Quote of the day—Goodwin Liu

Impossibility can occasionally excuse noncompliance with a statute, but in such circumstances, the excusal constitutes an interpretation of the statute in accordance with the Legislature’s intent, not an invalidation of the statute.

Goodwin Liu
California State Supreme Court Justice
NATIONAL SHOOTING SPORTS FOUNDATION, INC., et al., Plaintiffs and Appellants,  v. STATE OF CALIFORNIA.
S239397
Ct.App. 5 F072310
Fresno County
Super. Ct. No. 14CECG00068
[See also California Supreme Court Upholds Bullet Micro-Stamping Law and Laws That Are ‘Impossible’ to Follow Can Still Be Constitutional, Says California Court

Background:

The Legislature amended the definition of unsafe handguns to include “all semiautomatic pistols that are not already listed on the roster pursuant to Section 32015 [if] not designed and equipped with a microscopic array of characters that identify the make, model, and serial number of the pistol, etched or otherwise imprinted in two or more places on the interior surface or internal working parts of the pistol, and that are transferred by imprinting on each cartridge case when the firearm is fired.

The manufactures said this requirement was impossible to comply with. The State Supreme court just said that doesn’t invalidate the law. You may not have to comply with the law, but the law still stands.

What I didn’t see in a quick scan through the ruling was whether the California DOJ will be required to ignore that part of the law when the test new guns in regards to whether the guns are safe or not and will people be able to purchase new guns which do not meet the microstamping requirements.

My thought is this is crazy talk. Just get out of there. These people are nuts.—Joe]

8 thoughts on “Quote of the day—Goodwin Liu

  1. What they need to do in California is pass a bullet safety law that bullets must be manufactured to only shoot the gun out of a bad guys hand, and if the bullet is shot at an innocent person it has to boomerang around and shoot the attacker instead. This is common sense gun safety reform.

    By the way, did anyone else read the news reported that a shotgun fires a reverse funnel of death? We have to get these death funnel weapons of war off our streets!

  2. Ayn Rand’s description of the Soviet Union as a “morbid absurdity” springs to mind. We’re building our very own morbid absurdity right here at home.

    “…imprinting on each cartridge case when the firearm is fired.”

    Hah! So they DO KNOW THE DIFFERENCE between a bullet, a cartridge, and a cartridge case! And so they DO ONLY PRETEND to be ignorant of these things in public discourse! I’ve suspected it for some time now; ignorance, feigned or otherwise, as a tool, i.e. coyness.

    All of authoritarians’ rhetoric is all theatre. A grand spectacle. A dog and pony show. Millions will die of course, but it’s still a dog and pony show.

  3. Will the SCOTUS please step up and bitch slap California and the Ninth Circus Court?

    We need the SCOTUS to declare that magazine limits, smart guns, micro stamping, approved safe firearms lists, registration, FOID cards, ammunition background checks, age limits for adults (i.e. 18-20 year olds) and gun free zones are all unConstitutional since they are obvious infringements and the states signed on to the Bill of Rights to become part of the Union.

  4. “Impossibility can occasionally excuse noncompliance with a statute, but in such circumstances, the excusal constitutes an interpretation of the statute in accordance with the Legislature’s intent, not an invalidation of the statute.”

    Impossibility should always excuse noncompliance with a statute, but in such circumstances, the excusal constitutes an admission that a person should not be convicted of noncompliance with a statute that cannot be complied with. Legislative intent doesn’t enter into that issue.

    Invalidation of such a statute is a separate issue, and if raised by a plaintiff, the plaintiff should prevail, as depriving a person of the ability to keep and bear arms because doing so would violate a statute that cannot be complied with is a rather flagrant infringement of the plaintiff’s right to keep and bear arms.

    There. Fixed it for him.

    Now to fix the Supreme Court so such statutes cannot stand.

    • Legislative intent IS to make compliance impossible. The fact that the plain language effect is to ban guns without triggering the majority opposition of a ban is a feature, not an bug.

Comments are closed.