Sounds like it's time for the jury in the case to invoke the doctrine of Juror nullification. What was he supposed to do, let them beat him to death with a pipe?

Even if he was guilty of a so-called drug offense he still has a God given right to self defense. Even animals have that, and God has given them the tools to protect themselves, teeth, claws, stingers and fangs. He has given man the ability to create his own self-defense tools as well, the most practical and useful being the gun.

Jury nullification - YES!

It is my believe that the Constitutions does not deny anyone the right to self-defense and this includes a convicted felon. If your debt to society is paid then you should not be denied the right to bear arms. If you are a violent criminal than you should be in lock down. As a second thought the Constitution does not guarantee the right to bear arms in stops the government from infringing upon the right!

There it is again. Obviously this guy has paid his debt to society, yet he is being denied his right to bear arms in his own defense? As Mr. Bumble said in Oliver Twist "If the law supposes that� the law is a ass�a idiot."

I agree that the jury should be made aware of their ability to overrule the law and not convict no matter what the evidence is. The prior conviction was for a relatively minor crime and the choice of obeying the law and dying to obey it is clearly not acceptable. I have read of two other cases which led to acquital of a felon in possession of a gun. In one, a bartender about be killed grabbed a gun stored under the bar and killed his attacker. He immediately put it down and called the police. The judge ruled he had the gun for a very short time and only to protect himself so he didn't really "possess" it. In the other, a witness did not get the police protection he was promised and was being threatened by those he was going to testify against. He started carrying and had to defend himself. Again, he did what he had to do but only to the extent he had to and was acquitted. Good luck to this fella.

Hmmm,
on the other hand a country that thinks terrorists captured on the battlefield and held outside the country should be able access the US courts and exercise constitutional rights should have no problem with restoring gun rights to people who have paid their debt to society.

Excellent example of why there shouldn't be any Federal Firearms laws. The BAT&F and U.S. attorneys are those "officials" our Founders warned us about in the Declaration of Independence. Yes, this is a case for Juror nullification. So he sold drugs. The BAT&F killed a 14 year old boy and the FBI killed his 42 year old mother at Ruby Ridge. So the FBI and BAT&F should not have guns.
At least he is alive so he can fight the charges. Where do I send a contribution?

We are at the point where our Federal Government has become so prone to oppressing the People, that a revolution is due. Thomas Jefferson expected a revolution every generation. We are long overdue.

Whether the revolution will be peaceful, or, as I expect, (with the Federal programs house of cards about to come crashing down (with the economy) extremely violent, we are long past due.

Ironically, the Feds have no Constitutional authority to regulate drugs. They didn't have any authority to regulate alcohol - so an Amendment was passed (and later repealed) prohibiting alcohol. But no such Amendment exists for drugs. So the Federal Government has NO legitimate authority to ban drugs.

Jury Nullification should apply to ever Federal prosecution for possession or distribution of drugs. Too bad the People aren't smart enough to know when they're selling their Country to the Nazis.