(C) 2000. Permission is granted to print, copy, and distribute hard (non-electronic) copies of this page freely and without royalties of any kind, provided that it is not altered in any manner.
Leaflets from this and other sources encourage jurors to nullify, or refuse to enforce, gun control laws when they're broken by otherwise law-abiding citizens. Don't let anyone tell you that we're trying to make police officers' jobs harder.
Yes, jury nullification literature encourages contempt for certain laws: laws that deserve contempt, not only from civilians but also from police officers. However, as a police officer, you may be compelled to enforce laws with which you disagree. Jury nullification allows jurors to undercut not you, but the politicians and political appointees who made the laws. We're talking about people who never walked a beat or rode a graveyard shift patrol in their entire lives. We're talking about people who never responded to an emergency call, never gave first aid to an unarmed citizen whom they found lying in his or her own blood, never rode an ambulance as a paramedic, never turned out for a fire call, and quite possibly (in the case of professional politicians) never did a lick of real work in their entire worthless lives. We're talking about people who may be your bosses even though they're not worthy to boss a minimum-wage worker, let alone a trained police officer.
We're also talking about Handgun Control Incorporated, whose cop-killer propaganda about a phony and nonexistent issue put officers' lives at risk by drawing criminals' attention to certain pieces of police equipment. HCI is content to get children killed in gun mishaps by keeping the NRA's Eddie Eagle safety program ("Stop. Don't touch. Leave the area. Tell an adult.") out of schools, and they're apparently content to get police officers killed too; it's the price that must be paid to advance their oh-so-worthy agenda. Meanwhile, Bill Clinton, another dreg of society that happened to find its way into a political office, wants to force police departments to buy Smith and Wesson handguns. He doesn't care if police officers think another sidearm might be more effective. He'll push his agenda even if it gets a few cops killed.
Bad bosses put good cops in bad situations
Incidents like the Los Angeles and Crown Heights riots, and the recent (summer of 2000) "wilding" in Central Park make police officers look bad. "Dial 911 and Die" is the title of a recent anti-gun control book. The accidental but noncriminal shooting of Amadou Diallo inspires a prominent musician to sing, "41 shots." Who is really at fault, though? Is it the officers who decide not to intervene in a riot because there are simply too many rioters, or is it the governor who won't give them backup with State Police and National Guard personnel? Did the Diallo shooting result from poor judgment by officers, or was its root cause overly-aggressive rules of engagement from the little tin god and second-rate Benito Mussolini wannabee in the New York Mayor's office?
Armed citizens are your friends
The armed citizen, even one who is breaking your city's or state's gun laws, is not your enemy. He or she is not going to be your problem in a robbery, kidnapping, or gang war. If he/she sees a violent crime "going down," he may not intervene if doing so would reveal a weapon that's illegal in your jurisdiction. However, the kind of person who takes the personal responsibility to defend himself against violent crime has the mindset that will result in the phone call that may let you get there in time to do something that will make you feel very good about your job when you go home that day; handcuffing a violent thug and taking a statement from a live victim instead of trying to get clues from a dead one. It's the gun control supporter who's more likely to look the other way, the way a few dozen New Yorkers did for Kitty Genovese-- unless, of course, the gun control supporter is also the perp, like the Million Mom Marcher who was recently arrested for an alleged vigilante-style shooting.
The armed homeowner or apartment dweller-- even one in New York, Chicago, or Washington DC where guns are illegal-- is the one who will present you with a solution: a violent thug held at gunpoint for your convenient apprehension, with enough evidence for a good violent felony bust. It's the unarmed one who is likely to present you with one more problem that will demand dozens or hundreds of hours that your already overburdened department doesn't have.