Poor wording in MGL

[zeppelinfromled]

So, I was reading in MGL. Specifically, Chapter 269, Section 10. It is clearly marked as section 10.

Part of the text in section 10 says:

No person having in effect a license to carry firearms for any purpose, issued under section one hundred and thirty-one or section one hundred and thirty-one F of chapter one hundred and forty shall be deemed to be in violation of this section.

It can be assumed that they are talking about section 10, part a. But that's poor wording, especially since section 10 also covers carrying on school grounds, etc. They should have said "no person...shall be deemed to be in violation of section 10(a)."

 

[Larry Legend]

Soo, does that a properly licensed person CAN carry on school grounds?

 

[zeppelinfromled]

You're welcome to try and see how successful your lawyer is at arguing your case. But I certainly won't be trying it.

 

[jdubois]

A poorly worded MGL?!?!? I don't believe it! . Yes, it should say, "this subsection" like the following paragraph does. But the spirit of the law is clear.

 

[Baystatesuks]

Funny thing about statutes. I knew an aide in the US Congress who would draft statutes for her rep. She always assumed there would be great debate about the language and someone would correct any mistakes/inconsistencies. Unfortunately, sometimes the statutes were passed as is (and sometimes had to be corrected later).

I am not saying the same thing happened in this case, but it wouldn't surprise me. Guess what? Same thing happens in legal rulings issued by the courts.

 

[jdubois]

My assumption, because this seems to happen a lot, is that the wording worked when section 10 was smaller. The section then got amended, and nobody caught the fact (or cared) that the language no longer made sense.

 

[terraformer]

My assumption, because this seems to happen a lot, is that the wording worked when section 10 was smaller. The section then got amended, and nobody caught the fact (or cared) that the language no longer made sense.

My vote ^.

 

[Baystatesuks]

My vote ^.

They will get around to fixing it when it impacts one of their own. Until then, it isn't their job. Or is it?

 

[RKG]

Bear in mind that statutes, like a number of other poor designs, are a committee product.

 

[Len-2A Training]

Bear in mind that statutes, like a number of other poor designs, are a committee product.

Reminds me of an old adage . . .

"A camel was a horse designed by a committee!"