[Malum Prohibitum]

We have our answer.

July 1, 2016

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

Plain English - the clean up bill killed it.

The remainder of this post is a quote from the opinion itself:

Evans's claims are moot due to the General Assembly's adoption of House Bill No. 90 ("HB 90"). 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.

 

[Malum Prohibitum]

Yes, I get that it is dead. But, my question was/is what practical impact does that have on the rights/privs/etc. of carry permit holders in GA now?

The school law is as stated in 16-11-127.1, that is, basically no school carry unless dropping off or picking up a student (the language that HB 826 struck).

 

[Malum Prohibitum]

My comments.

(1) This opinion gives a very shallow analysis of whether there is a conflict. Is that all the attention this issue deserves? They do not even attempt to explain why there is or is not a conflict.

(2) The opinion contends that the plaintiff (Evans) is arguing that the two bills are in conflict. I know pretty damn well that this is blatantly untrue. The entire argument was that there is no conflict. The bills can be reconciled and should be reconciled. It appears to be another case of an appellate court misrepresenting GCO's arguments, that is, a strawman.​

Many of you have been around long enough to remember the Eleventh Circuit doing the same thing on church carry. The court recharacterized the argument as GCO contending that the constitution required the ability to carry a firearm over a private property owner's objection (that is, the church's objection). This was utter BS. GCO was arguing that a church should be permitted to allow carry even though state law forbid it at that time. The main plaintiff was the preacher at a church who would be authored to make such decisions if the state law did not make it a criminal act.

I am sick and tired of courts exercising the strawman fallacy. I expect such fallacies on the internet discussion fora. I hold courts, especially appellate courts, to a higher standard. I am beginning to wonder why I ever bothered thinking a higher standard should apply.

 

[Malum Prohibitum]

(2) The opinion contends that the plaintiff (Evans) is arguing that the two bills are in conflict. I know pretty damn well that this is blatantly untrue. The entire argument was that there is no conflict. The bills can be reconciled and should be reconciled. It appears to be another case of an appellate court misrepresenting GCO's arguments, that is, a strawman.

The quote from the case:

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.

So his entire argument is predicated on something he argued vociferously was not true? It's like opposite land.

 

[Malum Prohibitum]

I still think the signing dates were altered.

It does not matter if the courts are willing to rule that a clean up bill can clean up bills that are not even in conflict and make the law something other than the Acts that were passed.

It just does not matter when who signed what anymore.

 

[Malum Prohibitum]

(1) This opinion gives a very shallow analysis of whether there is a conflict. Is that all the attention this issue deserves? They do not even attempt to explain why there is or is not a conflict.

The quote from the case:

House Bill No. 826 (“HB 826â€) contained provisions that expressly conflicted with HB 60. Under HB 826, GWL holders were permitted to possess their licensed firearms within a school safety zone (a term redefined in HB 826). See HB 826, Act 575, Ga. L. 2014. The two bills contained conflicting versions of OCGA § 16-11-127.1. Where HB 60 prohibited possession of a firearm in a school safety zone (except that a GWL holder could when carrying or picking up a student), HB 826 expressly authorized a GWL holder to possess a firearm in a school safety zone without the aforementioned qualifying language.

That's it.

That's all there is.

There ain't no more.

They do not even bother to examine whether HB 60 made any carry at school illegal or the provisions regarding carrying or picking up a student were merely a restatement of existing statutory text, and, if the latter, why there was a conflict. They did not even pretend to make an effort at reconciling the two bills to see if it was possible. Could both be enacted at the same time? What would it do to the statute?

They did not even provide the relevant case law for what constitutes a conflict. We are just supposed to take it at face value that there is an obvious conflict.

 

[Malum Prohibitum]

This is what I don't get. Instead of ruling on the argument of the plaintiff, they invent a different argument to rule on as that is one that they would prefer to render a decision on. Seems like an ideal grounds for an appeal to me.

LOL! This was the appeal! Same thing in the church case. It was the appellate court pulling the strawman fallacy.

 

[Malum Prohibitum]

Would it be worth a try for this to be appealed to the GA Supreme Court?

Seems like the Court of Appeals ruling was lazily and sloppily done.

Yes

12345

 

[Malum Prohibitum]

The Georgia Supreme Court has more serious intellectuals who sometimes consider issues more carefully rather than looking at the briefs and screaming "Gun!"

 

[Malum Prohibitum]

The Georgia Supreme Court has more serious intellectuals who sometimes consider issues more carefully rather than looking at the briefs and screaming "Gun!"

Or not. :|

 

[Malum Prohibitum]

In fact, the code itself expressly says this is not how to interpret unchanged text.

§ 28-9-5(b) ... and language carried forward unchanged in one amendatory Act shall not be read as conflicting with changed language contained in another Act passed during the same session.

Oh, snap!

Excellent post, Rugerer.

I think some of the people posting here are conveniently forgetting that there are a whole set of statutes that set forth exactly how this code review commission thing is to be done. These statutes were violated and ignored by the commission and by the courts.

There you see it in black and white, folks.

Georgia law says that the language carried forward is not to be read as conflicting . . . and yet what did the Supreme Court do? Exactly what state law said not to do, but, hey, they are the Supreme Court, so they get the final say. If they want to ignore clear state law and do the exact opposite of what it says to do we cannot really do a damn thing about it.

 

[Malum Prohibitum]

http://www.georgiapacking.org/forum/showpost.php?p=2678875&postcount=677

http://www.georgiapacking.org/forum/showpost.php?p=2678619&postcount=603

 

[Malum Prohibitum]

Now put them together so we can dream about what might have been . . . :lol:

 

[Malum Prohibitum]

MP,

I have another question about he supreme court decision. Did the decision only invalidate the changes that HB826 did against OCGA 16-11-127.1 or did it invalidate the whole bill? I read through the decision and to me it appears they only talk about the conflict in 16-11-127.1 and don't mention anything else. Since changes to 20-2-751 and 20-2-751.1 are not even mentioned in HB 60, shouldn't these sections still apply and should be changed in the OCGA?

I would think that whatever between the two bills that was not in conflict should be updated accordingly.

Basically, the clean up bill ratified whatever the commission did.

 

[Malum Prohibitum]

He was asking about changes to Title 20, I think.

 

[Malum Prohibitum]

Did G.C.O. cite that Code section and argue it in its briefs to the Court? (I haven't checked).

Here is the only trial court brief. I have not read it for this information yet.
http://www.georgiacarry.com/state/school_zone/Resp_to_Leg_Def_MTD.pdf

Okay, I read it :???:

http://georgiacarry.com/state/school_zone/
That's all there is?