Bundy Trial

[Anonymous]

As a legal citizen of the US of A, I feel we have a right to carry anywhere at anytime. But we also can't pick and choose which laws to inforce. I'm the first to admit that "just because it's the law doesn't mean it's right" So does this mean that a precedent has been set, and we can now legally carry guns anywhere we want? I'm very interested in knowing what methods or statutes of law Bundy used in getting off the gun charge? Because there's no denying that they had guns in a no gun zone. Hopefully the NBA will look into this because this could be a major victory for gun enthusiast.

Has nothing to do with which laws are enforced or not--that's been going on for decades--precedent was set long ago. It's why our southern border is still so porous, and why so many people get away with speeding.

But in this country, like it or not, no one is breaking a law until the jury and judge says they are. Period. The constitution is quite clear on that aspect.

Jury Nullification!!!!

 

[greybeard]

Exactly.
"'Juries were instituted to protect citizens from the tyranny of the government'" and 1st Supreme Court Chief Justice John Jay agreed. (Yes--that John Jay, co-author of The Federalist Papers and one of the co-writers of the US Constitution)
'It is presumed that juries are the best judges of the facts; it is, on the other hand, presumed that courts are the best judges of the law. But still, both objects are within your power of decision'¦you have a right to take it upon yourselves to judge both, and to determine the law as well as the facts in controversy.' 1794.

 

[Anonymous]

Exactly.
"'Juries were instituted to protect citizens from the tyranny of the government'" and 1st Supreme Court Chief Justice agreed.
'It is presumed that juries are the best judges of the facts; it is, on the other hand, presumed that courts are the best judges of the law. But still, both objects are within your power of decision'¦you have a right to take it upon yourselves to judge both, and to determine the law as well as the facts in controversy.' 1794.

I wonder how many jurors even know that exist? I read a while back where a judge disqualified a juror for telling other jurors about that very right.

 

[dun]

As a legal citizen of the US of A, I feel we have a right to carry anywhere at anytime. But we also can't pick and choose which laws to inforce. I'm the first to admit that "just because it's the law doesn't mean it's right" So does this mean that a precedent has been set, and we can now legally carry guns anywhere we want? I'm very interested in knowing what methods or statutes of law Bundy used in getting off the gun charge? Because there's no denying that they had guns in a no gun zone. Hopefully the NBA will look into this because this could be a major victory for gun enthusiast.

I tend to think it was more like a message being sent by the jurors. Similar to the OJ trial verdict

 

[greybeard]

I wonder how many jurors even know that exist? I read a while back where a judge disqualified a juror for telling other jurors about that very right.

The judge would have probably been correct if that happened after the jury was seated and in process of hearing testimony or even the introduction of the case. Once the jury is formed, no one outside the case can push for jury nullification in respect to any specific case or law. If it happens outside, in general terms tho, it is considered a lawful act and 1st amendment right.

Several times, arrogant and irate prosecutors have attempted to charge people that were educating prospective jurors of their right to jury nullification. Few prosecutions have been successful. Judges usually throw the cases out. Prosecutors despise it, but I was on one jury in Tom Green County where a judge advised us of our right to it before the trial even began or we knew what the case was about.

http://completecolorado.com/pagetwo/201 ... amendment/

 

[bmcdonald]

Im Impressed He Represented Himself And Won.