Bronson
Regular Member
I wouldn't trust them to "know" Michigan's firearms laws; I'd still ask for a citation. No offense, but to take anyone's word for it is dangerous.
And stupid.
Bronson
I wouldn't trust them to "know" Michigan's firearms laws; I'd still ask for a citation. No offense, but to take anyone's word for it is dangerous.
I wouldn't trust them to "know" Michigan's firearms laws; I'd still ask for a citation. No offense, but to take anyone's word for it is dangerous.
The referenced thread includes many cites
The referenced thread includes many cites
I sure hope so. In general though, because I believe that many people seem to be advocating leaving OCDO because one shouldn't need to cite that which is legal, I would hope that those who advocate such are in the minority. People spent such a large amount of time being offended at being asked for a cite, when just providing one would have taken but a few moments, and then later advocated "migrating" because they were asked for a cite... but yet still failed to provide a citation, it makes me wonder.
AFA migrating, that idea was started by an individual. I have considered it myself, but hadn't state so publicly up until that point. Obviously, I've yet to succeed in regards to myself .
I'm sure you know anything that isn't illegal is legal
Pretend I'm a new guy....
How do you know that? Please provide a cite that explains the above idea.
For the new folks, that right there is an example of the things you should ask to see a citation for. Don't take TheQ's, or DrTodd's, or my, or anybody's word for it...ask to see something in print from some authority.
Bronson
But, but, you ARE and authority!
Pretend I'm a new guy....
How do you know that? Please provide a cite that explains the above idea.
For the new folks, that right there is an example of the things you should ask to see a citation for. Don't take TheQ's, or DrTodd's, or my, or anybody's word for it...ask to see something in print from some authority.
Bronson
+1 I've been wrong before and I'm sure I will err again.
I'm sure you know anything that isn't illegal is legal
Under the common law rule of lenity, courts must strictly construe penal statutes in order to avoid a violation of the due process rights of the accused. Thus, in criminal cases where two reasonable interpretations of a penal statute exist, one inculpating and the other exculpating a defendant, a court must employ the less harsh reading.
Here's an example that I just looked up (not of you being wrong :lol.
Earlier in this thread TheQ posted this:
We have been told by a well respected attorney that is very knowledgable in MI firearms law that the above idea comes from the Rule of Lenity.
However, when I looked up the Rule of Lenity it doesn't state "anything not expressly illegal is legal," it states:
http://www.worldlawdirect.com/article/1697/rule-lenity.html
That's just one source. All of the sources I could find gave a similar definition. So who's definition do we believe, the lawyer's or the law dictionary's?
Don't misconstrue what I'm writing to mean that I think every legal action must be documented as being allowed by law...that would be silly, but the legal rule that articulates the idea that "everything not expressly illegal is legal" must be something other than the Rule of Lenity....even though that's what we have been told.
Bronson
Here's an example that I just looked up (not of you being wrong :lol.
Earlier in this thread TheQ posted this:
We have been told by a well respected attorney that is very knowledgable in MI firearms law that the above idea comes from the Rule of Lenity.
However, when I looked up the Rule of Lenity it doesn't state "anything not expressly illegal is legal," it states:
http://www.worldlawdirect.com/article/1697/rule-lenity.html
That's just one source. All of the sources I could find gave a similar definition. So who's definition do we believe, the lawyer's or the law dictionary's?
Don't misconstrue what I'm writing to mean that I think every legal action must be documented as being allowed by law...that would be silly, but the legal rule that articulates the idea that "everything not expressly illegal is legal" must be something other than the Rule of Lenity....even though that's what we have been told.
Bronson
I think part of the problem in following the respected attorney's statement is that one often doesn't know how the law has been used to cover certain behaviors. For example, MCL 752.795 has been used to prosecute a number of behaviors that may appear to be legal but has been deemed otherwise*.
*
http://coa.courts.mi.gov/resources/...rtPage=0&includeunpublished=on&Submit1=Search
I think it's more of common law.
Agreed. I knew the principle existed. My point was that we have been told, by a person with knowledge on the subject, that the name of that principle was the Rule of Lenity. So without further researching it ourselves we go out and try to educate people on this principle, all the time calling it by the incorrect name. All of this just because we took somebody's word for something. Somewhere down the line somebody looks up the Rule of Lenity and finds it doesn't mean what we taught them it means and we lose credibility.
This is admittedly a very small example to illustrate why asking for cites is important. If we take at face value everything that is told to us what we are getting is that person's interpretation or remembrance of the information, which we all get wrong from time to time. Hell, how many times have we told people that cite the MSP FAQ on CPLs to look at the actual law because the MSP interpretation leaves out important information?
The gist of this whole thing is just a heads-up for the new folks. Ask for cites. Don't take our interpretation as the correct one. Read the laws and AG opinions, and court cases for youself. Ask questions, debate, and come to your own conclusions because at the end of the day if you're sitting in a courtroom telling the judge "but the people on the internet said..." isn't going to cut it.
Bronson