• You are using the old Black Responsive theme. We have installed a new dark theme for you, called UI.X. This will work better with the new upgrade of our software. You can select it at the bottom of any page.

Washington Supreme Court Ruling:

Status
Not open for further replies.
Sawed off shotgun laws have been around a long time. It is common knowledge. Plus, this was not an ATF arrest.

Crocirclewalker: I'm sure you realize that your parallel makes no sense and added nothing to this thread.

Andrew
 
Last edited:
"common knowledge" -- Read the SCOTUS decision about jury nullification. That's the justification they give for not allowing a defense attorny to inform a jury of it's rights. :cuss:

A lot of unjust things have been done based upon that principle of 'common knowledge.' It's a bunk argument.

And also, the laws on sawed off shotguns aren't exactly written in 'plain english,' so that an average citizen with typical education/intelligence, can be reasonable expected to understand them (imho).
 
How do we even know, if this poor fellow was even interested in firearms? If he had no interest, then why would he be in the slightest curious about firearms laws? Seems like a gun finally committed a crime. Why didn't they prosecute the weapon this time.
 
The Nuremburgers like to blame their unwillingness to make moral judgements on the fact that "They don't make the law, they only enforce them". Yes.

The parallel is utterly comparable.

Further........leave us not forget that it is "common knowledge" that US v Miller was not reversed. It was remanded. Then Miller died before he could be retried.

The supremes never said that a short barrelled shot gun was not within the militia use. They said that no evidence had been presented to show that it was. It was not within judicial notice.

IMO this would have been a good case to retry the travesty that was purpetrated on the people of NFA34.

Please stop making the lawmakers responsible for leo's lack of officer discretion.

This is a pro gun forum. When one defends the prosecution of unconstitutional firearms laws on a pro gun forum, they fall into the category of "anti".

Sorry.
 
We really need to organize a large national movement pushing for SBS/SBR and suppressors to Title I. The reasons for making them Title II are outdated and criminals demonstrate time and time again that weapon laws don't apply to them.
You'd think if the officer was really interested in finding the suspect instead of acting like a JBT he'd mention "You know.. that shotgun is illegally short" and offer to return later to dispose of the barrel for him or something. Maybe they'd don't have that kind of discretion and have to charge him if they touch it.
People are probably breaking dozens of laws at any given time in their home that they are completely unaware of. If LEO's demonstrate this type of harassment often enough it will become even more of an "us vs them" mentality with the public. We are already headed down that slippery slope with no brakes. Something's gotta give/change.
 
Crocirclewalker:
So explain why the lawmakers, you used the term, cannot change the laws, which they (as in the group) made? I would be truly interested for you to explain that, since you glossed right over it.

You are correct, there is Officer discretion. He used it. He arrested the man. You sound educated, not sure why you're not looking at the branches of Government like they should be looked at. You don't like the laws that are in place, talk with your lawmakers and courts, they make the rules.

While you might make a parallel to the Nuremberg trials, I don't think arresting a person for an SBS is on or near the same plane as mass killing of a people group (most people would agree with me).

I would love for this man to fight the law, make the SCOTUS make a ruling on it. That's how our system of government is supposed to work.

I've been a member of this forum since near it's conception, before you joined. I believe I am familar with what this forum is about. You can categorize me however you want, it won't change your argument.

While it's true, he might not have known, there are many laws that are much more complex than the SBS/SBR laws. In the state of TX it's as follows:

"Short-barrel firearm" means a rifle with a barrel length of less than 16 inches or a shotgun with a barrel length of less than 18 inches, or any weapon made from a shotgun or rifle if, as altered, it has an overall length of less than 26 inches. PC 45.01 (10).

But really, that's not the point. We cannot have a system that allows for ignorance of the law as an excuse. It wouldn't work.


Andrew
 
Last edited:
The barrel was 13 1/8” inches verses the legal 18”, maybe noticeable, maybe not.
Click to expand...
It's entirely possible he didn't realize the barrel was "too short". A fellow at the range a few weeks ago was admiring my (legal) 14" Remington 870, didn't even realize the barrel was under 18".
 
Basically the case comes down to the defense argues that the jury instruction 11 didn't make it abundantly clear to the jury that if they believed the man genuinely did not know that the barrel was less than 18" they should not convict.

Jury Instruction 11 said:
to convict the defendant it [the jury] must find beyond a reasonable doubt, "(1) [t]hat on or about April 23, 2003 [Williams] did knowingly have in his possession or under his control a short-barreled shotgun and (2) [t]hat the acts occurred in the State of Washington."
Click to expand...

The majority decision of the Supreme Court of Washington read the instruction and said, well it is a little vague and definitely error; but the error is harmless error. It may well be that the jury just didn't believe his story about the shotgun so the conviction stands.

dav_pro2a said:
]When laws are so numerous, or so complex, that an average citizen (of typical intelligence and education) has no reaslitic hope of actually reading the thousands and thousands of pages worth of laws or comprehending them without a J.D., then the principle Justin expressed is a farce.
Click to expand...

You want to see a farce? Try obtaining a conviction for any crime if you require the prosecutor to have to prove that the defendant knew that he was breaking the law.

I'd certainly agree with you that the average citizen, or even the average lawyer, has about zero chance of knowing every law to the degree necessary to avoid breaking any law; but the principle Justin described so eloquently still does more good than harm.

Crocirclewalker said:
The Nuremburgers like to blame their unwillingness to make moral judgements on the fact that "They don't make the law, they only enforce them".
Click to expand...

Are you attempting to claim that a republic that elects its representatives to make laws and elects the executive that enforces those laws is no different from the government of Hitler-era Germany?

Do you really want a system of government where your local police officer is delegated the authority to decide what crimes he will and will not pursue based on his own personal moral code? As I recall, you are a frequent participator in threads accusing the police of overreaction and corruption. Considering your views in those threads, I would find it odd you advocate giving those same officers the discretion to ignore legislation in some cases.
 
As I recall, you are a frequent participator in threads accusing the police of overreaction and corruption. Considering your views in those threads, I would find it odd you advocate giving those same officers the discretion to ignore legislation in some cases.
Click to expand...

Mr. Roberts, I am touched that you even remember who I am.

If you click on my name and then the phrase "Find more posts by Cropcirclewalker" you will see that although I sometimes comment about police overreaction, I cannot remember recently posting about corruption.

I like to think of myself as a libertarian, contstitutialist, anti police state, pro militia, stop the drug war, small government type.

If you look you will see that I never got involved in any of the "They whacked the old lady" threads that Art locked over and over. The last Swat string I posted to started by saying that I thought most swat team raids went to the right address.

I don't know fer sure, but I think you may have me mixed up with someone else. :eek:
 
Don't agree.

Justin is right. While I don't think we need to be regulating that, we do, and people need to know the law. I wish people would spend the time they complain about the police and instead spend that time in contacting the people who make the law.
Click to expand...

I might be able to buy that IF the police new all of the laws! How many threads do we have on here about the police not knowing the laws themselves? I can remember many. If LEO's are not required to know all of the laws how can any of us be held to a higher standard?
 
Mr. HP35, I guess I am just not good at expressing myself clearly.

Although losing sight of the purpose on one's mission and running in an innocent citizen for a 45 day term in the jug for arguabley being ignorant of an unconstitutional law may not be on a par with dropping the cyanide pellets into the gas chamber, as you and Mr. Roberts are trying analogize, the concept is quite similar.

The Nuremberger is using his alleged allegiance to following a bad law to justify his own bad actions. He is only following orders.

The elected politicians, the judges and the sworn leos all swear an oath in this nation. To protect and defend the constitution or words similar.

The thing that many leos cannot get their mind around is that

If and when the politician or the judge violates his oath it does not relieve the the enforcers down the line from upholding theirs.

Granted, this is a tough row to hoe. In order for a leo today to keep his honor and follow his oath short of just resigning, he must learn some clever tricks.

Officer discretion is one of them. Selective hearing, Blue Flu.

I suggest that it will get worse before it gets better. If the dire predictions made by the republican apologists are going to happen there will be many who will have to decide whether they will participate in the future AWB and all the confiscation raids and such.

I hope that if and when that happens there will be mass resignations.

Mr. HP35, If you are a leo, are you going to participate?

Call up Nancy and suggest to her that she should reconsider her bad law making?

Or resign.
 
HCB in TN:
I understand what you're saying, yet you can't have a legal system that allows for ignorance as an excuse. It just wouldn't work. Everyone would say that they didn't know it was illegal to do X. How could anyone prove otherwise? Unless the person stated right before he did X that he knew it was illegal, the person could always say "oh darn, I forgot that was illegal". Again, there are many laws I disagree with, and many of them need to be done away with, but not knowing that something is illegal is not, and should not, be an excuse.

Andrew
 
Last edited:
Well, you got one step closer to answering the questions that I posted, not there yet, but closer.

The law has not been found to be unconstitutional yet. Is it against my moral convictions, no. Therefore it is not on the level of "crimes against humanity". If you think so, again, you're free too, but it's going to be you and a few other folks.

What I do for a living has nothing to do with this thread.

Andrew
 
Mr. HP35, no problemo.

I appreciate the opportunity to do a dialog and I don't care what you do for a living. The fact that you post as if you are a leo is sufficient to act as the sounding/back board.

The fact that you failed to answer my question is alright. It was rhetorical. ;)
 
cropcirclewalker: "If and when the politician or the judge violates his oath it does not relieve the the enforcers down the line from upholding theirs."

I grok, it's supposed to be a CHECK against illegitimate action on behalf of the politicos and judges.

Each officer has a MORAL duty, not to the law (i.e. legal positivism), but to the Law of the Land (Constitutional Law).

FNHP35: "The law has not been found to be unconstitutional yet."

SCOTUS can, will and DOES make mistakes. A SCOTUS ruling does not aborgate the indiviuals officer's moral duty.
 
cropcirclewalker:
Your question was a personal question that was not material to the discussion. Your further questions were based off that personal question, therefore I didn't answer them. If what I did for a living was related to the topic, I'd gladly answer it, but it isn't. My question was not a personal question. My question was how can you write that a lawmaker cannot change the laws (for the second time)?

Dave:
I totally agree with you. If a law that I had to enforce was agianst my moral compass I would have to follow my morals. In my opinion owning an SBS is not a moral right (that does not equate to an "anti" as Crop stated, I think it should be legal for people to own).

Courts do make a mistakes, people make mistakes. If the courts make the mistake, then we have a legislative branch that can change the laws that the courts rule on.

Andrew
 
Crocirclewalker:
So explain why the lawmakers, you used the term, cannot change the laws, which they (as in the group) made?
Click to expand...

My question was how can you write that a lawmaker cannot change the laws (for the second time)?
Click to expand...

I am trying real hard to figger out exactly what your question is/was.

They don't seem to be the same question and besides that, both questions are thread drift.

My favorite lawmaker is Ron Paul. Dr. No.

Can he change the law? My answer........no.

My worst lawmaker is Chuckie Schumer. Can he change the law?

I hope not.

Like you suggested.............Is there a chance that I can call up Nancy Pelosi and suggest that she repeal NFA with success?

I DON'T THINK SO.

I am gonna have to say the answer is............No.

Like I said before......I would have better luck calling up the weather guy and asking him to change the weather.

Sorry, you asked, I answered.
 
" But Deputy Malloque testified that Williams told him that he found the
shotgun in the garage a few weeks before his arrest after originally
denying knowing anything about it"

This is about the most interesting thing I could find on the case. JT
 
Democracy = 49% of the population DISENFRANCHISED.

Democracy = the best government that buisness can BUY.

I hold NO hope that gun laws will ever become less restrictive... to say that another way, I have zero hope the government will ever honor the 2A.

Police officers, on an indiviual level, should start to not enforce illegitimate laws. Manufactures and gun companies like Barrett, should stop sales to LEO. Not much hope in a political solution, even the NRA signed off on the 94 AWB.
 
Ok, well, I am not sure what was so confusing about my question. You're wrong, lawmakers (as in congress people, senators and lobbyist) can change laws. They do it all the time. Maybe not to what you want them, but they can. No, the question did not drift from the natural progression of the thread, but either way I'm done with this thread. Though, must admit, it was humorous.

Andrew
 
cropcirclewalker said:
I further grant, limited immunity to Mr. Walker for any crimes, the suspicion of the commission of which I may accidentally discover in my search.
Click to expand...
Actually, it's a common police tactic to offer immunity in order to get people (suspects) to cooperate. However, as I understand it, such offers are non-binding as only the DA can make such an offer.

You would then have to rely on binding the officer to keep his silence about what s/he saw. This would be in violation of his/her oath to serve and protect the "people" (not you) and would get him fired.

I also think asking a cop to sign something saying he won't do his job will get you a lot more negative scrutiny than you really want.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

A
  • Locked
Police arrest plastic statue...
Replies
20
Views
964
alucard0822
A
C
  • Locked
Phelps County resident shoots home invader
Replies
7
Views
1K
clange
C
E
  • Locked
Repel Boarders Drill: westside of Indianapolis
Replies
5
Views
488
rhubarb
R
MarkDido
  • Locked
Jayson Williams - Not Guilty
Replies
6
Views
413
WT
W
A
  • Locked
Lawyers for Sniper Suspect Raise Issue of Chemical Exposure
Replies
6
Views
439
Standing Wolf
S
Back
Top