Thanks for your civil & polite reply.
It is not that I am looking for a way to avoid jury duty, as I have said before. It is just that I try, as a "concerned citizen", to consider what is just or not when I make decisions. I expect that our elected legislators would do the same, as well as those in the judiciary, meaning in particular, prosecutors/Dist. Atty, et al..
Unfortunately, it seems that at the top of the system, there are certain legislators from States, all the way to those in the US Congress, who think it is just fine to propose & try to implement laws that are un constitutional at their core, and foregoing their own oath to not make laws that are unconstitutional since they swear to "uphold" the US Constitution. Then there are the prosecutors who then try to use such laws to prosecute persons not just to "uphold the law", but to accomplish some other agendas , such as self promotion as a success & as a stepping stone to other more influential( powerful) positions in the future. With that, there are also those prosecutors who will allow other laws to be prosecuted as a result of those unconstitutional laws until they are overthrown by a higher court, while in the meantime the ones accused & if found guilty of such laws still have to suffer until their cases are overturned.
Earlier I used the proposed Federal "Red Flag" laws ( Some states have already implemented them) as an example, and while it may not interest some, I am going to use that proposed legislation to provide an example of what I was trying to get folks to consider earleir to help demonstrate why I think the way I do.
If someone has their property confiscated( firearms) before they have committed a crime, then they are not given "Due Process" under the law as per the US Constitution & the 5th & 14th Amendments. That being the case, if then, while those confiscated firearms are in the possession of the authorities it is discovered that one of those firearms was used in a crime before the person the firearms became the owner of that firearm, the person who had the firearms confiscated could be charged with a crime related to that firearm, & prosecuted for it, even if they had not bee the one involved in any crime & were unaware of the firearms criminal use.
That type of thing would be wrong, in my thinking, and those who would use(prosecute) a law that was unconstitutional to further the prosecution of a law that "was" constitutional, would not be using fair & just practices to obtain a conviction. Basically using "illegal" means to prosecute.
So, even if the person was found to be innocent of the reason for their firearms being confiscated in the first place, the "punishment" of the confiscation illegally, then would result in a further infringement by making the accused person unwittingly be a "witness against themselves" as per the 5th amendment because of the illegal & unconstitutional confiscation in the first place.
This hypothetical can be switched around to any crime that becomes the "fruit of a poisonous tree", so it is not just about the Red Flag type laws, but any law that is put into place that is unconstitutional or the evidence is obtained thru such measures.
Anyone who is willing to be a part of an unjust prosecution, including the jurors, is not much a leap from "lynching" even if the punishment is not hanging. It would be acting as a part of a "kangaroo court", and justice would not be served in a fair manner if it was to be allowed.
OK, I will stop now & bow out & go do other things. I am just one who is quite zealous in my intention to try to make sure that folks are not ignorant of certain concepts that could have direct bearing on not only others, but on themselves if these situationsand potential laws are implemented.
IOW... it could happen to YOU to be on one side(jury) or the other(accused) in regard to such laws & it might behoove folks to be aware of some of the things that might concern themselves or others who they care about if these laws are put into effect.
I'm done now. Thanks for your patience.