Here's a link to the law...
http://touchngo.com/lglcntr/akstats/Statutes/Title39/Chapter52/Section310.htm
Tell me where it states that it will not be enforced.
Or direct us to an actual case where it the AL AG refused to enforce it.
You can't. Nobody can.
You can, as others have, say that you somehow feel or guess or even "know" that it will not be enforced but without precedence you are talking out your ear.
And, I repeat...demanding a negative proof is meaningless.
Hey wtc, talking about me behind my back again? And always in such complimentary terms. Does the phrase “Keep it Classy, Sweetie” have any meaning for you?
Anyway, after you unceremoniously stopped answering me, filbert asked a question, using the speeding laws as an example. He wanted to know whether I was basing my argument on the distinction between the official speed limit and the discretion used in enforcing that limit, which often results in tolerating a few miles over, a De Jure (”of the law”) limit versus a De Facto (”of the fact”) limit. Here is my response to him:
*****************************************
Well, I started out in that place, sort of, though it is a bit more complex than that. But I have finally found the applicability language in the statute, in section AS 39.52.910, which spells out that the Ethics Act only applies to a state officer, not a former state officer, unless under a specific exemption (carve-out), such as the one in AS 39.52.250.
So now that means that for your speeding analogy, we star[t]ed out not being sure where the code said it, but every legal professional operating in the jurisdiction understood you had to be caught speeding while actually in the car and driving, and not after the fact, that while you might get the actual ticket later, your exposure for being caught speeding only lasted as long as you were actually driving, and was not something where the police could revisit a particular driving episode to dredge up new infractions years or decades later. It just made sense as good policy, and matched up nicely with the case law, where the only kind of case you can find is people being caught speeding while driving and not afterward.
Then I actually found the part of the code [AS 39.52.910] that says, yep, this only applies if you’re actually driving. Which explains all the better why the case law doesn’t have any examples of being caught speeding while walking on the sidewalk, though a reasonable mind could deduce that without the language of the statute. Because that’s just not how it works. And now we know why, both in terms of the language, and in terms of common sense.
*****************************************
Now, wtc, I posted the whole applicability statute back out to you, and you ignored it entirely. Yet you want us to take you seriously when you cherry-pick one line from that same law and ignore all the qualifiers that can and do impact the interpretation of that law. Sorry. No. Cannot take that seriously.
Proving a negative? What you did was like this: You determined with your magic glasses that tomorrow morning the sun will come up in the west. I went back and could only find records of the sun coming up in the east. So I told you, and this was before I found the applicability section, I told you there ain’t no such thing gonna happen, and you call that demanding proof from a negative. Maybe to some purist logician. Maybe not. But from the point of view of how the law works, and being a person with a lot of experience with sunrises, I decided to stick with my story. Discovery of the applicability section was expected. It had to be there, and it was. Game. Set. Match. Deal with it.
Here, try this: Go to one of your lawyer buddies, if you have any, and ask them about this. Seriously. You should not be putting out that kind of poop on a site people come to for honest handling of the facts.
You were law enforcement? Scary.
Oh, and do keep it classy, won’t you? Thanks so much.
Peace,
SR