People of Connecticut

[tRidiot]

Mmmm.... interesting. Wasn't aware that was legal. Juries are instructed to follow the law when making decisions. How can a jury set aside a law when they are trying the case as to whether a defendent broke said law or not?

I dunno... IANAL. Would be interested in seeing an instance where a jury in a criminal trial was able to change a law.

 

[reddog1]

So just AW's banned today, no big deal.

Your revolver banned tomorrow.

Muskets banned next week.

No big deal, just follow the law.

 

[reddog1]

By the way, their definition of an assault rifle is a semi-auto.

So semi-auto pistols are next.

 

[vvvvvvv]

Mmmm.... interesting. Wasn't aware that was legal. Juries are instructed to follow the law when making decisions. How can a jury set aside a law when they are trying the case as to whether a defendent broke said law or not?

I dunno... IANAL. Would be interested in seeing an instance where a jury in a criminal trial was able to change a law.

It's not so much changing the law as it is not applying the law under that case's particular set of circumstances. Most of the recent cases are marijuana possession cases where a jury refuses to convict a person for felony possession of marijuana. In Montana in 2010 and Kansas in 2012, juries were unable to be seated for felony possession cases (the Montana one also included felony tax evasion for failure to obtain a marijuana tax stamp). In New Hampshire (the only state where defense attorneys are explicitly allowed to inform jurors of their ability to nullify), jurors opted not to convict on a charge of cultivation in the presence of children. In Texas just a few weeks ago, a grand jury opted not to indict a person who shot and killed a deputy during a no-knock raid.

 

[tRidiot]

It's not so much changing the law as it is not applying the law under that case's particular set of circumstances. Most of the recent cases are marijuana possession cases where a jury refuses to convict a person for felony possession of marijuana. In Montana in 2010 and Kansas in 2012, juries were unable to be seated for felony possession cases (the Montana one also included felony tax evasion for failure to obtain a marijuana tax stamp). In New Hampshire (the only state where defense attorneys are explicitly allowed to inform jurors of their ability to nullify), jurors opted not to convict on a charge of cultivation in the presence of children. In Texas just a few weeks ago, a grand jury opted not to indict a person who shot and killed a deputy during a no-knock raid.

Which is why I used the word nullify, in essence intending to mean "change" law, as in a judge striking down a law he deems unconstitutional. However, perhaps nullify can mean "disregard" in the case of jury trials? That I was aware of... but what I was speaking about was the ability of a jury in a criminal (or civil, perhaps, for that matter) trial being able to make changes in the legal code the way a judge can when hearing a case specific to that law's constitutionality.

Perhaps I misspoke, I dunno. Been a long week, sorry.

 

[farmerbyron]

Actually yawl is how I spell ya'll/y'all

I get that registration shouldn't have happened. I also get that it will inevitable be the route to complete confiscation.

It's also easy to Monday morning QB and say you wouldn't have registered. However saying thy shouldnt have registered is easy when youre not the one that coul become a felon overnight for not registering. Many in CT said the same thing and ended up registering because well... they decided theyd rather register then be caught with an unregistered AW and lose their gun rights all together. Many moved out of state and many moved their guns out of state.

Thing is that only 50,000 of the estimated 300,000 AWs got registered. It's a demonstration of massive civil disobedience. What are they going to do? Build city sized prisons to hold all the new found felons?

 

[vvvvvvv]

Thing is that only 50,000 of the estimated 300,000 AWs got registered. It's a demonstration of massive civil disobedience. What are they going to do? Build city sized prisons to hold all the new found felons?

They'll contract out the prisons and sign 98% occupancy contracts like Oklahoma.

Sent from my SCH-I535 using Tapatalk

 

[BikerHT]

After reading some of the BS in this thread, it only reminds me of another...

http://www.okshooters.com/showthrea...e-infiltrators-among-us&p=2420636#post2420636

Don't. Feed. The. TROLL!

 

[SeanO]

After reading some of the BS in this thread, it only reminds me of another...

http://www.okshooters.com/showthrea...e-infiltrators-among-us&p=2420636#post2420636

Don't. Feed. The. TROLL!
View attachment 36479

Funny how this is always the reaction when someone has a differing opinion.

 

[BikerHT]

Funny how this is always the reaction when someone has a differing opinion.