Legislative intent

[monkeylizard]

This is a  side-bar from http://www.tngunowners.com/forums/topic/69954-cop-threatens-to-shoot-lawful-cc-owner-then-arrests-him/

I didn't want to keep derailing that topic it any further.

 

The AG opinion 05-154 makes it pretty clear that Tennessee doesn’t require concealment and goes on to say that had the legislature wanted concealment they would have said so but frankly, I don’t think the opinion really attempts to deal with the more subtle intent I’m referring to. Anyway, if I get a chance I’ll try to research it more as it’s an interesting question!

 

What role, if any, does "legislative intent" play with the enforcement of a law?

 

If lawmakers' discussions are such that one could infer they mean the law to do one thing, but a plain reading of their enacted law clearly does something else, does their intent matter? If so, who's intent? It's not like they all think about an issue exactly the same way so any legislator may disagree with another over intent yet both vote 'Yea' on the bill.

[TrickyNicky]

My very loose understanding is that laws are enforced to the letter of the law. In the example above I agree with Robert, had the law makers wanted concealed carry only, they should have said so very clearly as in FL law.

Of course, IANAL, this is not legal advice only an opinion from someone who couldn't even play a lawyer on TV.

[wjh2657]

All legislation is written so that the "Law of Court Performances" prevails. Keep the wording so nebulous that it doesn't state anything. Then the person with the best lawyer can win the game. In short: rich guy wins/ poor guy loses. It is our way of life, so live with it.

[monkeylizard]

well, yeah. But that doesn't tell me anything about "legislative intent". Do lawyers arguing their cases use "legislative intent" to try to skew the court's interpretation of the written law?

[Q-tip]

I would think that the letter of the law, particularly in the case of OC where it's back up by an AG opinion (and the HCP website), is and should be the only standard. If the legislature wanted something else, they should have written it that way. 

 

I may be derailing here, but does anybody have and written proof that the legislature's intent was to only have CC? I read a lot of hear-say, but haven't seen any documentation.

[Wheelgunner]

What role, if any, does "legislative intent" play with the enforcement of a law?

 

In the interest of fostering a better theoretical understanding of our legal system, I'll explain it to you like a professor explained it to me:

 

A judge should base his understanding of a law on the plain meaning of the statute.  Generally that's all that happens, because most statutes don't contain ambiguous language.  For example, a statute might say "No person shall eat at a ham sandwich on Mondays."  That's pretty clear; don't eat a ham sandwich on a Monday and you're gonna be fine.  

 

But sometimes a statute is not clear.  "No person shall not ever avoid not eating a sandwich, unless said person isn't refraining from eating a sandwich on a day not Monday.  The above-mentioned sandwich shall in no case be of ham."

 

If the language of a statute is not clear, well, a judge isn't going to base his decision in a case on gibberish he doesn't understand.  So how does he make sense of it?  He goes and looks at what the legislature said about the statute back when it was just a bill.  A lot of times, the lawmakers state on the record what they're trying to accomplish with a bill while they're drafting, redrafting, and debating it.  What they say the intention of a law is indicates what its purpose is, even when the statute itself kinda fails at that job due to incomprehensibility.

[midtennchip]

Having argued legislative intent in the Tennessee Court of Appeals recently (and won, thankfully), I will try to explain. Wheelgunner is essentially correct. Where a statute is clear on its face, there is no need to look to legislative intent. Where a statute is not clear, then the courts will look to legislative intent. Problem with legislative intent is that you can't get the "intent" of a big body of people. What individual legislators say only helps define what the legislature was arguing about during the passing of the statute. As a result, I usually just helps the courts eliminate possible interpretations. Essentially, it becomes a process of elimination when using legislative intent.

If you need some reading to put you to sleep, here's the opinion I won recently. The discussion on legislative intent starts on Page 6:

http://www.tncourts.gov/sites/default/files/sparksml_opn.pdf

[Guest nra37922]

Simple solution would be for any law to have a preamble explaining what the intent of the law is. 

[Guest PapaB]

Simple solution would be for any law to have a preamble explaining what the intent of the law is. 

 

I can just imagine the conversations between the legislators arguing about the wording of the preamble.

[Guest PapaB]

From the opinion midtennchip linked;

As our Supreme Court has explained:

When interpreting statutes, a reviewing court must ascertain and give effect to
the legislative intent without restricting or expanding the statute’s intended
meaning.

 

I wish all Federal and State Judges would be held to that standard.

[Fallguy]

Simple solution would be for any law to have a preamble explaining what the intent of the law is. 

Many now do.

[Oh Shoot]

Many now do.

 

Yeah, if you read the actual bills, they do, but most just justify why the bill is proposed, but don't necessarily shed much light on actual nuances in interpretation of the codified part. Recent "parking lot carry" bill had about as much "whereas" verbiage as actual code verbiage, but none of it helps on the gray areas of the bill itself. (pasted below as example)*

 

Those parts just don't get included in TCA, but the I presume the original passed bill text is always available somewhere.

 

- OS

 

-------------

* AN ACT to amend Tennessee Code Annotated, Title 39,
Chapter 17, Part 13, relative to handgun carry
permits.
WHEREAS, in 1996, Tennesseans were first given the opportunity to apply for and, if meeting the qualifications, be issued a permit to carry
a handgun in public; and
WHEREAS, to apply for a permit a person must be at least twenty-one (21) years of age, a resident of Tennessee and a U.S. citizen or permanent
lawful resident; and
WHEREAS, the applicant must, under oath in the application, affirm that he or she has not been convicted of a criminal offense or otherwise o
ccupy a status that would make possession of a firearm prohibited by federal law; and
WHEREAS, in addition to the application, the applicant must provide two (2) full sets of the applicant’s fingerprints for the purpose of permitt
ing both the Tennessee bureau of investigation and federal bureau of investigation to conduct a criminal history record check on
the applicant; and
WHEREAS, the applicant is also required to submit proof of the successful completion of a department approved handgun safety course, which is re
quired to include both classroom hours and firing range hours, to ensure the applicant knows how to safely handle a firearm and
basic Tennessee law with respect to where firearms can an d cannot be carried; and
WHEREAS, upon completion of the application, the applicant is required to present photo identification and a nonrefundable one hundred
fifteen dollar ($115) application fee to the department; and WHEREAS, an applicant meeting all the requirements stated above is entitled to be
issued a Tennessee handgun permit within ninety (90) days of the department receiving the application; and
WHEREAS, even though obtaining a handgun carry permit is neither quick nor easy in Tennessee, over 40,600 law-abiding citizens successfully co
mpleted the requirements and received a permit during 1997, the first full year of operation; and
WHEREAS, the number of handgun carry permits issued to concerned citizens whowant to responsibly and legally protect themselves and
their family, both at home and on their way to and from work, has risen each of the fifteen years the permit has been available in this
state to the more than 371,800 Tennesseans who hold handgun carry permits in 2012; now, therefore,
BE IT ENACTED BY THE GENERAL ASSEMBLY OF THE STATE
OF TENNESSEE: ....

[Fallguy]

Yeah, if you read the actual bills, they do, but most just justify why the bill is proposed, but don't necessarily shed much light on actual nuances in interpretation of the codified part. Recent "parking lot carry" bill had about as much "whereas" verbiage as actual code verbiage, but none of it helps on the gray areas of the bill itself. (pasted below as example)*

 

Those parts just don't get included in TCA, but the I presume the original passed bill text is always available somewhere.

 

- OS

 

-------------

<clipped>

 

Well seems I also recall some preambles having an actual intent stated and not just "whereas" but none come to mind at the moment.

 

Did find at least one instance where intent was codified: 39-17-1602