inbox485
Regular Member
imported post
Theseus wrote:
While reading on another topic I came across a quote in another case used to ignore the legislative memo on detents in folding knives.
Theseus wrote:
inbox485 wrote:Technically, yes.Still burns that a law which states "private property" wouldn't include private property. Are people now expected not only to memorize the volumes of gun laws but the legislative commentaries regarding them just in case the law doesn't say what the legislature may have meant it to say?
I have to look it up, it might even be in Tapia.
It is assumed in the court that all citizens familiarize themselves of all laws, legislative intent, case law, and judicial interpretations. There was a case on this and I am looking for the cite.
I am trying to find the site, but, as citizens we have to know every in and out of the law, but the police don't. I wonder though. . . a cop is a citizen. . . so why should he not have to know?
While reading on another topic I came across a quote in another case used to ignore the legislative memo on detents in folding knives.
According to this, since the term "private property" is not ambiguous, the legislative intent is irrelevant. If the legislature wants to include private property accessible to the public, they could / can say so.When the language of a specific statute has "'no ambiguity, then we presume the lawmakers meant what they said, and the plain meaning of the language governs.' [Citation.]" (Allen v. Sully-Miller Contracting Co. (2002) 28 Cal.4th 222, 227.)