Home > Uncategorized > A method for removing guns

A method for removing guns

I’ve noticed something the OpFor has become handy at: charge a citizen (that is, one who bears arms lawfully) with a bullshit trumped up charge of unlawful possession or brandishing or some such felonious bullshit, put them on trial and intimidate the jury into thinking they must convict the guy, then throw him in prison. When he raises holy hell in the press and the people demand his freedom, grant a commutation, not a full pardon. That way the OpFor can claim to have restored his freedom (he’s out of prison, after all) while denying him his right to bear arms, since he still has a felony conviction.

It worked with Brian Aitken, and in a more aggressive form with David Olofson, and now it has worked with Ward Bird in New Hampshire.

How would we go about countering this? Two methods come to mind. First, if we are lucky enough to get on the jury trying the guy, we pull a Henry Fonda and get the rest of the jury to acquit the victim. Second, as a personal preventative measure, we cache firearms (preferably paperless ones) in our locale. Third …


  1. Dick B
    3 February 2011 at 21:57

    Might seem this is a recent innovation of the Hate Tee Heff but it’s a game they play, aided and abetted by local LEO for years now. Nobody so high profile as the cases cited, but ordinary guys, including a lot of vets screwed over “Koz they can”!

  2. dh
    4 February 2011 at 02:13

    Suggestion – nullification. I believe it’s a tradition of English Common Law (upon which our legal system is based). It allows for lawmakers to have their heads so far up a dark space that they’ll make laws that may look good on paper and function badly in practice, for instance, and makes a common sense safeguard against it.
    It allows a juror to say something to the effect of “yes, your argument condemns the accused of the law as written, but I reject the basic premise of the law and therefore acquit the accused”.
    I’m not sure how many of the jury need to nullify in order for it to take effect (Thomas Woods has written a book on this recently which will sound a lot smarter than me) but it becomes precedent and can do more to hobble bad legislation than all the supreme court half-rulings in all the lands. It’s a much better choice than acquitting while upholding bad legislation.
    Don’t dare tell an attorney you’re even aware of it during voir-dire, though, you’ll be first on the chopping block for both sides.

  3. chicopanther
    5 February 2011 at 20:08

    I try to tell as many folks as I can about the principle of “Jury Nullification” and even point them to the website for the “Fully Informed Jury Association.” (http://fija.org)

    If a vast majority of citizens knew of this (and practiced it), it would totally neuter bad laws (like asset forfeiture for drug crimes). Of course, then we’d probably see the prosecution attempt to lock up jurors for daring to confront the almighty state!

    I’ve only served on one jury, although I’ve been screened (and not selected) several other times (and I would never let on that I knew anything about jury nullification). It was a case of an elderly man who was accused of “carrying a concealed weapon” before my state made it legal to carry concealed. Well, the prosecution sure as Hell didn’t prove its case, and we the jury acquitted the guy about 5 minutes after beginning deliberations. Polling the other jurors, they all felt it should be someone’s right to carry a weapon concealed!


  4. Dick B
    9 February 2011 at 16:28

    Jury nullification is the answer. But, folks have been down that road for thirty years and got nowhere with it. Typical juror is one too dumb to escape the duty, and they have not got the intellectual battery power to absorb the principle, let alone have the nerve to apply it. All they want is to get out of that damn courtroom and go home . . . there’s no sense of right, duty or justice. They don’t give a damn about some ‘gun nut’s rights and believe, after years of flaming propaganda that we’re ‘natural criminals’ anyhow, else why would have guns and be in court over it.

    I honestly don’t know any answer but scrub the dryboard clean and start over. Pick a State or a handful of contiguous States and start at the bottom and work up. Let’s say, Texas, Oklahoma, Arizona, Arkansas and Northern New Mexico and North Louisiana . . . but you might choose Utah, Idaho, Montana, Wyoming just as well.

    Establish a ‘Colony’ of Constitutional believers and hire into state government, run for local offices, build up the Cadre and gradually establish the basis for a constitutional republic. The OOOSAH is headed for catastrophic collapse anyway,
    so it’d be good to have a fiscally sound, morally straight, politically sensible
    alternative at hand. Keep the taxes low, provide only those services essential
    to public safety and order. You have a job before you can emigrate there. No Florida, Carolina, or Gulf “developers” permitted!!

  5. 10 February 2011 at 01:03


    Google. Scribd. “Expedient Homemade Firearms”

    File. Hacksaw. Trips to several innocuous suppliers.

    Or, buy a black powder weapon. They’re not “firearms”, but they can get you one should the S happen to HTF


  1. No trackbacks yet.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: