Your local beat cop sees you OC every day, today youre covered!

imported post

Citizen wrote:

Found it easy enough.

(b) Every licensee shall have his or her concealed pistol license in his or her immediate possession at all times that he or she is required by this section to have a concealed pistol license and shall display the same upon demand to any police officer or to any other person when and if required by law to do so.

http://apps.leg.wa.gov/RCW/default.aspx?cite=9.41.050

The statute does not require the LEO to first have RAS before demanding the CPL, like for example, a stop-and-identify statute might.

Unless there is case law saying the LEO needs RAS to demand a CPL,I'm thinking it would be smart to exhibit it.

Click to expand...

While the statute at first read appears to require presentation of a CPL to a PO, or to any other person upon demand, there is still a qualifier that seems to have gotten ignored. "When and IF required by law."
That statute didn't make it a law to present a CPL upon demand; it made it a law to present a CPL upon demand when required by law. It looks to me that some additional statute will be needed to show when it is actually required to present the CPL. Does additional statute delineate the times when a CPL must be presented?

Nothing in the statute you link provides for a PO to demand a CPL without RAS. It doesn't state when it is required to be shown.

imported post

hey writeme, i have never been able to find that answer, "when required by law", almost all of my 2, 4, 5 A questions hinge on the RAS to demand your CPL.

look at my topics and read the setup question in my first posts. they are all aimed at finding legal ways to avoid intrussive LEOs.

my first OC was sterrile, so no ID, or CPL to display, but if i needed i could state my name.

nest OC, i took my CPL, just in case, cause i was also CC, 2 guns.

imported post

2, 4, 5 A defender wrote:

hey writeme, i have never been able to find that answer, "when required by law", almost all of my 2, 4, 5 A questions hinge on the RAS to demand your CPL.

look at my topics and read the setup question in my first posts. they are all aimed at finding legal ways to avoid intrussive LEOs.

my first OC was sterrile, so no ID, or CPL to display, but if i needed i could state my name.

nest OC, i took my CPL, just in case, cause i was also CC, 2 guns.

Click to expand...

The statute mentioned by citizen sure seems to lack the RAS mention, or reference to another statute that lists when you are required to display.

Is this a topic that was covered or mentioned in the class?

imported post

2, 4, 5 A defender wrote:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kolender_v._Lawson

http://www.wisbar.org/res/capp/2008/2007ap002731.htm

the first post is the hypothetical situation, i cannot make it any mor clear.

the 2 links above site cases that show, ID cannot be demanded by LEO, without RAS.

Click to expand...

OK. I won't ask for further clarification of your purpose.

I think you are playing a little bit of a dangerous game. But, I might be wrong. So, lets talk it out and see where it leads. Anything that expands understanding can only improve tactics for an OC-police encounter. So, realize I am not arguing with you, I am exploring.

Let me first say that, excluding the members who actually violate the forum no-bashing policy, I am about the strongest critic of police the forum has. I am probably this forum'soriginalpolice basher. I have no tolerance for even the slightest rights infringement by police. I always advocate at least aformal written complaint for even the slightest infringement. Also, I consider the whole CCW permit business an infringement of a basic human right.

With that said, I've been reading court opinions on 4A regarding police encounters for a little over 2 1/2 years. One thing I've definitely learned is that appellate courts have a knack for finding every little possible point of differencewhich to squeeze a legal point. The lesson being that extrapolating from previous cases to determine the legal points of a given scenario can be really tricky. There may be more law, or other quirks in the law which lead to a whole different conclusion. For example, I've seen members argue over whether a certain circumstance gives RAS based on their own experience. Then along comes somebodyelse who quotes the part of Terry that allows an LEO to draw inferences based on his experience.

Another example would be one that had me upset early on. Police seizing guns during traffic stops for officer safety. I was applying Terry. "No, police cannot search car!", I think was my position, "becauseTerry only allows search of the person." I was none too happy when a law student quoteda later court opinion that allowed police to search the passenger compartment forweapons forofficer safety.

Regarding your legal analysis, first lets recognize that is what we are doing--legal analysis. Lets also recognize neither of us are lawyers. (True?)

Next, since your conclusion hinges on an LEO needing RAS to demand a CPL, lets address just that one tiny little point. Nothing else, for the moment. Just that. Once we nail that down, we can explore further. I am interested in this also because my state, like yours, has no requirement to notify, but does have a requirement to exhibit the CCW license document upon LEO demand. If we can come up with something solid that says an LEO does need RAS, I'll drink a pint tonight in celebration.

So, the question presented to our forumcourt is, "Does an LEO need RAS in order to demand to see aCPL?"

You have given that Hiibel and Kolender require RAS for identity. OK. I agree. But, remember what I said about the courts finding differences, things that distinguish one case from another? Here arethe distinctions I see: identity is not a regulated activity. Nor is identity an exception to an otherwise illegal activity:

(1)(a) Except in the person's place of abode or fixed place of business, a person shall not carry a pistol concealed on his or her person without a license to carry a concealed pistol.

Also, Hiibel and Kolender are 5A cases. RAS is a 4A issue.

A license is a regulatory matter. As I mentioned earlier, game wardens do not need RAS to demand your fishing or hunting license. And police can set up a roadblock to check to see if everybody is driving on a valid driver's license, no RAS needed.

imported post

im not taking any class.

the best i can figgure, LEO could demand my CPL if he actualy sees my CCd gun.

see my topic about oc becomes cc infront of a cop.

he maybe could ask if he sees me get into a car or on a bus with my OCd gun (we cant carry a loaded gun in a vehicle without a CPL)

see my topic about oc on a bus sterile carry.

imported post

wrightme wrote:

Citizen wrote:

Found it easy enough.

(b) Every licensee shall have his or her concealed pistol license in his or her immediate possession at all times that he or she is required by this section to have a concealed pistol license and shall display the same upon demand to any police officer or to any other person when and if required by law to do so.

http://apps.leg.wa.gov/RCW/default.aspx?cite=9.41.050

The statute does not require the LEO to first have RAS before demanding the CPL, like for example, a stop-and-identify statute might.

Unless there is case law saying the LEO needs RAS to demand a CPL,I'm thinking it would be smart to exhibit it.

Click to expand...

SNIP While the statute at first read appears to require presentation of a CPL to a PO, or to any other person upon demand, there is still a qualifier that seems to have gotten ignored. "When and IF required by law."
That statute didn't make it a law to present a CPL upon demand; it made it a law to present a CPL upon demand when required by law. It looks to me that some additional statute will be needed to show when it is actually required to present the CPL. Does additional statute delineate the times when a CPL must be presented?

Click to expand...

I think this is aninterpretational question. What I think is called "statutory construction."

One of the rules is that a statutecannot be given a meaning that would void, invalidate, or make it a nullity.

Here it is again, without emphasis:

(b) Every licensee shall have his or her concealed pistol license in his or her immediate possession at all times that he or she is required by this section to have a concealed pistol license and shall display the same upon demand to any police officer or to any other person when and if required by law to do so.

Just for figuring out how much time and attention we should give it for the moment; but remembering I ammaking assumptions that we can always come back and check later, here is my take on it:

I think the phrasing is meant to go this way: "or to any other person when and if required by law to do so." The part about when required by law being a part of the phrase that starts with any other person.

I say this because it would make no sense to write a statute, complete with penalty, requiring exhibit upon LEO demand, but then undermine the statute by saying only when required by law. Attaching the "when required by law" part to the LEO demand part acts to nullify the LEO demand part.

Also, it makessense thatthey were maybe anticipating other situationsof lawrequiring exhibitingthe CPL to non-LEOs,avoiding for themselves having to research all thepossiblepre-existinglaw to reference those laws here.

imported post

God, 245, I thought we'd been over this and beaten the f'ing horse into the ground. Are we just going to pound at what remains of the bloody, muddy pulp now?

You want RAS, fine:
You show up every day, visibly armed.
You show up one day, jacket on, not visibly armed. He can tell you're probably carrying by the bulge under your jacket.
Reasonable, articuable suspicion that a crime is being or is about to be committed, used to request CPL: "You've been openly armed every day. You appear to be still carrying, but it is now concealed. Since I've only seen you open carrying, do you have a permit to concealed carry? May I see it?"

It is illegal to carry a concealed weapon without a permit. The officer has never established you can legally concealed carry. The fact you open carry every time that officer sees you re-enforces the idea that, maybe, you don't have a CPL, but want to be armed for self-protection. Thus, it's both a reasonable and articuable suspicion that you are carrying illegally (concealed sans CPL).

As for the real world, Johnny Law addressed it: why would that officer care? They've seen you a bunch of times. Unless you pissed them off, they have no reason to try to make both your days any more bothersome than needed.

imported post

Citizen wrote:

wrightme wrote:

Citizen wrote:

Found it easy enough.

(b) Every licensee shall have his or her concealed pistol license in his or her immediate possession at all times that he or she is required by this section to have a concealed pistol license and shall display the same upon demand to any police officer or to any other person when and if required by law to do so.

http://apps.leg.wa.gov/RCW/default.aspx?cite=9.41.050

The statute does not require the LEO to first have RAS before demanding the CPL, like for example, a stop-and-identify statute might.

Unless there is case law saying the LEO needs RAS to demand a CPL,I'm thinking it would be smart to exhibit it.

Click to expand...

SNIP While the statute at first read appears to require presentation of a CPL to a PO, or to any other person upon demand, there is still a qualifier that seems to have gotten ignored. "When and IF required by law."
That statute didn't make it a law to present a CPL upon demand; it made it a law to present a CPL upon demand when required by law. It looks to me that some additional statute will be needed to show when it is actually required to present the CPL. Does additional statute delineate the times when a CPL must be presented?

Click to expand...

I think this is aninterpretational question. What I think is called "statutory construction."

One of the rules is that a statutecannot be given a meaning that would void, invalidate, or make it a nullity.

Here it is again, without emphasis:

(b) Every licensee shall have his or her concealed pistol license in his or her immediate possession at all times that he or she is required by this section to have a concealed pistol license and shall display the same upon demand to any police officer or to any other person when and if required by law to do so.

Just for figuring out how much time and attention we should give it for the moment; but remembering I ammaking assumptions that we can always come back and check later, here is my take on it:

I think the phrasing is meant to go this way: "or to any other person when and if required by law to do so." The part about when required by law being a part of the phrase that starts with any other person.

I say this because it would make no sense to write a statute, complete with penalty, requiring exhibit upon LEO demand, but then undermine the statute by saying only when required by law. Attaching the "when required by law" part to the LEO demand part acts to nullify the LEO demand part.

Also, it makessense thatthey were maybe anticipating other situationsof lawrequiring exhibitingthe CPL to non-LEOs,avoiding for themselves having to research all thepossiblepre-existinglaw to reference those laws here.

Click to expand...

That makes sense. "when and if required by law to do so" only puts conditions on "display upon demand" to "other persons."
To rephrase it, no duty to display is inherent in the cited statute where the person "demanding" is not a police officer; unless the person "demanding" is operating under another law.

As a hypothetical example, maybe WA statute would give "display upon demand" status to Fish & Wildlife officers that are not already considered LE.

imported post

2, 4, 5 A defender wrote:

SNIP the best i can figgure, LEO could demand my CPL if he actualy sees my CCd gun.

Click to expand...

Let me go off on a tangent for just a moment. But then I would like to come back, at some point, to the question aboutRAS-before-demand.

In VA we have a state case where a guy on a scooter was searched for a gun because the LEO saw a bulge. As I recall, the court tossed out his conviction on the gun charge (the bulge was a gun) sayinga bulge alone is not enough for RAS.

But, this says nothing about seeing a bulge and demanding aCHP (our CPL).

I'm thinking that an LEO seeing a bulge on someone he knows from previous observation as an OCerwould give RAS. If the OCer was not licensed to carry concealed,he'd bein trouble. Now that I think about it,one the cases citedin Terry has to do withLEOs knowingabout the previous activities of thedetainee. Its awhiskey-running case from the 1930s. Brinegar vs US. I put alink atthe bottom if you are interested. Its kind of interesting, reading aboutthecasualness of the cops andthe whiskey-runner. "How much youhauling today?" "Oh, not much."

I'm guessing if he saw a bulge on an OCer, he could just demand the CPL. But, I'm also thinking if he saw a bulge on anybody in a position where a gun might be carried, he could just demanda CPL as a fishing expedition.

The tricky part comes in when the "anybody" says "ain't got a CPL." Then, what can the cop do? In VA, without something more than just a bulge, I don't think he detain and pat down. BUT! If the "anybody" does have a CPL and pretends to not have one, or refuses to show it, I'm thinking he is now in jeopardy of a citation and penalty for violating RCW 9.41.050. The fun part is, how is the cop going to find out whether the "anybody" has a gun, if a bulge alone is not enough for RAS?

But all this is a little offthe subject.What we really need is a court opinion that really givesus enough totellone way or another whether an LEO needs RAS to demand a CPL. That is the question presented to our forum court. If we cannot find such, I think we have to fall back to the next safest certainty--that the RCW 9.41.050 does not require the LEO to have RAS, and that other regulated activities do not require RAS of the LEO before he demands the document licensing the regulated activity.

Another"safestcertainty" being that we have now figured out that Terry, based on the content of Brinegar, would permit an LEOto detainsomeone he suspected of CCing based on previous observations of OC.



http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/historics/USSC_CR_0338_0160_ZO.html

imported post

NavyLT wrote:

Citizen wrote:

Found it easy enough.

(b) Every licensee shall have his or her concealed pistol license in his or her immediate possession at all times that he or she is required by this section to have a concealed pistol license and shall display the same upon demand to any police officer or to any other person when and if required by law to do so.

http://apps.leg.wa.gov/RCW/default.aspx?cite=9.41.050

The statute does not require the LEO to first have RAS before demanding the CPL, like for example, a stop-and-identify statute might.

Unless there is case law saying the LEO needs RAS to demand a CPL,I'm thinking it would be smart to exhibit it.

Click to expand...

1. Citizen, first of all, according to your reasoning, I can walk up to anybody and demand to see a CPL without RAS, because it says in red above to any other person, and I happen to be any other person.

2. The bolded and underlined part - just because an officer asks to see my CPL does NOT mean that I automatically have to display it to him. An instance where I would have to display it to him is, if during a traffic stop, he sees a loaded gun in my vehicle, then he can ask to see it because now he knows I have to have the CPL in my possession. OR, if I am open carrying within 1,000 ft of school property, by Federal law I have to have a CPL and he can demand to see it then.

3. Just because he gets a hair up his butt and decides to ask to see my CPL does not mean that I have to show it to him. AND, YES, being a resident of Washington who open carries I have been asked by LEO to show my CPL and I simply stated to him that I was not carrying a concealed firearm and therefore did not need to possess or display a CPL and that was the end of that discussion.

Click to expand...

Wonderful. Really. But I think you might be unknowingly misquoting me. The quote you have is from wrightme's post. He added the variety of emphasis after he pulled down my quote to help understanding of his point. The emphasis and break-up of the phrasing is his, not mine. You might go back and check my post where I did a little "statutory construction" exercise to see how it compares to your understanding. That post starts with "I think this is an interpretational question."

With that said, regarding other aspects of your post that do not depend on wrightme's break-up and emphasis, please cite some law so we can evaluate it for ourselves.

For example, what is the other law thatfulfills "whenand if required by law to do so"in regard to exhibiting upon demand in a traffic stop? Meaning what law requires you to exhibit-upon-demand during a traffic stop, such law being different from RCW 9.41.050?

imported post

NavyLT wrote:

SNIP 3. (A)Just because he gets a hair up his butt and decides to ask to see my CPL does not mean that I have to show it to him. (B) AND, YES, being a resident of Washington who open carries I have been asked by LEO to show my CPL and I simply stated to him that I was not carrying a concealed firearm and therefore did not need to possess or display a CPL and that was the end of that discussion.

Click to expand...

With regard to (A), that is the exact question we are discussing. I don't know that simply making a declaration about it really helps. Any of us can make a declaration. What we are trying to do is come up with some legal authority that decides it in one direction or the other.

With regard to (B), although helpful, and a good point for those who might not have known, it does not really settle the question here because it only addresses an OCer who is not CCing. We are talking about an OCer who is CCing.

imported post

I'm never sure I want to wade into these discussions, but here goes . . .

The meaning of the statute is largely dependent on how it is dissected. If the statute had been written in a slightly different format, it might be more clear. Consider this, for example:

Was this the intent of the legislature when writing this bill? Remember that the legislators don't write the bills or statutes, staff and the Code Reviser's Office do (and staff are often junior attorneys). They have to try to capture the legislative intent in sometimes complex and clumsy language.

Reading statutes and drafting this type of language is part of my work. When I read 9.41.050, it seems logical to me that the intent of the language is as I have broken it down above. Had there been three required circumstances for display of a CPL, they would have been enumerated, however with only two they are simply joined bythe conjunction "or." It would have been much more clear if they had inserted a comma after the word "officer."

If they had intended to make display to a police officer required only when specified somewhere else in law, it would have read:

The punctuation makes all the difference, and unfortunately the subtleties are not always dissected until something goes to court and the fine points are argued or a judge makes an interpretation.

Anyway, this is my interpretation. I read the statute as requiring display of a CPL any time it is demanded by a police officer, and since the law requires display there isn't any need for RAS. Adding the clause, "or any other person when and if required to do so by law" is a catch-all that covers any future changes to the law.

Charles

imported post

Charles Paul Lincoln wrote:

SNIP I'm never sure I want to wade into these discussions, but here goes . . .

Click to expand...

Hey!! Please wade in! We're floundering around a bitlackingyourknowledge.

imported post

parphrased from towanos;
you show up every day, visibly armed.
You show up one day, jacket on, not visibly armed.

i havent been wearing a jacket, cause its been so warm, so OC. today its cold and rain, so jacket, so CC. my CC is perfect, there is no bulge!


the absence of a fire arm couldnt possibly be RAS that im carrying a gun.

"You've been openly armed every day. the cop thinks im still carrying, but it is now concealed. the cop wants to know if i havea permit to concealed carry? May I see it?"

this logic is like a cop sees me drive a car every day, assumes im licensed. then the next time he sees me im riding my motorcycle. should he assume that i dont have a MC endorsment?

It is illegal to carry a concealed weapon without a permit.

The officer has never established you can legally concealed carry.

its not the officers responsibility to establish anything! our 4th A keeps the cop from warrantless searching for a violation of law.

The fact you open carry every time that officer sees you re-enforces the idea that, maybe, you don't have a CPL, but want to be armed for self-protection.

what has been re-inforced is the fact that im an upstanding and lawful citizen.

Thus, it's both a reasonable and articuable suspicion that you are carrying illegally (concealed sans CPL).

it is unreasonable an inarticuable suspicion, since there is no evidence of a fire arm on me.

As for the real world, Johnny Law addressed it: why would that officer care?

jonnylaw might be wrong, maybe the cop doesnt like citizens to be armed! maybe the cop wishes he could find a legal reason to roust me! maybe the cop still wants to follow the law and not violate my rights!

this is where the crux of the question is!



by the way i typed at you in my last thread
When OC becomes CC can a CPL be Demanded?

imported post

NavyLT wrote:

Well, crap, Charles Paul Lincoln. I see your point.

Click to expand...

Ahhh, Grasshopper. You are a wise man.

imported post

2, 4, 5 A defender wrote:

SNIP it is unreasonable an inarticuable suspicion, since there is no evidence of a fire arm on me.

Click to expand...

You just have to be a little careful. At the moment the encounter is occurring, it would be unwise to assume too firmly that the officer did not observe something consistent with a firearm. In the case of law-abiding citizens, a bulge, maybe when webend or twist, would be the most likely. The encounter might not go the way we plan, if the cop sees something we assumed wouldn't be noticed.

Cops are trained to look for weapons, by the way. I've read court cases, just a couple, where they saw a crook adjusting his waist band, or the gun in his waist band, or walking funny. In court they say the suspect was doing something "consistent with carrying a concealed handgun."

imported post

you gotta remember, my CC is PERFECT! we know for certain the cop knows nothing!

and i see this discussion is gettin murky.

the RCW says only that , i gotta display it when demanded by LEO! there is no qualifier. like if its on me, weather needed or not, then i have to display. i really dont like that.

see my old thread,DISPLAY YOUR CPL!! to LEO or OTHER person!!!!

i like navylt and agree that a cop with a hair up his a$$. well he has no more legal authority to violate my rights than a cop that does not have a hair up his a$$

imported post

NavyLT wrote:

SNIP I really think that it would hold up in court that you would not be in violation of the statute if you did not display it to an officer if you were not required to be in possession of it. Do you have to display your driver's license to a cop when you are riding a bicycle because he asks for it?

Notice the "and" in the statute:

(b) Every licensee shall have his or her concealed pistol license in his or her immediate possession at all times that he or she is required by this section to have a concealed pistol license and shall display the same upon demand to any police officer or to any other person when and if required by law to do so.

The words "the same" could be interpreted to mean a CPL that a license holder is required to have in their possession. No CPL required to be possessed means no requirement to display the same.

Click to expand...

For what it is worth, this is the same conclusion we've drawn in VA about our statute. Our wording is slightly different, but we've got the same "and" in the same spot in the text.

imported post

Charles Paul Lincoln wrote:

I'm never sure I want to wade into these discussions, but here goes . . .

The meaning of the statute is largely dependent on how it is dissected. If the statute had been written in a slightly different format, it might be more clear. Consider this, for example:

(b) Every licensee shall have his or her concealed pistol license in his or her immediate possession at all times that he or she is required by this section to have a concealed pistol license and shall display the same

(i) upon demand to any police officer or

(ii) to any other person when and if required by law to do so.
​

Was this the intent of the legislature when writing this bill? Remember that the legislators don't write the bills or statutes, staff and the Code Reviser's Office do (and staff are often junior attorneys). They have to try to capture the legislative intent in sometimes complex and clumsy language.

Reading statutes and drafting this type of language is part of my work. When I read 9.41.050, it seems logical to me that the intent of the language is as I have broken it down above. Had there been three required circumstances for display of a CPL, they would have been enumerated, however with only two they are simply joined bythe conjunction "or." It would have been much more clear if they had inserted a comma after the word "officer."

If they had intended to make display to a police officer required only when specified somewhere else in law, it would have read:

. .. upon demand to any police officer, or any other person, when and if required by law to do so.
​

The punctuation makes all the difference, and unfortunately the subtleties are not always dissected until something goes to court and the fine points are argued or a judge makes an interpretation.

Anyway, this is my interpretation. I read the statute as requiring display of a CPL any time it is demanded by a police officer, and since the law requires display there isn't any need for RAS. Adding the clause, "or any other person when and if required to do so by law" is a catch-all that covers any future changes to the law.

Charles

Click to expand...

Very clearly explained Mr. Lincoln. The above was my understanding as well and you saved me the time of trying to type it out in a way that makes sense. This reminds me of about 15 years ago when people were going round and round about the part of 9.41.050 that reads:

"(2)(a) A person shall not carry or place a loaded pistol in any vehicle unless the person has a license to carry a concealed pistol and:
(i) The pistol is on the licensee's person,
(ii) the licensee is within the vehicle at all times that the pistol is there, or
(iii) the licensee is away from the vehicle and the pistol is locked within the vehicle and concealed from view from outside the vehicle."

Many folks read this to mean i AND ii had to be happening OR iii.

I recall there were instances of people in a vehicle, with a CPL but off body carry and since it wasn't on their body, were thought to be in violation. The comma between i and ii caused some folks to read them together, pointing out the "or" for iii to somehow prove as it being a separate exception. The argument was they would have included "OR" instead of a comma between i and ii if they weren't meant to be together.

While I agree that another "OR" might make it clearer, the absence of "AND" holds them apart and commas separating a list of items with an "OR" before the last item has long been proper grammar for "this OR this OR this OR this". If they had used "AND" instead of the "OR" they might have an argument since proper grammar for "This, this, this, AND this" has always meant the items listed to be cumulative.


I think the use of "OR" is important as it separates the "any other person" clause from the police officer clause and the "when required by law" part ONLY modifies the "other person" demand.

You have two instances when you must provide your CPL "Upon demand to any police officer" OR "Any other person when and if required by law to do so"

I am going to go one step further and say it wasn't planning ahead for future laws. I can immediately think of a time I am required to display it to another person by law. When is the last time you all purchased a handgun from an FFL and didn't want to wait to pick it up? What did you have to show for that to happen? Hear those bells going off?



I am not a lawyer, but I did manage to make through some remedial high school English classes, and while lots of it didn't stick (what the hell is a participle?) I remember about "AND, "OR", comma use, and "lists"

imported post

in making a statute binding based upon intention of the legislature and the possible error in writing the law. The statute must stand AS WRITTEN. If a "loophole" is created in that statute by some error of punctuation or grammar, then that "loophole" must be honored. I simply admit that I had apparently interpreted the statute incorrectly AS IT IS WRITTEN, notwithstanding the intention of the legislators.

Click to expand...

"In law, the legislative intent of the legislature in enacting legislation may sometimes be considered by the judiciary when interpreting the law (see judicial interpretation). The judiciary may attempt to assess legislative intent where legislation is ambiguous, or does not appear to directly or adequately address a particular issue.

When a statute is clear and unambiguous, the courts have said, repeatedly, that the inquiry into legislative intent ends at that point. It is only when a statute could be interpreted in more than one fashion that legislative intent must be inferred from sources other than the actual text of the statute." - Wikipedia.

Not the most scholarly source, I know, but I'm not about to spend significant time citing a legal premise that is well understood. Simply put, if the statute is clear and unambiguous on its face, the court applies it as written; if a statute is ambiguous or unclear, the court may use legislative intent (as evidenced by legislative documents,artifacts, or testimony) to support a judicial interpretation.

Charles Paul Lincoln

PS -- not ironic, but rather intentional: Adam, Boy, Charles, David, Edward, Frank, etc.

ETA: Forgot my alphabet!