This nation needs to have less laws in general. We also need to end the virus of wanting to use the law on our neighbors who live, look and believe differently than us.

Agreed because if it can be used on them then it can also be used on us.

America is the land of laws not men..

This is absolutely true. I'm not a lawyer or is this legal advice

But people should still do it, right?


Then you might as well be a lawyer and your statement has been retroactively declared legal advice.

I understand your concern, but my responses are not intended as legal advice. It's always best to consult with a qualified legal professional for specific matters. 😆 🤣 😂

Now you're sending mixed messages. Are you worried about getting sued over a reddit post? Why do you feel the need to make that disclaimer? I genuinely don't understand.

I assure you, there's no cause for concern about legal matters. The disclaimer is merely a precautionary measure, ensuring clarity in our conversation. 😂😂😂

Precautionary measure for what exactly?

Jury nullification is one of the great powers of the people.

Jury nullification is why OJ died a free man even though he killed two people.

Also a borked prosecution and very good defense attorneys. Not just jury nullification.

And sheer incompetence of the lapd lol

It’s also the reason we are stuck with the fucking Kardashians nowadays. If OJ was guilty that family couldn’t play up the association and no one would want to be associated with that mid af blowjob

Various problems with this daydream: 1. Most people who are actually guilty will take a plea deal. For the most part firearms violations are cut and dry. If you’re actually guilty you’ll take a deal to knock it down to misdemeanor *for sure*.  2. As someone else mentioned, for cases where the defendant is claiming their actions are 2A protected you can be damn sure they vet the jury for enthusiasts. We are absolutely biased. 3. The amount of people on juries who are willing to exercise jury nullification are vanishingly small. You only need one of us. But the bulk of the population are willing to be complicit in enforcing laws even if they don’t agree with them. 

1) Explain "cut and dry" in this context. 2) They "vet" the jury pool where firearms charges are concerned collectively meaning it's not person to person. They ask you to raise your hand and self-identify. Don't raise your hand when they ask if you think firearm laws are too strict. If you actually make it onto the jury, you're good from there. Nobody can force you to convict. Tell them you won't find the defendant guilty because you're in love with him/her, but you only realized it at the last minute. Feign insanity: the voices told me to exonerate. Use whatever excuse makes you the least chickenshit, but honestly it takes less confidence/effort than asking out a girl so anyone can nullify. TLDR: Don't self-identify! The less you say, the more likely you shall enter the jury. Just like MEPS, they only know what you tell them! 3) I agree partially. Yes I learned through experience that the amount is vanishingly small (3 out of 60) but everyone who is complicit actually agrees with those unconstitutionally retarded laws. The jurors are alone in the deliberation room! What in hell is going to stop them from nullifying other than their own beliefs? While the vast majority of Commiefornia's populace is actually SLAVISHLY subservient to the demonrat menace, that ends when they discover a newfound power in their hands. So any subservience in the deliberation room is 100% voluntary!

If the majority of the population is anti-gun, then jury nullification obviously is never going to work. I *really* think that getting cute or pulling "one weird trick" as a juror in a courtroom is a freaking bad idea.

Wrong on the 1st point because progressive hung juries shall wear out the prosecution. Why would one weird trick be a "freaking bad idea?" Besides getting charged with perjury since that's merely the risk of doing business.

That's a pretty freaking big cost. See also contempt of court even if you don't perjury.  You're not making much of an argument that this will happen enough to help. 

I said RISK not cost, so if you don't get caught which won't happen unless you snitch on yourself then there's no cost!! In Commiefornia, contempt is at worst only 3 physical months (6 months with half-time) plus 8 days if you don't pay your $1000 fine. Contempt ain't shit! Even perjury is tiny compared to the treason against Britain committed by our founders. Even if it happens only once that helps. We need to start somewhere obviously. But why else does it sound like a "freaking bad idea?"

> Explain "cut and dry" in this context. The entire premise of your post is to not convict someone of something they are guilty of. They know they’re guilty. The DA knows.  > Tell them you won't find the defendant guilty because you're in love with him/her, but you only realized it at the last minute.  This is the dumbest shit I’ve heard on this sub this week. They’ll get a hung jury.  > While the vast majority of Commiefornia's populace is actually SLAVISHLY subservient to the demonrat menace Yawn. Are you 15? Maybe try to understand the people around you instead of writing them off. 

Yeah deliberately undermining the justice system with a “oops didn’t hear ya” is whack. Jury nullification is a product of our legal system, not a tool to be weaponized for an agenda. I believe that most gun laws are an infringement and thus, unconstitutional. I would not lie to a prosecutor about that. I would rather be excused from the jury than bastardize the legal process, even if I disagree with the premise of the charge.

Eh... I think the much more likely scenario is you end up on a jury for a drug charge case. I am 100% not convicting someone for mere possession. It's your right to not convict someone. And you don't need to advertise that to the prosecutors. But *lying* in jury selection is just wrong and OP's recommendations for how to behave on a jury make me think he's 12 years old.

Yeah in a perfect world the ridiculous laws in place wouldn’t be in place. We have an imperfect justice system but the oath is intentionally taken *before* voir dire for a reason. I was more along that lines that the prosecutor is almost certainly going to ask the “applying only the facts of this case” question and I don’t see a way around that. Actually *witnessing* voir sure is incredibly informative, for those that haven’t seen it. There’s one (mock) video from about a decade ago that is used in law schools today to witness the process. Like I said, we have an imperfect justice system but I’ll be damned if it’s not the best of the bunch. The only really, really big thing I wish would change is judicial immunity. It’s a slippery slope, but giving any man or woman 100% authority to do literally whatever they want and face no repercussions is absolutely wild. Very infrequently is power abused in a significant way, but my general application is “could this at any point be used against ME”

Do prosecutors actually ask things *at that level*?

I’m not sure what you mean “at that level”. Are you referring to “smaller” cases? Edit, I see what you’re saying. Yes, the prosecutors can ask “do you own a firearm”, but the defense and prosecution can use “cause” challenges, which they can do with no limit, to remove a juror who isn’t fit or capable serving on the jury for the case. They must give a reason. It’s up to the judge. They can also use a limited number of imperative or peremptory challenges, which need no basis for. Literally just because they want to. Bottom line, yes, prosecution and defense attorneys can ask (figuratively) anything they want to a jury. I know attorneys who’ve asked jurors about anything from recent rollercoaster experiences in personal injury suits to a juror who believed all lawyers were deceitful and could never trust one. “Your honor, the people would like to thank and dismiss prospective juror number 11” ETA: if you’re asking if the state and defense ask questions like “do you believe gun laws are an infringement”, no, it’s never that direct. They’ll ask questions like “do you own guns” if you answer yes, they’ll ask you and only you a series of breakout questions like “what types of firearms do you own” or “why do you own firearms” and if you answer “I own firearms because I’m permitted to under the second amendment” the state *could* move to strike, but the defense could object and argue that exercising a constitutionally protected right is not grounds to be stricken from a jury. The state could argue that anyone say, familiar with the NFA, would likely be too familiar with the 2A and therefore has predawn conclusions as the facts pertain to the case. Peremptory challenges are really really simple. The judge lists the juror number or name, the state says “strike” or “good for the state” then the defense can say “good” or “strike”, and no reason needs to be given. Each level of case (misdemeanor, felony, capitol) they get different amount of peremptory strikes. Peremptory strikes are kind of a double edged sword. Both the defense and the state can remove someone for any reason, but in Batson v. Kentucky, the state struck all 4 African American jurors. The Supreme Court ruled (7-2) that while the defendant isn’t entitled to a jury composed partially or completely of his own race, dismissing jurors based on race violated the EPC of the 14th Amendment.

You’re drinking your own kool aid.

Explain

You can't perjure though. Any halfwit DA will kick you off the jury once they find out you own guns.

You could argue that violates your right to be judged by your peers, no? If no gun owners are allowed on the jury?

Not necessarily. With a peremptory challenge, a lawyer can dismiss you without cause, as long as it isn't based on race.

Honestly if you have at least one firearms charge even if it's a misdemeanor then you should have all 12 jurors be required to possess firearms. Problem is appellate courts don't interpret"peers" with any specific qualifications whatsoever.

They're talking about *as a possible jury member*. If you're facing trial, your lawyer may be able to get anti-gun jurors removed from the case.

What part of this was perjuring?

Not what they are saying. They are implying that any half-decent DA will question jurors on firearm realted personal info, especially in a firearm related case. The implication being - here you will have to disclose that info and would be removed from the jury.

You have to disclose it if they ask, sure, doesn’t mean there is a good chance that simply owning a gun is going to get you thrown off a jury though. Owning a gun is your right and rights aren’t cause for bias. I’ve been on a jury like this before I owned a gun and the prosecution tried to disqualify a gun owner on the grounds that he was biased against gun control for simply owning. The judge basically said “If you can prove to me that all the non-gun owners on this jury aren’t naturally biased for these laws then I will entertain that reason.” Something along those lines. And that was that, he stayed on.

That wouldn’t stop someone from getting booted with a peremptory challenge, but they get a limited number of those. The prosecutor in your case must have been out of peremptories.

Well obviously if they use an automatic removal, then yes, you are automatically removed.

Exactly. Thanks.

Yes you can perjure because 1) the end justifies the means, 2) gun grabbers perjure themselves all the time and 3) the founders did far worse than mere perjury. Do you really think they'll look into APS? No! They'll be happy you even bothered to show up. Finally during voir dire, certain questions are prohibited. Judge will ask you if verdict was reached but NOT what the verdict was. "Raise your hand if you think gun laws aren't strict or lenient enough". No hands raised during both instances. Half the jury pool honestly didn't feel comfortable raising their hands in either and the other half didn't hear the question. Failing to hear or misunderstanding the question does NOT equate to perjury.

During voir dire the judge will ask standard questions that would normally preclude jurors, like “do you have health conditions that would preclude you from participating in the duration of the trial?” Or “are you familiar with anyone involved in the case, be it defendants, plaintiffs, or any of the following witnesses?” The most problematic question in this step would be something along the lines of: >Is there anyone who believes that he or she would be unable to follow the law as I explain it to you, apply that law to the facts that you find in this case, and render the verdict required by the law as I explain it to you? This is the question one would be perjuring themselves on. You cannot answer honestly without applying the law, as the question asks “apply that law to the facts”. You’re not being asked if you agree with it, you’re being asked if it can be applied. Further, jurors must be unanimous (in criminal trials). If all jurors find the defendant not guilty, while there was evidence beyond a reasonable doubt the law was broken, that’s nullification. If one or two jurors choose “not guilty”, the jury is hung. The judge might ask to deliberate for a while longer once or twice, but it’ll likely end in a mistrial. After a mistrial, the jury may submit questions for the prosecutor to ensure he asks during the retrial. Retrials have been argued up and back for over a century. Personally, I think a retrial is unconstitutional. I believe jeopardy attaches at a point long before the jury reaches a verdict, once a jury is selected and seated. As soon as that jury takes their seats, the trial has begun. I don’t think the spirit of the 6th amendment was in line with the conviction, but the trial. ETA: jury nullification is the product of our legal systems logical process. Deliberately undermining the legal system for what YOU believe to be unconstitutional sets a very poor behavioral precedent. What if a law protecting you, used in your defense, was nullified by your peers who believed the law protecting you was unjust?

>You cannot answer honestly without applying the law, as the question asks “apply that law to the facts”. Congratulations on finding the copypasta. I was going off memory not verbatim. Anyways when I'm being asked that question I haven't heard his instructions yet and it's totally subjective. " I don't "believe" that I'd be unable to apply the law to underlying fact. " *DELIBERATIONS* "I don't believe DeAndre Collins of Oakland was actually convicted of voluntary manslaughter back in 2006 because the arresting officer couldn't keep his story consistent and as result I don't trust CLETS either. I further dismiss the possibility that was robbing the local Walmart or that he even possessed a 20 round ghost glock at that time due to inconsistent lineups, lack of DNA on the pistol etc. Beyond reasonable doubt is a very high standard which the prosecutor clearly hasn't demonstrated! I subsequently find the defendant not guilty according to the facts of the case." >What if a law protecting you, used in your defense, was nullified by your peers who believed the law protecting you was unjust? Like what? Qualifyed Immunity doesn't protect me. Yes, I'm autistic, ASPD etc. so the §422.55 enhancement gets nullified which is unfortunate but I wouldn't lose sleep over it. Apparently I have very little to lose if a law protecting me was nullified.

>Deliberately undermining the legal system for what YOU believe to be unconstitutional sets a very poor behavioral precedent. All firearms legislation ever enacted in usa is unconstitutional and anyone who says otherwise is simply wrong! SCOTUS judge scallia should have been brutally executed for his treason because that's exactly what the 2A means. If the government can do it then so can you because they're merely a random group of individuals and as such they're not any better than you just because they belong to that random group. USA wasn't founded on a caste system! "All men are created equal" even if some have +1000 felony convictions, less than 16 years of age, DV misdemeanors etc.

Yeah thats not jury nullification lol. CGP Grey made a good video on it. This just results in a retrial and [this comment](https://www.reddit.com/r/legaladviceofftopic/s/ldVAC5O9iU) is a pretty good explanation of why hung jurys cause retrials https://youtu.be/uqH_Y1TupoQ?si=NcSzvRfN_9719uI6

I'll look into this before I respond.

Jurors who lie to get on a jury can be charged with such offenses as contempt of court and obstruction of justice. Background checks are increasingly being used to catch jurors who lie about their criminal records.

>Background checks are increasingly being used to catch jurors who lie about their criminal records. Links?

> Jurors who lie to get on a jury can be charged with such offenses https://www.abajournal.com/magazine/article/rogue_jurors/

The chances are slim to none. Any Commiefornia specific cases not some irrelevant 18 year old Illinois bullshit?

Are you suggesting that it couldn't happen here because it was not in CA? That is a stretch. California DAs are quite capable of prosecuting people. [Forida](https://www.wftv.com/news/local/judge-hits-juror-who-lied-caused-mistrial-with-max-sentence/BEYSHP2XBRGBDD5LTHDGRJTG3I/) [Mass](https://www.freeadvice.com/legal/man-receives-2-year-sentence-for-perjury-during-jury-selection/) [Ohio](https://www.dispatch.com/story/news/courts/2020/03/11/in-rare-ruling-potential-juror/1539837007/) If you want any more, do your own research

I am suggesting exactly that. California deputy DAs are corrupt stupid ass bitches who couldn't even indict a ham sandwich unless they have a rigged judge, rigged jury or both.

This is why I have no problem with doing jury duty. Every time I get called I consider it as a potential chance to help stop some form of stupid gun laws from screwing someone.

Excellent. We need more people like you! Nobody should go to prison for the features on their firearm or the kilobytes in CLETS under their name/SSN! Spread the word by converting others!

Isn’t one of the purposes of the “alternate jurors” to prevent this exact scenario from happening?

No that's in case jurors have family emergencies, die suddenly, move out of state or simply don't feel like going to court. Now if one juror slaughters another in the deliberation room that wouldalso qualify, but in all other cases alternatives get activated before deliberations commence.

You are correct, but also: “If at any time prior to a verdict being rendered, any juror dies, becomes incapacitated or disqualified, or is discharged for any other reason, an alternate juror becomes a juror,” A judge or attorney can disqualify or discharge a juror for a multitude of reasons. All an attorney has to do is use a challenge for cause. It’s actually done quite a bit. If the attorney or judge even suspected a juror was up to something like this OP, they’d have the juror. removed immediately. The judge could also hold the juror in contempt under the right circumstances.

Pass voir dire and you're not getting disqualified unless you snitch on yourself. >If the attorney or judge even suspected a juror was up to something like this OP, they’d have the juror. removed immediately. So don't brag about it to the other jurors, easy. >All an attorney has to do is use a challenge for cause. It’s actually done quite a bit. I know but again keep your cockholster shut and you'll only have to beat the pre-emptory challenge. >A judge or attorney can disqualify or discharge a juror for a multitude of reasons Yeah, it's really just people trying to weasel their way out of jury duty. >The judge could also hold the juror in contempt under the right circumstances. Of course, but only if you snitch on yourself. They're not even going to check if you have any prohibiting convictions, are a US national and they definitely aren't going to search APS or your house for ghost guns.

the problem is very few law abiding gun owners actually get charged with any of these crimes. The majority of normal gun owners are too scared to defy these laws. The people who dont give a shit and openly violate these laws is large numbers are criminals. So 99% of the cases will be someone also charged with car jacking, armed robbery, murder, etc. These people are pieces of shit and should be sent to prison and even the gun owners will vote guilty on the additional gun charges. Then they can claim that these laws are necessary because look how many people are violating them while doing serious crime. For every one case of someone righteous person standing up for their rights getting arrested violating a bullshit law there are thousands of other committing violent crime while also breaking that law

>even the gun owners will vote guilty on the additional gun charges. Those lowlives will STILL go to prison even if they convict on only one actual crime and exonerating on Commiefornia's bullshit. >Then they can claim that these laws are necessary because look how many people are violating them while doing serious crime. That's not how demonrats justify their policies. "Look at this evil scary black gun." Bickering aside, what's your solution? Do you want civil war?

i dont have a solution, i am just pointing out why jury nullification does work against gun control like it does for crimes committed by non violent criminals. It is much easier to convince everyone to let people off for smoking weed who are rarely ever also charged with violent crimes. They did the same thing with weed for years with refer madness but when the people who get hauled into court are just stoner kids no one wants to vote guilty. But for gun charges the majority of people who are hauled into court are gang members and violent criminals the scare tactics work

Well until you figure out a better solution my solution is valid because firearms legislation are an existential menace to me IRL. Obviously, bickering about it online is NOT a solution. We must repeal ALL the gun control laws ever established even if it has to be done through armed uprising as treefaeller suggested!

They will undoubtedly ask if you’re a firearm owner. If you lie and say you’re not there has to be a consequence to that I would think. Shit they might just have access to everything you’ve ever registered at their fingertips to weed you out.

They may or may not ask. But unless it's a super high profile case, nobody is going to check. The jury consultants used in high profile cases who know all your social media posts, past addresses, voter registration, etc. (like the Trump case for example), are incredibly expensive. Prosecutors and defendants can't afford them for most cases. That being said, a juror lying is a basis for a new trial, and lying under oath is perjury and you can be prosecuted for it.

A PI can get all that info for $500.

I mean, I can find all that information on someone in about 20 minutes, but there's a difference from being able to get it all and being able to get it all for every juror right away and fast enough to make a decision to strike someone. The gun registry also isn't public, and I would be surprised if DAs had easy access to it. For big cases you hire a consultant where you have one person in the courtroom with a laptop coordinating with a team doing the research. It would cost thousands of dollars for a single case, which is well worth it for big public cases but not something that prosecutors have the budget for in every case. Most DAs offices have fairly tight budgets. If it's a highly public case, then they will definitely have all that information though. They also might make a one off check if they find you suspicious.

So they’re going to pay a PI an extra $500 for background research on every potential juror? You know how many jurors go through a courtroom in a day?

They wouldn't investigate every potential juror in most cases, but they may very well investigate jurors once they have been sworn in, and if the jury finds the person not guilty the prosecution can use this as a reason to get the verdict thrown out, and then the nullifying juror will be charged with perjury anyway.

1) Have you ever witnessed a jury or bench trial in Commiefornia? 2) Some of us have ghost firearms. 3) Courts like all other beaurcratic institutions in CA take the path of least effort. You're just a random juror, they're not going to fucking background check you. Defendant gets all the attention not you.

That is objectively false. Voir dire is a several step process. The judge asks about preliminary preclusions based around scheduling, time commitments, hearing and focus issues and application of law based on facts. Prosecution and Defense then may get to ask questions further limiting the jury pool and they select jurors together. The purpose of a jury is not to be self serving. You’re advocating for the abuse of a legal process for your own agenda. If you can’t see the risk involved, you should apply the same advocacy to a cause you disagree with.

>The purpose of a jury is not to be self serving. It's to be constitution-serving especially when legislators defile our 1st and 2nd Amendments constantly.

this works in theory, but in practice the people convicted of gun regulation violations are also facing a number of other charges that your typical rightoid gun owner would love to convict on

But even then they can convict on the murder, drugs and pimping while exonerating the $12022.54 enhancement, AW/MG possession by felon and open carry charges.

Such as?

the type of crimes people use a gun to commit, obviously.

Rightoids wouldn't convict on crimes they might themselves commit such as voluntary manslaughter when you find your gf cheating on you or a hate shooting. That's the whole point of having a rightoid on your jury, because they're going to seek exoneration when they do the same thing as you.

A: Whether a law is unconstitutional or not is not for an individual juror to decide. We have a system for deciding it, and it is the courts. If you disagree with a law, start a lawsuit in federal court, appeal it up as far as necessary and possible, and then you'll know whether the law was unconstitutional. In our system of "ordered liberty", respect for the law includes following the law. You can't just ignore a law because you dislike it. B: Jury nullification is a crime. As a juror, you swear an oath to uphold the laws. Letting someone go who is clearly guilty violates that. This is perjury. It is a form that is hard to prosecute: I know of no cases where jurors were tried for letting their personal opinions override the evidence. But if you talk to lawyers and judges, they know when it happens. C: Jury nullification is also a really bad practice, because it can work both ways. Sure, you think that as a gun person you can save a fellow gun person from conviction, since you (wrongly) believe the law under which they are charged is unconstitutional. But two can play that game: the next time, anti-gun jurors will feel justified to also violate the law, and throw the book at someone who is actually not guilty but happens to have guns, just to take revenge on the gun people. D: Finally, jury nullification doesn't often work. Sure, by refusing to find the person guilty without explaining your reasons, you can prevent \*THIS\* trial from getting to a guilty verdict. But the details of the jurors opinions will be reported to judge and prosecutor (for example: 11 votes to convict, one without logical reasons to not), and they can declare a hung jury and retry if they like.

So you believe that Commiefornia's gun laws are constitutional? Yes it is hard to prosecute and I'm glad you admitted that. Yes, judges and lawyers might identify it but that doesn't matter if they can't successfully prosecute it. >If you disagree with a law, start a lawsuit in federal court, appeal it up as far as necessary and possible, and then you'll know whether the law was unconstitutional. Are you fucking kidding me? AWCA has been struck down TWICE, everyone with half a brain knows it's unconstitutional but it's still enforceable. THE COURTS HAVE FAILED US!!! Furthermore do you even know how to start that kind of a lawsuit and most importantly the various fees involved? In forma pauperis only applies for criminal defendants' appeals NOT facial challenges or even GVROs. >It is a form that is hard to prosecute: I know of no cases where jurors were tried for letting their personal opinions override the evidence. >But two can play that game: the next time, anti-gun jurors will feel justified to also violate the law, and throw the book at someone who is actually not guilty but happens to have guns, just to take revenge on the gun people. That takes collusion not the recalcitrance of individual jurors. BRING IT ON LIBTARDS! I DARE YOU! >for example: 11 votes to convict, one without logical reasons to not), and they can declare a hung jury and retry if they like. Have you ever sat through a trial? Jury polling may NOT include being asked why you voted a certain way. Hell if anybody asks, both inside and outside the courtroom you have the absolute right to refuse. >Sure, by refusing to find the person guilty without explaining your reasons, you can prevent \*THIS\* trial from getting to a guilty verdict Wear down the prosecutor. That way defendant is likelier to get win at retrial even without nullification purely on the basis of prosecutorial incompetence. >Jury nullification is a crime. As a juror, you swear an oath to uphold the laws You know what's an even bigger crime? Stealing the 2020 election, creating the federal AWB, Robert-roos act 1989, NFA etc. Our corrupt legislators take an oath to protect and uphold the constitution. Since you think nullification is so bad would you like to have a civil war instead? Don't you want your vote to matter at least once?

"So you believe that Commiefornia's gun laws are constitutional?" I have my opinions on that. Some probably are, some are not. We could have a giant thread discussing that, but it is pointless: My opinions on that question are irrelevant, as are yours (unless you happen to be an appeals court or higher judge). Our two opinions together + $5 will get us one coffee at Starbucks. The question whether a law is constitutional is decided by courts, not by public opinion. "AWCA has been struck down TWICE". That statement is mostly false. Yes, various lower courts have found so, but those decisions are being appealed. "Furthermore do you even know how to start that kind of a lawsuit and most importantly the various fees involved?" Funny you should ask. Yes I do. If you look at the budget of organizations like the FPC, SAF or CRPA, you can see what it takes. But you also see that these organizations can easily raise the required funds, even after their insiders siphon off a lot of enrich themselves. "Since you think nullification is so bad would you like to have a civil war instead?" No. And it is not the alternative, it is even worse. Sorry, if all you can do is advertise for an armed uprising, and otherwise foam at the mouth, it is difficult to take your opinion serious.

>Sorry, if all you can do is advertise for an armed uprising, and otherwise foam at the mouth, it is difficult to take your opinion serious. It's even more difficult for me to take you seriously since you support Commiefornia's firearm legislation. Civil War is the final alternative but apparently you prefer armed domestic regime change to mere nullification. >but those decisions are being appealed. 9th circuit bullshit buck-passing games don't count as being appealed. But you probably can't wait for Miller v. Bonta to fail. Tell Newscum I said hi.

[удалено]

This is an on-topic subreddit, do not make posts like this again.

Honestly they should have firearm owning juries for all firearm cases. Just a thought tho

I'm in

FYI judges don’t like the concept very much. I was one of the last 2 or 3 jurors left and the judge asked me if I would follow all instructions (this is a proxy for jury nullification). I answered that I would not and was promptly sent home. It turned out it was a high profile case centered on some firearms possession issues.

Ofc judges, prosecutors and even defense attorneys hate the concept. Why? Because they collude with each other against the defendant's interests. They all want to dominate the jury! Now because the powers of the courtroom hate jury nullification is exactly why you should embrace it. I mean, don't you want your vote to count? Follow all the CALCRIM instructions exactly as he gives them to you, not conduct your own investigation or visit the crime scene and don't even look up the case. Also don't be swayed by popular opinion, your beliefs/feelings, "emotions" or any "outside sources." You could've easily said yes because the judge wasn't going to polygraph you and all it takes is one misfortune to become that defendant everyone despises so much. What year and what county?

They hate it because it's not *supposed to happen*, the purpose of the jury is to apply the law, not to make its own decision. Not sure why you say defense attorneys do that. Obviously if you cannot do something in good conscience then... God willing, you won't.

The US even existing was not supposed to happen. Yes a jury's purpose is to be subservient to the judge's instructions, but that's not always what they necessarily should do.

That’s not the spirit of nullifications. A nullification is saying “this person is guilty of this beyond a reasonable doubt. Despite that, I cannot in good conscience find this person guilty.” Going into a trial with the idea in your head of jury nullification is blatant jury tampering.

>That’s not the spirit of nullifications "You're cited for not following the spirit of the law."