If you enjoy the forum please consider supporting it by signing up for a NES Membership The benefits pay for the membership many times over.
Be sure to enter the NES/MFS May Giveaway ***Canik METE SFX***
I am not arguing whether the law is stupid, it is. But why were the police at the guy's house to begin with? It sounds like this guy was up to something, the police searched and found this shotgun shell instead of what they were looking for. To me, there are pieces of this puzzle missing.
Dave
The Progressive's strategy to control the populace and enjoy unlimited power (and $):
1) Make as many invasive laws as possible, such the everyone is a criminal.
2) Only enforce the laws against your political enemies, while sparing those that support you.
3) Scare the populace into compliance and make them fear the state
This isn't very complicated. Control leads to power. Power leads to $$.
The lesser charge carries a penalty of six months in jail, which means Mr. Witaschek was not eligible for the jury trial he wanted.
So it's OK to put you in jail for 6 months without a trial by a jury of your peers? WTF, over?
I am not arguing whether the law is stupid, it is. But why were the police at the guy's house to begin with? It sounds like this guy was up to something, the police searched and found this shotgun shell instead of what they were looking for. To me, there are pieces of this puzzle missing.
Dave
So it's OK to put you in jail for 6 months without a trial by a jury of your peers? WTF, over?
Uhhhh how the hell does that work? WTF
It works based on SCOTUS rulings that are blatantly inconsistant with the 6th Amendment. The 6th Amendment says "In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed,"
Yet SCOTUS has multiple times ruled that 'petty' crimes do not apply, and that if the punishment is 6 months or less, that it is petty.
Do any of you see where the word 'petty' or the the punishment of '6 months' appear in the 6A? No, of course not. They don't exist.
http://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/399/66/case.html
But there you have it. The US Supreme Court ruling at least 3 times on the issue.
Now if you think about it, to make matters worse in this case (well, all really), you have the AG saying that this is a matter of public safety. However you also have them admitting that this is a petty crime. Are petty crimes really a matter of public safety?
No, of course not. It is total bullshit, and they know it. That is because our judicial system is corrupt to the core. No doubt.
I'd love to hear a sensible argument on how a petty crime isn't a crime, how a petty crime is a matter of public safety, and how caging someone for 6 months isn't a big deal.
It's a big ****ing joke.
I am not arguing whether the law is stupid, it is. But why were the police at the guy's house to begin with? It sounds like this guy was up to something, the police searched and found this shotgun shell instead of what they were looking for. To me, there are pieces of this puzzle missing.
Dave
I am not arguing whether the law is stupid, it is. But why were the police at the guy's house to begin with? It sounds like this guy was up to something, the police searched and found this shotgun shell instead of what they were looking for. To me, there are pieces of this puzzle missing.
Dave
I think one thing about the DC and MA laws regarding "ammunition". I wonder how safe the pols would feel if for their police escorts we issued brass cases only or perhaps just the bullets; no primers or powder? After all they are calling live ammo and the separate components the same thing.
In a surprising twist at the end of a long trial, a District of Columbia judge found Mark Witaschek guilty of “attempted possession of unlawful ammunition” for antique replica muzzleloader bullets.
Nevertheless Judge Morin said, “I’m persuaded these are bullets. They look like bullets. They are hollow point. They are not musket balls.”
Right before the trial began, Mr. Nathan’s office dropped the charge from possession of unregistered ammunition to attempted possession.
It’s unclear how Mr. Witaschek could attempt to possess something that was in his home, but the facts aren’t the reason for the shift. The lesser charge carries a penalty of six months in jail, which means Mr. Witaschek was not eligible for the jury trial he wanted.
In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the Assistance of Counsel for his defence.
Naturally, the courts turned the above into "unless we say so"... The legal system is a joke.
U.S. Supreme Court
Duncan v. Louisiana, 391 U.S. 145 (1968)
A right to jury trial is granted to criminal defendants in order to prevent oppression by the Government.
Those who wrote our constitutions knew from history and experience that it was necessary to protect against unfounded criminal charges brought to eliminate enemies and against judges too responsive to the voice of higher authority. The framers of the constitutions strove to create an independent judiciary, but insisted upon further protection against arbitrary action. Providing an accused with the right to be tried by a jury of his peers gave him an inestimable safeguard against the corrupt or overzealous prosecutor and against the compliant, biased, or eccentric judge.
Thus, we hold no constitutional doubts about the practices, common in both federal and state courts, of accepting waivers of jury trial and prosecuting petty crimes without extending a right to jury trial.