[DrCaleb]

Khar Khar:

If ignorance of the law is a defense then a great many laws can be safely ignored, even though many of those laws provide recompense for victims.

I've often wondered why ignorance of a law is not a defence. I understand the basic concept; a person should know the laws of society and abide by them. But I walked into a law library once, and it was huge. Thousands upon thousands of volumes. How is a reasonable person supposed to know if it's illegal to cross the street east to west on Sunday afternoons while wearing a green hat, because that law hasn't been enforced since 1815?

I always thought ignorance of the law can be a defence, in certain circumstances. Open carrying across state lines is definitely not one of them.

[raydan]

Too easy to say you didn't know, even if you actually did. Then prosecution would have to prove, beyond all reasonable doubt, that you did know.

[Xort]

DrCaleb DrCaleb:

I always thought ignorance of the law can be a defence, in certain circumstances. Open carrying across state lines is definitely not one of them.

Why not? Why shouldn't states respect each other's licencing laws?

[DrCaleb]

Xort Xort:

DrCaleb DrCaleb:

I always thought ignorance of the law can be a defence, in certain circumstances. Open carrying across state lines is definitely not one of them.

Why not? Why shouldn't states respect each other's licencing laws?

Because that is how their Republic was set up. Laws in one state do not apply in another. That would be like asking Arizona to respect the same sex marriage laws of California and pot laws of Washington. No different than here really, just that gun laws have State observances and they are entirely federal in Canada.

It would be nice if they respected each others laws, but the reality is they don't.

[BartSimpson]

DrCaleb DrCaleb:

It would be nice if (US states) respected each others laws, but the reality is they don't.

This is because what works for one state does not necessarily work for another. We're too big and varied a nation to have one-size-fits-all laws at the state and local levels.

For instance, water restrictions in California which go into effect on August 1 make sense for California with the drought, but they hardly make sense for Ketchikan, Alaska where a 'dry' year means they only got two meters of rain for the year.

Why should Alaskans have to conserve water when they usually can't get rid of it fast enough?

And then there's California's tax laws. California requires that people who move out of California have to pay taxes on any retirement funds they put away while they were residents of California. The law is absolutely unenforceable in any other state yet that doesn't stop the Board of Equalization from sending colection notices to people in other states and it doesn't stop the Franchise Tax Board from sending armed agents to other states to try to intimidate people into paying taxes to a state they no longer live in.

Our Constitution provides the right to leave a state you don't like but what's the point if leaving that state means the m*****f*****s won't ever leave you alone?

Thus states have the right to not recognize the laws of other states and the Federal courts almost always limit the scope of state laws to the borders of said state.

A fine example of California overreach would be when San Francisco tried to force every airline at San Francisco's airport to recognize and approve of gay relationships and to provide benefits to gay employees worldwide.

Saudi Arabia informed the US Department of State that when the law went into effect that any and all employees of United Airlines would be subject to death penalty for violating the laws of the Kingdom that prohibit gay proselytizing.

San Francisco ended up rescinding the ordinance at the instruction of the Fed.

Now imagine if there was no limit to what nonsense California could inflict on other states?

[DrCaleb]

BartSimpson BartSimpson:

DrCaleb DrCaleb:

It would be nice if (US states) respected each others laws, but the reality is they don't.

This is because what works for one state does not necessarily work for another. We're too big and varied a nation to have one-size-fits-all laws at the state and local levels.

...

Now imagine if there was no limit to what nonsense California could inflict on other states?

You mean there's a limit now? All good points though. The US government is in the process of requiring Irish authorities to give them data on a server located in Ireland. Like they own it or have any authority to request it.

US States do recognize things like drivers licenses. You don't have to re-test when you drive from California to Nevada. I don't see why a conceal-carry permit in one state is a crime in the next. She took the test, she is licensed to carry. "Why is NJ hassling her?" is what I don't get.

I might be able to see if she was carrying in public, but it was in her own car. Honest mistake, carry on, but back home. Lock it in the trunk while in New Jersey . . .

[Brenda]

Yet, when you move from BC to AB, you have to change your drivers license, and have your car inspected.
Also, the tickets you need in AB to work, you don't necessarily need in BC.

It is not that different than Canada, actually. Difference is that you have 3 months to do it. That is something that might be looked into.

I don't really know about guns tho. I am not comfortable with open carry in the first place...

[BartSimpson]

DrCaleb DrCaleb:

The US government is in the process of requiring Irish authorities to give them data on a server located in Ireland. Like they own it or have any authority to request it.

And do you think the US has any right to do this? Of course not. The US makes the same demands of Russia and China and the Russians and Chinese tell us to GFY. Ireland should do the same and if the US retaliates then go to the EU and demand sanctions.

[BartSimpson]

Brenda Brenda:

I don't really know about guns tho. I am not comfortable with open carry in the first place...

So you don't like it when cops openly carry firearms?

[Brenda]

BartSimpson BartSimpson:

Brenda Brenda:

I don't really know about guns tho. I am not comfortable with open carry in the first place...

So you don't like it when cops openly carry firearms?

Because you know, cops and civilians have had the same training
Come on now, Bart, that is apples and oranges and you know it.

[BartSimpson]

Brenda Brenda:

BartSimpson BartSimpson:

Brenda Brenda:

I don't really know about guns tho. I am not comfortable with open carry in the first place...

So you don't like it when cops openly carry firearms?

Because you know, cops and civilians have had the same training
Come on now, Bart, that is apples and oranges and you know it.

Cops are civilians.

[Brenda]

Not when they are on duty.
We do hold them to a higher standard, even when they are OFF duty.

Anyho, I am not willing to get into a semantics game with you anyway.

[2Cdo]

Brenda Brenda:

BartSimpson BartSimpson:

Brenda Brenda:

I don't really know about guns tho. I am not comfortable with open carry in the first place...

So you don't like it when cops openly carry firearms?

Because you know, cops and civilians have had the same training
Come on now, Bart, that is apples and oranges and you know it.

Yes they do have different training, police training is minimal with an annual re-qualification that most get "written off".

[Xort]

DrCaleb DrCaleb:

Because that is how their Republic was set up. Laws in one state do not apply in another. That would be like asking Arizona to respect the same sex marriage laws of California and pot laws of Washington. No different than here really, just that gun laws have State observances and they are entirely federal in Canada.

It would be nice if they respected each others laws, but the reality is they don't.

So the answer to why they shouldn't accept each other's licencing laws is because they don't.

And you skipped my first question.

BartSimpson BartSimpson:

This is because what works for one state does not necessarily work for another. We're too big and varied a nation to have one-size-fits-all laws at the state and local levels.

For instance, water restrictions in California which go into effect on August 1 make sense for California with the drought, but they hardly make sense for Ketchikan, Alaska where a 'dry' year means they only got two meters of rain for the year.

Why should Alaskans have to conserve water when they usually can't get rid of it fast enough?

Now you are just being silly. Within political districts laws and regulations can be passed that are region specific. So water use regulations are regional.

Within California I would be surprised if water use was blanket covered by a single regulation.

Brenda Brenda:

Because you know, cops and civilians have had the same training

The quality of the police training and the end result is highly questionable.

$1:

Not when they are on duty.

Words have meaning and it is important. The only people that are not civilians are military members, or para-military members. Police are civilians, even while on duty.

A quick and easy understanding of the difference between civilian and military is can someone be legally required to do something that will cause their own death? If the answer is yes, in Canada that means they are in the military. No other group of people have to accept that they can be legally required to kill themselves.

[Khar]

N_Fiddledog N_Fiddledog:

There is a legal way out of this. In New Jersey there's a program called PTI. You apply to this program,and it sounds like you take some sort of course then the Prosecutor agrees not to prosecute, and you get a probationary term. You don't go to jail.

With this case however, for some reason, the state wants blood. Shaneen applied to take the PTI program, but the attorney general took over from the prosecutor and won't allow any discretion.

http://www.gunforhireradio.com/podcasts ... de_163.mp3

Your source is incorrect for multiple reasons.

1. The PTI program is available for residents of New Jersey only.
2. The program is designed for those who had social, economic or cultural issues that directly led to commit a crime, where the reduction of such issues would be more useful to the public and private good in the justice system. A lady carrying a gun across a border does not really meet any such intents of the program.
3. An indictment must be filed for the crime for a PTI to be used. This was not done before a grand jury and hence there was no indictment.

Shaneen's application (if she ever made one or makes one) should be denied, and it's not because the state wants blood, but because the entire system cannot be used in her case.

DrCaleb DrCaleb:

Khar Khar:

If ignorance of the law is a defense then a great many laws can be safely ignored, even though many of those laws provide recompense for victims.

I've often wondered why ignorance of a law is not a defence. I understand the basic concept; a person should know the laws of society and abide by them. But I walked into a law library once, and it was huge. Thousands upon thousands of volumes. How is a reasonable person supposed to know if it's illegal to cross the street east to west on Sunday afternoons while wearing a green hat, because that law hasn't been enforced since 1815?

I always thought ignorance of the law can be a defence, in certain circumstances. Open carrying across state lines is definitely not one of them.

If it's not been enforced, generally you don't have to worry about it anyway. The point is that some laws are unenforceable if ignorance becomes a defense, so the system is designed to not provide such an easy way out. Further, it's not as if the majority of laws out there don't make sense, or don't provide some degree of recompense to victims, so there is value to ignoring ignorance anyways, in my view.

The majority of those books in libraries are court records or have to do with increasingly esoteric things, that either those who it matters to know about or likely have a lawyer to do it for them. Anti-competition law, farming law, and such are all good examples where the people who need to know either know or have some lawyer knowing for them. Further, in most cases judges have some degree of jurisprudence so can break from the norm if they feel the need to anyways. Just my thoughts.