The American Jury Power Association
Dedicated to public awareness of jurors' rights

The juries [are] our judges of all fact, and of law when they choose it.

— Thomas Jefferson to Samuel Kercheval; 1816. ME 15:35

$errorCode = 2
xml_error_string() = syntax error
xml_get_current_line_number() = 2
xml_get_current_column_number() = 0
xml_get_current_byte_index() = 40
$errorCode = 2
xml_error_string() = syntax error
xml_get_current_line_number() = 2
xml_get_current_column_number() = 0
xml_get_current_byte_index() = 40

Know Your Jury Rights, Use Your Power

In this video, Rancher and Constitutional scholar Red Beckman, and investigative reporter Pat Shannan discuss the power we have as citizens, when called to jury duty, to correct government abuses.

Loading the player ...
— Saved News Reports —

Can A Potential Juror Be Asked To Promise A Verdict?

A common technique in voir dire, especially by defense attorneys, is to ask each prospective juror during jury selection whether the juror will "promise" to return a certain kind of verdict (e.g. guilty or not guilty) if it is supported by the evidence. Many trial judges for a variety of reasons will not permit that [...]

Court Overturns Manslaughter Conviction After iPhone Cited in Jury Deliberations

09/16/2010 - Using a mobile phone to look up the definition of a word in an online dictionary resulted in manslaughter trial being cancelled in Florida, USA. Although the phone, an Apple iPhone was not physically taken into the jury room by the member of the jury who used it, he did subsequently discuss the meaning of the word "prudence" with other jurors. [....]  Commentary

— Featured Article —

Gun Control, Patriotism, and Civil Disobedience

by Jacob G. Hornberger

The State of California recently enacted a law which requires owners of semiautomatic weapons to register their guns with the State. But when the law went into effect, thousands of California gun owners, although risking a felony conviction, refused to comply with its requirements.

These gun owners were immediately showered with harsh criticism, not only from their public officials, but from their fellow citizens as well. The critics implied, among other things, that since the law had been passed by the duly elected representatives of the people, the gun owners, as members of society, had a duty to comply with its terms.

The controversy raised important issues concerning liberty, property, government, patriotism, and civil disobedience.

As I have repeatedly emphasized, by adopting the welfare-state, planned-economy way of life, the American people of our time have rejected and abandoned the principles of individual freedom and limited government upon which our nation was founded. But they have also rejected and abandoned something of equal importance: the concept of patriotism which characterized America's Founding Fathers.

There have been two different notions of patriotism in American history. The one which characterizes the American people of the 20th century - the one which is taught in our public schools - is this: patriotism means the support of one's own government and the actions which the government takes on behalf of the citizenry. The idea is that since we live in a democratic society, the majority should have the political power to take any action it desires. And although those in the minority may not like the laws , they are duty-bound as "good" citizens to obey and support them.

The distinguishing characteristic of this type of patriotism is that the citizen does not make an independent, personal judgement of the rightness or wrongness of a law. Instead, he does what he has been taught to do since the first grade in his government schools: he places unwavering faith and trust in the judgement of his popularly-elected public officials.

The other concept of patriotism was the type which characterized the British colonists during the late 1700s. These individuals believed that patriotism meant a devotion to certain principles of rightness and morality. They believed that the good citizen had the duty to make an independent judgement as to whether or not his own government's laws violated these principles. And so, unlike their counterparts in America today, these individuals refused automatically to accept the legitimacy of the actions of their public officials.

Let us examine how dramatically the "real world" applications of these two concepts of patriotism differ.

In the late 1700s, the British colonists suffered under the same kind of oppressive regulations and taxes that present-day Americans endure. What was the reaction of the colonists to this regulatory and tax tyranny? They deliberately chose to ignore and disobey their government's regulations and tax acts. Smuggling and tax-evasion were the order of the day! And the more that their government tried to enforce the restrictions, the more it met with resistance and disobedience from the citizenry.

Sometimes smugglers or tax evaders would be caught and brought to trial. The result? Despite conclusive evidence of guilt and the judges instructions to convict, the defendants' fellow citizens on the juries regularly voted verdicts of acquittal.

And civil disobedience was not limited to economic regulations and taxation. There was also widespread resistance to conscription, especially during the French and Indian Wars. Those who were conscripted deserted the army in large numbers. And those who had not been conscripted hid the deserters in their homes.

This was what it once meant to be a patriot -- the devotion to a certain set of principles regarding rightness, morality, individualism, liberty, and property; and it meant a firm stand against one's own government when it violated these principles.

If an American of today were magically transported back to colonial America of the late 1700s, he would immediately find himself at odds with the colonists who were resisting the tyranny of their government. How do we know this? By the way which Americans of today respond to what is a much more oppressive and tyrannical economic system - with either meekness or, even worse, with ardent "flag-waving" support for the actions of their rulers.

And what is their attitude toward their fellow citizens who are caught violating the rules and regulations? Again, either meekness or fervent support of the rulers. After all, what was their reaction to the Internal Revenue Service's seizure of Willie Nelson's property? "I'll make a small donation but otherwise don't get me involved - I don't want them coming after me!" And to the conviction of Michael Milken for violating economic regulations that were so ridiculous that even King George would have been embarrassed? "He got what's coming to him - shouldn't have made so much money anyway!" And to Leona Helmsley's conviction for having taken improper deductions on her income tax return? "She's obnoxious - she should go to jail." The thought of rising to the defense of these victims of political tyranny is anathema to the present-day American "patriot."

And what about jury trials involving economic crimes? Like the good, little citizens they have been taught to be in the public school system, American "patriots" dutifully comply with the judge's instructions to convict fellow citizens caught up in this regulatory and tax tyranny. Although they have the same power as their ancestors to disregard the judge's instructions and to acquit their fellow citizens, the thought of doing so is so repugnant to present-day "patriots" that they choose to do their "duty" and thereby become "patriotic" agents of their own government's tyranny.

Therefore, there is no doubt that the American of today would feel very uncomfortable if, all of a sudden, he found himself in the British colonies in 1775 - in the midst of smugglers, tax-evaders, draft-resisters, and other patriots of the time.

This brings us back to the individual in California who are refusing to register their guns.

As our American ancestors understood so well, the bedrock of a free society is private ownership of property. And there are fewer more important rights of private ownership than the unfettered right to own weapons.

Why is ownership of weapons so vitally important? Not for hunting. And not even to resist aggression by domestic criminals or foreign invaders. No, as history has repeatedly shown, the vital importance of the fundamental right to own arms is to resist tyranny by one's own government, should such tyranny ever become unendurably evil and oppressive.

The lesson which Americans of today have forgotten or have never learned - the lesson which our ancestors tried so hard to teach us - is that the greatest threat to our lives, liberty, property, and security lies not with some foreign government, as our rulers so often tell us; instead the greatest threat to our freedom and well-being lies with our own government!

Of course, there are those who suggest that democratically-elected public officials would never do anything to seriously harm the American people. But let's look at just a few twentieth-century examples: They confiscated people's gold. They repudiated gold clauses in government debts. They provoked the Japanese into attacking Pearl Harbor and then acted like they were surprised. They incarcerated Japanese-Americans for no crime at all. They injected dangerous, mind-altering drugs into American servicemen without their knowledge. They radiated the American people in the Pacific Northwest and then deliberately hid this information from them. They have surreptitiously confiscated and plundered people's income and savings through the Federal Reserve System. They have plundered and terrorized the citizenry through the IRS. And, most recently, they have sent our fellow citizens to their deaths thousands of miles away in the pursuit of a relatively insignificant cause.

Those who believe that democratically-elected rulers lack the potential and inclination for destructive conduct against their citizenry are living in la-la land.

Of course, the proponents of political tyranny are usually well-motivated. Those who enacted the gun-registration law in California point to criminals who have used semiautomatic weapons to commit horrible, murderous acts. But the illusion - the pipe-dream - is that bad acts can be prevented by the deprivation of liberty. They cannot be! Life is insecure - whether under liberty or enslavement. The only choice is between liberty and insecurity, on the one hand, and insecurity and enslavement on the other.

The true patriot scrutinizes the actions of his own government with unceasing vigilance. And when his government violates the morality and rightness associated with principles of individual freedom and private property, he immediately rises in opposition to his government. This is why the gun owners of California might ultimately go down in history as among the greatest and most courageous patriots of our time.


More Articles and Videos

Submit your article

Lysander Spooner's book - An Essay On The Trial By Jury (Amazon Books)
Order Your Copy
Jury Rights T-shirtOrder Yours Now!
Sign up now for your
"How To Be An Effective And Satisfied Citizen Activist"
If the law is unfit
you must acquit! Essential reading: An Essay on the Trial by Jury (Lysander Spooner, 1852)
On the Duty of Civil Disobedience —Thoreau's classic work
Webster's American Dictionary (1828)
Bouvier's Law Dictionary (1856)
Judge flatly denies nullification
U.S. Courts locator
Information For Jurors
American Jury Selection Blog New Hampshire Jury Information
Jail4Judges Amendment
The Jury Rights Project (Colorado)
Constitutional Rights Foundation (Chicago)
Jury Education Committee (California)
Lone Star FIJA (Texas)
The Democracy Defined Campaign (International) Prosecutors manipulate grand jury —Is this typical?
GJ: Take It Back
Grand Jury: Take It Back
Grand Jury: Power Shift?
GJ History and Powers
If the law is unjust
make a fuss Great articles from FIJA's early days
The Oath Keeper Juror
Lawmen (Google Groups) Have You Served on a Jury?
Are You a Jury Rights Advocate?
Tell us your story