Letter from CC states attorney

Ab_Normal · May 31, 2013

pbharvey said:
Is a willful violation (say you don't feel a particular piece of the law is constitutional so you ignore it) the same as a criminal violation? If you willfully violate a law it seems like that would show criminal intent.

My guess is maybe, maybe not. Depends on the circumstances. Willful would be "I'm not registering my XYZ because that is an infringement on my rights". Criminal would be "I'm gonna grind the serial number off of my pistol so they can't trace it back to me if I drop it when I rob XYZ".

fabsroman · May 31, 2013

Blaster229 said:
His office decides if a case gets prosecuted or not. That seems pretty Chief to me. He ultimately enforces(or not) the law. So........

The Judge or Jury ultimately enforces the law. A jury or Judge could make the law non-existent. Believe it is called jury nullification, or something to that effect.

End of the day, We The People enforce the law by electing Sheriffs, Judges, etc. and by sitting on a jury. When you receive your request for jury selection, look at it the same as voting. If you are not willing to sit on a jury and participate in the legal process, whether it be criminal or civil, do not complain about the next OJ type case or the next million dollar McDonald's coffee tort case.

Being involved in the community is the only way to make the community a good community. Pretty soon here, I am going to talk myself into running for political office. lol

Ab_Normal · May 31, 2013

fabsroman said:
The Judge or Jury ultimately enforces the law. A jury or Judge could make the law non-existent. Believe it is called jury nullification, or something to that effect.

End of the day, We The People enforce the law by electing Sheriffs, Judges, etc. and by sitting on a jury. When you receive your request for jury selection, look at it the same as voting. If you are not willing to sit on a jury and participate in the legal process, whether it be criminal or civil, do not complain about the next OJ type case or the next million dollar McDonald's coffee tort case.

Being involved in the community is the only way to make the community a good community. Pretty soon here, I am going to talk myself into running for political office. lol

Art. 23. In the trial of all criminal cases, the Jury shall be the Judges of Law, as well as of fact, except that the Court may pass upon the sufficiency of the evidence to sustain a conviction.

dist1646 · May 31, 2013

Bottom line, don't go looking for trouble unless you want some.

Tyeraxus · May 31, 2013

LeadSled1 said:
He forgets his oath is also not to violate the Constitution. That takes a higher precedence than enforcing unconstitutional laws.

The letter points out (correctly) that it's up to the courts to ultimately determine constitutionality. Ultimately, in a legal sense, laws are considered constitutional until ruled otherwise (however, once determined to be unconstitutional, the law is considered to be void from its enactment).

That is something I think a lot of people forget - part of the checks and balances is the power of a court to rule something is unconstitutional, but unless they do, the legislature or executive's actions are considered to be proper.

That is why the courts are so vital to the 2A, and as a corollary, why elections matter.

Docster · May 31, 2013

zoostation said:
Well, the letter might not say everything one would like to hear, but overall it does come off as pro-2A. It's a lot better than what the ones from some other counties and Baltimore City would say if they wrote a letter on the subject. Theirs would be more like "Governor O'Malley's Firearms Safety Act is designed to keep Marylanders and their communities and children safe and this office will aggressively pursue all violations."

That's correct; look at the message, not the errors. The guy is saying the laws are unconstitutional; he has an obligation to his oath of office to uphold said Constitution; and he's going to use his discretion in determining which cases proceed to prosecution. He had nothing to gain by making a public statement, and as others who know him better have stated, has a proven track record.

Come on guys, it must be pretty lonely out there when you trust no one...... :sad20:

Ab_Normal · May 31, 2013

Tyeraxus said:
The letter points out (correctly) that it's up to the courts to ultimately determine constitutionality. Ultimately, in a legal sense, laws are considered constitutional until ruled otherwise (however, once determined to be unconstitutional, the law is considered to be void from its enactment).

That is something I think a lot of people forget - part of the checks and balances is the power of a court to rule something is unconstitutional, but unless they do, the legislature or executive's actions are considered to be proper.

That is why the courts are so vital to the 2A, and as a corollary, why elections matter.

Not necessarily true. SCOTUS Chief Justice Rehnquist acknowledged that sobriety checkpoints violated the constitution but said they were necessary anyway. If the SCOTUS CJ does it then think about the possible number of cases that it happens in that don't make it to the SCOTUS.

Moon · May 31, 2013

From this letter I got that he thinks some of SB281 is unconstitutional, but it's not his decision to make. That being said, he will not go after violators of SB281 that did not know they were breaking the law. However, people that do knowingly run afoul of SB281, regardless of his opinion on its Constitutionality, will get the hammer.

Les Gawlik · May 31, 2013

I think this is fantastic! We have had a steady stream of "prosecutorial discretion" working the other way, from dismissing a case against the New Black Panthers which had already been won, to Rod Machen's decision not to prosecute the contempt of congress charge against Eric "the Red" Holder over Fast and Furious.

So why shouldn't it go the other way? Why shouldn't decent, Constitution-loving prosecutors refuse to prosecute the ridiculous laws passed by the progs, like SB281?

Merlin · Jun 1, 2013

Blaster229 said:
His office decides if a case gets prosecuted or not. That seems pretty Chief to me. He ultimately enforces(or not) the law. So........

That's how I see it.

But these are just words that we can interpret as very pro-2A, or somewhat pro-2A. Where the rubber meets the road will be seeing him in action if/when a case like this comes up.

Blaster229 · Jun 1, 2013

fabsroman said:
The Judge or Jury ultimately enforces the law. A jury or Judge could make the law non-existent. Believe it is called jury nullification, or something to that effect.

End of the day, We The People enforce the law by electing Sheriffs, Judges, etc. and by sitting on a jury. When you receive your request for jury selection, look at it the same as voting. If you are not willing to sit on a jury and participate in the legal process, whether it be criminal or civil, do not complain about the next OJ type case or the next million dollar McDonald's coffee tort case.

Being involved in the community is the only way to make the community a good community. Pretty soon here, I am going to talk myself into running for political office. lol

Semantics. It has to go through the State's Attorney to even make it to a jury.

Merlin · Jun 1, 2013

Blaster229 said:
Semantics. It has to go through the State's Attorney to even make it to a jury.

Agreed, and to take it a step further the issue is in the hands of the LEO controlling the scene. The LEO'S in the street and/or their supervisors make the very first decision whether something, or someone will be taking a ride to the SA desk. Then the SA decides if it goes any further. Sure, if/when it get to the court system it then decides the case. But it all starts at the first LEO. Some LEO'S are very pro-2A, and some will lock up their own mother.

Amedori · Jun 19, 2014

Hello

What Jerry Barnes' letter says is he will not prosecute a law abiding citizen because they fail to adhere to the infringement on the Second Amendment as presented by O'Malleys SB281. Jerry worked with Commissioner Rothschild to bring us the State's ONLY Second Amendment sanctuary county. That means that as the Top Law Enforcement officer in the county, he has the discretion to prosecute cases or not. In essence, he is nullifying the pretended law of SB218.

w2kbr · Jun 19, 2014

Yea......for me, I'll give the guy the benefit of the doubt...for now......

Like Pudding, the truth is in the tasting.......we shall see....

R

Lou45 · Jun 19, 2014

Ab_Normal said:
Jerry has been very pro 2A since he started in politics. As was his former wife Carmen Amedori - who is a member here.

I think he makes a good point - if you are an otherwise good citizen that gets tripped up from some unconstitutional nonsense he isn't going to bust your butt. And on the flip side I expect him to bring the full weight of the law down on some gangsta thug who rolls in thinkin' he's gonna get off easy bustin' caps in the CC 'hood.

Jerry seems to be a very unassuming person who seems to life a fairly simple life. But do NOT underestimate him. He was a neighbor 20+ years ago and I see him out and about from time to time.

mhemling33 said:
I definitely feel a pro 2a vibe but at this point you can't trust any of them

I'd much rather trust Jerry keeping my ass out of the slammer over a 2A related issue then the other guy.

Boom Boom said:
In addition, State's Attorney Barnes originally released that statement with Sheriff Tregoning at his side. It's a coordinated team effort all the way.

Amedori said:
Hello

What Jerry Barnes' letter says is he will not prosecute a law abiding citizen because they fail to adhere to the infringement on the Second Amendment as presented by O'Malleys SB281. Jerry worked with Commissioner Rothschild to bring us the State's ONLY Second Amendment sanctuary county. That means that as the Top Law Enforcement officer in the county, he has the discretion to prosecute cases or not. In essence, he is nullifying the pretended law of SB218.

Need I say more??? :thumbsup:

Bob A · Jun 19, 2014

pbharvey said:
Is a willful violation (say you don't feel a particular piece of the law is constitutional so you ignore it) the same as a criminal violation? If you willfully violate a law it seems like that would show criminal intent.

This doesn't seem to operate at the Federal level at this time; why should the locals have to obey and enforce inconvenient laws?

Amedori · Jun 20, 2014

As you all know, there is a movement in this country to take all our guns. It's part of the manifesto - ruin the economy, take the guns and build the base.

What Carroll County has done and will continue to do with Pretended laws that are unconstitutional is nullify them in essence by having a State's Attorney who will not prosecute those unconstitutional laws.

Additionally, when I am in the House I will work with Delegate Smigiel and Vitale to fight the new administration and a new AG - and their efforts to disarm. All of their laws are unconstitutional.

I appreciate your vote. Sign me "chomping at the bit to be on the front lines against the tyrants"

Thank you ~ Carmen

eruby · Jun 20, 2014

Bobby Mercer said:
How do we know this is not Engine4's typo? The letter is not linked and it looks like Engine4 typed this by hand.

Carroll County Times had "Oct. 1, 2014" when this was published last year.

Don't know if they blew it or Barnes' office blew it.

http://www.carrollcountytimes.com/n...cle_901a7a82-e830-50f9-89ac-b851ea2d346f.html

Biggfoot44 · Jun 20, 2014

The States Atty is the chief LAW enforcement official for a particular jurisdiction.

Under Common Law , the Sheriff is the chief Public Safety and Order official for a jurisdiction. In modern times the various County legistors may specifically assign duties and responsibilities county Police or Corrections Dept not specifically enumerated to Sheriffs in the State Constitution.

While there is overlap in the spirit , Prosecutoral Discression is a different thing from Jury Nullification.

And in the context of Marylandistan , the above letter is about as strong a 2A statement as you will ever see.

6pack · Jun 21, 2014

mterry said:
From this letter I got that he thinks some of SB281 is unconstitutional, but it's not his decision to make. That being said, he will not go after violators of SB281 that did not know they were breaking the law. However, people that do knowingly run afoul of SB281, regardless of his opinion on its Constitutionality, will get the hammer.

I was at the Town Hall when he first made his statement and I got out of it just what mterry says. I haven't decided my vote yet, but Barnes is my front runner.

Letter from CC states attorney

The #1 community for Gun Owners of the Northeast

Member Benefits:

Ab_member

Ultimate Member

Ab_member

Ultimate Member

Ultimate Member

Ultimate Member

Ab_member

M-O-O-N, that spells...

Ultimate Member

Ultimate Member

God loves you, I don't.

Ultimate Member

Member

MSI EM, NRA LM, SAF, AAFG

R.I.P.

όυ φροντισ

Member

Confederate Jew

Ultimate Member

MSI BOD Member

Users who are viewing this thread

Log in

Forum statistics