Court Opinion

ID: 9788819
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-31 01:19:13.685703+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:37:16.834202
License: Public Domain

Elliott, J.,
dissenting: I dissent. While I cannot fault the majority’s rationale and analysis, I am simply unable to attribute to the legislature the intent for the phrase “rifle, pistol, shotgun, bow or other implement whereby wildlife could be taken” [K.S.A. 32-1003(g)] to mean “rifle, pistol, shotgun, bow” or vehicle.
Rifles, pistols, shotguns, and bows are commonly categorized as weapons. Normally, where the listing of specific things is followed by a more general word or phrase, the general word or phrase is limited to things of die same kind. See State v. Moler, 269 Kan. 362, 363, 2 P.3d 773 (2000).
If it is accurate to say rifle, pistol, shotgun, bow, or vehicle, then surely it must be accurate to say ice cream, chocolate pie, frozen yogurt, or bulldozer, since all could commonly be categorized as desserts. I cannot hold the legislature intended such a result.
I would reverse.