those statements about juries were said by someone who had the authority to say it.

Sorry, Radio Matt
The concept of "jury nullification", and the reason we have citizen jurors instead of professional jurists, is that common people will refuse to enforce bad laws.

So though an individual defendant is being tried for his crimes, the jury can, indeed, refuse to enforce the law as some judge has outlined it.

I, for instance, would never vote "guilty" on some defendant charged with a simple gun crime, as I believe the 2nd A trumps local law. I don't care what the judge says, or the facts of the case. I would refuse to enforce that law.

Cut to the Chase w/ Gun Control
“Everything should be done to make criminal working conditions (streets, victim’s home, businesses and cars) safer. Congress must pass laws to force safer victim’s premises. OSHA rules and compliance officers must inspect potential victims and their property to be sure criminals are not going to be hurt while committing armed robbery, rape, burglary, torture and murder.”

“Handgun Control, Inc. (HCI) doesn’t go far enough to eliminate the victim’s weapon of choice….the handgun.

Criminals have their own HCI. HCI stands for for Healthy Criminals, Inc. Criminals don’t want control, they want confiscation of:

Handguns shotguns blow guns
Rifles knives scissors
Clubs axes chain
Spear guns garden tools chain saws
Rope ball bats pointed objects
Swords machetes knitting needles

“We want the Jimmy Ray and Sarah Shady Bill, now!”

1. Stop the selling of all tools used by victims to assault criminals.(We call them criminal assault tools (CATs).
2. Set a grace period for all potential victims to turn in to police all of these tools (CATs) whose only use is to hurt criminals.
3. When the grace period is over, have the Army conduct house-to-house, business-to-business searches for these tools (CATs). If any CATs are found on these potential victims or their property, confiscate them and imprison the owners on the spot.
4. Require all potential victims to carry health and liability insurance payable to thugs, should they become injured while conducting criminal business all at the victim’s expense.

“Write and call your government representative now to show your support.”

“What kind of society is this that lets the victim go armed to the teeth and puts the criminal in harms way when stealing their property or hurting them?”

We can end violence against criminal NOW!

Sara and Jimmie Ray Shady
Co-Chairs
Healthy Criminals, Inc.


Well said, Boppa :o)
.

Radio Matt, et al
Perhaps I didn't make myself clear. What I'm saying is that one juror who believes some law is unconstitutional, or misapplied, or for whatever reason doesn't like it, can hang a jury.
Like it or not, that's the way it is. If that were done enough, lawmakers and prosecutors, political hacks all, would begin to see that their careers would not be helped by enacting and prosecuting such laws. Our jury system is unique in all history. Our founding fathers were smart enough to include the right to trial by jury in the constitution. Dictionaries from that time define a jury as a body of people who find the law as well as the fact in trials. Until that definition is changed by constitutional amendment, it means now what it meant then, notwithstanding "instructions" given by judges.

BrianR
That link proved my point, not yours.

It said jury nullification only applies to criminal trials, like I said. I also said juries can by a "not guilty" verdict nullify what would otherwise be a conviction of that defendant for that crime. Again, like I said.

It does *not* change the law. Later that same day a person can be convicted for violating that exact same law. Jury verdicts have no precedent-setting value. They do not impact any future cases. They have no effect whatsoever on the law at all; all they do is mean that one defendant does not go to jail.

Again, 99% of laws are *not* criminal laws, and therefore a jury cannot nullify a conviction under them because there is no possible conviction to nullify.

Furthermore, even though the source you cited was informative, it is not a source with legal power. You need a statute, or a court case, or a treaty, or a constitutional provision, or regulation, or executive order to show the law. Some guy writing on a website, whether accurate or not, is not the law because that person is not empowered to make law. He can no more make law than you can.

BrianR
You'd never make it on the jury, then. You would be struck from the list during jury selection, because your views would come out during questioning.

Boppa, well said!
you forgot box cutters, can't forget those. How about just plain ol rocks, maybe the government should go around making sure we don't "Rock" someone to sleep.....

Mocus
You're wrong again, this time on two counts.

First, a hung jury does not acquit the defendant. Only a *unanimous* verdict of "not guilty" acquits anyone. A hung jury results in a new trial, with a *new* jury. The defendant would just keep being tried again and again, and spend the rest of his life in court.

Second, you only have a right to a jury trial in criminal cases. 99% of laws are civil, not criminal. You do *not* have a constitutional right to a jury trial on a civil matter, which are the vast majority of lawsuits.

NRA
How many of you who complain about the NRA are members? How many vote in the NRA elections for officials? That is the way you strengthen an organization.

I agree that the NRA is flawed but it is all that stands between us and gun confiscation.

I am the NRA and I vote.

Paula Jo
I'm also the NRA, and I also vote.

And I agree with you completely. NRA is the only group with the muscle to protect our gun rights.

Radio Matt

I appreciate the civics lesson but you missed my point.

Paula Jo
To clarify, you need to be a Life Member to vote in the NRA.

I am, and I do.

Part of the problem is that nobody gets to vote on executive directors, and when you are offered a board of directors slate, it's pretty difficult to choose the candidates you support from among the field. Partly because to a certain extent all of them are of a piece.

You could, I suppose, choose not to vote for any candidate with law enforcement experience, or any candidate who is a lawyer. Or you could choose to vote FOR them.

But considering how little you learn about any director's work during her or his term of office, it's impossible to apply that knowledge to the decision to re-elect that person or not.

And there is no way to discern to what extent any of the elected officers influence what is said and written by the employees, e.g., Wayne, Mark Chesnut, Cam Edwards, Ginny Simone, etcetera.

At the annual meetings, Ginny was the target of an assault and battery by Ray Schoenke. There was video of it readily available on the web. For some reason, she chose not to press charges against Schoenke, and this decision was never discussed. TRY making direct contact with one of these people, and you will learn how little your opinion as a member or life-member is valued.

for War Horse
War Horse says: "they should muster ALL resources, determine the best case to present to SCOTUS and push it until SCOTUS tells us, Yes, the 2nd is absolute, as most of us here believe it to be. If SCOTUS rules otherwise, we know what must ultimately be done."

What does that mean?
What do you claim must "ultimately be done"?

for BrianR
BrianR writes: "I, for instance, would never vote "guilty" on some defendant charged with a simple gun crime, as I believe the 2nd A trumps local law. I don't care what the judge says, or the facts of the case. I would refuse to enforce that law."

In which case the prosecutor would have you dismissed from the jury on a peremptory challenge, and you won't serve on that jury.

When you are summoned for jury duty, both the defense and prosecution get to ask you about any preconceived biases that might affect your ruling on the case. You go ahead and tell them you're so staunchly pro-gun you won't convict anybody on gun laws, and you'll be out of that courtroom in 30 seconds.

And if you lie about your beliefs, you're committing perjury.

SteveL
What would you do should SCOTUS rule individual citizens have NO constitutional right to bear arms? That the 2nd is null and void?

DO you have respect for statements of opinion from individuals such as Thomas Jefferson, Ben Franklin, Patrick Henry and others of our founding fathers regarding duties, rights and responsibilities of citizens?

From your postings on numerous other issues and this, I'm led to believe you are an intelligent, thinking individual ~


War House
You would still have state constitutional rights to own guns, which most states have.

Secondly, we just need to make sure that doesn't happen by getting a Republican president in 2008. Even Rudy and McCain appointees would be just fine, and they've already said their nominees would be like Scalia and Thomas, who are perfect on the 2nd Amendment.

People who say that Rudy or McCain wouldn't put judges like that on the Court just don't know how things work with judicial nominations. Bush 41 gave us Clarence Thomas, even though Bush 41 was no big friend to gun owners. Any Republican running would have to give us good judges. When even this current Bush tried to give us someone we were not 100% sure about (Harriet Miers) she got taken down fast.

Huckabee, Thompson, Rudy ... they'd all give us the sort of judges that we need. That's why we have to win, no matter what.

Radio Matt
Your points are well taken, and I generally agree - however, which jurisdiction preempts which? Fed over State? Or State over Fed?

Or am I missing something here?

Radio Matt
You're right in that the only way a prosecutor can obviate jury nullification is to weed out a prospective juror during voire dire.

Once the jury's impaneled, though, they are the final arbiters of both the law and the facts, regardless of what the judge instructs, and that's my point.

You're wrong about that power being limited to criminal trials. The jury has the same power during civil trials, too, though a single juror doesn't have the ability to hang a civil jury, which only requires a majority -- as opposed to unanimous -- decision.


mocus
Re: Jury nullification.
The FIJA (Fully Informed Jury Association), of which Im a member; maintains correctly, that jurors have a right to disregard evidence, and judges instructions, if they feel the law is wrong. But this does nothing to change the law or possible retrial, unless a defendant is lucky enough to have another FIJA member on the jury. The best chance the NRA has, of which Im also a member, is probably a favorable Supreme Court decision when it reviews the recently appealed DC gun ban law. If the SC acknowledges an INDIVIDUAL right to bear arms, this will be far more effective in preserving the true intent of the 2ed Amd; than piece meal efforts from jury nullification.

SteveL
That last comment was a propos your comment, too, as it mirrored Radio Matt's.


BrianR
Not to nitpick, but I've always understood the Judge instructs the jury as to the law and their choices under the law, while the jurors are the ultimate determinor of the facts as presented?

Radio Matt, et al
First - I never said that a hung jury acquits. The only place I could find where what I said might be construed as such was where I said, "All it takes is one out of twelve (usually) to nullify any law, in any one case." Allow me to correct my sloppy syntax by rephrasing: "All it takes is one out of twelve (usually) to nullify the application of a particular law to a particular case. Do you really think a prosecutor would prosecute the same "crime" again and again if he felt that consistently at least one out of twelve would vote not guilty?

Second - You said, "You do *not* have a constitutional right to a jury trial on a civil matter." You are wrong. You do, with exceptions that are arguably unconstitutional...see Constitutional Amendment VII. Even so, subsequent actions by a loser in a civil suit could result in criminal charges being brought against him, and we're back at square one.

Roberto, you loon
Before making a fool of yourself in public, as usual, you should read up on the topic you're holding yourself out as such an expert on.

You can start by reading the link I posted.

Your grade: Z----------

And at that, I'm being kind to the mentally disabled.

War Horse
The legal establishment hates for the People to be genuinely informed as to the true extent of their powers in this matter.

The entire reason the Founders determined that juries would be composed of common people was as another safeguard against government excess, the Nifongs et al.

They knew the common people would refuse to enforce unjust laws through jury nullification. This is also true in English law. Here's a link for you:

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,163877,00.html


From that article:

"The first case of jury nullification in British law came in the trial of William Mead (search) and William Penn (search), the latter of whom would go on to found the province of Pennsylvania. In 1670, the two men were charged in England with unlawful assembly, a law aimed at preventing religions not recognized by the Crown from worshipping. Both almost certainly broke the law, and the judge demanded a guilty verdict. But the jury refused, on the grounds that the law itself was unjust. After repeated refusals, the judge ordered the jury imprisoned. England's highest court eventually ordered the jurors released, establishing into common law the independence and integrity of juries in criminal cases.

"Here in America, the Founding Fathers understood the importance of allowing juries to determine not just the guilt or innocence of the man on trial, but the justice and fairness of the law he's charged with breaking. John Adams said of jury nullification, 'It is not only [the juror's] 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.' John Jay, the first chief justice of the Supreme Court, said 'The jury has the right to judge both the law as well as the fact in controversy'."

Would it be legal?
For a law office to advertise a specific service?

Like monitoring CCW permit applications, keeping records of all delays and refusals.
Then inform the city in advance that they intend to sue in the event their neglect or poor judgement denies a client the right of self defense and he is injured or suffers loss as a result.

Could an Attorney do this?

MyOpinion
You ask: “Would it be LEGAL for a law office to advertise a specific service?
Like monitoring CCW permit applications, keeping records of all delays and refusals”
Answer: Yes. In fact Im involved in such a case here in the “Peoples Republik of California”

MyOpine
Here in MD, when (not IF) you are turned down for a CCW permit, you can hire a lawyer and appeal the process. I know a lawyer who has taken these cases. It appears there is no way to determine how often they succeed, because I think they are heard in "administrative law" courts rather than genuine courts.

Of course, Sandy Froman's cohorts at the NRA might be able to tell us, except that the association has decided to leave Marylanders twisting in the wind totally, except for collecting our membership dues.

It's all moot anyway

Our leaders (both rebubes and dems) may be a lot of things but they are not stupid. They know deep down that the second amendment forbids them from restricting our ability to arm ourselves. However, the 2nd amendment says nothing about ammo. They can and will go after ammunition with stupid requirements like taggants and high taxes (to pay for the high cost of healthcare caused by gun violence) that will make ammunition all but unaffordable. Or require gun barrels be etched with serial numbers to mark bullets (thus increasing price). "Why would anyone but criminals be against making guns safer." And the majority will vote for those idiots. The bottom line is this, buy a quality long gun, shotgun and handgun and load up on ammo. Someday (soon) it will be worth its weight in gold. It doesn't matter who wins the election, they are all the same (except Ron Paul of course).

Constututional Rights
Since our rights are systematicly taken by our "legal representatives" in congress,and the White house, the only way we have a chance of getting them back, I think, is to attack on all levels. i.e. The NRA, of which I am voting member, The JPFO, of which I am also a member, lawsuits, elections, protests, demonstrations, campaigns to discredit people and organizations that openly and covertly try to destroy our constitutional rights,education, and any other way we can expose and oust the people who would enslave us with unconstututional laws and rules. With a groundswell of such an undertaking, we can, and must, succeed.

Ragnar
You and your association are wrong. Juries cannot disregard the law. Who told you different? The fact that you form an association club and write a rulebook does not give your little pamphlet the force of law. Jurors are not judges of the law, and anyone who says different doesn't know the law.

BrianR
Even after a jury has been impaneled, a juror can be kicked off at any point before the final verdict.

And you would certainly be asked questions that would reveal your unwillingness to follow the stated law, which would get you struck from the jury before the trial ever started.

Robert is correct. If you were to lie during that Q/A period to conceal your views you could be prosecuted for felony perjury.

War House
You're missing something, buddy.

When federal law and state law conflict, federal law is supreme so long as it is a subject matter the US Constitution empowers the feds to manage.

But if there's no federal right to own guns, but there is a state right, then there is no conflict. The federal law does not conflict because it does not exist. There's only a conflict is both have a stated law, and they contradict each other. If the Court says there's no right to own a gun, that doesn't create a conflict; it means there is no federal law one way or the other on the subject, so state law would govern.

Ragnar Deneskjold
I wish you luck.
If you were monitoring several paying clients at the same time, might it hasten CCW decisions and cause fewer refusals?

DevilsPaintBrush
The 2nd Amendment is written in such a way as to preclude any other firearms legislation.

If City, County or State Government were to try to dictate what religion you must belong to and limit your freedom of speech to inside your own home or at certain licensed and regulated facilities, would you feel your 1st Ammendment RIGHTS had been infringed?

The 2nd Amendment actually makes it even unlawful to tax gasoline you use to drive to a gun shop or rifle range.
Or present problem is DICTATORS in Black Robes who corrupt our Constitution on behalf of their OWN politics!
Sort of STEALING Political Bribes.

Fed is Supreme

A state can not take away your Constitutional rights.

The D.C. law is unconstitutional.

Citizens should be able to carry anywhere in public exposed or concealed. It is our right under the 2nd A.

Citizens should be able to own fully-auto guns. The second *does not* state what *type* of arms you have a right to own, so it is wide open to what type a citizen chooses to own.

A law excluding you from owning fully-auto or whatever type of gun you so choose is unconstitutional.

TopGun
You're wrong.

First of all, yes the DC gun ban is unconstitutional. But for that to be recognized and enforced the Supreme Court must find that the 2nd Amendment guarantees a right to private citizens, just like the DC Circuit did. Only then does any local law that would violate that right become unconstitutional and a matter of law.

Second, no, the fact that the 2nd Amendment does not specify what constitutes "arms" does not mean you get to decide for yourself. Only courts have the power to do that. You have the right to sue to get a court to accept your argument about a certain type of gun, but you do not--and never have in American history--the right to take any area that the law leaves open and insert your personal preferences. You don't have the power to create law.

When Can Change Occur?

“Robert is correct. If you were to lie during that Q/A period to conceal your views you could be prosecuted for felony perjury.” … Radio Matt

What if the juror changed his viewpoint pertaining to a matter after the trial started? A human being does have a right to change their mind.

Could he be held liable for *changing * his views *during* a trial being he would be evaluating and searching deeper for how he truly feels in order to cast an honest vote in the jury room?

To answer this for you, he could not be held liable for the reason being we are all human and our beliefs and values can change on a dime when facts or a different view is presented to us.

The NRA is *NOT* Pro-Gun!!!!!
What is this nonsense about the NRA???

The NRA is teaming up with liberal Democrats in Congress to pass an anti-gun bill that will disarm some *veterans* and others!!!!

Go to Jews for the Preservation of Firearms Ownership to read about this! This is an outrage!!! I believe it is JPFO.org but I am not sure; try Google. But do read up on this if you care *at all* about this precious God-given right!!!!

If you are *serious* about gun rights then you must leave the NRA (and the Republican Party which is really quite anti-gun) and work with a *real* pro-gun organization like JPFO or the Libertarian Party.

The Second Amendment says what it means and means what it says. It guarantees the absolute, God-given right of individuals to keep and bear arms.

Radio Matt
Do you mean to say that people can just disregard Constitutional Law if they don't like it?

Don't you think it would be more civilized to change the faulty law than have some dictator in a black robe just make up new law as he goes?

That Constitution is written in mandatory language.
There is no legitimate question as to meaning or intent!

Courts have NO right to decide

“Second, no, the fact that the 2nd Amendment does not specify what constitutes "arms" does not mean you get to decide for yourself. Only courts have the power to do that. You have the right to sue to get a court to accept your argument about a certain type of gun, but you do not--and never have in American history--the right to take any area that the law leaves open and insert your personal preferences. You don't have the power to create law.” … Radio Matt

The 2nd A gives you *the right* to decide being it does not specify the *type* of arms you can own. A court does not have the right to decide for you either being the 2 ND A, by the way it is written, leaves the decision wide open to selection.

The citizenry should have the right to purchase every type of *arms* the military has access to, except nuclear perhaps, otherwise the citizenry is out gunned in fire power and their 2 ND A is worthless to the purposes the founders had in protecting against tyranny. This is exactly where we are presently. We are out gunned in actual firepower. This is exactly what the founders DID NOT want to happen and it has.

You are not inserting personal preferences when the actual 2 ND Am. leaves the choice wide open for you to decide what you want as arms. You are not *creating* law when the law itself, by the way it is written, allows selection.

It is the courts and judges who are *creating* law and breaking our laws when they decide what a citizen can and cannot own as far as *arms*.

TopGun re change
It would be fine if he changes his views during the trial. What we're dealing with here is someone had made up their mind on this before trial. They would have had to lie (thereby committing perjury) to conceal it.

Well, Radio Matt
It seems that you also disagree with John Adams and John Jay, both of whom I quoted in my 2:16PM post.

But I guess such legal luminaries as you and Robert obviously know better than one of the Founding Fathers and the first US Supreme Court Chief Justice.

Thanks for clearing that up for ALL of us, Mr. Legal Bright Light.

MyOpine
Not at all. The question is: Who decides that a law is unconstitutional? The answer is the courts. Only they can make binding decisions on that. (Other government officers can make that determination also for something regarding their job, but any judge can override them, and often do.)

There are certainly legitimate questions on meaning. Anyone who's gone to law school has to deal with it every day for three years, and then every working day for their whole career.

Regarding the 2nd Amendment, the questions are what kind of "arms" are covered, and whether it has to be related to "militia," and what constitutes the "militia." Now I'm on the right side on all those issues, but there are solid arguments on the other side for all three. That's why we have courts.

Further, for your info
In a criminal trial, both attorneys get a limited number of peremptory challenges, after which they can only dismiss for cause. So if they don't ask the right questions during voire dire, they can't simply dismiss someone outside those parameters.

Further, once a jury's empanelled, they also can't just simply have a juror kicked off, for any reason other than gross misconduct. And how one votes on a verdict is not adjudicatable as misconduct.

You, too, should read the links, Radio Matt.



TopGun
There were three purposes to the 2nd Amendment: protecting the nation, protecting against tyranny, and protecting individuals.

Everything else you said is dead wrong. Don't believe me? Grab a full auto gun and try walking through an airport. When you get brought up on felony charges, carry the case all the way to the Supreme Court.

It would take pages to go through everything. I can only start by saying that your position violates two hundred years of American constitutional law.

BrianR
Please correct me if I'm wrong - I've always understood the Judge was the arbiter of the LAW as he presents it to the jury and the Jury is the supreme arbiter of the Facts in each particular case, NOT subject to review. The Judges instructions ARE subject to review.

BrianR
You're wrong again. (I'm detecting a pattern.)

First, John Adams was never on the Supreme Court, so never had power to interpret the Constitution.

Second, a Supreme Court justice cannot make law on his own. The Court only acts with all justices voting together, and only on a case properly brought before the Court and argued on both sides before the Court. Otherwise it has no legal authority.


Third, regarding their statements. It empowers jurors to find one defendant not guilty, but it does not change the law itself. Ten minutes later in another trial, a man can get convicted of the same crime that the previous jury had just decided not to enforce.

But once again (you never seem to get this point) that's only a criminal trial. 99% of the laws are not criminal, so there's no constitutional right to a jury trial for lawsuits involving those laws. No alleged violation of a criminal law, no jury. No jury, no jury nullification.

War Horse
That's the fallacious myth you're supposed to believe.

Again, look at my 2:16PM post, wherein John Adams and John Jay answer that question clearly and succinctly.

The jury is the final arbiter of the whole enchilada.

The Commas in the 2 nd Decide

“Regarding the 2nd Amendment, the questions are what kind of "arms" are covered, and whether it has to be related to "militia," and what constitutes the "militia." … Radio Matt

not the courts

The right to form a militia and the right to *bear arms* are two separate and independent rights, separated by a comma, for the purpose to show they are separate within the 2 ND.

People always want to attempt to tie the two rights together and state the 2 nd was designed for the sole purpose to form a militia, which it was not, hence the purpose the comma was inserted.

BTW, War Horse
Any conviction is subject to appeal, if that's what you mean by "review".

Judges are also subject to various administrative and/or elective procedures, depending on the jurisdiction.

There have been cases, some recently, where judges have overruled a jury's verdict, and/or entered a "directed verdict".

The judiciary is very problematic in this country, and to democracy in general. Jefferson wrote many warnings to that effect.

War House
Don't ask Brian R. He's obviously not a lawyer (or even had a single class in law).

You are partially correct in your statement. Trial judges can always be reviewed on appeal. Juries cannot be reviewed if they find "not guilty," (that's the constitutional right against double jeopardy) but if they find "guilty," that can be appealed, and it is possible for a higher court to reverse the conviction. If fact, even the trial judge right there has the power to set aside a "guilty" verdict if he believes a reasonable jury could not have come to that conclusion.

Be advised the judge also has the power to determine what facts can be admitted. This process involved topics like relevancy, materiality, probative value, and risk of prejudicing the jury. The jury will almost always be removed from the room while things like this are decided.

The system is designed so that a person found guilty can have ways to get that changed, but a person found innocent can never have that challenged.

TopGun
No one takes that position. Either there is an individual right, or there is a militia right. No school of legal thought claims that there is an individual right, and separately a right to form a militia. I don't know where you're getting your information, but it scares me. Don't believe everything you read on nut-job websites.

Radio Matt, you're floundering
You: "First, John Adams was never on the Supreme Court, so never had power to interpret the Constitution."

Uh, yeah, he's only one of the Founders, was a member of the Continental Congress, and was very influential on the development and implementation of the country. Yep, a real ignoramus, who must defer to your superoior legal intellect.

But, gee, John Jay WAS on SCOTUS, first Chief Justice! I guess he's just a maroon, too, huh?

Talk about detecting a pattern.

Tell you what, Bubba, no one here said jury nullification changed whether or not a law is on the books. But when the Peeps refuse to enforce one, it's dead and gone for all intents and purposes.

Or is THAT concept too difficult for you, too?



War Horse
Look at my post instead. Just because Adams or Jay says something does not make it the law. They were just men.

Secondly, there words are taken out of context. They were both lawyers and were discussing the issue in the context of English criminal law, which I've been discussing in my post.

Ignore the insinuations that there's a grand conspiracy out there, and somehow those of us who attended law school, including the justices of the Supreme Court, don't understand the law, but your buddies are the Internet somehow know the secret, hidden truth.

I guess I should ask for a refund for my law school tuition. Evidently all I need is BrianR to teach me. Perhaps next he'll teach us all how to build nuclear reactors and do brain surgery, because you surely don't need engineering or medical degrees to do that stuff, all you need is the Internet.

I can't wait for Brian R to cure cancer.

LOL, War Horse
Better listen to Radio Matt; the guy, by his own statements, knows more than John Adams or John Jay.

You're corresponding with a true legal legend!


bye
Gotta go. It's been fun.

Beat Hillary in 08!

A law does not make it law

if it is unconstitutional.

“Everything else you said is dead wrong. Don't believe me? Grab a full auto gun and try walking through an airport. When you get brought up on felony charges, carry the case all the way to the Supreme Court.” … Radio Matt

Just because a law was passed does not mean it is not unconstitutional.

”It would take pages to go through everything. I can only start by saying that your position violates two hundred years of American constitutional law.” … Radio Matt

200 years?

How come it was just here recently during the 20th century that it was outlawed for citizens to have the right to own fully-automatic guns?

I do not think that was 200 years ago, do you?

Radio Matt
You are an Attorney and you are not aware that Militia red herring has already been thrown out?

As to Black Robe Dictators interpreting mandatory language, as an Attorney you should know that a Judge finding new meaning for those words would NEGATE EVERY LAW AND CONTRACT WRITTEN IN THE ENGLISH LANGUAGE!

Why do you think it is so important to Conservatives to get Judges on the Supreme Court who will enforce the Constitution as it is written?
Liberal Judges who ignore the peoples Constitutional rights should be subjected to Vigilante Law!
If Judges shall ignore law then they should not be afforded the protection of law!

Jury nullification quotes
Another link, and some quotes:

http://www.personal.psu.edu/faculty/j/p/jph13/JuryNullification.html

The Georgia Constitution of 1777 and the Pennsylvania Constitution of 1790 specifically provided that "the jury shall be judges of law, as well as fact."

In 1879, the Pennsylvania Supreme Court noted that "the power of the jury to be judge of the law in criminal cases is one of the most valuable securities guaranteed by the Bill of Rights."

Samuel Chase, U. S. Supreme Court Justice and signer of the Declaration of Independence, said in 1796: "The jury has the right to determine both the law and the facts. "

In a 1952 decision (Morissette v United States), the U. S. Supreme Court recognized the powers of juries to engage in nullification. The court stated:

"Had the jury convicted on proper instructions it would be the end of the matter. But juries are not bound by what seems inescapable logic to judges....They might have refused to brand Morissette as a thief. Had they done so, that too would have been the end of the matter."

In a 1972 decision (U. S. v Dougherty, 473 F 2nd 1113, 1139), the Court said: "The pages of history shine on instances of the jury's exercise of its prerogative to disregard instructions of the judge."

Likewise, the U. S. Supreme Court in Duncan v Louisiana implicitly endorsed the policies behind nullification when it stated: "If the defendant preferred the common-sense judgment of the jury to the more tutored but less sympathetic reaction of the single judge, he was to have it."


And then Radio Matt, whom no one has ever heard of: "You can't do it".

Y'all can be the judges for your selves (heh heh, how fitting).



I agree with you on one thing,
Radio Matt.

If you ever went to law school, you're certainly due a refund.


Oh, yeah, LOL!
Ever notice how when the maroons on this site get their faces shoved in the facts, all of a sudden they have to pack up and leave?


What a frikkin' hoot!

Poof where’d he go

“I don't know where you're getting your information, but it scares me.” … Radio Matt

The law usually does scare liberals who want to rewrite its original intent and meaning.

Radio Matt
You state: "juries can't disregard the law".

Why not? Individual jurors are always free to vote their conscience, regardless of the law, evidence, or judges instructions. It happens all the time. That's one of the reasons we occasionally get hung juries. Im a case in point. I once served on a jury involving marijuana cultivation. The law and the evidence clearly indicated a guilty verdict. The judges instructions, had I followed them, left no other option. But I hung the jury with a “not guilty” vote, as I believe marijuana laws are wrong. Should I be on a jury involving illegal gun carry, I’d vote an otherwise law abiding citizen not guilty, regardless of the law, evidence, or instructions. And there is nothing anyone can do about it, other than declare a hung jury. Now you’re free to disagree with my reasons for voting this way. That’s another issue. But ones Freedom to do so has been demonstrated many times.

Hahaha, Ragnar!
Ole Radio Matt just had his face shoved in the facts, and his ignorance revealed for all to see.

So, following standard lib SOP, he vanished back under the rock from which he crawled.


BTW, Ragnar
Radio Matt must be right.... OJ's still in prison, right? Sharing a cell with Robert Blake and Phil Specter?


Oh! Wait!.......


Has anybody here
ever heard of OJ Simpson? Now what was this about jury nullification?

MyOpine
You ask: "If you were monitoring several paying clients at the same time, might it hasten CCW decisions and cause fewer refusals"?

Answer: I don't know.
This is the only CCW case Ive ever been involved with. And though I attended law school, I opted for a different and more rewarding profession. Im plaintiff in this particular case where-in we’re now just beginning to gather data for a deposition. So Im not in a positions to give any opinion or details of the case.

Let's get reall...
...if the Republicans nominate ____________ (fill in the blank) I'm voting for him. Mrs. Bill Clinton is going to get the nomination and I don't care who the Republican is, I'm voting against her. I'm a lifelong NY'er and an NRA member. Rudy may not be a true conservative but I know he's not a socialist and takes the WOT seriously. My 2nd Amendment rights are in much less danger from him than they are from any of the Dumocrats, especially Mrs. Bill Clinton who may be the most dishonest politician in the nation's history and that is saying something.

BrianR
Re: the OJ and Blake trials.
Good points. Assuming jury nullification was involved, as it likely was; it shows that this power is a 2 edged sword and can occasionally pervert justice. Im a member of both the FIJA & NRA. But both organizations are flawed. I support the NRA primarily because of it’s power. You get a lot of bang for your buck, in terms of political influence, though this influence is often watered down and soft on some gun control issues. As one poster mentioned, there are better organizations fighting for our 2ed Amd rights: Examples being JPFA, California Rifle & Pistol Assn. and Im sure many others. Unfortunately, they don’t have the clout of the NRA.

BrianR
Re: the OJ and Blake trials.
Good points. Assuming jury nullification was involved, as it likely was; it shows that this power is a 2 edged sword and can occasionally pervert justice. Im a member of both the FIJA & NRA. But both organizations are flawed. I support the NRA primarily because of it’s power. You get a lot of bang for your buck, in terms of political influence, though this influence is often watered down and soft on some gun control issues. As one poster mentioned, there are better organizations fighting for our 2ed Amd rights: Examples being JPFA, California Rifle & Pistol Assn. and Im sure many others. Unfortunately, they don’t have the clout of the NRA.

Ragnar Deneskjold
I am also a CRPA member, Life.
The Firing>Line ran a multi issue article on CCW permits not long ago.
It might be helpful for you to dig those issues up if you still have them.

NRA
The NRA, GOA, & JPFO are all good groups. The NRA just happens to be the biggest group and target for the anti gunners. I'm a life member, and like others here I do not always agree with what they do.
MACPistol: The 1968 law was opposed by many of the NRA membership and I remember my brother and uncle(both life members) calling their congresscritters after tips from other VA members.
The NRA isn't perfect, but I shudder to think what gun ownership would be like today if the NRA never existed.
The last sentence of the article says we must come together and speak as a group. Uniting as gun owners and supporting the 2nd Amd. not arguing about jury nullification. The price of liberty y'all is eternal vigilance not dalliances.
Gun control is about shooting often and well
ROGER OUT


Amen, Ragnar
Life Member of NRA, CRPA, SAF, CCRKBA, SASS.

I don't put all my eggs in one basket, either. But you're right, NRA has the most political clout, bar none.


Also, you're absolutely right about nullification being a double-edged sword. But it's certainly better than the alternative, where professional jurists make all the decisions. The government enjoys unchecked power that way, like the French judiciary.

Also, most people aren't aware that the Holocaust was carried out with the cooperation of the German judiciary, "trials" and all. Of course, the outcomes were pre-ordained.

Read "Judgement at Nuremberg".



Ninth Amendment and guns
Don't forget the Ninth Amendment. It too reafirms our right (not just a privilege) to bear arms. Unfortunately, the Supremes have usurped the illegal legalized power to amend our Constitution anytime that five of the nine think they know what the Constitution or our laws should say. Consequently, our government is well on the way to completely degenerating from a limited-government republic into an unlimited de-mob-ocracy.

Also, don't forget that an unlimited democracy allows the left or right wing of Control Freaks Unanimous to cram anything it chooses down our throats just by getting 50.01% of the votes. http://www.poorgrandchildren.com

My Opine
See theres guns and then there's monster guns. Monster guns sprout arms and legs and look for targets(human and otherwise) to shoot. Now monster guns can't be discerned from normal guns so we have to ban all guns before monster guns reproduce and wipe us all out. Got it now?

Getting the Gun Vote
If the NRA wants to engage presidential candidates in a meaningful discussion, ask them about the Presidential Oath of Office:

"I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States."

Ask them if they intend to preserve, protect and defend the entire Constitution or if they feel that they get to pick and choose which sections to support.

Demand Congress get on the right side!
eastlake joe, when these "monster guns" start walking around & shooting by themselves, do they become these "gunmen" we always read about in the papers?

We conservatives are constantly being told by the RINO herd that we've got no choice but to vote for whatever the Republican Party deigns to serve up, no matter how they betray & blow us off issue-wise. Things looked grim; we were bombarded with "studies" that showed gun ownership was doubleplusungood the same way now we're bombarded with propaganda about "climate change." Yet since 1994 we've managed to get gun rights as an issue from flippantly ignored to near third-rail status. The basic reason for that was that the grassroots demanded candidates who talked the talk & walked the walk, & kicked phonies & spineless squishies to the curb with the Demmies!

Even libdem bozos like Al Gore & John Kerry felt obligated to do utterly stupid photo-ops of themselves holding shotguns &/or hunting or asking about buying licenses, thinking they could fool anybody w/ 2 brain cells to rub together!

If we could just get the GOP to take a similar attitude now in issues like national soveriegnty, border security, pork-barrel spending, taxation, totalitarian dogmas based on pseudoscience, and so forth.

Getting the Gun Vote
I am an NRA life member and also a life member of GOA and a member of JPFO.

I agree that one of the most important priorities is getting conservative judges on the Supreme Court who will strictly interpret the Constitution.

However, I believe the best candidate for President in 2008 is Ron Paul, who is being blacked out by the mainstream media, including Fox News, and is unfortunetly, probably being ignored by the NRA. Ron Paul is the strongest defender of the U.S. Constitution and the right to keep and bear arms among all the candidates.

Guiliani, Romney, and McCain are antigun and don't deserve the gun vote. Thompson so far is a disappointment since he apparently doesn't have time to present his positions at the debates. He also voted to pass the unconstitutional McCain/Feingold censorship/Campaign Finance Act. He probably would also be just another big disappointment for the conservative movement like Bush who is a big government pro North American Union RINO.

It is time for a change in this country. It is time to start following our Constitution. The time is now. Vote for Ron Paul in 2008.

Ron Paul-TRUE DEFENDER OF 2nd Amendment
Message: Ron Paul: The Pro-Second Amendment Republican Candidate for
President

As a United States Congressman,
Dr. Paul has: If elected president,
Dr. Paul will:
Restore the Second Amendment
Led the fight to restore the Second Amendment Rights of all Americans,
WITHOUT INFRINGEMENT
Press Congress and the Supreme Court to preserve American citizen's
Second Amendment rights
"Gun Free Zones"

Introduced legislation to REPEAL the so-called "Gun Free Zone" victim
disarmament law of 1990
National Parks Gun Ban

Overturn the unconstitutional ban on carrying guns for self-defense in
our National Parks

"Instant Check"

Introduced legislation to REPEAL the 1993 National "Instant Background
Check" Gun Owner Registration Bill
Exercising Your Constitutional Rights

Veto ANY piece of legislation abridging our Constitutional Right to
bear
arms

UN Gun Grab

Authored legislation to stop taxpayer funds from going to the anti-gun
United Nations
Tax Dollars to UN

Stop YOUR TAX DOLLARS from going to fund anti-gun United Nations
activities

Private Gun Sales

Opposed ALL gun control schemes that would register private sales and
mandate government "Lock-Up Your Safety Devices
Mandated Trigger Locks

Veto ANY legislation mandating trigger locks to prevent you from
maintaining a firearm for home and self-defense



Veterans Rights

Opposed H.R. 2640 that would allow government-appointed psychiatrists
to
BAN U.S. veterans experiencing even mild forms of Post Traumatic Stress
Syndrome from EVER owning a gun
Assault Weapon Ban


Veto ANY legislation banning semi-automatic firearms


The choice is clear: Vote Ron Paul for President



Without guns robbings would get worse
Without the right for American citizens to bare arms more robberies and burglaries would occur! Because all the bad guys would have the most firearms and would become fierce predators to American banks and homes. Crime rate would rapidly increase. Also all the animals we enjoy to hunt would overtake us eventually they would be all over towns, be invading our gardens and crops, they would also become a road hazard more then they are now, and they would be a straight damned nuisance to us! What about police officers? They would be unarmed and defenseless in the case of a dangerous robbery. What about our men and women fighting in Iraq? Without guns they would be sitting ducks! I don't know what to do, I think them darned Clinton's need to think about us for once!

Moonbat-free for once!
I note with joy the relative absence of Moonbat libs this time. Where are Lily and Hal(itosis)D? I guess unless Dubya or Neocons aren't part of the discussion they have nothing to "contribute" (whine about)?

-Ray
Sign Up to Post Your CommentsSign Up to Post Your Comments
If you are already registered, click here to login. Otherwise, please take a few seconds to register with Townhall.com. Once you sign up, you’ll be able to post your comments immediately, use the action center, get podcasts, and more!
Note: Fields marked with a red asterisk (*) are required.
Salutation:
First Name:
*
Last Name:
*
Email:
*
Nickname:
*
Note: Nick name will be shown when you post comments.
Address 1:
*
Address 2:
City:
*
State:
*
Zip:
*
Phone:
      
Your daily must-read of conservative columns, cartoons and news. Coulter, Sowell, Krauthammer and more.
(Bi-Weekly) We highlight the best opportunities from our partners for surveys, action items and more.