Statistics
Feb
22
Jury duty and things you wish you had said in a hearing-CO HB 1180-Concealed Carry
February 22, 2009 | Tagged "good" guns versus "bad" guns, Gun control debate, HB 1180, voir dire versus legislative hearings | Leave a Comment
Be careful who you vote for and question your assumptions. As Oliver Cromwell famously said, “I beseech you, …, think it possible you may be mistaken.”
This month, I had two experiences not uncommon for citizens of the United States, but rare in the rest of the world. I answered a summons for jury duty and attended a hearing at the state legislature.
In the course of my experience with the jury, I sat through the voir dire process. The judge and the attorneys in the case asked questions of potential jurors to determine our prejudices and our ability to render a “fair” decision. The attorneys then used peremptory challenges to reduce the jury pool. Each attorney could eliminate five jurors with no questions asked. The lawyers also could have challenged for cause, if they felt that someone would be hostile or unfair to their side of the argument. I’m sure they used their peremptory challenges to eliminate ”problem” jurors, although the judge denied that those challenges were used for that purpose. (Voir dire means, “to see to say,” in French. During the process, the attorneys and the judge get to see what you will say.)
(Notice that I’m not making my usual snarky comments about President Obama’s patronizing, patrician desire that all American Citizens speak another language. Well, OK. You caught me.)
As I understand it, the jury system came to us from English law. The first juries were composed of prominent subjects who knew about a case. This created problems, because the people who knew the most about the case probably had a vested interest in the outcome. The system evolved to select people who “know nothing” about a case, so they can make a decision based on the evidence presented to them. The judge rules on what evidence may be presented to the jury. (Read further down the article for thoughts on “Jury Nulification” in English law.)
In the hearing at the state legislature, I was struck by the lack of a voir dire process for the legislators sitting in judgement of a bill that would benefit gun owners. You could tell by the body language of the legislators which way they would vote, as they listened to citizens testifying before them. You could have checked party affiliation in a legislative directory and come up with almost the same result. Most Democrats were going to vote to kill or gut the bill. Most Republicans were going to vote to move the bill out of committee with a favorable recommendation. The testimony seemed largely irrelevant to the outcome. In the Colorado Legislature, the Democrats have a majority. Pro-individual rights bills typically die.
HB 09-1180 would have allowed concealed carry permit holders to use their permits and another valid picture ID to purchase firearms from licensed dealers and at gun shows in Colorado without going through an often time-consuming background check. Hostile testimony revolved around the possibility of fraudulent documentation and the “need” to make sure that permit holders are currently “worthy” to own a gun, even though their permits are subject to immediate revocation if they commit a crime or become the subject of a restraining order.
A subtext of the hostile testimony and the questioning by Democrat committee members was the idea that they want to make it as hard as possible for law-abiding citizens to obtain firearms. Testimony from a domestic violence prevention group seemed especially confused. About half of the gun attacks against victims of domestic violence are perpetrated by persons who are already prohibited by law from possessing a firearm, according to the group’s own statistics.
In the event, the bill did pass out of committee, stripped of its essential benefit to gun owners. We may have gotten some groundwork laid for future beneficial legislation.
The point of the above information is that our decisions are influenced by our worldview and the perceptions that we bring to a decision making process. Most of the Democrats believed that guns are inherently bad in civilian hands. Most of the Republicans believed that civilian ownership of firearms is helpful in a free society.
Any testimony that challenged preconceptions ran into what psychologists call cognitive consonance and cognitive dissonance. This simply means that persons are likely to accept ideas that conform to their worldview and likely to reject, or at least question information that contradicts their preconceptions. We all do it. In moderation, it is not a bad thing.
In the political process, it means that who you elect is related to the kind of laws that you will get. The merits of an individual bill will probably not be debated or decided upon outside the preconceived perceptions of the legislators. On a rare occasion, a legislator may be swayed by a persuasive logical or emotional argument.
The Left/Liberal/Progressive Side in the gun debate is long on emotion and short on science, in my opinion. (See my posts under the Category: “Research.”) Keep in mind that I’m subject to all the psychological processes mentioned above. I bring my own preconceptions to the debate. The difference, I believe, is that I am aware of the possibility of my own fallibility. I know that I could be wrong. Most of the people on the other side do not seem to realize that they could be mistaken.
One thing that I wish I had pointed out in the hearing was the presence of guns in the hearing room. Four county sheriffs testified on an earlier bill. Three of them were uniformed and carrying semi-automatic handguns, “assault weapons,” with high capacity magazines on their belts. They were likely carrying backup guns in concealed holsters, to protect themselves in the event of a malfunction of their government-issued firearms. The fourth sheriff wore a suit, but I would bet money that he was armed. The “ordinary, common citizens” in the hearing were prohibited by law from being armed on the property of the State Legislature. I wish I had asked the legislators if they felt safer or more threatened in the presence of those firearms.
You might say, “Oh the Sheriffs had a reason to be armed.” Indeed! But when those sheriffs go home, they will still be armed. The sheriffs and their families will have the benefit of that protection. (Colorado Law Enforcement Officers are on duty 24 hours a day and have responsibilities in or out of uniform.) When the Sheriffs retire they will have no problem keeping their privilege of self-defense. No gun control scheme that I could imagine would deny them and their families protection.
For the Liberal legislators, England and Japan are ideal societies. The British Olympic Pistol Team practices in Switzerland, because their guns are illegal on their native soil. In Japan, guns are banned and the police drop in at your home a few times a year to be sure that you are OK and not breaking any laws. (See my posts under the Category: “Foreign Gun Laws.”) (Read The Samurai, The Mountie, and The Cowboy, by David Kopel for a detailed description of how other countries deal with guns and crime.)
Be careful who you vote for and question your assumptions. As Oliver Cromwell famously said, “I beseech you, …, think it possible you may be mistaken.” I may be wrong, but I don’t think so. I believe the other side is mistaken. I don’t believe they ever entertain the possibility that they could be in error.
Def Mech