While the judge's instructions didn't have the ring of fairness, a county courtroom is not the place to decide the constitutionality of the anti-gun ordinance. What the heck is the purpose of this question, since the judge had already plainly said he was not going to give those instructions? Grant was yanking the judge's chain, and got exactly the response he was looking for -- and deserved. He's a showboat, and it seems Stanley is too.
This whole thing sounds like Stanley is trying to elevate his status within the LP rather than actually win a case or even start a movement. After all, what other LP candidate is getting this much ink in the mainstream press in Denver?
1. Establish a prospective juror's intent & ability to follow directions. Using an example involving a question which will not be asked maintains neutrality (as opposed to asking a likely question and eliciting answers before their proper time).
2. Further document the judge's refusal to permit jurors to consider relevant plain-language supreme law which would nullify city law and thus excuse the defendant; document the judge insisting that state & federal constitutions do not apply (thus setting the trial up not only for overturning the verdict on appeal, but also for impeachment and removal of the judge).
3. Antagonize a judge who is making it clear that he is the law.
Remember: Stanely KNEW he would be convicted, and needed to gather certain evidence that the court was acting with gross negligence and arrogance, so he would be prepared for appeals.