Armed Polite Society
Main Forums => The Roundtable => Topic started by: Ben on June 02, 2021, 02:24:15 PM
-
...is no excuse for not following it.
I was watching the below youtube video by that guy who does the cartoon ATF guy. This one was on California gun laws, and in the video, at 2:05, he quotes something that the CA Supreme Court supposedly said: "Just because the law is impossible to follow is no excuse for not following it."
He claims that's an actual and true quote. I have not looked to verify it yet, but if true, wow. The rest of the video is pretty good too. Funny but not funny, if you know what I mean.
https://youtu.be/B9AsUDAgd28
-
This was in respect to the California microstamping law.
Impossibility can occasionally excuse noncompliance with a statute, but in such circumstances, the excusal constitutes an interpretation of the statute in accordance with the Legislature's intent, not an invalidation of the law.
While they may prevent the execution of punishment for falling afoul of an impossible law, they claimed they can't overturn it just because it is impossible to comply with it.
-
Brilliant.
Only someone with a law degree could write something that stupid.
-
Brilliant.
Only someone with a law degree could write something that stupid.
For the libtard authoritarians that is a feature, not a bug.
-
I am sort of guessing it is saying they need to make the attempt even if the attempt is sure to fail. I could be wrong.
-
This was in respect to the California microstamping law.
While they may prevent the execution of punishment for falling afoul of an impossible law, they claimed they can't overturn it just because it is impossible to comply with it.
Assuming that's what the court actually said, I agree with it. If a law is impossible to follow it is unenforceable -- for now, anyway. Technology marches on and what's impossible now might be possible next month. So it doesn't give the courts reason to overturn it. They can overturn a law if it's unconstitutional, but the Constitution is silent on this.
That said, if a judge accepts that a law is impossible but find someone guilty of breaking it anyway, he (she) should be shot. That would be a good job for the bailiff.
-
Assuming that's what the court actually said, I agree with it. If a law is impossible to follow it is unenforceable -- for now, anyway. Technology marches on and what's impossible now might be possible next month. So it doesn't give the courts reason to overturn it. They can overturn a law if it's unconstitutional, but the Constitution is silent on this.
That said, if a judge accepts that a law is impossible but find someone guilty of breaking it anyway, he (she) should be shot. That would be a good job for the bailiff.
What if the "impossible" law results in a de facto ban?
We're talking about micro=stamping. If the law requires that arms and/or ammunition must be microstamped after ____ date, and the industry cannot produce firearms and/or ammunition that satisfy the law by the effective date, then "compliance" isn't impossible. The way you "comply" is that you don't buy a gun or ammunition. But the Constitution says we have a right to keep and bear arms, so allowing this "impossible" law to remain in effect constitutes a functional prohibition on the exercise of a constitutionally-guaranteed right.
-
Until a couple of decades ago, here in St. Louis, you needed a "letter of reference" from a "respected person" to purchase a handgun.
If you were black, well, the letter obviously wasn't from a respected person.
Gee...
-
Ayn Rand was too prescient.
Did you really think we want those laws observed?" said Dr. Ferris. "We want them to be broken. You'd better get it straight that it's not a bunch of boy scouts you're up against... We're after power and we mean it... There's no way to rule innocent men. The only power any government has is the power to crack down on criminals. Well, when there aren't enough criminals one makes them. One declares so many things to be a crime that it becomes impossible for men to live without breaking laws. Who wants a nation of law-abiding citizens? What's there in that for anyone? But just pass the kind of laws that can neither be observed nor enforced or objectively interpreted – and you create a nation of law-breakers – and then you cash in on guilt. Now that's the system, Mr. Reardon, that's the game, and once you understand it, you'll be much easier to deal with.
-
What if the "impossible" law results in a de facto ban?
We're talking about micro=stamping. If the law requires that arms and/or ammunition must be microstamped after ____ date, and the industry cannot produce firearms and/or ammunition that satisfy the law by the effective date, then "compliance" isn't impossible. The way you "comply" is that you don't buy a gun or ammunition. But the Constitution says we have a right to keep and bear arms, so allowing this "impossible" law to remain in effect constitutes a functional prohibition on the exercise of a constitutionally-guaranteed right.
I said impossibility is of itself not grounds for the judicial branch to overturn a law, it's grounds for not enforcing it. There may be other grounds for overturning it; constitutional issues.
-
Fortunately, not all judges think that way (although I suspect that most do). There was a case rather recently in which a judge ruled that a law was unconstitutional. It was a criminal case and, IIRC, the state appealed and the appeals court sent it back to the lower court with the admonition that judges aren't supposed to find laws unconstitutional "if they can be saved."
So the judge wrote a new ruling, essentially thanking the appeals court for the reminder and then writing a lengthy treatise on why the law could not be saved -- and then restating his decision that the law was unconstitutional.
-
Ayn Rand had it right.
The left wants to ignore lawbreaking by its allies, and viciously punishing anything questionable by the right.
We have seen this clearly with leftist rioters being ignored or aided, and anyone fighting back against their attacks being prosecuted.
-
...is no excuse for not following it.
I was watching the below youtube video by that guy who does the cartoon ATF guy. This one was on California gun laws, and in the video, at 2:05, he quotes something that the CA Supreme Court supposedly said: "Just because the law is impossible to follow is no excuse for not following it."
He claims that's an actual and true quote. I have not looked to verify it yet, but if true, wow. The rest of the video is pretty good too. Funny but not funny, if you know what I mean.
https://youtu.be/B9AsUDAgd28
A bit more background: https://reason.com/2018/06/29/californias-top-court-impossible-laws-no/