Warning

 

Close

Confirm Action

Are you sure you wish to do this?

Confirm Cancel
Member Login
Site Notices
1/25/2018 7:38:29 AM
Posted: 7/7/2002 2:57:44 PM EST
If ignorance of the law is no excuse for breaking it, how is someone who is unable to read the entire code supposed to know what he or she can and can't do under the law?
Link Posted: 7/7/2002 3:06:11 PM EST
Originally Posted By anti-gov-tinfoil-man: If ignorance of the law is no excuse for breaking it, how is someone who is unable to read the entire code supposed to know what he or she can and can't do under the law?
View Quote
They're not. The name of the game, is to make everyone a criminal, that way everyone has something to fear. Keeps the sheep in line...Get it??
Link Posted: 7/7/2002 3:08:26 PM EST
Originally Posted By liberty86:Get it??
View Quote
Yes, that's why I brought it up.
Link Posted: 7/7/2002 3:14:55 PM EST
Yes, I suppose non-legal types don't know in advance that murder, theft, robbery, rape, mayhem, are things that you must not do! There are things that are [i][b]malum in se[/b][/i], which means that the act is so obviously wrong that no one would doubt otherwise. Such as the previous examples of murder, etc. There are crimes that are [i][b]malum prohibitum[/b][/i], which means that only because we have decided that such acts are wrong, we will punish the offender. It is not obvious that the acts are wrong in themselves. Such as Martha Stewart selling stock as the result of insider information. Martha would argue, but that's what friends are supposed to do! Help you by giving you the little stock tips. We have decided that such activity is bad for a host of reasons, some of which are not patently obvious! Eric The(LegalType)Hun[>]:)]
Link Posted: 7/7/2002 3:17:06 PM EST
It has to be that way, or else the state could never convict anyone of most of their criminal charges. How can you prove whether someone knew a section of the criminal code? In reality, the list of crimes has never been so huge and vast in the history of law. There is simply no way to know many of the laws. The criminal environmental statutes actually have regulations attached, a lawyer could spend years in the field and not completely understand what is a criminal act in all posible situtations.
Link Posted: 7/7/2002 3:17:13 PM EST
Originally Posted By EricTheHun: There are crimes that are [i][b]malum prohibitum[/b][/i], which means that only because we have decided that such acts are wrong, we will punish the offender. It is not obvious that the acts are wrong in themselves.
View Quote
So if it's not obvious that such things are wrong, and the list of such things is too large for any one person to completely learn, what's a guy to do?
Link Posted: 7/7/2002 3:18:20 PM EST
This has been a question of mine in the case of tax law in particular. If this abomination is incomprehensible to even accountants that specialize in it, how can the average Joe be held responsible for a screw up? Couldn't it be argued that since the general populace can't make heads or tails of it that it is unconstitutional? Stepped-init
Link Posted: 7/7/2002 3:20:41 PM EST
Hun beat me to the Latin punch...damnit. It's made complicated so that lawyers can have a job...just kidding about that. By "unable to read the entire code" I suppose that you mean the person is illiterate. If "unable to read the entire code" means something other than this, you are probably trying to say that they don't have access to the code itself, or even if they did they wouldn't know how to comprehend it. You would be wrong on both counts there, however. Any US Law is free and open to the public through our library system and other free (as in 'no cost') public information centers. As for interpretation, if you do not understand something, you have the responsibility to either ask an attorney, police officer, state entity, etc.
Link Posted: 7/7/2002 3:27:57 PM EST
Originally Posted By dissipator556: Hun beat me to the Latin punch...damnit. It's made complicated so that lawyers can have a job...just kidding about that. By "unable to read the entire code" I suppose that you mean the person is illiterate. If "unable to read the entire code" means something other than this, you are probably trying to say that they don't have access to the code itself, or even if they did they wouldn't know how to comprehend it. You would be wrong on both counts there, however. Any US Law is free and open to the public through our library system and other free (as in 'no cost') public information centers. As for interpretation, if you do not understand something, you have the responsibility to either ask an attorney, police officer, state entity, etc.
View Quote
How many pages are you talking about here?
Link Posted: 7/7/2002 3:31:14 PM EST
Originally Posted By dissipator556: Hun beat me to the Latin punch...damnit. It's made complicated so that lawyers can have a job...just kidding about that. By "unable to read the entire code" I suppose that you mean the person is illiterate. If "unable to read the entire code" means something other than this, you are probably trying to say that they don't have access to the code itself, or even if they did they wouldn't know how to comprehend it. You would be wrong on both counts there, however. Any US Law is free and open to the public through our library system and other free (as in 'no cost') public information centers. As for interpretation, if you do not understand something, you have the responsibility to either ask an attorney, police officer, state entity, etc.
View Quote
Why should you be required to ask someone? aren't the laws written for the people? Stepped-init
Link Posted: 7/7/2002 3:52:21 PM EST
Originally Posted By anti-gov-tinfoil-man: So if it's not obvious that such things are wrong, and the list of such things is too large for any one person to completely learn, what's a guy to do?
View Quote
something along the line of rubey ridge, and waco comes to mind..
Link Posted: 7/7/2002 4:32:26 PM EST
If you're gonna go cutting down shotgun bbls, or traveling to another state to go shooting, it would be a good idea to post a question or two on AR15.COM. I don't see why this is so tough to do.
Link Posted: 7/7/2002 4:39:17 PM EST
Link Posted: 7/7/2002 4:50:47 PM EST
Originally Posted By dissipator556: By "unable to read the entire code" I suppose that you mean the person is illiterate. If "unable to read the entire code" means something other than this, you are probably trying to say that they don't have access to the code itself, or even if they did they wouldn't know how to comprehend it. You would be wrong on both counts there, however. Any US Law is free and open to the public through our library system and other free (as in 'no cost') public information centers. As for interpretation, if you do not understand something, you have the responsibility to either ask an attorney, police officer, state entity, etc.
View Quote
How about "unable to read the entire code" as in no human being can possibly read the entire US Code, Code of Federal Regulations, and other assorted bodies of law without some rediculous Shao-Lin like devotion, generally to the exclusion of all else. As for asking an attourney or law enforcement, all they can give you is OPINION. Take BATF for example--call them up and ask a question--call them up again next week, talk to a different agent, and ask the same question. See if you don't have two different answers. BTW, a good source for "the law" is [url]http://www.law.cornell.edu[/url]
Link Posted: 7/7/2002 4:52:42 PM EST
Originally Posted By DoubleFeed: I was going to buy the U.S. Code so I could study and learn it. I told a lawyer friend of mine and she just about died. When she recovered, she told me that it currently consisted of THREE HUNDRED encyclopedia size books, but I could get it in CD form for only $800 bucks, but it would be obsolete by the end of the year. I decided just about that time this country is run by lawyers, and not the people.
View Quote
Exactly. Nobody can read, and understand completely, the entire thing. It's a conspiracy.
Link Posted: 7/7/2002 4:57:20 PM EST
Originally Posted By EricTheHun: Yes, I suppose non-legal types don't know in advance that murder, theft, robbery, rape, mayhem, are things that you must not do!
View Quote
Come on, Hun, that sarcastic response was rather unworthy, don't you think? I think the poster meant something along the lines of "If I've never heard of the 1989 BATF regs prohibiting the importation of certain magazine fed semi-automatic rifles, and I haven't heard of the BATF's subsequent "you cannot manufacture a firearm domestically that would be illegal to import unless you use enough domestic parts" rule, how the hell do they figure out they're in violation of the law when they pull off that stupid choate stock their AK came with and put on russian rood furniture instead? "The law" is no longer comprehensible to the average man--and indeed, even one in the legal profession can only specialize in a small part of it. So to ask the same question as the original poster, and even more pointedly (since you saw fit to interject) if ignorance of the law is no excuse, how are us peons supposed to know what is illegal?
Link Posted: 7/7/2002 5:18:51 PM EST
I heard administrative law is even worse. Try starting a small business and hiring one employee. It's not worth it. Better to use contractors until you're large enough to have a lawyer on retainer.
Link Posted: 7/7/2002 5:23:53 PM EST
Link Posted: 7/7/2002 5:29:15 PM EST
A friend recently sent me this: Alligators vs Lawyers Two alligators are sitting on the edge of a swamp. The small one turns to the big one and says, "I don't understand how you can be so much bigger than me. We're the same age, we were the same size as kids. I just don't get it." "Well," says the big alligator, "what have you been eating?" "Lawyers, same as you," replies the small alligator. "Hm. Well, where do you catch'em?" "Down at that law firm on the edge of the swamp." "Same here. Hm. How do you catch'em?" "Well, I crawl under a BMW and wait for someone to unlock the door. Then I jump out, bite'em, shake the crap out of 'em, and eat 'em!" "Ah!" says the big alligator, "I think I see your problem. See, by the time you get done shakin' the crap out of a lawyer, there's nothin' left but lips and a briefcase."
Link Posted: 7/7/2002 5:35:33 PM EST
Originally Posted By DoubleFeed: Similar to gun control - there is no conspiracy or plot to ban guns, just the natural tendancy to of people to fixate on the least mentally taxing solution to a problem, and pursue it.
View Quote
Err, so we've just imagined everything the anti-gun folks have said about how the 2nd amendment is really about the states, how we have no right to own a gun, and how they want to ban them all?
Link Posted: 7/7/2002 5:38:08 PM EST
[Last Edit: 7/7/2002 5:48:53 PM EST by Avtomat]
Originally Posted By liberty86:
Originally Posted By anti-gov-tinfoil-man: If ignorance of the law is no excuse for breaking it, how is someone who is unable to read the entire code supposed to know what he or she can and can't do under the law?
View Quote
They're not. The name of the game, is to make everyone a criminal, that way everyone has something to fear. Keeps the sheep in line...Get it??
View Quote
No wait, its part of a conspiracy on the part of all lawyers, who are secret agents of the british crown. Do you remember your thread on how lawyers are secret agents of the Queen, liberty86?
Link Posted: 7/7/2002 5:45:13 PM EST
Link Posted: 7/7/2002 5:55:52 PM EST
Link Posted: 7/8/2002 1:52:45 AM EST
like cockroaches in the light
Link Posted: 7/8/2002 2:04:35 AM EST
Originally Posted By Stepped-init: This has been a question of mine in the case of tax law in particular. If this abomination is incomprehensible to even accountants that specialize in it, how can the average Joe be held responsible for a screw up? Couldn't it be argued that since the general populace can't make heads or tails of it that it is unconstitutional? Stepped-init
View Quote
And, many of the offenses in federal tax laws, though technical in nature, are federal felonies. Note in regard to all the palaver about felons being prohibited from..., etc.
Link Posted: 7/8/2002 3:13:27 AM EST
Originally Posted By MickeyMouse: Alligators vs Lawyers
View Quote
Excellent! the_reject
Link Posted: 7/8/2002 3:31:59 AM EST
Post from Zak -
Come on, Hun, that sarcastic response was rather unworthy, don't you think?
View Quote
In a sea of anti-lawyer sarcasm, you pick out my simple little bit of sarcasm to harangue?[:D] C'mon, lighten up Francis! 'You don't have to be a weatherman to know which way the wind blows' - B. Dylan. Eric The(SarcasticToAPoint)Hun[>]:)]
Link Posted: 7/8/2002 2:40:14 PM EST
So does anyone have an answer other than "that's just the way it is"?
Link Posted: 7/8/2002 4:26:13 PM EST
Originally Posted By EricTheHun: In a sea of anti-lawyer sarcasm, you pick out my simple little bit of sarcasm to harangue?[:D]
View Quote
I figured if a lawyer was going to respond to this thread, they might be a little helpful, if possible--yeah, I do realize it's difficult, if not downright impossible to be "helpful" on this particular topic, but you didn't need to insult the guy's intelligence. [:)]
C'mon, lighten up Francis!
View Quote
Call me psycho! [:D]
Link Posted: 7/8/2002 4:45:15 PM EST
Both the United States Code and the Code of Federal Regulations are online and downloadable, and VERY large. I have the entirety of USC from the end of the 2001 legislative session on my other system for "personal reference." I am still assembling the entirety of CFR... Of course, that is merely Federal Law. As a private citizen, you are mainly interested in 18USC (Crimes and Criminal Procedures) and 26CFR (Internal Revenue Code,) and I recall another title of CFR that is pertinent of firearms owners as well. Many of the acts listed in 18USC44 are _malum prohibitorum_ and not _malum in se_, of course. Email me for urls, I get most of my legal reference material from the House website. As EtH mentioned, acts that are _malum in se_ require no understanding of law to know that they are wrong - murder, rape, kidnap, and the like are all obviously wrong (and should all be capital, IMHO. But I digress.) However, there are acts that are _malum prohibitorum_ that are so simply to raise revenue or to generate a degree of control, or are prohibited to create a false sense of "duty" - NFA1934 and GCA1968 are examples of the former, and the whole of 26CFR the latter - really now, have you ever tried to READ the thing? Byzantine... And, try looking up the DCMA in its entirety... One thing that I would like to see is a reform of the legislative system. If we are not to have an outright purge carried out, let us prevent the system gaining weight by adding a rider to EACH and EVERY bill calling for the recission and/or nullification of an existing law. Many are useless and/or unenforcable, and need to be rescinded for the good of the citizenry. Others are not passed to enforce correctness and to penalise malefactory behaviour, but are simply rubber-stamped to protect corporate interests - reference the DMCA (again!) and the various incarnations of the ECPA. DMCA = Digital Milennium Copyright Act ECPA = Electronic Communications Protection Act FFZ
Link Posted: 7/8/2002 4:52:39 PM EST
Originally Posted By FreeFireZone: Of course, that is merely Federal Law. As a private citizen, you are mainly interested in 18USC (Crimes and Criminal Procedures) and 26CFR (Internal Revenue Code,) and I recall another title of CFR that is pertinent of firearms owners as well. Many of the acts listed in 18USC44 are _malum prohibitorum_ and not _malum in se_, of course.
View Quote
I've tried to read the GCA. Gave up cause I had better things to do. So now that you've demonstrated your skill at spewing latin, we've established that some laws make crimes out of activities that no normal person would assume are wrong. Woop. The question I'm trying to get at is this, if the entire code is to large and/or complex for even a relatively well educated american to understand in whole, then how can a person resonably be held responsible for non-obvious crimes? Is it even reasonable to say the the average college grad (i know we could start another thread about that one so assume it was a hard working , well educated, college grad) would not be able to understand the whole of the law?
Link Posted: 7/8/2002 5:08:00 PM EST
Understand? Probably. Read? Definitely not. You may find some of my comments on the "Nazi" thread interesting, when I expound upon Anarchy... FFZ
Top Top