Unconfigured Ad Widget

Collapse

Transportation Question?.

Collapse
X
 
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts
  • #16
    Sailormilan2
    Veteran Member
    • Nov 2006
    • 3458

    Rick, I thought that?s what I said. If anything else came across, I worded it wrong.

    Comment

    • #17
      RickD427
      CGN/CGSSA Contributor - Lifetime
      CGN Contributor - Lifetime
      • Jan 2007
      • 9264

      Originally posted by Sailormilan2
      Rick, I thought that?s what I said. If anything else came across, I worded it wrong.
      Copy and thanks. I read your posting to the conclusion that you were expecting People v Clark to be revised to reflect the new Penal Code numbers.
      If you build a man a fire, you'll keep him warm for the evening. If you set a man on fire, you'll keep him warm for the rest of his life.

      Comment

      • #18
        Sailormilan2
        Veteran Member
        • Nov 2006
        • 3458

        Originally posted by RickD427
        Copy and thanks. I read your posting to the conclusion that you were expecting People v Clark to be revised to reflect the new Penal Code numbers.
        I was trying to say that the "new" code used the wording of the old code, just having an updated number, and that the code has never been updated to reflect the case decision.

        Comment

        • #19
          RickD427
          CGN/CGSSA Contributor - Lifetime
          CGN Contributor - Lifetime
          • Jan 2007
          • 9264

          Originally posted by Sailormilan2
          I was trying to say that the "new" code used the wording of the old code, just having an updated number, and that the code has never been updated to reflect the case decision.
          The commission that was charged with re-codifying Part Six of the Penal Code wasn't authorized to make changes to the law, they were only empowered to re-organize and re-number existing content.

          There's a lot of popular belief that they exceeded their powers in handling some changes to the nuisance statutes involving magazines.

          Where there is a major change in the statutes, bought about by a case decision, the legislature will sometimes amend the statutes to comply with the decision, but there is no requirement for them to do so. You really have to read the statutes in conjunction with the body of case law to determine the current state of the law.

          There's a really good example of this in California's former "Stop and ID" statute. The U.S. Supreme Court invalidated that statute in 1983, yet it remained on the books for more than a decade before it was finally removed.
          If you build a man a fire, you'll keep him warm for the evening. If you set a man on fire, you'll keep him warm for the rest of his life.

          Comment

          • #20
            nintense
            Member
            • Mar 2020
            • 190

            Is it only me wondering why anyone is picking into your range bag? Guns in my CCW are always loaded, but if I plan to go to a place that not allowing JHP I change the mag/ ammo beforehand other then the one on me. Those off my ?list? are unloaded anyway, but nobody ever asked to inspect my guns or bags.


            Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

            Comment

            • #21
              johnnyh75
              Senior Member
              • Jul 2012
              • 1059

              Your right !! the range goober is wrong

              Comment

              Working...
              UA-8071174-1