rheaj
New member
nogods,
Thanks for taking the time to do some research and share your findings with us! Your results are certainly interesting.
I suspect that the outcome of People v Parker may come from a literal interpretation of the code. When I wrote my last post in this thread, I did stop and think a little bit about the following:
Let's reconsider this text:
If read literally, the mere fact that someone was issued a permit (of any kind) under 400.00, exempts them from 256.01. Even though 400.00 specifically states the individual is issued a license to "have and carry concealed," 265.20 seems to indicate that the mere issuance of a permit caused exemption.
I wonder if a different court considering the same case would argue that violating 400.00 means that 265.20 doesn't apply, and that the intent of 265.20 was not to give blanket exemption, but to allow for the possession of weapons only within the parameters of 400.00.
Anyway, I'm just guessing at this stuff now, I'm no lawyer by any means.
Again, thanks very much fro the research and for sharing!!
Thanks for taking the time to do some research and share your findings with us! Your results are certainly interesting.
I suspect that the outcome of People v Parker may come from a literal interpretation of the code. When I wrote my last post in this thread, I did stop and think a little bit about the following:
Let's reconsider this text:
Code:
§ 265.20 Exemptions.
a. Sections 265.01, 265.02.... shall not apply to:
........
3. Possession of a pistol or revolver by a person to whom a
license therefor has been issued as provided under
section 400.00...
I wonder if a different court considering the same case would argue that violating 400.00 means that 265.20 doesn't apply, and that the intent of 265.20 was not to give blanket exemption, but to allow for the possession of weapons only within the parameters of 400.00.
Anyway, I'm just guessing at this stuff now, I'm no lawyer by any means.
Again, thanks very much fro the research and for sharing!!