"Mens Rea" vs "Ignorance Of The Law" Doctrines and Gun Laws

[sholling]

doesn't the ignorance = no excuse bit encumber the government agency enacting an ordinance to publish said ordinance in such a way that it's then generally available to the public at large? If you create some law which can allow the state to deprive someone of life/lib/pOh upon violation then it would seem to follow that you must notify those that are being legislated upon.

New laws and regulations are published but how many of the 4500 (author's number) federal criminal laws, several thousand federal regulations that carry the force of law, several thousand state criminal laws, and how many thousands of municipals codes can the average citizen reasonably be expected to know and navigate? It's that volume of laws that makes it nearly impossible for anyone living outside of a monastery to go through an entire year without inadvertently violating at least one of those laws.

[r3dn3ck]

then it would seem that the whole of modern american law is in violation of the spirit of the constitutional protections afforded us all would it not? Does that not signal something?

[anthonyca]

Thank you for posting this. I actually came here to post the same thing but you beat me to it. This is one of the most important problems we face. Mens Rea was developed in the spirit of freedom, ignorance of the law is no excuse is a tool of tyrants.

This thread also provided a cool sig line.

[SwissFluCase]

Over criminalization is why citizens are beginning to refuse to cooperate with law enforcement. The only effective and practical remedy available to the average citizen is to refuse police contact, and to reserve all rights no matter what. The Martha Stewart case is a perfect and well known example.

In the end, the "Ignorance Of The Law" doctrine will have the unintended consequence of making law enforcement far less effective than it could be.

Regards,


SwissFluCase

[sreiter]

He responded that it's a code violation to pull off to the side of a freeway unless it's for safety purposes.

i would have explained the legislature has deemed talking while driving is a public safety hazard, therefore, pulling over to talk is for safety purposes

[sreiter]

Ignorance of the law doesn't seem to have neg consequences when its police making false arrests...not know the laws concerning UOC and/or OLL's

[rugershooter]

Also, no regulation should have the force of law without actually being a law.

[yellowfin]

"Unintended" consequences happen with such regularity that I honestly don't believe they're unintended anymore. Something repeated that often over that long a span of time can't be an accident.

[kcbrown]

"Unintended" consequences happen with such regularity that I honestly don't believe they're unintended anymore. Something repeated that often over that long a span of time can't be an accident.

This is why I argue that the reverse of Hanlon's Razor applies to government:

Never attribute to stupidity that which can adequately be explained by malice.