-
We are now running on a new, and hopefully much-improved, server. In addition we are also on new forum software. Any move entails a lot of technical details and I suspect we will encounter a few issues as the new server goes live. Please be patient with us. It will be worth it! :) Please help by posting all issues here.
-
If you are having trouble seeing the forum then you may need to clear your browser's DNS cache. Click here for instructions on how to do that
-
Please review the Forum Rules frequently as we are constantly trying to improve the forum for our members and visitors.
What happened to some of our stickies?
- Thread starter Venator
- Start date
TheQ
Regular Member
The referenced thread includes many cites
WilDChilD
Regular Member
Forum migration?
DrTodd
Michigan Moderator
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.
Last edited:
TheQ
Regular Member
It's usually impossible to cite something that is legal. Show me the law that says OC is legal (and if you say MCL 28.422, I remind you that one is working on getting repealed and it doesn't address LGOC). Show me the law that says walking across the street is legal.
We can cite resources that discuss a subject matter (recording in public) but we can't cite a law that says it's legal. I'm sure you know anything that isn't illegal is legal -- therefore, often things we do are legal because there is no law making it illegal. In these cases, one cannot cite what doesn't exist.
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
Many will note, I don't post here as often as I once did.
In this thread all I did was refer to a thread on MOC where the information that is in the missing threads (that this post is about) resides.
Last edited:
WilDChilD
Regular Member
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
it would only help MOC. If open carry info was only posted on MOC it would increase traffic to the MOC site (if you type it they will come), which could only help MOC out in the long run. Has little to do with a cite and a lot to do with MOC success.
Bronson
Regular Member
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
Raggs
Regular Member
But, but, you ARE and authority!
Bronson
Regular Member
DrTodd
Michigan Moderator
+1 I've been wrong before and I'm sure I will err again. What I find is a fine example of how our memory doesn't work is when what we think we remember regarding a law is not really what has been discussed...
example 1: I've read on OCDO that if a LEO receives a tip from a person saying that the person has a gun, that tip is not applicable in developing RAS;
example 2: I've read here that a stop predicated on RAS can't take over 20 minutes
Bronson
Regular Member
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
Venator
Anti-Saldana Freedom Fighter
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 it's more of common law.
From Wiki: Everything which is not forbidden is allowed is a constitutional principle of English law — an essential freedom of the ordinary citizen. The converse principle — everything which is not allowed is forbidden — applies to public authorities, whose actions are limited to the powers explicitly granted to them by law.[SUP][1][/SUP]
[SUP]Also an article on this. [/SUP]http://edgeinducedcohesion.wordpress.com/2012/02/20/that-which-is-not-forbidden-is-permitted/
Last edited:
DrTodd
Michigan Moderator
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
TheQ
Regular Member
I know MCL 752.795 all too well!
Though I must admit this is the first I've heard of it being used in a kiddy porn case.
This law is a danger for banned users who knowingly re-register a different name after they are banned -- they could be charged with this, I'd John pressed it.
Last edited:
Bronson
Regular Member
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
Last edited:
DrTodd
Michigan Moderator
As always, a very wise suggestion.