top | item 37761696

(no title)

macromagnon | 2 years ago

It seems obvious to me that meeting any of the conditions disqualifies you.

The points needed to satisfy one of the clauses goes down as the "seriousness" of the crime goes up.

If you got 4 total points, you're out, but if you only have 2 points and it's due to a violent offense, you're also out.

discuss

order

eloisant|2 years ago

The thing with law is that you're not supposed to guess the intent of the writer, you're supposed to apply it exactly as it's written.

2Gkashmiri|2 years ago

nope.

"normally" the court has to apply strict interpretation of the written text. if that strict interpretation leads to ambiguity or confusion or logical fallacy, then the court has to see the "legislative intent" of why the enactment was made in the first place in order to come to a reasonable conclusion as to what the framers of the law intended to be.

if the word written is "and" meaning +, that would imply in strict sense that this is a condition that has to be followed along with other conditions.

now, if someone says no, the legislative intent was not to be + but "or" because the enactment wants to provide relief and not to incur more punishment, and that applying the "+" interpretation would violate my fundamental rights, then the court can decide if the loose definition is justified from the legislative intent and can accept the same.

ImJamal|2 years ago

I don't think anybody really agrees with that position. Let's take an extreme example

The second amendment is: A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

The definition of an armament according to Britannica is: military weapons that are used to fight a war

Nuclear bombs have been used by the US military to fight a war. By your logic the right of the people to have nuclear bombs is protected by the second amendment.

Where can I get a nuke?

ashbee|2 years ago

Yeah, agreed.

Also if it were intended as "meeting all of the criteria disqualifies you", then part A is completely redundant, isn't it? If B and C are true then A is also true.