gun pulled on me today- need help

[gh1950]

Section D is the relevant section. A 19 year old is not eligible for a carry permit.

Subsection (d) applies to passengers in automobiles, guests in houses, and customers in businesses, not the operators. .

 

[GeauxLSU]

Subsection (d) applies to passengers in automobiles, guests in houses, and customers in businesses, not the operators. .

Where is that qualifier codified?

 

[gh1950]

Where is that qualifier codified?

(a) the plain language of the statute, and

(b) your reading of the statute creates a conflict between two subsections, (a) and (d), and it's a fundamental premise of statutory that all provisions of a statute are to be read so that there is no conflict among the parts.

 

[GeauxLSU]

(a) the plain language of the statute, and

(b) your reading of the statute creates a conflict between two subsections, (a) and (d), and it's a fundamental premise of statutory that all provisions of a statute are to be read so that there is no conflict among the parts.

Section a) clearly talks says his or her motor vehicle. Section d) clearly addresses ANY private passenger vehicle and clearly states you must be eligible for a carry permit. There is no conflict. A 19 year is NOT permitted to be armed in someone else's vehicle per statute.

 

[gh1950]

Section a) clearly talks says his or her motor vehicle. Section d) clearly addresses ANY private passenger vehicle and clearly states you must be eligible for a carry permit. There is no conflict. A 19 year is NOT permitted to be armed in someone else's vehicle per statute.

You keep pulling out "motor vehicle" like it is some special class of property. "His or her vehicle" refers to the person who is in control of the vehicle, not the person who is on the title of the vehicle, just as it refers to the person who is in control of a residence or a place of business. As I tried to explain above, we are not exactly inventing fire here-- it is an established concept in American jurisprudence, and the fact that you are not familiar with the concept doesn't mean it doesn't exist.

All I can tell you is how judges, lawyers, and most importantly, trained LEO's interpret the law. You are free to have your own interpretation and you can be guided by that.

I'm out of here.

 

[GeauxLSU]

You keep pulling out "motor vehicle" like it is some special class of property. "His or her vehicle" refers to the person who is in control of the vehicle, not the person who is on the title of the vehicle, just as it refers to the person who is in control of a residence or a place of business. As I tried to explain above, we are not exactly inventing fire here-- it is an established concept in American jurisprudence, and the fact that you are not familiar with the concept doesn't mean it doesn't exist.

All I can tell you is how judges, lawyers, and most importantly, trained LEO's interpret the law. You are free to have your own interpretation and you can be guided by that.

I'm out of here.

I take it you have some legal background? Could you cite case law that supports or illustrates your interpretation?
It certainly does not read that way but I concur it wouldn't be the first time legislation is poorly worded.

 

[Hayata]

I wondered why this thread kept being bumped...

 

[GaMudd]

This hurts my head....

 

[georgia357]

I ain't got anything to add, just wanted to try to confuse Hayata a little bit more.

 

[Thomas Eeyore]

Again if your son is under 21 years of age and he gets caught in the car by him self with a loaded Hand Gun in the car, you will be picking him up at the police station.