Intentionally misquote the law?

Rastoff

Rastoff

US Veteran
Joined
Dec 28, 2011
Messages
14,710
Reaction score
17,098
Location
So Cal (Near Edwards AFB)
If you thought someone might not see it the way you do, would you intentionally misquote the law?

I ran across this situation on another forum. I found a discussion about a place where it might be questionable to carry. The law is a little confusing and could be misinterpreted. This could lead to someone being arrested. So, they decided to post a quote of the law, but took authoritative license and altered the verbiage to suit their purpose.

I noticed the error in the quote and brought it to their attention. They refused to change it. Their logic wad that the way they altered it was safe for their readers.

I can understand taking a particular stand, but to intentionally lie about what the law says just ain't right in my book. I say, post the actual law and let the individuals decide for themselves. By all means, post your interpretation, but don't try to hide the truth just to get your way.

That's my way. What's yours?
 
Register to hide this ad
When you're talking about statutes, it's never a good idea to start changing the wording to suit some personal preference, or use "artistic (authoritative???) license" to try to "stretch" it to suit a desired interpretation. :eek:

Granted, sometimes statutes may be worded in a manner that makes them seem like word puzzles, especially if they're from an older time period.

Even so, it's also important to find out if the courts have changed the way something in the language is to be interpreted, or to be applied, even if the statute language remains unchanged in the relevant code.

Just asking for trouble to start altering words and substituting meanings on your own. :rolleyes:
 
I think it's a sticky situation. If carrying there could lead to arrest it would make sense that they advise people not to carry in those areas.
Misrepresenting the law isn't a good idea, but it sounds like the actual law isn't clear.

What should they do-
Should they post no guns allowed and leave it at that?
Should they post the law and let individuals make their own determination of whether or not they can carry?
Do they provide their interpretation of the law and how it actually effects their specific situation?
Each scenario has potential issues.

Many laws are written very broadly to cover a wide set of circumstances and sometimes that makes it hard to figure out when the law applies and when it doesn't, often times leaving some grey areas.
 
The law is the law it cannot be changed except by the government or state. Interpretation of the law is another matter and if someone wants to interpret the law themselves that's all fine and dandy until they end up in front of a jury. Most laws have some ambiguity to them to act as a coverall for unforeseen situations. Some people are just better off left alone in their dreamworld. You can't educate pork.
 
Agree with others

Interpreting the law for others just might get those others in deep trouble. Likewise, many laws are vague or overly broad. It just might be a legal minefield that's best avoided.

If asked what a certain law means, it's always best to begin your response with, "in my opinion." Discussing the law incident to firearms and carry is often necessary.
 
I would bring the matter to the attention of the forum Moderator's and Admin's ASAP!! Bogus info purposely posted "modified" like that, and that can get someone into trouble, is absolutely WRONG!!!!!
 
Last edited:
To misquote in a purposeful sense is to lie: The thousands of criminals I have seen in 40 years of law enforcement have had one thing in common: Every single one was a liar.

J. Edgar Hoover
 
I know it's wrong...

I know it's wrong. And you know it's wrong. Most anybody else on this forum would probably say it's wrong. But people don't care about what is wrong or right. They do what they want and say, "so sue me."
 
Whenever I read an interpretation of a law that seems to stray from how a statute is written, my first question is: "Do I want to be the test case for this?"
 
Thanks for the responses fellas. Here is the actual law in question:
California Code - Section 18544 said:
(a) Any person in possession of a firearm or any uniformed peace officer, private guard, or security personnel or any person who is wearing a uniform of a peace officer, guard, or security personnel, who is stationed in the immediate vicinity of, or posted at, a polling place without written authorization of the appropriate city or county elections official is punishable by a fine not exceeding ten thousand dollars ($10,000), by imprisonment pursuant to subdivision (h) of Section 1170 of the Penal Code for 16 months or two or three years, or in a county jail not exceeding one year, or by both that fine and imprisonment.
Click to expand...
There is a paragraph (b), but for brevity I've left it out. You can look it up to see that it's not germane to this discussion. I've highlighted the relevant aspect and what is generally debated.

Here is the way it is misquoted:
It is a misdemeanor or a felony for any person to be in possession of a firearm while in the immediate vicinity of, or while posted at, a polling place without written authorization of the appropriate city or county elections official.
(Cal. Elec. Code § 18544(a))
Click to expand...
As you can see, the two are wildly different.

This is about carrying at a polling place. While I can see the wisdom in telling people not to carry there, altering the law to suit your purpose is disingenuous. It casts doubt on everything else they post.



roscoepc said:
I would bring the matter to the attention of the forum Moderator's and Admin's ASAP!! Bogus info purposely posted "modified" like that, and that can get someone into trouble, is absolutely WRONG!!!!!
Click to expand...
Who do you think I contacted about this? Yep, it was a forum administrator that posted the misquote. The thread is locked and no more posts can be made. Starting another thread would just lead to confrontation and that's not my style.
 
Rastoff said:
Who do you think I contacted about this? Yep, it was a forum administrator that posted the misquote. The thread is locked and no more posts can be made. Starting another thread would just lead to confrontation and that's not my style.
Click to expand...

Well if the Admin thinks he can post this kind'a BS, I'd send him a polite PM asking to have my account deleted because he's posting bloviating BS that is not true!!

And Yes!! I've done just that before on a Goldwing website that I was a moderator on when the Admin/Site Owner bashed a fellow member and wasn't a bit apologetic about it.....

Life's too short to put up with Bloviator's.........
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

B
Cleaning up the streets
2
Replies
20
Views
994
Neumann
N
fatcat3
The other side of situational awareness
2
Replies
36
Views
2K
AJ
AJ
Doug M.
Profundity from the Sheriff of Baghdad.
Replies
1
Views
801
WR Moore
W
M
How good are the new S.L. Variant speedloaders?? (2025)
Replies
1
Views
76
PUPP86
PUPP86
SGT ROCK 11B
The True Distance of a Typical Gunfight
6 7 8
Replies
140
Views
6K
Smoke
Smoke

Latest posts

Back
Top