[OneWingedShark]

Incidentally, if I were being questioned in voir dire, I would truthfully respond that I would decide cases based upon the law, and I would do precisely that. If they ask whether I would follow judicial instructions, I would respond, "If you tell me what the law is, I will follow it."

What then would you do in the case I put forth in post 154 wherein the state law being cited would be in direct opposition against the State Constitution? (ie Is that statute still a [valid] law?, if so, then how would you reconcile it against the authority/law that is the State Constitution?)

[supercat]

What then would you do in the case I put forth in post 154 wherein the state law being cited would be in direct opposition against the State Constitution?

The state constitution is law. No state statute may be legitimately applied in any way contrary to the state constitution. For me to convict the person, the prosecutor would have to show beyond a reasonable doubt that the firearm was not being carried for a legitimate security, defense, or other lawful purpose. Until the prosecutor presents his case, I would have no way of knowing whether the evidence would show that or not.