Shall-Issue & Canons of Construction

[Chewy65]

None seem stimulated by the suggestion that California CCW law is "shall-issue". Think about it more and this time consider the Constitutional-Doubt Canon and the Modern Avoidance Canon.
https://www.law.uh.edu/faculty/adjun...8Spring/CANONS OF CONSTRUCTION.pdf

Think of the above in connection with the determination of the meaning of "may". Mandatory or permissive? Now ask whether the intention of the Legislature was to create an widely discretionary law to be used to discriminate against Blacks and ensure that CCW's were only issued to the "right people".

Also look at where Bruen informs us that if there is more than one possible interpretation of history the one permitting the widest protection of Second Amendment rights is the preferred interpration.

Then consider the proper application of general rules for the interpretation of the meaning of "may".

Scalia & Garner may have been onto a thing or twol

[madsend81]

Link doesn't work. Returns a 404 error.

[JDoe]

Sall-Issue & Canons of Construction

This works

https://www.law.uh.edu/faculty/adjunct/dstevenson/2018Spring/CANONS OF CONSTRUCTION.pdf

[TruOil]

There is a question about this? California is most certainly "may issue," even with the elimination of the "good cause requirement, because the "good moral character" determination is undoubtedly a discretionary determination. Arguably, the proposed statute currently pending in the Legislature is still "may issue" due to the requirement of the submission of letters of recommendation from three witnesses, including one's spouse or domestic partner, and the possibility of a psych eval. (I don't remember if good moral character is still part of the proposed legislation.)

[Chewy65]

There is a question about this? California is most certainly "may issue," even with the elimination of the "good cause requirement, because the "good moral character" determination is undoubtedly a discretionary determination. Arguably, the proposed statute currently pending in the Legislature is still "may issue" due to the requirement of the submission of letters of recommendation from three witnesses, including one's spouse or domestic partner, and the possibility of a psych eval. (I don't remember if good moral character is still part of the proposed legislation.)

Sorry if I didn't think it even necessarry to take GMC into consideration since it is nothing but low hanging fruit. It will be stricken with 26150 construed so that the issuer shall issue if requirements (3) and (4) are met. The proposed statute will be dealt with when it is passed and in the form it is passed.

[Chewy65]

Here is a nice cheat sheet on the Constitutional Doubt Canon. https://www.law.cornell.edu/constitu...al-doubt-canon

Central to this line of inquiry is the susceptibility of 26150 to more than one interpretation of the meaning of "may". One of dubious constitutionality. While not directly analagous, for hint of what the Supreme Court might think there is something in Bruen about where there is more than one interpretation of a historic firearm regulation, the Court will adopt the interpretation most favorble to Second Amendment rights. Of much interest is the Court's comment on how half of the six so called may-issue states act very much as thought they are shall-issue.

1. Is may ambuguous
2. Is 26150 of questionable Constitutionality if may is interpreted as permissive
3. Is 26150's Constituionality saved may is read as directing issuance one the listed requirements are satisfied. Assume that the GMC requirement is held to be unconstitutional.

[pacrat]

https://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/...5#post27743805 [post 57 & 58]

https://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/...light=COMMENTS [post 13]

Asked and answered;

The semantic contextual construction of 26150 contains no ambiguities as to the definition of MAY, being PERMISSIVE, as used.

Just as there is no ambiguity in MAY's usage in pc28220 [A] and [4] as MANDATORY..

IIRC this is the third thread that you have recently presented the same premise. Nothing in the link changes anything.

I WISH YOU WERE RIGHT. But nothing I've found in the last several years of researching [may/shall/must] legislatively, leads me to believe so.

[pacrat]

26150.
(a) When a person applies for a license to carry a pistol, revolver, or other firearm capable of being concealed upon the person, the sheriff of a county may issue a license to that person upon proof of all of the following:

(1) The applicant is of good moral character.

(2) Good cause exists for issuance of the license.

(3) The applicant is a resident of the county or a city within the county, or the applicant?s principal place of employment or business is in the county or a city within the county and the applicant spends a substantial period of time in that place of employment or business.

(4) The applicant has completed a course of training as described in Section 26165.

[text] May meet Bruen criteria.

[1] ... Does not meet criteria of Bruen, due to subjectivity.

[2] ... Already stricken in Bruen, Due to; Subjectivity and THT.

[3] ... MAY meet Bruen criteria?

[4] ... Does not meet criteria of Bruen, due to THT.

But there is no "mandating qualifier" in text of 26150 to make MAY, other than permissive. Had the legislature added "THEN IMMEDIATELY", directly following MAY, as they did in two places, [A] & [4], of 28220. Or any other time relative mandate qualifier.

first two sentences from link; emphasis mine.

SEMANTIC CANONS

Ordinary-Meaning Canon. Words are to be understood in their ordinary, everyday meanings?unless the
context indicates that they bear a technical sense.

Nothing changes the everyday "permissive" meaning in 26150

Fixed-Meaning Canon. Words must be given the meaning they had when the text was adopted.

MAY has been recognized as being possibly MANDATORY in STATUTES, as far back as 1856 in LAW SCHOOL DICTIONARIES. Depending on context of usage.

[Chewy65]

Pacrat. You are making things much more difficult than is needed. To begin with, under Bruen GMC is gone. The word "may" is open to interpretation as to whether it is permissive or directive. A permissive interpretation raises doubt as to the statute's constitutionality. To save it from an unconstitutionl interpretation the section will be interpreted to mean that a license could not have been issued before the stated requirements were met but shall then be issued. the Court will interpret its meaning as mandating issuance. Upon proof of residency and training, CCW's "shall-issue."

[pacrat]

Pacrat. You are making things much more difficult than is needed. To begin with, under Bruen GMC is gone. The word "may" is open to interpretation as to whether it is permissive or directive. A permissive interpretation raises doubt as to the statute's constitutionality. To save it from an unconstitutionl interpretation the section will be interpreted to mean that a license could not have been issued before the stated requirements were met but shall then be issued. the Court will interpret its meaning as mandating issuance. Upon proof of residency and training, CCW's "shall-issue."

You apparently don't understand how "lexical semantics" and "contextual usage" control, which definition is correct, for any word in the English Language. That has more than one definition. Try as I have to explain it to you for several years now. Going back to the start of the "UNDETERMINED" discussions.

You obviously didn't have a Mrs. Virginia Wald as a part of your formative years. She was the mostest, bestest, Jr. High School English Teacher in the whole damn world. May she rest in peace.

Because you are laboring under the false impression that those "Canons of Construction" you posted are supportive of your faulty premise. When as I have already pointed out. They don't.

Bye,

[Chewy65]

https://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution-conan/article-3/section-2/clause-1/the-constitutional-doubt-canon#fn9art3

[mshill]

https://www.law.cornell.edu/constitu...-canon#fn9art3

Interesting read. I find a couple of things in the first paragraph interesting.

Posited on the premise that Congress ?legislates in the light of constitutional limitations,? 1 the Constitutional-Doubt Canon provides that federal courts should construe statutes so that they do not violate the Constitution.2 Describing the Constitutional-Doubt Canon, Justice Brandeis stated: ?When the validity of an act . . . is drawn in question, and even if a serious doubt of constitutionality is raised . . . [the Court] will first ascertain whether a construction of the statute is fairly possible by which the question may be avoided.? 3 Consequently, if a statute is susceptible to two plausible interpretations, one of which violates the Constitution, the Constitutional-Doubt Canon instructs courts to choose the interpretation consistent with the Constitution.

Apparently, Reggie Jones-Sawyer didn't get the message (first bolded section).

I find myself at odds with the guidance on interpreting the act (statute) Constitutional in order to avoid the question. It seems backwards to me. If the legislature crafts a statute "in light of Constitutional limitations" and does so with wording that lends itself to multiple interpretations, should the court hold their feet to the fire and make them fix it?

Call me naive, but I was under the impression that the Judiciary was supposed to be a check on the on the other two branches and not a rubber stamp.

[Chewy65]

Interesting read. I find a couple of things in the first paragraph interesting.



Apparently, Reggie Jones-Sawyer didn't get the message (first bolded section).

I find myself at odds with the guidance on interpreting the act (statute) Constitutional in order to avoid the question. It seems backwards to me. If the legislature crafts a statute "in light of Constitutional limitations" and does so with wording that lends itself to multiple interpretations, should the court hold their feet to the fire and make them fix it?

Call me naive, but I was under the impression that the Judiciary was supposed to be a check on the on the other two branches and not a rubber stamp.

I read it as saying that if the plain text can only be construed one way, the duty of the Court is to declare its lack of Constitutionality. Hopefully, that will make them fix it. If the Court does find it amenable to being consrued in a manner that cures the constitutional problem it does it. Hopefully then, the legislative will pass a constitutional law if they aren't satisfied with what the Court came up with.

[GetMeCoffee]

...

I find myself at odds with the guidance on interpreting the act (statute) Constitutional in order to avoid the question. It seems backwards to me. If the legislature crafts a statute "in light of Constitutional limitations" and does so with wording that lends itself to multiple interpretations, should the court hold their feet to the fire and make them fix it?

Call me naive, but I was under the impression that the Judiciary was supposed to be a check on the on the other two branches and not a rubber stamp.

This is a contrived example, but it is how I (as a layperson) understand it:

Say that a State passes an ordinance stating that "No sound amplification devices may be carried within the legislative chambers".

A hearing impaired person now sues stating that this violates their right to redress since they would not be allowed to bring their hearing aids to the chambers.

The court looks at the law and uses the Constitutional Doubt canon to infer that "carry" means to literally carry in your hands or arms and that it does not encompass something tucked behind the ear.

So the law stands, and megaphones cannot be brought into the chambers. The law has now been defined to exclude hearing aids. Regardless of whether the legislature discussed this nuance or intended this outcome, that is now what the law is.

ETA: [removed - it made no sense ]

I'll defer to others for correction and clarification.