hoglawyer 
Member since Jun 15, 2010


Just another Arkansas lawyer

Favorite Places

  • None.
Find places »

Saved Events

  • Nada.
Find events »

Saved Stories

  • Nope.
Find stories »

Custom Lists

  • Zip.

Friends

  • No friends yet.
Become My Friend Find friends »

Stats

Recent Comments

Re: “Has Arkansas deregulated guns or not?

Rules for Internet Trolls

(I made these up)

1. Attack the commenter personally. Check
2. Make invalid or irrelevant associations or analogies. Check
3. Insult the commenter's intelligence and competence. Check
4. Avoid directly discussing or refusing the commenter's ideas. Check.
5. Attack commenter's grammar or style. Forgot that one...
6. Declare victory and end of discussion. Check

7 likes, 0 dislikes
Posted by hoglawyer on 05/08/2013 at 4:11 PM

Re: “Has Arkansas deregulated guns or not?

of course - everyone is free to give their own interpretation - much more fun than using boring latin maxims...

http://www.arkleg.state.ar.us/assembly/201…

1 like, 1 dislike
Posted by hoglawyer on 05/08/2013 at 3:07 PM

Re: “Has Arkansas deregulated guns or not?

I love it when people say "the intent was clear on this law."

But Rep. Matthew Shepherd says deregulation wasn't the intent of the minor corrective.If we have different leglislators saying they had different intents when they voted -- logic seems to tell us -- the intent is not clear.

Does it really matter what one, two, 135 legislators say was their intent when a law was written and then voted on. Does the person who "wrote it" get some sort of super intent power? Of course not. Especially when he is a poor writer.

I'm no expert on government or anything else - but when I was in 9th grade civis we learned that: The function of the legislature is to --what ? - write / pass the laws. The function of the judiciary is to --- interpret the laws. I have read a few Arkansas Supreme Court cases here and there. I don't recall them ever doing a survey of the legislators who voted on a bill to see "what they intended." Unlike in D.C. we don't keep public official transcripts of the "legislative history" of our Acts.

My point is --- I don't care what any legislator "intended" Nor does the Arkansas Supreme Court. What they do care about is what the legislature as a branch of government intended. How will they determine that ? I predict they will say this ( because they always say this:

1. We review issues of statutory interpretation de novo because it is for this court to decide what a statute means.  

2. The purpose of statutory construction is to give effect to the intent of the General Assembly.    

3. In doing so, we give the words of the statute their ordinary and usually accepted meaning in common language.  

4. If the language of a statute is clear and unambiguous and conveys a clear and definite meaning, it is unnecessary to resort to the rules of statutory interpretation.  

So is the language of the bill "clear and unambiguous." Of course not - otherwise we mere mortals would not be quibbling over what it means. Therefore, the Court, in my humble opinion, will "resort to the rules of statuory interpretation."

What does that mean? I can't find the rule book of these rules ! There is no rulebook - these rules are based in history and precedent. But they are still "rules."

Some smart people have looked at how the Arkansas Supreme Court goes about interpretating a statute for the first time. Such as in this article:

http://lawnotes.law.uark.edu/wp-content/up…

The court will determine whether a law is strictly or loosly construed. Since this is a criminal statute - it will be strictly construed.

Here is a great "rule" that they really do use. Because criminal statutes are strictly construed - they are interpreted in favor of the potential defendant. The "Rule of Lenity"
requires all penal statutes be construed to reach the most lenient interpretation from the
defendant's standpoint. Some of you don't want any leniency in general - so maybe the judge you like will ignore this rule.

Next the court really does look at "intent." Intent not as in what was in the mind of some particular leglislator - but intent as in "what is the purpose of this law." Because, we would hope, they don't pass laws that serve no purpose. No comment there. Said another way "The question for the courts is not what would
be wise, politic and just, but what did the legislature
really mean to direct."

That article is great - it breaks the analysis of purpose of an ambiguous law into four possibilities:

1. The purpose is ambiguous, but the
means are clear;
2. The purpose is clear, but the means are
ambiguous;
3. The means and purpose are both ambiguous;
and
4. The purpose and means are both clear,
but inconsistent with one another.

I'm going to go with #3. But since some of you are so convinced this law is crystal clear and can be no debate - you all can say none of these apply because "it means what it sez, I know what it means !"

Other maxims include that no part of a law is considered superfulous unless contradicted by another portion of the law. In this case --- if the purpose and intent was to allow open carry anywhere and everwhere --- why even talk about what a journey is? Just because we like the band Journey and want to sneak it in as many bills as we could. Possible but unlikely. Instead - the purpose would be to make the bill more clear and let law enforcement know that its ok to have your pistol when travelling one county to another but not intra-country travel. Am I missing something here ?

Another rules -- you can and should look to the old bill and compare it to see what the changes were. Looking at the changes is a good way to infer purpose and intent. Unless you are a strict constructionist and say we can't look at anything else - history, other laws, maybe a dictionary or two -- nope - they know everything so don't argue with them.

I've rambled enough - there are plenty of rules like this only civics nerds like me and maybe, Supreme Court justices really care about. But if a law is too confusing -- this is the problem you run into: Criminal laws cannot be unreasonably vague where people don't know what conduct is illegal.

4 likes, 2 dislikes
Posted by hoglawyer on 05/08/2013 at 2:44 PM

Re: “Curtis Coleman to announce for governor

So will he keep his lame radio spot on KARN ? Always sounds like a lame Huckabee impersonation ....

3 likes, 0 dislikes
Posted by hoglawyer on 02/20/2013 at 9:56 AM

Re: “Blacks punished more often in schools

I'm no good at statistics - so you do the math. But it looks to me that a disproportional number of minorities - are being held in the Pulaski County jail for murder charges. Does it mean that people of a certain race are being treated wrong ? Can we make conclusions based on numbers alone ? I would hope not.

And thats a lot of murderers... ( alleged murderers of course... they may have been framed)

Age Booking Date (On or After) Booking Date (On or Before) Booking Number Charge (Offense) Name Race Sex (M or F) S.O. Number
Name Booking Date Age Race Sex
WHITLOW,ANTONIO TERRELL 11/20/2012 33 B M
WESTBROOK,BRANDON U 05/03/2011 25 B M
WATSON,JUSTIN 10/26/2011 23 B M
TROSPER,THOMAS DANIEL 08/07/2012 43 W M
TOOMBS,ANTHONY 08/29/2012 37 B M
THOMPSON,EDWARD III 01/25/2012 32 B M
SHAW,STEPHEN 04/22/2012 26 W M
SADLER,MICHAEL DAVID SR 05/04/2012 58 B M
ROLLF,JOYCE RENE 10/27/2012 40 W F
ROGERS,MACLIN DAIMON 09/29/2012 20 B M
ROBINSON,JACOBI 09/28/2012 20 B M
ROBINSON,CHARLES 02/01/2013 23 B M
REYES,FROILAN 07/03/2012 51 H M
POSEY,JOHN P. 10/26/2012 35 W M
PETERSON,CAMERON JAMAL 09/04/2012 20 B M
PERRY,ZECKEYA KENYA 04/16/2012 19 B M
PERRY,KIYWUAN 04/16/2012 23 B M
PEARSON,ALISHA NICOLE 03/13/2012 29 B F
MORGAN,DARYL 01/08/2013 40 B M
MONTGOMERY,DEMOND 07/16/2012 19 B M
MCDOWELL,BRIAN D 09/21/2011 30 B M
MALONE,SAVION 01/21/2011 16 B M
MAIDEN,DONNIE 02/14/2012 27 B M
LOGAN,CURTIS 01/16/2011 15 B M
LEE,EDWARD 10/07/2012 34 B M
KEMP,ANTWAN 10/11/2012 22 B M
JONES,QUENTON VERNARD 01/09/2012 29 B M
ISHMON,LARRY 10/17/2012 21 B M
HOWARD,DAVION 11/05/2012 19 B M
HOWARD,BENJAMIN 12/08/2010 19 B M
HATTISON,JOHNATHAN 11/02/2012 23 B M
HARVEY,PAUL SCOTT 03/01/2012 25 W M
HARRIS,MARIO DESHON 07/16/2012 29 B M
HARDIN,OPIO 10/05/2012 30 B M
HALL,DOMINIQUE 12/29/2012 20 B M
HALL,CLIFTON 12/29/2012 21 B M
GRIFFIS,OMAR 07/19/2012 23 B M
EMERSON,TRENELL 01/04/2012 25 B M
DOBBINS,QUANTEZ C 04/16/2012 19 B M
DAVIS,DONTE 07/31/2012 20 B M
DAVIS,BRANDON 02/01/2013 17 B M
COONEY,DEVANTE M. 11/07/2012 19 B M
CONWAY,PHILLIP M 08/27/2012 36 B M
COLE,STEPHON 07/12/2012 18 B M
CLAY,JOHN 07/09/2012 26 B M
CANNON,CLARENCE 11/16/2011 46 B M
BURTON,MONTRELL 06/11/2012 30 B M
BURTON,CAROL 12/23/2011 30 B F
BONNER,MARK 07/26/2012 30 B M
BLUEFORD,ALEX MARTIN 06/29/2008 26 B M
BELL,JOE LEONARD 11/02/2012 22 B M
BAUTISTA,SABAS 04/23/2012 47 H M
AVERETT,JEFFREY L. 12/04/2012 50 B M

14 likes, 1 dislike
Posted by hoglawyer on 02/14/2013 at 12:29 PM

Re: “They never laugh at Dickey-Stephens Park; action threatened over bumper sticker

I'd love to hear from Mr. Ebel how this somehow fails to come under the umbrella of fair use and satire. If this doesn't constitute satire - what would oh wise and learned counsel ? This cease and desist letter of course has now backfired - and thrust the issue and the objectionable image far further than it would have if they had just learned to take a joke like the rest of us.

14 likes, 0 dislikes
Posted by hoglawyer on 01/31/2013 at 3:59 PM
Posted by hoglawyer on 01/25/2013 at 12:47 PM

All Comments »


 

© 2014 Arkansas Times | 201 East Markham, Suite 200, Little Rock, AR 72201
Powered by Foundation