There is another thread about doctors asking questions about gun ownership, and it reminded me of an experience I had a few years ago while undergoing Voir Dire, or the Juror Selection process.
One of the attorneys asked the entire group to raise their hand if they owned a gun. I and several others did. Then he asked us to also indicate if we owned more than one. Once again, my hand and several others went up. When he started questioning individuals he asked "How many guns do you own, and what type are they". The people all answered. He never got to me, but as I sat there, I thought about what I would say. I know we have some attorneys on here, tell me how you think this answer would have been received.
"Sir, I am the only person in the world who could answer that question definitively. My family, who I know and trust, doesn't know that. If I am unwilling to share that information with them, I am certainly not willing to share it with a room full of strangers, so I will merely state I own more than one firearm, all completely legally, and leave it at that."
Would I have been within my rights as a potential jurist, or could he have compelled me to give that information?
One of the attorneys asked the entire group to raise their hand if they owned a gun. I and several others did. Then he asked us to also indicate if we owned more than one. Once again, my hand and several others went up. When he started questioning individuals he asked "How many guns do you own, and what type are they". The people all answered. He never got to me, but as I sat there, I thought about what I would say. I know we have some attorneys on here, tell me how you think this answer would have been received.
"Sir, I am the only person in the world who could answer that question definitively. My family, who I know and trust, doesn't know that. If I am unwilling to share that information with them, I am certainly not willing to share it with a room full of strangers, so I will merely state I own more than one firearm, all completely legally, and leave it at that."
Would I have been within my rights as a potential jurist, or could he have compelled me to give that information?
If I needed someone for a self defense claim-you would have stayed. If I needed a juror to buy my argument that my client was just a victum of circumstance that had no idea thee was dope in his pocket-I probably woulda cut you. So it all just depends 
I could just imagine if they had said, for instance, "Sir, the weapon involved in this case was a S&W M29 revolver. What can you tell us about that gun?". I would have had the opportunity to tell them an interesting story about a man named Elmer Keith and the ".44 Associates". They probably would have cut me off after about 10 minutes. Would have been a lot of fun........Then of course they would have struck me.
