[FNX45Guy]

This could prove to be entertaining... the House Legislative Network will stream video of the Code Revision Committee meeting at 2:00pm today, Wednesday, 18Feb2015 in Room 415 CLOB ... http://www.house.ga.gov/communications/en-US/VideoBroadcasts.aspx

Daily Broadcast Schedule... http://www.house.ga.gov/communications/en-US/VideoBroadcasts.aspx

Ref: HB90... http://www.legis.ga.gov/legislation/en-US/Display/20152016/HB/90

 

[BG_Atl]

This could prove to be entertaining... the House Legislative Network will stream video of the Code Revision Committee meeting at 2:00pm today, Wednesday, 18Feb2015 in Room 415 CLOB ... http://www.house.ga.gov/communications/en-US/VideoBroadcasts.aspx

Daily Broadcast Schedule... http://www.house.ga.gov/communications/en-US/VideoBroadcasts.aspx

Ref: HB90... http://www.legis.ga.gov/legislation/en-US/Display/20152016/HB/90

That bill was already pass from the committee to the House and voted on.

The agenda for today shows that they will be discussing HB 252

http://www.house.ga.gov/Documents/Agendas/Code Revision/021815code.pdf

 

[Savannah Dan]

I thought that too, but they didn't look that far. If I were to guess, I would say the Code Revision Commission would say that some part of 16-11-127.1 conflicted with the 2 bills and HB60's version won. Instead of integrating what did not conflict, they simply discarded the entire version of 16-11-127.1 contained in HB 826.

Good thing the Code Revision Commission isn't in charge of bathing babies!

 

[00Dan]

I noticed that the Governor signed this yesterday. Did anyone ever figure out if/how it would affect standing in the HB826 cases or anything else regarding HB826?

 

[mark5019]

I noticed that the Governor signed this yesterday. Did anyone ever figure out if/how it would affect standing in the HB826 cases or anything else regarding HB826?

signed what?

 

[00Dan]

signed what?

hb90.

 

[gunsmoker]

This new law, HB 90, has to things in it that could affect the campus carry issue.
First, and least important, is that the legislature amended Code section 16-11-127.1 again, but not in any significant way, and not at all with respect to exceptions to the general rule about no weapons on campus.

All they did was tweak the grammar in the sentence that announces the crime of having a weapon within a school safety zone (not really a "zone" anymore, but that's the language that's been retained for years) or at a school function.

EXISTING LAW'S GENERAL BAN ON WEAPONS:
(b) (1) ...shall be unlawful for any person to carry to or to possess or have under such person's control while within a school safety zone or at a school function, or on a bus or other transportation furnished by a school any weapon ...

THE NEW LAW'S GENERAL BAN ON WEAPONS:
"...shall be unlawful for any person to carry to or to possess or have under such person's control
while within a school safety zone,
at a school function,
or on a bus or other transportation furnished by a school

any weapon..."

At one point they took out the word "or" and replaced it with a comma. To a grammar geek, this may mean something, but not to me.

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

THE BIG ISSUE in this new law is that it ratifies and approves of all the changes the Code Commission made in their attempt to reconcile inconsistent legislation last year. This new law says that the way the law has been published by the Mitchie company and LEXIS is the official law of Georgia now. Which means that they are approving of everything the Code Commission did. If the Code Commission acted outside the scope of their authority by cherry-picking what parts of what laws they want to see put into O.C.G.A. and leaving out parts they don't like, now the General Assembly itself has given its stamp of approval to the choices they made.

 

[GAfirearmsReference]

So, what does everybody think? ... The third lines quoted are the but-not-if-it-was-an-Act-but-not-put-in-the-OCGA provision.

Analysis?

End result?

Your opinions are as good as anybody else's. Nobody sitting on a bench and wearing a robe is posting here. Let's hear those opinions.

I think that we should argue that lines 503-508 have the effect of taking the "campus carry" issue of 16-11-127.1 out of this bill, and nothing in HB90 should impact the ongoing dispute and litigation over how to reconcile the inconsistent provisions of last year's HB60 and HB826 as to campus carry by GWL holders.

That leaves the dispute ongoing. We still argue that the Code Commission found an irreconcilable conflict where there was none, and that they ignored a bona-fide change in the law that should have been written into the official published versions of O.C.G.A. The other side can argue that there was a conflict, the law mandates that in such a conflict the later-signed bill controls, and that means what the Code Commission did was right and legal. The opponents of campus carry don't need HB90 to win. EVen if HB 90 doesn't touch this particular dispute, they could win later if a judge tosses out GCO's suit and other suits by GCO members against their local school boards.

But the "other side" opposing our interpretation of the law can say that lines 503-508 of this year's clean up bill DO NOT apply at all, which means that the lines around the 480 mark that "reenact" the Code Commission's version of the law do have the final say to end this issue and decide the matter against campus carry.
They will say that when the Code Commission reconciles a conflict in the law, they are NOT "repealing" any law, and that nothing in HB90 would "repeal" any part of HB826 either. But even without any repeal, not all parts of HB826 deserve to be "the law" when they conflict with other provisions of other laws passed in the same legislative session. Necessary editing is not repealing, they'll say.

Remember, our "opponents" may not be motivated by bias as to gun control-- they might just favor the Legislature giving power to a Code Commission to rewrite and edit laws, and they might like the idea of the legislative body passing a bill to give its seal of approval to the slightly-changed published versions of last year's laws. They might favor taking such shortcuts in procedure just in the name of efficiency.

 

[Nemo]

I guess this is why there are lawyers. Follow it at your own peril. My analysis of:

EXISTING LAW'S GENERAL BAN ON WEAPONS:
(b) (1) ...shall be unlawful for any person to carry to or to possess or have under such person's control while within a school safety zone or at a school function, or on a bus or other transportation furnished by a school any weapon ...

THE NEW LAW'S GENERAL BAN ON WEAPONS:
"...shall be unlawful for any person to carry to or to possess or have under such person's control while within a school safety zone, at a school function,
or on a bus or other transportation furnished by a school

any weapon..."

The existing law says no guns at any of the following:
A safety zone or
B at a school function, or
C on a (school) bus or
D other transportation furnished by a school

If any one of the 4 are there and only one is necessary, no weapons.

The new law:

A while within a school safety zone, at a school function or
B on a bus or other transportation furnished by a school

My read, take your chances on following it:
If within a school safety zone, but not a school function, weapon allowed. If at a school function but not a safety zone, weapon allowed.
If a safety zone, AND a school function, No Weapon. Both safety zone and school function are elements necessary for ban on weapons to be in effect

C Bus or school transportation, no weapon.

I could be wrong but thats why towns that are not large enough to support one attorney will easily support 2.

Nemo

 

[CoffeeMate]

Both safety zone and school function are elements necessary for ban on weapons to be in effect

Without the necessary additional qualifying conjunctions or altered punctuation, either are sufficient elements. Both are not required.

 

[gunsmoker]

I'm quite confident that the legislature did not intend to legalize campus carry for anybody, with or without a license, so long as there is no "school function" taking place on campus at that time.
If you go on a school campus on a Sunday when there is not a soul there except yourself, walking for exercise around the school's running track, do you really think you can say that you don't need to find an exception under subsection "C" because your conduct doesn't even fit the general prohibition-- the elements of the offense itself?

 

[Gunstar1]

I'm quite confident that the legislature did not intend to legalize campus carry for anybody, with or without a license, so long as there is no "school function" taking place on campus at that time.
If you go on a school campus on a Sunday when there is not a soul there except yourself, walking for exercise around the school's running track, do you really think you can say that you don't need to find an exception under subsection "C" because your conduct doesn't even fit the general prohibition-- the elements of the offense itself?

No, the law says so.

(e) It shall be no defense to a prosecution for a violation of this Code section that:

(1) School was or was not in session at the time of the offense;

 

[gunsmoker]

Yeah, but I was just trying to think of scenarios where what Nemo said would come into play-- school safety zone but no school function. Both elements of the offense, and having one without the other would not make for a possible crime.

HOWEVER, the way "school function" is defined now (something new; it had not been defined before 2014) it can ONLY take place off-campus. So there never will be, never can possibly be, an on-campus school function.

So then, did the latest version of this law eliminate the law by making an impossible situation a condition precedent to the commission of the crime? (I don't think so.)

 

[Gunstar1]

Well, I can see 2 explanations for the change, the one Nemo came up with, or one in which it doesn't make a real difference, it is just to make various parts of the code section read the same.

The law:

... it shall be unlawful for any person to carry to or to possess or have under such person's control while within a school safety zone, or at a school function, or on a bus or other transportation furnished by a school ...

One thing the code revision commission is supposed to do it try to make the code somewhat uniform. If money is usually expressed in numbers, then an act that expresses it in words will be turned into the numbers to make it consistent.

If we look at (c)(7) we see that it is already using the new law's listing:

... within a school safety zone, at a school function, or on a bus or other transportation furnished by a school ...

Same with (c)(8 ).

Though (d)(1) still has the or.

...have under such person's control while at a school building or school function or on school property or a bus or other transportation ...

 

[Nemo]

Without the necessary additional qualifying conjunctions or altered punctuation, either are sufficient elements. Both are not required.

I submit my argument is the stronger one on 2 bases:

1-- The statute that was replaced contained the conjunctions. If the Legislature has not intended to change the statute and interpretation they would not have done so. They changed so they intended change.

2-- Either way, both are reasonable interpretations and the defendant gets the more liberal interpretation. I submit mine is the more liberal one for the defendant, therefore the winning one.

Nemo

 

[CoffeeMate]

I submit my argument is the stronger one on 2 bases:

Simply using "or" and a comma is not sufficient. What matters is HOW they are used. A plain reading of the line in question does not support the "dramatic pause affectation" upon which your argument relies.

Further, the line is not a self-contained statute unto itself. It exists within the structure of the statute in its entirety. Courts have repeatedly pointed out that legislatures do not include excess verbiage when writing statute. As GS1 pointed out, your argument is nonsensical when considered within the statute as a whole.

Merely "submitting" an argument styled as "the stronger one" does not render it so, no matter how "liberalizingly beneficial" it would be to defendants.

:lol:

 

[CoffeeMate]

Also, the basis (x2) by which you claim to have the "stronger argument" each have nothing to do with your argument specifically.

In the first case, it is merely a statement regarding legislative changes in general. The legislature may desire to change a statute for a wide variety of reasons. Changing wording in attempt to achieve better grammatical correctness does not indicate an intent to make wholesale changes to interpretation. Just because changing interpretation CAN be a purpose of legislative change, it does not mean that ALL legislative changes are done for that purpose.

In the second case, you refer to a benefit which would be obtained if your argument prevailed while merely asserting that your argument is reasonable. Merely pointing to a benefit does not prove the reasonableness of the argument producing the benefit.

 

[CoffeeMate]

Perhaps if you argued the sentence construction itself you might find an actual basis upon which to support your position?

 

[Gunstar1]

Sorry Nemo, such an argument will fail.

A while within a school safety zone, at a school function or
B on a bus or other transportation furnished by a school

My read, take your chances on following it:
If within a school safety zone, but not a school function, weapon allowed. If at a school function but not a safety zone, weapon allowed.
If a safety zone, AND a school function, No Weapon. Both safety zone and school function are elements necessary for ban on weapons to be in effect

C Bus or school transportation, no weapon.

"School safety zone" means in or on any real property or building owned by or leased to..
"School function" means a school function or related activity that occurs outside of a school safety zone...

So A above would mean you can only be charged if you are in or on real property while at a function that is not in or on real property.

You cannot be in or on the property and off the property at the same time. This is impossible.

On the other hand, the alternate interpretation is that the swap of an "or" for a comma is for consistency and doesn't change the meaning.

The change is found in HB90, which is a bill:

... to revise, modernize, correct errors or omissions in, and reenact the statutory portion of said Code, as amended, in furtherance of the work of the Code Revision Commission...

28-9-5

(a) The Code Revision Commission shall provide for the publication of the Official Code of Georgia Annotated and any pocket parts, supplements, revised volumes, or recodifications thereof. In compiling, editing, arranging, and preparing the Acts and resolutions of the General Assembly for such publication and without altering the sense, meaning, or effect of such Acts and resolutions, the commission is authorized to:
...
(3) Correct manifest typographical and grammatical errors;
...
(15) Change punctuation for purposes of uniformity and consistency of style.
...
(c) The Code Revision Commission shall prepare and have introduced at each regular session of the General Assembly one or more bills to reenact and make corrections in the Official Code of Georgia Annotated, portions thereof, ...

If one interpretation is impossible and the other is consistent with the purpose of the bill, the impossible interpretation will lose.

 

[Nemo]

I guess I was not clear enough in my prior post.

Regarding "school safety zone" I submit that means the physical building and real estate they occupy, lease etc.

Regarding the "school function" I argue that means the functions of school organizations and administrations. Functions can occur in the school safety zone or out of the zone. Such as, a dance held at the ballroom of the Ritz, 5 miles down the road from any school building can be a School Function not in the zone.

Weapon in the zone, good. Weapon at the function, good. Weapon in the zone (building) while a function is occurring (daily classes/prom/PTA meetings) bad.

I submit a zone is not an ephemeral area that follows functions that occur in various places. A zone is an area that can be verified and measured on a map, whether the zones are occupied or not.

Alternately a function is an occurrence or happening that takes place where a group of people meet and can take place at various locations, can change locations while occurring and expand or contract in size while occurring.

Nemo