Georgiapacking.org banner

81 - 93 of 93 Posts

·
Lawyer and Gun Activist
Joined
·
27,996 Posts
Nemo, there is an actual statutory definition of "school function" in this law.
So we have to use that definition, at least as a starting point for any analysis. Only if that definition is vague or unclear can you start bringing in what you think it means and how we should interpret it.
 

·
Man of Myth and Legend
Joined
·
13,672 Posts
Now I know why I got burned out on lawyering.

Nemo
 

·
Moderator
Joined
·
68,099 Posts
I need to go back and say that my initial fear over this bill on page 1 of this thread was right, and my subsequent statement that I had sounded the alarm too quickly was wrong.

Judge Bedford thinks HB 90 moots any discussion of HB 826 being the law.

http://www.georgiapacking.org/forum/showthread.php?t=264132
 

·
Moderator
Joined
·
68,099 Posts
The Court of Appeals says that my initial alarm was correct, too. Groan . . .

July 1, 2016

Court of Appeals of Georgia.
Evans v. Gwinnett County Public Schools
A16A0245

Plain English - the clean up bill killed it.

Evans's claims are moot due to the General Assembly's adoption of House Bill No. 90 (“HB 90â€). HB 90 was approved by Governor Deal on March 13, 2015, and states specifically that:

the text of Code sections and title, chapter, article, part, subpart, Code section, subsection, paragraph, subparagraph, division, and subdivision numbers and designations as contained in the Official Code of Georgia Annotated ․ as amended by the text and numbering of Code sections as contained in the 2014 supplements to the Official Code of Georgia Annotated ․ are hereby reenacted.​

House Bill 90, Act 9, Sec. 54, Ga. L. 2015. The version of OCGA § 16-11-127.1 printed in the Official Code of Georgia Annotated was the one adopted in HB 60, and any conflict between the two versions was resolved by HB 90. OCGA § 28-9-5 (c) provides that:
[t]he 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, and the laws as contained in the Code and any pocket part, supplements, and revised volumes thereof. Except as otherwise provided by general law, such reenactment of the Official Code of Georgia Annotated shall have the effect of adopting and giving force and effect of law to all the statutory text and numbering as contained in such volumes, pocket parts, and supplements, including but not limited to provisions as published therein in accordance with subsections (a) and (b) of this Code section.​
“A case is moot when its resolution would amount to the determination of an abstract question not arising upon existing facts or rights.†Brown v. Spann, 271 Ga. 495 (520 SE2d 909) (1999) (citation omitted). Here, Evans's entire case is predicated on the conflict between HB 60 and HB 826. But HB 90 resolved that conflict by establishing that the language used in OCGA § 16-11-127.1 was the language from HB 60. Accordingly, because the legislature has now affirmatively expressed its intent by adopting the language contained in HB 60, whether the language of HB 826 should have been applicable at the time Evans contacted the School System is now a mere abstract question. We hold that HB 90 establishes unequivocally that the version of OCGA § 16-11-127.1 printed in the Official Code of Georgia Annotated is the version the General Assembly intended to pass and be given the full force of the law, such that a person possessing a GWL is prohibited from carrying a firearm in a school safety zone except as provided in OCGA § 16-11-127.1 (c). Thus, the issues raised in Evans's declaratory judgment action are moot.

For this Court to strike down two separate laws duly passed by the General Assembly and signed by the Governor simply because Evans wishes his interpretation of HB 826 to carry the day would be an example of the “judicial activism of the highest order†that Evans so vociferously warns this Court about in his reply brief.
 

·
Moderator
Joined
·
68,099 Posts
Plain English follows.

This is the reenactment bill. Lines 483 and following say that the OCGA adopted in 2014 is THE LAW and shall have the force and effect of law. Did the OCGA adopt HB 826 and strike the language about picking up or carrying a student in the exemption from prosecution for a person with a GWCL and a firearm on campus? No.

Therefore, the force and effect of law will be, following passage and signature of the Governor, that HB 826 does not exist.

The Code Review Commission did not put it in the OCGA, and now HB 90 says what the Code Review Commission did to us last year is THE LAW.

Please discuss. Ask questions. Propose ideas.
Post #7. This entire thread is worth a re-read, even if you were reading it in real time when this was happening.
 

·
GeePeeDoHolic
Joined
·
6,399 Posts
Faith in integrity of the judicial system takes another downward tick.
If they can rule an airport is not public transportation, they'll find a way to rule that the legislature never intended to mean what they wrote.
"Judicial activism" for interpreting law as written? Good grief.
 

·
Lawyer and Gun Activist
Joined
·
27,996 Posts
As I said back in the spring of 2014, the real blame should fall on the legislature for passing two laws that both dealt with weapons at schools, knowing (or negligently not knowing) that the laws were inconsistent.
 

·
GeePeeDoHolic
Joined
·
6,399 Posts
As I said back in the spring of 2014, the real blame should fall on the legislature for passing two laws that both dealt with weapons at schools, knowing (or negligently not knowing) that the laws were inconsistent.
What's inconsistent?

One law changed some words in a text.

A different law changed some different words in a text.

The changes are able to stand together in the text in a meaningful, and not inconsistent way.

Yes? No?

We have a different law that spells out how changes can be reconciled and the limits of the Code Revision Commission's authority. Do those rules allow these changes to be reconciled?

Yes? No?

The real blame falls on result-seeking judges.
 

·
Moderator
Joined
·
68,099 Posts
As I said back in the spring of 2014, the real blame should fall on the legislature for passing two laws that both dealt with weapons at schools, knowing (or negligently not knowing) that the laws were inconsistent.
Why can't we lay it at the feet of the judicial branch? Can't we expect them to be consistent with what they did in Rutter v. Rutter?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
9,458 Posts
Ginsberg demonstrated that in her latest interview.
 
81 - 93 of 93 Posts
Top