Warning

 

Close

Confirm Action

Are you sure you wish to do this?

Confirm Cancel
Member Login
Posted: 7/16/2002 12:48:36 PM EDT
Link Posted: 7/16/2002 1:06:27 PM EDT
Damn! I was hoping someone had arrested Feinstain for having a concealed handgun and an expired permit!
Link Posted: 7/16/2002 1:12:38 PM EDT
Link Posted: 7/16/2002 1:15:06 PM EDT
his website IS working
Link Posted: 7/16/2002 1:28:11 PM EDT
The way I understand this case (with thanks to Aimless for helping to clarify it), Stanley really couldn't challenge the constitutionality of the city statute in this case. It was up to the jurors with this case to decide if he had, in fact, violated the statute. No doubt that he had. Now, in his appeal, he can try to make the point that the statute is unconstitutional. Nothing to get too worked up over, yet. Let's wait and see what happens in the appeal. BTW, his website seems to be up now. [url]http://www.stanley2002.org/[/url]
Link Posted: 7/16/2002 1:29:53 PM EDT
constitutionality can be brought up in any case...unless the judge says no....
Link Posted: 7/16/2002 1:32:58 PM EDT
Damn, y'all need to get yourself an open carry law.
Link Posted: 7/16/2002 1:41:05 PM EDT
Hound, The way I understand it, this first hearing was to decide if Stanley had broken the city ordinance. Obviously, he had. There was a thread here a few weeks ago about the judge not allowing 2nd amendment arguments during this hearing. Needless to say, there was quite a fuss about that. When you think about it, it's not really the job of a city court to decide if a law or statute is constitutional. They just decide whether or not the defendant is guilty of breaking that statute. It's up to the appellate court to make judgement on the constitutionality of a particular statute.
Link Posted: 7/16/2002 1:49:18 PM EDT
Originally Posted By Corporal_Chaos: Damn, y'all need to get yourself an open carry law.
View Quote
Actually, open carry isn't regulated in Colorado, except in home rule cities like Denver. That's the basis for this whole legal mess.
Link Posted: 7/16/2002 4:26:58 PM EDT
Link Posted: 7/16/2002 5:14:52 PM EDT
What cracks me up about Stanley is the number of people he says was at that rally. First he says 100 people and it keeps going up. Now its at 250people. I was there when he was arrested. It was more like 25-30 people.
Link Posted: 7/16/2002 5:34:40 PM EDT
Originally Posted By Sparky: What cracks me up about Stanley is the number of people he says was at that rally. First he says 100 people and it keeps going up. Now its at 250people. I was there when he was arrested. It was more like 25-30 people.
View Quote
Like there were a million morons at the moms march. He is learning to fight fire with fire I guess.
Link Posted: 7/17/2002 6:45:45 AM EDT
I was talking about the jury....
Link Posted: 7/17/2002 7:01:35 AM EDT
Now, this guy has BALLS! I'm not so sure I'd be able to do that, much to my own shame.
Link Posted: 7/17/2002 7:17:14 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 7/17/2002 7:17:50 AM EDT by kill-9]
Originally Posted By hound: constitutionality can be brought up in any case...unless the judge says no....
View Quote
How, exactly, does this work? I mean, can any judge just bar discussion of the constitution on a whim? Is there a set of "generally accepted guidelines"? To me, the phrase "barred from using a Constitutional defense" is pretty chilling. -kill-9
Link Posted: 7/17/2002 7:28:18 AM EDT
I am discussing the informed jury policy where the jury is deciding on the crime at hand and the constitutionality of the law. The judges often squelch this and yes they often decide things on a whim.
Top Top