Off Topic Law Sperging

[LawTwitter is Dumb]

It's going to depend on the jury instructions. If they're overly simple ("Was the defendant under 18 and holding a deadly weapon? If no, not guilty. If yes, guilty") a jury could convict. Hopefully they'll take into account the various exceptions, but who knows.

Actually on topic, Ron versus Geico is funny, especially since you get to see Ron's actual fascist beliefs.

I remember reading somewhere that that rule applies to NFA weapons like things with short barrels and cut off shotguns. thats it. But yea this shit fucky in all of it, but the judge has been amazing in this case.

 

[Kosher Salt]

I remember reading somewhere that that rule applies to NFA weapons like things with short barrels and cut off shotguns. thats it. But yea this shit fucky in all of it, but the judge has been amazing in this case.

The law contains several layers of exceptions. The jury instructions don't. Basically the existing jury instructions ask the jury to determine two facts: At the time of the event for which the defendant is charged, was the defendant under the age of 18? And was the defendant in possession of a dangerous weapon? The answer to both of these questions is undeniably yes, so the jury would be bound to find him guilty, unless they chose to nullify the law (find him not guilty even when the facts plainly made him guilty).

However the law contains an exception, which is if the defendant was 16-17, the law does not apply to defendants carrying a rifle unless the rifle was a short-barreled weapon (which is an illegal weapon anyway without a NFA tax stamp) or the defendant was in violation of the hunting licensure law (i.e. hunting without a license).

The judge appears to be of the opinion that it should go to the jury, which is stupid because it's ultimately a question of the law and the jury is there to decide on the facts. But he's pretty based overall, and hopefully he'll agree to modify the jury instructions so that they accurately reflect the facts required under the law for him to be in violation: A) was he under 18, B) was it a dangerous weapon, C) if (A) and (B), was he also 16-17 years old, D) if (C), was it a long rifle, E) if (C) and (D), was it a short-barreled rifle, and F) if (C) and (D), was he in violation of the hunting law. Then you've got not(A) = not guilty, (A)+not(B) = not guilty, (A)+(B)+not(C) = guilty, (A)+(B)+(C)+not(D) = guilty, (A)+(B)+(C)+(D)+(E) = guilty, (A)+(B)+(C)+(D)+not(E)+(F) = guilty, (A)+(B)+(C)+(D)+not(E)+not(F) = not guilty.

Are you confused yet? Good; the jury would be too. It's a stupidly convoluted law and that's why the judge really should rule on it instead of asking the jury to figure it out. Again, the jury finds facts, the judge is supposed to interpret the law. The facts are not even in question: Kyle was under 18, was carrying a dangerous weapon, was 17, was carrying a long rifle, and wasn't carrying a short-barreled rifle or hunting without a permit. Under the law, if it's interpreted correctly, there's no reasonable way for the jury to find him guilty with these facts. It comes down to how the law is interpreted, and that is not the jury's job, it's the judge's job.

 

[Kosher Salt]

the facts required under the law for him to be in violation: A) was he under 18, B) was it a dangerous weapon, C) if (A) and (B), was he also 16-17 years old, D) if (C), was it a long rifle, E) if (C) and (D), was it a short-barreled rifle, and F) if (C) and (D), was he in violation of the hunting law. Then you've got not(A) = not guilty, (A)+not(B) = not guilty, (A)+(B)+not(C) = guilty, (A)+(B)+(C)+not(D) = guilty, (A)+(B)+(C)+(D)+(E) = guilty, (A)+(B)+(C)+(D)+not(E)+(F) = guilty, (A)+(B)+(C)+(D)+not(E)+not(F) = not guilty.

Just to set the record straight on this, the weapon possession by a minor charge was dismissed, but on yet another reading of the law. The court determined that there are two separate exceptions: a 16-17 year old carrying a long rifle is not in violation of the law unless it's a short-barreled weapon, and someone under 16 is only in violation if they're not in compliance with hunting regulations (one of which only pertains to minors under the age of 16). Kyle fell into the 16-17 age range, and his weapon was not a short-barreled rifle (had it been a SBR, his friend would have been required to obtain a NFA tax stamp to purchase it under Federal law), so as a matter of law it was not illegal for him to carry it.

I'm literally not sure which reading of the law is correct, the one I described initially, or the one that the court took. It's a weird law. The fact that the second exception is an "under 16" exception is not even found in the statute, but in one of the statutes that it references there, so it's really not evident from a plain reading of the law.