I suspect the judge has already ruled that the issue of constitutionality is a matter for the Court, as it is a question of law. Questions of law are for judges. That is why the constitutional issue may not be raised in front of the jury.
Where it gets dicey is where disputed facts are in issue and those facts impact the constitutional decision. In that case, the judge would probably have to instruct the jury about the Colo constition and the 2nd amendment (as interpreted by the courts previously). The jury would then apply the instructions to the facts it finds.
But I don't think there are any disputed issues of fact. Both Stanley and the state agree that he held an unconcealed handgun in public. So it is not clear to me that the jury has any role here in the constitutional issue as there are no disputed facts that affect the constitutional issue.
As to the composition of the jury pool--every jury pool in every substantial city is disproportionately made up of Civil Servants. That is always what you get. So I wouldn't read any conspiracy into that.
I'm a strong second amendment and CCW advocate. But in this case, the constitutional issue seems to me to be a decision for appeal, not for the jury.
In fact, if the jury says "not guilty", that would have no precedential value at all in overturning Denver's ridiculous gun laws. Those will only get overturned if there is a decision by a judge that the Denver gun law is unconstitutional--either a trial judge or an appellate decision. (An appellate decision would have vastly more impact than a trial court decision. )
If Stanley is acquitted by the jury, there can be no appeal (there are some exceptions for this rule, eg bad jury instructions etc). Generally, the prosecution cannot appeal an acquittal. An acquittal by the jury has no precedential value on the constitutional question at all. Denver could keep on arresting people under the existing gun laws. But an appellate decision (even intermediate appeals court) would probably be binding precedent over Denver.
As I understand it, Stanley's purpose was to overturn the gun laws, so I do not understand his attorney's actions other than publicity oriented grandstanding.
Colorado has a very nice constitutional provision regarding RKBA. Much stronger than the 2nd amendment, although it expressly exempts concealed carry from its provisions. But it is dubious that, after 20+ years of democrat governors appointing justices, we will get a decision that actually applies the language or intent of the constitution.
guilty for exercising his second amendment right!!!
SOME FREE COUNTRY WE LIVE IN!!!
As I understand it, Stanley's purpose was to overturn the gun laws, so I do not understand his attorney's actions other than publicity oriented grandstanding.
I think they (the defendant and lawyer) wanted a guilty verdict so the case could be put up for appeal. As for the lawyer acting as he did, obviously with the consent of his client, was to document the unjust even undermining character of the law and courts that uphold it. IMO, job well done, so far. It's not just the law that is unjust, so are the people that passed the law and those that uphold the unjust law. And the spectators get to witness government officials championing unjust law over just law.
THIS would seem to support that assertion.
I don't know how Colorado's constitution reads on the RKBA, but for a Second Amendment defense a relevant 'fact' would be whether the weapon in question was of a type suitable for use in a well-functioning militia (see Miller--the decision, not the syllabus).
I see four issues in this case, two dealing with factual matters being shown in bold.: