TexasCHLforum.com

mr surveyor:

Yes, he would still be guilty of the trespass.

My above post re: "legal on that point" was meant to refer to
the requirement that an armed CHL must always have his plastic
on him ready to show any LEO who asks for ID.

SIA

TheArmedFarmer wrote:
Nevertheless, the job of a jury member is to judge the accused AS WELL AS the law in question.

No, the job of a jury is to weigh the evidence, apply the law to a set of circumstance and render a verdict. It is NOT to decide if the law is good & just.

mymojo wrote:No, the job of a jury is to weigh the evidence, apply the law to a set of circumstance and render a verdict. It is NOT to decide if the law is good & just.

Nope. The good news is that you are in for a treat as you settle in and read about Jury nullification.

Oldgringo wrote:

TheArmedFarmer wrote:

The law is the law, true, and most here do follow it, but that doesn't mean it's a good law.

Do we get to choose?

I believe it is incumbent upon all Americans to choose which laws are right and which aren't. Just because "It's the law!" doesn't make it right.

chabouk wrote:

Oldgringo wrote:

TheArmedFarmer wrote:

The law is the law, true, and most here do follow it, but that doesn't mean it's a good law.

Do we get to choose?

I believe it is incumbent upon all Americans to choose which laws are right and which aren't. Just because "It's the law!" doesn't make it right.

OTOH, not obeying the law/s Is pretty much the reason we have penitentiaries, jails, reform schools, community service, electric chairs, etc., etc., isn't it?

TheArmedFarmer wrote:

mymojo wrote:No, the job of a jury is to weigh the evidence, apply the law to a set of circumstance and render a verdict. It is NOT to decide if the law is good & just.

Nope. The good news is that you are in for a treat as you settle in and read about Jury nullification.

I agree to an extent. I belive that this is meant for outdated/strange laws such as (not sure if these are true, just some examples) Supposedly in Galveston it is illegal to drive a motor car down Broadway before noon on Sundays. Or in San Antonio it is illegal for both sexes to flirt or respond to flirtation using the eyes and/or hands. Or in Port Arthur obnoxious odors may not be emitted while in an elevator.

XtremeDuty.45 wrote:I agree to an extent. I belive that this is meant for outdated/strange laws

Yes, as well as new laws that make criminals out of people who are simply exercising natural rights.

If, for an extreme example, some future government rises into power and makes a law that Jews must wear a yellow star, and will imprison those who won't, then that would be a great time for the jury to nullify the law by repeatedly acquitting. That's an extreme example, but this concept goes all the way.

Ultimately, the government (and courts) answer to the people (not the other way around) and jury nullification is one powerful check-and-balance against tyranny.

TheArmedFarmer wrote:

...some future government rises into power and makes a law...

When does the future start...or is it here already?