TexasCHLforum.com

cling wrote:If an individual sells something to another individual in a face to face cash transaction, that's not international commerce, regardless of the citizenship of the individuals.

"International commerce?" Do you mean "interstate commerce?" Even in the case of the latter, read the judge's order posted by Chas., and you will see that Mr. Copeland was indicted (not convicted) of only disposing of a firearm to an illegal alien, in violation of 18 U.S.C. Sec. 922, which reads, in pertinent part, "It shall be unlawful for any person to sell or otherwise dispose of any firearm or ammunition to any person knowing or having reasonable cause to believe that such person-- ... who, being an alien ... is illegally or unlawfully in the United States...."

I would suspect that if or when Mr. Copeland's case goes to trial, the important words in the statute will be, "...knowing or having reasonable cause to believe...." And that is why we have juries. It is a question of fact for the jury to answer.

He was not, according to the federal District Judge, in any event, indicted for a single one of the imaginary horribles which one could come up with in an effort to show out-of-control federal law enforcement officers intending to "throw the book at Mr. Copeland."

One can quibble with the law, but that is the law. One can quibble about whether Congress indeed has the authority under the Constitution to enact such a law, but it is, I would submit, awfully late in our nation's history to raise that question again.

Most respectfully,

bronco78 wrote:

b322da wrote:I think the Court's order says something else,

What are your referring to? Something else? Something other then what?

b322da wrote:some of us ought to exercise a little restraint in our automatic and immediate anti-government ranting before the facts get out.

Who or what post are you referring to?

Sorry. I am talking about the Court's order on defendant's motions in the Copeland case, as posted by Chas., clarifying the facts as found by the judge, and discussed in earlier posts by members of this forum. I am not talking about any particular one of those posts, but am only pointing out that the whole exercise early on suggests to me that some of us have a really quick trigger finger without being too sure just what the target is.

Elmo

I think the Court's order says something else, and that is that some of us ought to exercise a little restraint in our automatic and immediate anti-government ranting before the facts get out.

Chas. set the stage for this in an earlier post. He looked into the facts, and he warned us, very nicely, and some of us listened.

I might also observe that while there were ATF agents present, were any ICE agents present? I don't know, but might this question be relevant to another of the anti-government rants?

I submit that the government does it right now and then.

Elmo

VMI77 wrote:

b322da wrote:In a jury trial neither the prosecutor, the BATF, the APD, the Grand Jury, nor the judge convict a defendant. Too often we forget the jury, in the final analysis the protector of our liberties from judicial oppression by the authorities. Had the original report been true, a jury of the defendant's peers would have found him guilty, beyond a reasonable doubt. That is no easy burden for a prosecutor.

That's only true in the technical sense. Practically speaking any number of people in the legal system can effectively convict a defendant. It's an old saying that a "good" prosecutor can get a Grand Jury to indict a ham sandwich. Prosecutors and/or judges can, and sometimes do, control the evidence in a trial in such a way that a conviction is inevitable (and sometimes do so in clear violation of the law). Judges also sometimes instruct juries contrary to the law and essentially direct a verdict that the jury would not otherwise have made. And law enforcement agencies sometimes falsify evidence (and have been caught doing it numerous times). During my last call to jury duty the prosecutor himself said that police officers will lie on the stand and cautioned the jury not to automatically assume everything a police officer says is true. I also don't think the reasonable doubt standard is always so much of a hurdle, especially when there are relatively uninformed people on a jury --many people seem to lack skepticism even when it comes to some pretty preposterous claims.

It is obviously a Liberal left wing conspiracy.

Elmo

baldeagle wrote:Here's the problem that I see. Perfectly reasonable citizens get stirred up by false stories. They take to the streets in protest. All they knew for certain was that the gun show no longer was held at the location it used to be held at. Later, when the facts come out, they look like idiots. The anti-gunners use that to their advantage, painting all gun owners as clueless tools who can't even think for themselves and therefore should no be allowed to have guns. And another stake goes in the heart of mother liberty.

With freedom comes responsibility. It is our job to not only deflate the liberal balloons but also stem the passions of good people when the cause is not based on truth. Far too many people these days are completely driven by emotion and can be swayed to take really foolish actions by planting stories that have a kernel of truth but are clearly meant to inflame. The plan goes like this: a gun show no longer can conduct its business at a certain location, for perfectly valid and legal reasons. An individual who sold guns at that show is convicted of selling straw purchases, which he clearly had to have known he was doing. So someone concocts the story that the police shut down the show and arrested a perfectly innocent person. Details get added that make it more inflammatory. It spreads like wildfire on the gun forums and freedom forums across the country. And the anti-gun crowd sits back and smiles - more fodder for painting the pro-gunners as boobs and childish idiots who are really dangerous and shouldn't be armed. More fodder for taking away our freedoms.

When you hand your enemy ammo, he will shoot at you.

Elmo

gemini wrote:shame on the prosecutor
shame on the BATF
shame on APD
shame on Judge Sparks
This is scary stuff folks.

While it appears clear now that this story was planted to stir up people just like us, and I include myself in "us," and the flap now appears to have died down, one element here, in my opinion, does deserve noting.

In a jury trial neither the prosecutor, the BATF, the APD, the Grand Jury, nor the judge convict a defendant. Too often we forget the jury, in the final analysis the protector of our liberties from judicial oppression by the authorities. Had the original report been true, a jury of the defendant's peers would have found him guilty, beyond a reasonable doubt. That is no easy burden for a prosecutor.

The poster of the words I quote just above was not alone, and his reaction was not unreasonable. It was indeed "scary." This is certainly not pointed at this distinguished member of the forum -- he had plenty of company. After going back over all the posts here which demonstrate the success of the person who apparently invented the story -- he or she accomplished just exactly what was intended -- I see every player criticized other than the jury.

When this thread started up my initial reaction was that "something is wrong here -- somewhere out there there is something significant we do not know." I suspected that for only one reason. A jury of the defendant's peers convicted him, and they must have known something I did not know. This is not armchair quarterbacking. I restrained from entering this discussion at the time, knowing that if I did I would just make the flap bigger and more inflammatory.

Until we know more facts we might give the jury a break, perhaps even presume that it did its difficult duty correctly and in accordance with the law until we are satisfied to the contrary.

With respect,