FrankenHollow wrote:I'm going to give that to you, Divegeek.
I believe it is poorly written, but when broken out into a single sentence, it would read the way you break it down.
This is how I interpreted it in the past:
That "or" only applies to the subsection it is in.
If that were the case, there would be nothing for the "or" to connect. It has to connect (2)(b) to (2)(c), because there isn't a (2)(b)(iii), nor is there a (2)(b)(ii)(C). It can't connect a clause lower in the hierarchy to one higher in the hierarchy. And in connecting (2)(b) to (2)(c) it implies that (2)(a) through (2)(c) are a list of options; satisfying any one of them satisfies the law.
FrankenHollow wrote:Subsection (2)(b)(i) is of higher hierarchy and requires all riders to have a safety certificate.
(2)(b)(ii)(B) is an additional requirement that anyone under 18 must also be under the direct supervision of a safety certificate holder, unless they have a drivers' license. But, they must still have a safety certificate.
First, keep in mind the the entirety of (2)(b) is only relevant if neither (2)(a) nor (2)(c) applies, because (a) through (c) is an "or" list. If (2)(c) applies, as it would in the case of a 16 year-old with a Driver's Licence, then no safety certificate is required. So, (2)(b) only matters when the driver does not possess a DL.
Note that it is certainly possible for a person who has a DL and already possesses a safety certificate to be taking a refresher course from a certified instructor, in which case that person would be legal under all
of (2)(a), (2)(b) and (2)(c). But they only need one
to be legal, so when you're trying to figure out whether or not someone is legal under (2)(b), you're assuming they're not already covered by (2)(a) or (2)(c).
So when reading (2)(b), assume the driver doesn't have a DL and isn't being supervised by an instructor.
(2)(b)(i), then, says that persons operating an ATV must have a safety certificate. This is regardless of age. A 40 year-old with no DL would have to have a certificate to operate an ATV, as would an 8 year-old.
(2)(b)(ii) additionally requires (notice the "and" at the end of (2)(b)(i)) that persons under 18 operating an ATV on a road where regular motor vehicles are also operated -- (2)(b)(ii)(A) and (2)(b)(ii)(B) clarify when this applies -- must be supervised by a person at least 18 years of age. It doesn't say anything about this older person having a safety certificate.
EDIT: I think I may use this law in future CFP classes. It's not related to gun law, but it provides a nice example of how to parse a complex statement in the law, using both "and" and "or" and relating them to the hierarchical structure defined by the clause headings. In my classes I devote about 20 minutes to a discussion of how to read the law, and this would be a great one to build that around. It's actually a good thing that none of the firearms laws have similar complexity, but just for teaching purposes I wish one of them did, so I could be covering both "how to read law" and a specific, relevant statute at the same time.
Four boxes protect our liberty: soap, ballot, jury and ammo. Use in that order.
Utah CFP Instructor; NRA Certified Instructor for Pistol, Rifle and Self-Defense in the Home; NRA RSO.
I am not a lawyer!