Public Expressions of Religion Protection Act of 2006

jtexas

Fleet Admiral
Joined
Oct 13, 2003
Messages
8,646
Re: Public Expressions of Religion Protection Act of 2006

you pulling my chain? I'm not married to the system, has it's faults, say it sucks if that's what you think of it. Heck I grew up in Louisiana where they still go by the Napoleanic code (no kidding) instead of common law.

anyways, yes, what a legislature enacts is called a "statute." The kind of law it provides is called "statutory law." Statutory law trumps case law.

The last paragraph is noted in large print all caps as a COMMENT, meaning it's some law professor's opinion. The second sentence explains the meaning of the first. "If a weapon cannot be brought under the statute, it does not constitute unlawful carrying arms."

Here's a specific example. The statute specifically says it does not apply to a person who is travelling. Say you are on your way to the county seat in the county where you live, intending to return tomorrow, when you get arrested and charged with unlawful carry. You might want to use "travel" as a defense, but the statute doesn't tell us what "travel" means. A case cited there in the article (Darby v. State 5 S.W. 90) informs us that you were not a "traveler" for purposes of this statute so that would not be a valid defense. If the Darby case had never been tried, your judge might find otherwise and set you free...but as it is, he is bound by Darby to find you guilty. That decision is just as binding as any law passed by the legislature. But if your destination wasn't the county seat, your lawyer might argue (maybe successfully) that Darby doesn't apply in your case.

disclaimer: I'm not a lawyer. But I do believe that's a pretty good example of how case law is applied, generally speaking. I learned business law at a Louisiana university, so, well, that's my excuse.

if nothing else, you should by now have a pretty good idea of why techno offered a shovel ;)
 
Joined
Jun 1, 2005
Messages
4,666
Re: Public Expressions of Religion Protection Act of 2006

Sorry tex, you are wrong again. I was offering the shovel to you because you just keep digging yourself in deeper and deeper. Again, my apologies for the misunderstanding and I rescind my comment that you would have made good lawyer and a poor judge. You are trying to make a point of law the precedent instead of acknowledging that the precedent comes from existing law.
 

jtexas

Fleet Admiral
Joined
Oct 13, 2003
Messages
8,646
Re: Public Expressions of Religion Protection Act of 2006

sorry to break it to ya, techno, but statutes frequently arise from judicial law, where no statute existed before, and in fact a lot of law (contract law in particular) exists exclusively as case law.
 
Joined
Jun 1, 2005
Messages
4,666
Re: Public Expressions of Religion Protection Act of 2006

jtexas said:
sorry to break it to ya, techno, but statutes frequently arise from judicial law, .

Thank you for making my point. Now if we can just solve that chicken and egg thing we'll have it knocked.:rolleyes:
 

jtexas

Fleet Admiral
Joined
Oct 13, 2003
Messages
8,646
Re: Public Expressions of Religion Protection Act of 2006

well if ya hang in there long enough I'm bound to get it sooner or later...

isn't there some kinda medication that'll stop those eyes from rolling around?
 

crunch

Commander
Joined
Aug 1, 2006
Messages
2,844
Re: Public Expressions of Religion Protection Act of 2006

Often not. The existing Law is often superceded by new precedent case law... your point is that the law is static, and it isn't, it flows from, and with the judicial findings of the lower and upper courts, especially in Contract Law where the medium is so fluid.

Techy, Jtex is right,

You are trying to make a point of law the precedent instead of acknowledging that the precedent comes from existing law.

The precedent is the existing law.... in case after case.
 
Joined
Jun 1, 2005
Messages
4,666
Re: Public Expressions of Religion Protection Act of 2006

What turnip truck did you just jump from. I just can't combat your immaculate conception. You have clearly proven that the egg existed before the chicken. Thanks again for your splended display of deductive prowess. :^
 

crunch

Commander
Joined
Aug 1, 2006
Messages
2,844
Re: Public Expressions of Religion Protection Act of 2006

Thanx for your totally misunderstood conception of the argument.

Now that the insults are over with, what part do you have a problem with?
 

crunch

Commander
Joined
Aug 1, 2006
Messages
2,844
Re: Public Expressions of Religion Protection Act of 2006

BTW, thanx for the praise, "there is no higher form of Flattery than imatation"

What turnip truck did you just jump from
 

crunch

Commander
Joined
Aug 1, 2006
Messages
2,844
Re: Public Expressions of Religion Protection Act of 2006

custombycrunch said:
BTW, thanx for the praise, "there is no higher form of Flattery than imatation"

What turnip truck did you just jump from
8)8)8)8)
 

jtexas

Fleet Admiral
Joined
Oct 13, 2003
Messages
8,646
Re: Public Expressions of Religion Protection Act of 2006

custombycrunch said:
custombycrunch said:
BTW, thanx for the praise, "there is no higher form of Flattery than imatation"

What turnip truck did you just jump from
8)8)8)8)

uh-oh, quoting yourself is a serious breach of forum eticut.
 
Joined
Jun 1, 2005
Messages
4,666
Re: Public Expressions of Religion Protection Act of 2006

jtexas said:
custombycrunch said:
custombycrunch said:
BTW, thanx for the praise, "there is no higher form of Flattery than imatation"

What turnip truck did you just jump from
8)8)8)8)

uh-oh, quoting yourself is a serious breach of forum eticut.[/


If the glove does not fit, you must aquit. :yikes:
 
Top