TexasCHLforum.com

thetexan wrote:Now we're getting somewhere....pardon me just a second as I say..."YES!!!!! GO BRONCOS!"

I agree with everything you say generally. Things that are "questionable" will eventually (maybe, if it's appealed) be interpreted for us by the court. Until then we are left with our best guess. And there are many good analyses being given in this thread and others.

I am suggesting that everyone who wants to seriously engage in the debate is at an intellectual disadvantage if he doesn't do the legal research that is necessary to discuss it.

This is all an excellent exercise of our thought processes and even though we argue we are getting better and better at knowing the law.

tex

thetexan wrote:Here is the logic that covers this...

You can come up with 10000 variations of the law and claim that until someone has ruled that it is just as valid as the next guy's variation. There is only one problem with this, there are a set of rules by which statutes are interpreted. Most of the people engaged in some of these silly arguments are not aware of these rules and have not studied them much less operationally knowledgeable of these rules.

They are called the canons of statutory interpretation and are established by and used by the courts to determine the meaning of the rules legislators write. In fact the canons of statutory interpretation guide the legislators in the very writing of these statutes since they know their statutes will be interpreted by them.

We don't have to guess what conspicuous means, we don't have to guess what the phrase "a sign" means, we don't have to wonder what the word "property" means on a 30.06 sign, and we don't have to guess what an owner's intent is or if it even has any relevance in a statute.

It would do a lot of good if everyone would do a little homework and basic study of the law and statutory interpretation if they intend on intelligently engaging in debates on the law.

tex