Quote of the day—Steve Hebbe

As a law enforcement agency, our job is to uphold the law, and we take an oath to uphold the Constitution. We are dedicated to ensuring a safe community and will be keeping a close eye on all proposed legislation.

Steve Hebbe
Farmington Police Chief
February 20, 2019

San Juan County sheriff concerned NM gun control bill could violate constitutional rights
[This is about parts of New Mexico. See also here.

What is it, maybe 75% of Washington state is 2nd Amendment sanctuary territory? Parts of Oregon are as well. Then there are nine states which have passed the Firearms Freedom Act.

It’s trivial to create analogies to free/slave states and sanctuaries in the early 1860. The Democrats are pushing, and passing, bills that I couldn’t have imagined they would try even a couple years ago. Nearly all semi-automatic guns are to banned?

They have become berserkers. My guess is that it is some sort of late stage Trump Derangement Syndrome. What happens if the courts slap them down? What happens if the courts support them? I hope they recover their senses before the only cure is a repeat of the 1860s, but The Fourth Turning keeps coming to mind.—Joe]

12 thoughts on “Quote of the day—Steve Hebbe

    • The courts really, really hate jury nullification and ask about this During voir dire they attempt to figure this out and will remove you from further consideration if you don’t pass their test. At least this was true when I was on a jury in Idaho 20 years ago. I had a long talk with the prosecutor after the trial was over and she basically confirmed my assessment. I have a cousin who was a state appeals court judge and she has strongly defended the elimination of jurors who would participate in jury nullification.

      • Lie. I don’t say that lightly. I despise lying, but when the state is trying to enforce evil and/or unConstitutional laws, we have an obligation to nullify their efforts.

        The Founding Fathers understood this and realized that the sanctity of the jury verdict outweighs any case. We don’t put people in double jeopardy because it favors abuses by the government. Jury nullification is the last step (much like the 2A) to reign in a despotic law (or government, respectively).

        • Exactly. You can vote to acquit or convict on any grounds you want and they have no authority to question you. So an attempt to question you ahead of the verdict is no more legal than an attempt to do so afterward.

  1. But you’re forgetting one thing: the courts won’t “slap them down”. The courts are openly hostile to us. Most want us dead. If anything they will say that banning ALL guns is fine. Killing gun owners that revolt, that’s fine to.

    You are deliuding yourself if you think the courts will help us in any way. I give it 10 years before guns are all banned with confiscation and we are all killed because of that. My estimate is by 2025 will all be exterminated by the government. Possibly with nuclear weapons. Which the court will approve of.You always say “they hate you and want you dead”. Well that’s especially true for judges.

    • That is severely overstated. Counter examples include the Washington State Supreme Court telling Seattle they could not ban guns in parks and on sidewalks a few years ago. People in Chicago can legally carry concealed weapons. Ten years ago people couldn’t even legally have one in their home.

      • Let’s not forget the noncompliance and nonenforcement issues these gun control laws keep hitting.

    • Trump is nominating, and getting through the Senate, a LOT of judges. most of them are decidedly conservative / originalist in outlook. I’m more optimistic on that front that I have been in a long time. The Dems are currently having a case of serious over-reach, and people are starting to notice, on border, abortion, guns, spending, and socialism in general. Omar and AOC are pushing the Dems hard left so fast the casement on the Overton window is cracking; people are seeing it. The EU will likely implode by 2025, but the US revolution isn’t scheduled until the mid 2030’s.

  2. Until the labor/union troubles in the 1880-1920 era, judges would instruct a jury on the option of nullification as an indictment of the particular law that was being ruled on.

    The courts couldn’t get convictions of workers charged in various offenses related to strikes against Big Business (railroad/mining/steel, etc), so judges got together and decided they needed to eliminate nullification. New courtroom rules mandated silence on the part of judges and attorneys. Contempt of court charges would put lawyers instantly in jail. People not generally informed on courtroom procedures, it quickly disappeared from public perception.

    I think that judges should be dismissed and disbarred for any action that restricts the discussion or application of jury nullification. They were never intended to be our lords and masters, and they need to be put in their proper place.

    • I should reread that Spooner essay. From what I recall, it has some fascinating history of the Jury system. Originally it was the jury — not the judge — who deliver verdict AND sentence. The only task of the judge was to serve, essentially, as moderator of the trial. But all substance was the province of the jury.

  3. We are primarily talking here about firearms which are clearly and unambiguously protected by the Second Amendment if you have any reasoning ability and basic command of the language. Still, Democrats want to end it.

    Think of what it would be like if similar oppressive laws were in place regarding your First Amendment rights like freedom of speech or the practice of your religion (and atheism is a religion, so that is not an escape hatch). I sure would want a jury to use nullification to protect me from a law that I cannot comment on a blog or that my ethnic group or my religious belief is grounds for my relocation to a FEMA camp).

    Jury nullification, non-compliance, and refusal to report or enforce violations, are just some of the tools that can be used when “our betters” think they should rule over us.

    • By the way, it’s been pointed out in any number of places that (a) if there weren’t a 2nd Amendment, the 9th Amendment would still protect the right to keep and bear arms, and (b) in the absence of the 9th Amendment, there is still no enumerated power in Article 1 Section 8 that gives the Federal government any authority to infringe the right to keep and bear arms.

      Madison argued, with some justice, that the entire Bill of Rights is redundant. (I believe the MA ratifying convention agreed, though I don’t remember if they eventually voted to ratify.) His opponents argued, with in retrospect far more justice than Madison, that explicitly calling out rights as protected was an important safeguard.

Comments are closed.