Welcome to MGO's Internet Discussion Forums…Please Consider Becoming a Dues-Paying Member of the ORG…Click >>>>>HERE<<<<< for more info…………****DONATIONS**** can also be made toward MGO's Legal Defense Fund and/or MGO's Forums >>>>>HERE<<<<<

KROGER

Page 3 of 28 FirstFirst 123456713 ... LastLast
Results 21 to 30 of 276
  1. #21
    Legal Forum Contributor / Super Moderator SteveS's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2002
    Location
    Ingham County
    Posts
    17,460
    Quote Originally Posted by Jared1981 View Post
    Yep, those that don't want to do this, then don't. Just please don't hijack the thread with fear-mongering.

    Those of us that understand the Rule of Lenity are enjoying unregistered pistols like people do in the 42+ other states.

    It's an individual choice. I just wish if the attorneys on here would assure people of the Rule of Lenity; which isn't really even needed since the law is crystal clear.
    If the law is clear, then the rule of lenity does not apply. ‘[t]he rule of lenity applies only in the circumstances of an ambiguity, or in the absence of any firm indication of legislative intent.’” People v Denio, 454 Mich 691, 700 n 12; 564 NW2d 13 (1997), quoting People v Wakeford, 418 Mich 95, 113-114; 341 NW2d 68 (1983). In People v Gardner, 482 Mich 41, 50; 753 NW2d 78 (2008 ), the Michigan Supreme Court stated:

    "Our goal in construing a statute is “to ascertain and give effect to the intent of the Legislature.” People v Pasha, 466 Mich 378, 382; 645 NW2d 275 (2002). The touchstone of legislative intent is the statute’s language. “If the statute’s language is clear and unambiguous, we assume that the Legislature intended its plain meaning and we enforce the statute as written.” People v Weeder, 469 Mich 493, 497; 674 NW2d 372 (2004). Accordingly, when statutory language is unambiguous, judicial construction is not required or permitted." Id.

    The rule of lenity only applies if there is a conflict or the language in ambiguous. I think some "fear mongers" are concerned because they may wonder what the intent of the legislature was when this law passed and it does appear to make little sense that everyone has to register their guns except for residents that get a permit from another state. Take into account that the ultimate goal of all such rules is to ascertain and implement the legislative intent, even if the intent might appear in conflict with the literal language of the statute. People v Stoudemire, 429 Mich 262, 266; 414 NW2d 693 (1987). Also, statutes must be interpreted to avoid absurd consequences. Webster v Rotary Electric Steel Co, 321 Mich 526, 531; 33 NW2d 69 (1948 ).

    I think a good argument can be made that supports the position stated in the OP. That being said, I wouldn't be so quick to dismiss the concerns of people that may not share your opinion. I would also point out that this idea isn't new and that I haven't seen any other attorneys suggesting that people should do this. The reason being is stated above. Courts don't always interpret rules the same way.
    Opinions and comments made by me on this forum should not be considered legal advice.

  2. #22
    I am a Forum User
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Location
    ypsilanti, MI
    Posts
    2,986
    tagged

    Joe

  3. #23
    I am a Forum User
    Join Date
    Sep 2012
    Location
    Grass Lake, MI
    Posts
    1,156
    I feel that we should have a serious discussion on how to get rid of the registry here in MI. Anyone have any ideas were to start? Do petitions , letters, etc. actually have an impact?

  4. #24
    I am a Forum User
    Join Date
    Apr 2013
    Location
    S.E. Michigan
    Posts
    3,831
    IBTL

  5. #25
    I am a Forum User
    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Location
    Lansing
    Posts
    5,892
    Quote Originally Posted by SteveS View Post
    If the law is clear, then the rule of lenity does not apply. ‘[t]he rule of lenity applies only in the circumstances of an ambiguity, or in the absence of any firm indication of legislative intent.’” People v Denio, 454 Mich 691, 700 n 12; 564 NW2d 13 (1997), quoting People v Wakeford, 418 Mich 95, 113-114; 341 NW2d 68 (1983). In People v Gardner, 482 Mich 41, 50; 753 NW2d 78 (2008 ), the Michigan Supreme Court stated:

    "Our goal in construing a statute is “to ascertain and give effect to the intent of the Legislature.” People v Pasha, 466 Mich 378, 382; 645 NW2d 275 (2002). The touchstone of legislative intent is the statute’s language. “If the statute’s language is clear and unambiguous, we assume that the Legislature intended its plain meaning and we enforce the statute as written.” People v Weeder, 469 Mich 493, 497; 674 NW2d 372 (2004). Accordingly, when statutory language is unambiguous, judicial construction is not required or permitted." Id.

    The rule of lenity only applies if there is a conflict or the language in ambiguous. I think some "fear mongers" are concerned because they may wonder what the intent of the legislature was when this law passed and it does appear to make little sense that everyone has to register their guns except for residents that get a permit from another state. Take into account that the ultimate goal of all such rules is to ascertain and implement the legislative intent, even if the intent might appear in conflict with the literal language of the statute. People v Stoudemire, 429 Mich 262, 266; 414 NW2d 693 (1987). Also, statutes must be interpreted to avoid absurd consequences. Webster v Rotary Electric Steel Co, 321 Mich 526, 531; 33 NW2d 69 (1948 ).

    I think a good argument can be made that supports the position stated in the OP. That being said, I wouldn't be so quick to dismiss the concerns of people that may not share your opinion. I would also point out that this idea isn't new and that I haven't seen any other attorneys suggesting that people should do this. The reason being is stated above. Courts don't always interpret rules the same way.
    Is there a way to bring this issue to court WITHOUT putting your own skin on the line?

  6. #26
    Quote Originally Posted by SteveS View Post
    If the law is clear, then the rule of lenity does not apply. ‘[t]he rule of lenity applies only in the circumstances of an ambiguity, or in the absence of any firm indication of legislative intent.’” People v Denio, 454 Mich 691, 700 n 12; 564 NW2d 13 (1997), quoting People v Wakeford, 418 Mich 95, 113-114; 341 NW2d 68 (1983). In People v Gardner, 482 Mich 41, 50; 753 NW2d 78 (2008 ), the Michigan Supreme Court stated:

    "Our goal in construing a statute is “to ascertain and give effect to the intent of the Legislature.” People v Pasha, 466 Mich 378, 382; 645 NW2d 275 (2002). The touchstone of legislative intent is the statute’s language. “If the statute’s language is clear and unambiguous, we assume that the Legislature intended its plain meaning and we enforce the statute as written.” People v Weeder, 469 Mich 493, 497; 674 NW2d 372 (2004). Accordingly, when statutory language is unambiguous, judicial construction is not required or permitted." Id.

    The rule of lenity only applies if there is a conflict or the language in ambiguous. I think some "fear mongers" are concerned because they may wonder what the intent of the legislature was when this law passed and it does appear to make little sense that everyone has to register their guns except for residents that get a permit from another state. Take into account that the ultimate goal of all such rules is to ascertain and implement the legislative intent, even if the intent might appear in conflict with the literal language of the statute. People v Stoudemire, 429 Mich 262, 266; 414 NW2d 693 (1987). Also, statutes must be interpreted to avoid absurd consequences. Webster v Rotary Electric Steel Co, 321 Mich 526, 531; 33 NW2d 69 (1948 ).

    I think a good argument can be made that supports the position stated in the OP. That being said, I wouldn't be so quick to dismiss the concerns of people that may not share your opinion. I would also point out that this idea isn't new and that I haven't seen any other attorneys suggesting that people should do this. The reason being is stated above. Courts don't always interpret rules the same way.
    They could ask the writers of the original law, but they are all dead.

    Nothing conflicts with any other language. It would be more like saying a drivers license doesn't really exempt you from the prohibition of driving on a public road.

    On a scale from 1 to 10.

    I would register your registration concern as a 2 whereas I would rate the fear of disorderly conduct for OC at a 4.

    All three points of registration are consistent and none are vague and none conflict.

    The three ways to possess a pistol in MI are as follows

    1. MI residents can obtain a LTP or RI-60.

    2. Be a non-immigrant alien, resident alien, or citizen and possess a license to possess or carry from your home state.

    3. Be a U.S. Citizen and have a concealed license from any other state.

    I would be interested to see a case of where a law explicitly spelt out an exemption and a court said "yeah, well that's not what the law was suppose to say" and convicted someone.

    The legislature is presumed to know what they are doing and it is presumed that the subject matter is properly address, unless statutes conflict as you say;however, these statutes do not conflict. It's never held that a legislative body refuses or forgets to do something. 28.432 has been amended numerous times and at least twice in the past 5 years. Sub section 1f has been in the law since it's inception and has remained unchanged.

    Bottom line, if someone is to concerned about this then they should be more concerned about a disorderly conduct charge for openly carrying, since the law on OC is silent where 28.432 is direct and explicit.

    The problem with the fear mongering is that it is a bottomless pit. Surely the legislature didn't intend for someone to carry a shotgun into a school since they prohibited concealed handguns in schools, but it's legal.

    If the legislature is that inept to figure it out, then that's great because people in MI think it's normal to register when people in 42+ states won't put up with this garbage. It is a personal choice though, just like open carry.
    Last edited by Jared1981; 07-09-2014 at 11:08 PM.

  7. #27
    I am a Forum User
    Join Date
    Apr 2013
    Location
    S.E. Michigan
    Posts
    3,831
    Quote Originally Posted by DP425 View Post
    Is there a way to bring this issue to court WITHOUT putting your own skin on the line?
    Freedom and Liberty actually come at a price, and require blood, sweat and tears.
    The only thing stranger would perhaps be pondering if our founding fathers asked the same question.

  8. #28
    I am a Forum User
    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Location
    Lansing
    Posts
    5,892
    Quote Originally Posted by Quads View Post
    Freedom and Liberty actually come at a price, and require blood, sweat and tears.
    The only thing stranger would perhaps be pondering if our founding fathers asked the same question.
    Well in that case, ante up. Get yourself an unregistered pistol after getting an out of state CPL... walk into every LEA office you can find until one bites and arrests you. Then pay your price for liberty.

  9. #29
    I am a Forum User
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    Genesee County
    Posts
    6,837
    Is there currently a fund in place which will cover legal counsel for those choosing to go along with this?

  10. #30
    I am a Forum User
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Location
    26 klicks north of Murder City now
    Posts
    2,029
    SteveS:Thank you for the input.

Page 3 of 28 FirstFirst 123456713 ... LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  
only search Michigan Gun Owners Forums
MGO's Facebook MGO's Twitter