Capt. Frank
New member
Link Removed
Link Removed
UPDATE (1/20/2014) — Charges Adjusted, Trial Advances
The assistant attorney generals attempted to cut a deal with Witaschek if he pleaded guilty to the charges of “attempted possession” of ammunition. This would have forfeited his eligibility for a jury trial, and could have carried a 6-month jail sentence. Witaschek declined the offer.
The prosecution failed to come up with a good defense of the initial police raid performed without a search warrant. Judge Robert Morin threw out the evidence that was obtained warrantlessly, which eliminated a box of rifle ammo from the charges.
The remaining evidence against Witaschek is a misfired 12-gauge shotgun shell and a box of muzzleloader sabots.
Mr. Witaschek’s jury trial is set to begin February 11th. This would be a golden opportunity the jury to use jury nullification against an immensely unreasonable and unjust law. If convicted, he faces a year in jail and a $1,000 fine for having a single, inoperable shotgun shell in his home.
"Since the night my home was invaded and family terrorized by a militarized D.C. police force, I am more afraid of what government is doing than I am of any of the people I encountered when I spent the night in jail,” Witaschek told the Washington Times‘ Emily Miller.
“The 2nd Amendment was meant to guarantee individuals the right to protect themselves against government — as much as against private bad guys and gangs.”
The Heller case was brought to get the Supreme Court to rule as unconstitutional the total gun ban that had been in effect for 30 years in DC at that time (2008). Heller won, and the Court ordered the revamping of the District's archaic gun laws to comport with its ruling. Emily Miller herself, as well as Mr. Witaschek on whom she is reporting in the linked article, are prime examples of the complete impunity with which DC violates the Court's intention in ruling the way it did in Heller.
So the only question that really needs to be answered is, are the members of SCOTUS nothing more than adherents of the establishment government's steady and unstoppable march towards globalist, collectivist tyranny, or are they simply well-meaning, but wholly unimportant, insignificant and ineffective paper tigers, if/when their rulings go against what the establishment deems as "appropriate" laws to keep enforcing in spite of their rulings? There really is no in between. SCOTUS is either as corrupt as the rest of government, or they're a gaggle of useful idiots who know no more about constitutional liberty than the lawmakers they dishonestly give the "official" imprimatur of ruling "against," and Mr. Witaschek may well become one of the faceless martyrs to come out of the dead-and-gone Constitution that SCOTUS participated in lynching.
If DC convicts this man of a felony, he will lose his gun rights forever. And people wonder why some of us advocate for felons to have their rights restored upon paying their debt to society and being released. Advocates for the other side of that coin should stand up and cheer this man's comeuppance for being a felon. Let's hear it law-and-order boys and girls! "Shall not be infringed" means what exactly to this man? Farewell Amerika, it was nice knowin' ya.
Blues