SSE question

[RickD427]

Then every occasion of complying with the language of a statute is a 'loophole'.

I'm afraid I cannot accept that ordinary obedience to statute is somehow a loophole.

Legislators get to write laws; we get to obey them; sloppy writing yielding an unexpected result - which is precisely aligned with what was proposed, debated, amended, voted on, and signed into law - is not, in my opinion, a loophole.

I think referring to 'obeying the law as written' as a loophole is poor reasoning.

Librarian,

I think you've only captured 1/2 of the idea with your summary.

I'd express it like this:

Complying with the language of a statute, while evading the intent of the statute, is the "Loophole".

It's not the compliance that is key. It is the evasion that is key.

[Librarian]

Unless the behavior regulated by the statute cannot be determined from the text, intent does not get considered.

The text is clear.

That the intent of the writers may be different from the actual behavior regulated does not, in my opinion, make the clear text a 'loophole'.

A mistake, perhaps. A disappointment - for example, one reason for the entire Roster concept was to eliminate the Lorcins and Ravens and Davis firearms; no doubt Mr. Polanco was unhappy that those guns passed the specified tests.

On that basis, are the tests a 'loophole'?

I will say once again, and say no more: obeying the law as written cannot reasonably be considered using a 'loophole'. YMMV.

[skosh69]

You say "tomayto", I say "tomahto".

Tony and Librarian both are right.

[gtec]

I'm just happy to still have the availability of the SSE. "Loophole" or not. Good info guys and interesting "discussion." Or was it an "argument?" Lol!

[RickD427]

I'm just happy to still have the availability of the SSE. "Loophole" or not. Good info guys and interesting "discussion." Or was it an "argument?" Lol!

Gtec,

It's very much a "Discussion." As long as we don't "twist" each others facts, call each other names, or take "cheap shots", it's a discussion and we all benefit from it.

I'm pleased the Governor did veto AB 169, but he made it very clear that he did support closing what I've termed as the "SSE Loophole." We should expect to see a bill next year doing only that, and we should expect the Governor will sign it.