MILLER: Prosecution rests in trial for D.C. man charged for one shotgun shell

The District of Columbia has finished presenting its case on why Mark Witaschek is a danger to society for possessing a single shotgun shell and muzzleloader sabots in his home. This outrageous legal battle shows how far unelected, anti-gun liberals will go to attempt to destroy a man’s life.

When Attorney General Irvin Nathan’s prosecutors rested on Tuesday, they established simply that Mr. Witaschek did not have a registered gun in the city, so he violated the firearms laws by having ammunition.

attempted possession of ammunition
***That gives me a sick feeling. Not possession of a gun, not possession of ammo (blech, are we really at that point already?), but ATTEMPTED possession of ammo.

Any day now, it will be time to head for the hills. This republic is falling apart rapidly.

It’s still a money scam that should be covered on ‘American Greed” with all the other Madoffs!
In 1957 after buying a Brand new Ford , I had to have the Dealer remove a door panel to solve a noise problem.
A line worker placed his empty Pepsi bottle in the driver’s door.
The question is, “How many of us are driving vehicles that have caches we don’t know about?” Drugs, weapons(used in a crime? )etc, etc.
It would be so easy to set an enemy up with a plant and then dropping a dime, it is probably done every day.
Good Luck Pecos

Right before the trial began, Mr. Nathan’s office dropped the charge from possession of unregistered ammunition to attempted possession.
It’s unclear how Mr. Witaschek could attempt to possess something that was in his home, but the facts aren’t the reason for the shift. The lesser charge carries a penalty of six months in jail, which means Mr. Witaschek was not eligible for the jury trial he wanted.

The lesser charge carries a penalty of six months in jail, which means Mr. Witaschek was not eligible for the jury trial he wanted.

Why? The Constitution, in amendment 6, specifically states that the accused shall, in all criminal prosecutions, enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury.

The only way that they could assert that there is no right for a jury trial is to have it be a non-criminal trial — and that means a civil case. But if it is a civil case, then the government is claiming to be the wronged party, and how was it wronged? By the attempted possession of ammunition? How can this possibly be a wrong against the government which is specifically prohibited on infringing on the right of the people to bear arms? Moreover, the ammount in controversy is not that of the shell, but the freedom to [attempt] to possess it, which the charging party says is equal to six-months of freedom… even at the ridiculously low price of ¢12/day this exceeds the 7th Amendment's $20 requirements for the amount in controversy* (¢12 * 180 = $21.60) which means he would be entitled to a jury trial.

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.