My question relates to legal practice in the state of: California
I have been studying how laws and statutes are written, interpreted; legislative intent stuff and the sorts and I have been studying Ejusdem Generis. From what I understand, it means:
Latin for "of the same kind," used to interpret loosely written statutes. Where a law lists specific classes of persons or things and then refers to them in general, the general statements only apply to the same kind of persons or things specifically listed. Example: if a law refers to automobiles, trucks, tractors, motorcycles and other motor-powered vehicles, "vehicles" would not include airplanes, since the list was of land-based transportation.
I have been reading statutes that are somewhat ambiguous and vague at best and one of them is concerning me with how it was written and I am wondering how Ejusdem Generis would apply to something along these lines of this hypothetical statute:
No person shall carry, conceal, transport, move, or cause to be relocated, any weapon, pistol, derringer, revolver, hand-gun or pocket gun, onto or upon any state owned or managed mental facility or hospital.
So I have purposely written this fake statute to show by using Ejusdem Generis (or my understanding of it), I can show that the words "any weapon" is followed by a list of gun types and more specifically to a class of guns that are very unique in nature. So reading this statute, would it be safe to say that it is constructed to prohibit bringing hand-type guns and pistols or this class of weapons only onto the state owned or managed mental facility or hospital, and does not make mention of other types of weapons, i.e. knives, bats, swords, daggers, long rifles, RPG's, sub-machine guns, machine guns, or any other type of weapon not enumerated? Or would this be a statute that would encompass, like it begins, any weapon, period - regardless of shape, type, class, size, concealability etc, etc?
I am looking for constructive input on this for my own education and for a good debate on some statutes that I have been picking apart. I am not a lawyer, but I did stay at a Holiday Inn Express last night.
I look forward your input and please be constructive. :cool: Thanks!
I have been studying how laws and statutes are written, interpreted; legislative intent stuff and the sorts and I have been studying Ejusdem Generis. From what I understand, it means:
Latin for "of the same kind," used to interpret loosely written statutes. Where a law lists specific classes of persons or things and then refers to them in general, the general statements only apply to the same kind of persons or things specifically listed. Example: if a law refers to automobiles, trucks, tractors, motorcycles and other motor-powered vehicles, "vehicles" would not include airplanes, since the list was of land-based transportation.
I have been reading statutes that are somewhat ambiguous and vague at best and one of them is concerning me with how it was written and I am wondering how Ejusdem Generis would apply to something along these lines of this hypothetical statute:
No person shall carry, conceal, transport, move, or cause to be relocated, any weapon, pistol, derringer, revolver, hand-gun or pocket gun, onto or upon any state owned or managed mental facility or hospital.
So I have purposely written this fake statute to show by using Ejusdem Generis (or my understanding of it), I can show that the words "any weapon" is followed by a list of gun types and more specifically to a class of guns that are very unique in nature. So reading this statute, would it be safe to say that it is constructed to prohibit bringing hand-type guns and pistols or this class of weapons only onto the state owned or managed mental facility or hospital, and does not make mention of other types of weapons, i.e. knives, bats, swords, daggers, long rifles, RPG's, sub-machine guns, machine guns, or any other type of weapon not enumerated? Or would this be a statute that would encompass, like it begins, any weapon, period - regardless of shape, type, class, size, concealability etc, etc?
I am looking for constructive input on this for my own education and for a good debate on some statutes that I have been picking apart. I am not a lawyer, but I did stay at a Holiday Inn Express last night.
I look forward your input and please be constructive. :cool: Thanks!
Legal Research: Can a Lawyer or Paralegal Please Help Me Understand the U.S. E of Ejusdem Generis
0 commentaires:
Enregistrer un commentaire