|Re: My take on the language|
Posted by Ken Kurtis on January 15, 2010 at 14:15:48:|
In Reply to: Re: My take on the language posted by Joel Geldin on January 15, 2010 at 07:32:52:
Thanks for the response. It may be true that "the legislature does not act futiley" but it would also seem true that the lawyers and the courts will interpret what the legislature has done in whatever way they see fit.
For what it's worth, I was just deposed a few weeks ago in a rebreather case where there's a very clear legal distinction being made between open-circuit scuba and rebreathers. They are being treated as two distinct entities.
IMHO, given the legal climate, while the Legislature may intend for rebreathers to be a subset of "scuba", that may not be a universally-held view (did you check with some of the scuba insurance companies for their opinion??) and if "rebreather" can be inserted into the bill, it would seem to me that its inclusion would clearly signal the legislative intent.
Also "specific fee" is still incldued in what's touted as the most recent version of the bill (1/13 I think) that's posted on the Legislature's website. That's where I got the info from. If there's a more recent version of the bill without that language, it's not posted there.
|Optional Link URL:|
|Optional Link Title:|
|Optional Image URL:|
|Post Background Color:||White Black|
|Post Area Page Width:||Normal Full|
|You must type in the
scrambled text key to
This is required to
help prevent spam bots
from flooding this BBS.