User Panel
Posted: 7/7/2002 3:57:44 PM EDT
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?
|
|
Quoted: 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?? |
|
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[>]:)] |
|
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. |
|
Quoted: 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? |
|
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 |
|
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. |
|
Quoted: 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? |
|
Quoted: 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 |
|
Quoted: 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.. |
|
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. |
|
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. |
|
Quoted: 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] |
|
Quoted: 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. |
|
Quoted: 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? |
|
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. |
|
Quoted:Exactly. Nobody can read, and understand completely, the entire thing. It's a conspiracy. View Quote 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. |
|
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." |
|
Quoted: 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? |
|
Quoted: Quoted: 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 |
|
Quoted: 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? View Quote We are? Hey, that's great. I'll call my boss (the Queen) and maybe I can go visit London again. Of course, I did spend six weeks in England during law school - maybe they recruited me without my knowing it. God Save the Queen! |
|
Quoted: Quoted: 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? View Quote They do not plot "Let's ban all guns", rather they react emotionally that "guns caused the problem, so let's eliminate the cause of the problem". All of their efforts make changes that worsen the problem, and in response, more gun control is demanded. Thus, they work seemingly independantly towards the same goal, but they actually approach it as [i]groups[/i], instead of as a single entity. However, we group them together for the sake of simplicity, and thus, mischaracterize our opposition. It basically is splitting hairs, but it is necessary to understand the difference when you point it out to somebody who is not as familiar with the issue. Ask yourself how you would explain our perspective to an pro-gun-control person who has specifically stated they do not want to ban guns, and they produce statements from the various groups stating the same thing? |
|
Quoted: 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. |
|
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[>]:)] |
|
So does anyone have an answer other than "that's just the way it is"?
|
|
Quoted: 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] |
|
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 |
|
Quoted: 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? |
|
Understand? Probably. Read? Definitely not. You may find some of my comments on the "Nazi" thread interesting, when I expound upon Anarchy...
FFZ |
|
Sign up for the ARFCOM weekly newsletter and be entered to win a free ARFCOM membership. One new winner* is announced every week!
You will receive an email every Friday morning featuring the latest chatter from the hottest topics, breaking news surrounding legislation, as well as exclusive deals only available to ARFCOM email subscribers.
AR15.COM is the world's largest firearm community and is a gathering place for firearm enthusiasts of all types.
From hunters and military members, to competition shooters and general firearm enthusiasts, we welcome anyone who values and respects the way of the firearm.
Subscribe to our monthly Newsletter to receive firearm news, product discounts from your favorite Industry Partners, and more.
Copyright © 1996-2024 AR15.COM LLC. All Rights Reserved.
Any use of this content without express written consent is prohibited.
AR15.Com reserves the right to overwrite or replace any affiliate, commercial, or monetizable links, posted by users, with our own.