AG FAQ Thread

Discussion in 'Georgia In the News' started by Malum Prohibitum, May 29, 2014.


  1. cliffhanger

    cliffhanger Active Member

    1,021
    0
    36
    FAQ #7 in the list is exactly what we don't want them to say. I wonder if/when the AG will issue and actual opinion? It sounds like he's getting a lot of questions but what triggers him issuing the opinion?
     
  2. Priest

    Priest New Member

    2,133
    0
    0
    So, what he is saying is that he does not know how to read bills into law...nor does he have knowledge of the legal precedents already set in Ga.
     
  3. cliffhanger

    cliffhanger Active Member

    1,021
    0
    36
    Actually, I take back what I said. Re-reading the answer to the question, it's still ambiguous. It states that there is a general prohibition against carrying weapons in a school safety zone (which is correct) but doesn't address the exception of the license in HB826.
     
  4. cliffhanger

    cliffhanger Active Member

    1,021
    0
    36
    Sounds like he read the law perfectly and gave an answer in this FAQ that sidesteps the question... In his answer he never specifically states that a WCL possessor is/isn't exempted from the general prohibition...
     
  5. Malum Prohibitum

    Malum Prohibitum Moderator Staff Member

    67,152
    1,470
    113
    In an actual opinion he would have to explain WHY there is a conflict, instead of just asserting it.

    One bill strikes language. The next bill does not reinstate it. Where is the conflict?
     
  6. CoffeeMate

    CoffeeMate Junior Butt Warmer

    46,427
    9
    0
    And neither bill completely strikes and replaces statute, (as was the situation in that divorced prowler case).
     
  7. Mrs_Esterhouse

    Mrs_Esterhouse Swollen Member

    11,835
    507
    113
    Are they also going to claim that the line though "when such person carries or picks up a 110 student at a school building, school function, or school property" doesn't exist?

    Are we at risk of losing pickup and drop off plus "when he or she is within a school safety zone"?
     
  8. CoffeeMate

    CoffeeMate Junior Butt Warmer

    46,427
    9
    0
    Well that would be okay, wouldn't it? 'Cause then we'd be left with...

    "...A person who is licensed in accordance with Code Section 16-11-129 or issued a permit pursuant to Code Section 43-38-10 or on a bus or other transportation furnished by the a school..."

    (IOW the exception would also be extended to someone not licensed but on a school bus)
     
    Last edited: May 29, 2014
  9. roryred

    roryred Member

    235
    0
    16
    When will the final rewrite based on passed bills be available? Isn't that the next issue? How will the janitor rewrite this all? And who does that anyhow? Isn't this an FAQ on an as yet unwritten law? ... final form isn't on paper.
     
    Last edited: May 29, 2014
  10. AtlPhilip

    AtlPhilip Proud GCO member.

    7,950
    104
    63
  11. HCountyGuy

    HCountyGuy Well-Known Member

    1,359
    49
    48
    Oh if only HB 826 had been signed after...but then I suspect there'd still be a conflict in between the two and somehow they'd find a way to say the language in 826 was declared void by 60. Seems awfully convenient to me. If HB60 was the later enactment, why wasn't there updated language to reflect what was passed in 826 and revisions made accordingly? Or will the answer be simply because the bill hadn't gone into full effect yet?

    I can see the final write-up catering around this answer, where the content of 826 in regards to carry within a school safety zone is completely tossed. Not holding out much hope in this instance, unfortunately.
     
  12. gunsmoker

    gunsmoker Lawyer and Gun Activist

    27,606
    710
    113
    2 and 5

    questions 2 and 5 both address carrying at government buildings.

    While the A.G. recognizes that it's not a criminal offense to carry at such a place where there is a security checkpoint but NO P.O.S.T.- certified LEOs staffing it, he doesn't address what difference there is, if any, between
    1-- a building with a security checkpoint run entirely by private guards or non-LEO staff or volunteers at the facility,

    and

    2-- a building without any security screening at the entrance.

    Is there a difference? Can the folks at the former place deny you entrance? Make you leave? Invoke the criminal trespass law? Anything above verbally express their disapproval? Clearly the folks at the second kind of building have no authority to call the law or threaten you with anything-- the law is 100% with the armed citizen and against them.

    But what about those places with security checkpoints that don't have LEOs as part of the security force there at that time?
     
  13. gunsmoker

    gunsmoker Lawyer and Gun Activist

    27,606
    710
    113
    The Conflict

    Where's the conflict?

    First of all, HB 826 repeats and carries-forward the current language about how if a "license holder" violates this law, it's only a misdemeanor crime, not a felony like it would be for others.
    However, HB 826 strikes-out the limiting language about picking-up or dropping-off students from what is currently subsections (c)(7) and (c)(8 ) and makes it an exception for any carry license holder to carry when he or she is within a school safety zone, or when a carry license holder has any weapon in his or her vehicle.

    This begs the question: IF the new law allows school carry by GWL holders, what good does it do for the legislature to leave the misdemeanor crime language intact to punish GWL licensees who break this law? HOW COULD a license holder break this law? Isn't having a license a complete and perfect defense? And if the person isn't on school (including post-secondary education) property, then there's no crime anyway, since that's one of the elements of the offense.

    Unless some authority finds that the legislature screwed up and forgot to remove old and no-longer-applicable language about GWL holders breaking the school weapons law, then the only other way to interpret that provision remaining IN our law is to say that the law doesn't mean what it says, and having a GWL is not a perfect complete defense to any charge of violating 16-11-127.1 on school or college property.

    **************

    Secondly, there is what I would call a NON-CONFLICT VARIATION OF LANGUAGE between how this law would apply to students over 21 who wish to have guns in their cars, with those students seeking to apply the exception found currently at 16-11-127.1 (c)(8 ).

    THE CURRENT LAW SAYS: this exception (this specific one, numbered 8 in the current law and soon to be renumbered as #7 after July 1st) does not apply to "a student attending such school." The "attending such school" language means that the student cannot attend this particular school where that student is possessing a weapon, but it leaves open the possibility of that person carrying a gun at School B while he or she is enrolled as a student at School A.

    HB 60 CHANGES IT THIS WAY: the exception found in (c)(8 ) ... "shall not apply to a student attending a public or private elementary or secondary school." So now this exception is changed in two ways. It is partially broadened, because a college or university is a post-secondary type of institution, NOT a elementary or secondary school. But the exception is also partially narrowed and newly denied to a class of people who previously had been able to invoke it-- students at some other elementary or secondary school that is NOT where they are possessing the weapon in this particular case. (Arguably, this is only a theoretical narrowing of the exception, because the way I read this entire paragraph, you have to be either a GWL holder or an adult over age 21 to qualify for any of the exceptions found in (c)(8 ). Since even high school kids are going to be under 21, I don't see how they could ever qualify for this exception no matter what high school they attend or how far away it is from the other school where they possessed a weapon. Maybe this might come up for GED students who dropped-out at 17 or 18 but came back and enrolled in night classes for a GED, and those classes are held at a local high school in the evening. Thus, they could be "students" who "attend" a "high school" for an education, but not being normal high school enrolled students.

    HB 826 CHANGES IT THE SAME WAY BUT WITH DIFFERENT WORDS: the exception found in (c)(8 ) is re-numbered to (c)(7) and now the exception(s) found in it "shall not apply to a student attending A school." I made the letter "a" capital for emphasis. So this replaces the phrase "such school" with "a school" and strips this exception in the law from any student at any school, anywhere. That is the same thing that HB 60 does-- it no longer just forces people to ask "am I a student at this place where my weapon is?" and instead forces them to ask "am I a student anywhere?" BUT, also like HB 60, these changes in the wording found in HB 826 have the effect of looking only at somebody's status as a student at a "school" and not a student at a place of post-secondary education (college, trade school, university).

    So both of the new laws DO make real changes to the old law, and the new laws use DIFFERENT WORDS and PHRASES, but the net effect should be that both new laws are the same as each other on this point, and both modify the old law in the same two ways.
     
    Last edited: May 29, 2014
  14. Taurus92

    Taurus92 Well-Known Member

    9,458
    112
    63
  15. gunsmoker

    gunsmoker Lawyer and Gun Activist

    27,606
    710
    113
    Non-Licensed over 21

    the Department of Law's memo (Sam Olens, Attorney General) has another flaw, in my opinion.

    It summarizes the exception currently found in (c)(8 ) in a way that limits it to only GWL holders. While that's certainly one way to read this incredibly obtuse and awkwardly-written paragraph, I think a better way to read it is to see two sets of exceptions:
    (1) for weapons carry license holders, and
    (2)for unlicensed persons over age 21 who come onto school property with a weapon secured within their vehicle (and it must not leave the vehicle, even momentarily) whose reason for coming to the school is one of the approved reasons mentioned in this law.

    By the way, this entire law needs to be repealed. Congress has passed, and the courts have upheld, the federal gun free school zone law, now that the interstate commerce "findings" were added in 1995. That's all we need. There's simply no reason to burden the people of Georgia (and visitors to our state) with another state-specific law with its own provisions, its own definitions, and its own list of exceptions and exemptions. Congress' law is not very good. It restricts freedom too much, but we can't change that by making a state-level law on the same subject. All we can do is lobby Congress to add more exceptions into the federal law. The federal law has a number of exceptions, including one for UNLOADED and SECURELY-STORED guns in a vehicle. Maybe we could just make our law an exact mirror image of the federal law?
     
    Last edited: May 29, 2014
  16. BG_Atl

    BG_Atl Active Member

    2,161
    18
    38
    Fox 5 news just ran a story about this... reporting that the AG had issued an opinion
    (showing the FAQ page) and stating that
     
  17. HCountyGuy

    HCountyGuy Well-Known Member

    1,359
    49
    48
    I wasn't aware we could bring them before July 1! Darn, I should ask Fox 5 when I could have!

    They're incorrect anyway, not that that has ever bothered a news agency. We can have our guns on campus, as long as it's secured in our vehicle.
     
  18. FNX45Guy

    FNX45Guy Active Member

    1,964
    0
    36
    WSB Radio's Erick Erickson has been talking about GWL for the past 45-minutes.