Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'In the News' started by RedDawnTheMusical, Oct 18, 2018.
Where do they keep finding these liberty hating jury members the government manages to keep stacking against Patriots?
Are defense attorneys too stupid to weed any out?
I get the basis for the charges, but with the information at hand, the prosecution is lucky I wasn't on that jury.
My question would have been was the SN scratched off or worn off? to me it wouldn't have really made any difference. I would not have convicted. I think the NFA is a waste of time and money on firearms and accessories we should be allowed to freely legally own.
Y'all have some pretty screwey moral compasses if you wouldn't convict somebody for possessing a (probably stolen from the Army ) unregisteted machinegun.
--especially at a time in our history when a weapon like there could have been legally bought (fully transferable) for probably only $2000 price and $200 tax.
Seven years of prison sounds like too much but that's the fault of the federal government and Congress passing a mandatory sentencing grid that takes discretion away from trial judges.
But he's not a "patriot" at this point. He's a criminal. A felon. I would've convicted him, and I want him to go to prison ---and everybody like him .
TI is in the news with his stripper video in the oval office.
Remember the slap on the hand he got from the Fed Court in Atlanta for a machine gun infraction ?
Screwy moral compasses? What on earth is "moral" about this law or his prosecution?
Yeah, sounds like a real danger to society.
I would check your own moral compass, if I were you.
"Moral" means to deal with the rightness or wrongness of behavior and a person's good or bad character.
Any statute some legislator can dream up and make a felony does not create bad character or morality of any sort.
Was ownership of an unregistered machine gun moral in 1933 but immoral in 2018?
at some point in American history, cocaine and child porn were legal, too. Then new laws were passed. It is immoral to claim to be part of a society and cheer for criminals who break the law. It is immoral to violate your oath as a juror to render a true verdict according to the evidence.
You are missing the point. Child pornography is a moral issue with or without a law. Possession of a machine gun is not a moral issue, with or without a law. You seem to think laws define morality. I find that to be a rather scary concept.
I am not moral to own a federally registered machine gun in VT or PA but immoral by dipping my big toe over the NY state line.
Laws and morality are not one and the same.
In this case, it is the very law that is immoral.
The Ninth Circuit recently held that it is an error to tell a jury in a federal case that
The court's statement that the jury 'would violate [its] oath and the law if [it] willfully brought a verdict contrary to the law given to [it] in this case,' may imply punishment for nullification, because 'violate your oath and the law,' coming from the court in a criminal trial, could be understood as warning of a possible violation with associated sanctions. Additionally, the statement that '[t]here is no such thing as valid jury nullification' could reasonably be understood as telling jurors that they do not have the power to nullify, and so it would be a useless exercise. While jurors undoubtedly should be told to follow the law, the statement that there is no valid jury nullification misstates the role of nullification because an acquittal is valid, even if it resulted from nullification."
The jury can be instructed by the court that they cannot judge the law and that it is their duty to follow the law, whether they agree with it or not.
an acquittal that is the result of jury nullification may be an effective acquittal (with no legal recourse for the Government) but it may be immmoral just like some types of jury nullification are immoral .
I say it's immoral to violate the law just because it is a "malum prohibitm" rather than "malum in se" law.
Certain Malum prohibitum laws are legitimate can be enforced and those who cheer for the scofflaws and the lawbreakers of these laws are cheering for immorality. That itself is immoral; if you're going to be part of the society you should follow the laws. You don't get to pick and choose what laws you follow . Do you understand that? Fundamentally, you don't get to make the law. Society gets to make the law. And you have a moral obligation to obey it. If you are called upon for jury duty or called as a witness, you have a moral obligation to do your part in enforcing it.
I can admit this now because (A) the law has been repealed, and (B) I no longer own the gun, but back during the AWB I took a thumbhole stock AK and changed out the wood furniture with non-compliant parts.
I feel so guilty and immoral.
So . . . no such thing as immoral law? Government defines right and wrong for you?
I won't keep harping on this thread, but I do hope you will answer those questions, even if just with thoughtful internal consideration (which is more important then posting here).
That simple action probably caused the deaths of innumerable baby seals... for shame!
How did you know??? Shhh!
Am I immoral if I pump my own gasoline, self service style, in Oregon?
M14 rifle with the S/N defaced = stolen gun.
Aren't any of you gun nuts concerned about people stealing military weapons?
Quote from Malum in another thread:
"So how do we reconcile Romans 13 with EJR914's post from the Book of Acts where the apostles flat out told the authorities they were not going to obey their edict to stop preaching about Christ?
Easily. One is to obey earthly authorities, but not when such authorities conflict with God's commandments for you."
So is the NFA the supreme law of the land or the Constitution of the United States the supreme law of the land?
If I vote to convict I violate the Constitution. If I vote to acquit I violate the NFA. Which holds the higher moral standard? The NFA is Unconstitutional in the fact that it infringes on the 2A because it denies some peoples rights under it. If it only charged the tax as was the original intent it might be different. Now it has morphed into a "permission if approved" plus the tax.
Gunsmoker there are some parts in the NFA that you disagree with as well. Suppressors for example. The NFA has swallowed up so much more than was it's original purpose. Back in the day I could walk into a gun shop, purchase an Uzi, submit my $200 and form and take it home a couple of weeks later. This delay was due to the mail (we didn't have email) not to the ATF waiting on some approval process to take place. The NFA was originally under the Department of Revenue now called the Internal Revenue Service.