Glock exec testified he would keep doing business with indicted dealers because... wait for it...

[Savannahmann]

6. OK, let's be honest for a moment shall we?

First, I do not support private ownership of firearms.

Second, the dealer even though charged, had obviously not had his Federal Firearms Dealers license revoked. As such, even though charged with a crime, he was still legally able to conduct business. There is more than a small truth in the statement that you are innocent until proven guilty. The Government must prove beyond a reasonable doubt to the jury that the Defendant, even if I think he is the most terrible person in the world. The Jury should not start from a point of view that the defendant must prove his innocence. I utter an obscenity every time I hear a court observer saying that the Defense did not prove their case. The defense need not prove anything, the prosecution must prove the charges are true.

We must do things the right way, because only in doing those things, like charging, trying, and convicting a man of a crime, can we as a people be proud of the outcome. If we cheat, lie, and change the standard of innocence until proven guilty, then we all suffer.

To that end, I have long detested the RICO act. I admire the idea, stopping the proliferation of profit from criminal activity. I detest the means. Under RICO, you are guilty unless you can prove that you got all you have by strictly legal means. The courts have found, erroneously in my opinion, that it does not violate the Constitution, because defendants are not in danger of life or freedom, only in losing property.

Our freedoms must be applied always, even if the defendant is one we detest. Because if we turn our back on the proper means once, we'll find it easier to do so the next time, and the time after that. It is a path that leads to darkness, and one which we can't ever come back from.