[CoffeeMate]

CoffeeMate posted the merged text somewhere, and it was able to stand together. Where is the repugnance between "zero tolerance policies shall be amended" and "some people are exempt from this section"?

Member Berries Here
Around post #603 and #677 I think.

 

[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:

 

[CoffeeMate]

Around post #603 ...

Specifically #607 and #611.

So original and then applying HB 826...

(6) A person who is licensed in accordance with Code Section 16-11-129 or issued a permit pursuant to Code Section 43-38-10 when he or she is within a school safety zone or on a bus or other transportation furnished by the a school or a person who is licensed in accordance with Code Section 16-11-129 or issued a permit pursuant to Code Section 43-38-10 when he or she has any firearm legally kept within a vehicle when such vehicle is parked within a school safety zone or is in transit through a designated school safety zone;

And then applying HB 60...

(6) A person who is licensed in accordance with Code Section 16-11-129 or issued a permit pursuant to Code Section 43-38-10 when he or she is within a school safety zone, at a or on a bus or other transportation furnished by the a school or a person who is licensed in accordance with Code Section 16-11-129 or issued a permit pursuant to Code Section 43-38-10 when he or she has any firearm legally kept within a vehicle when such vehicle is parked within a school safety zone or is in transit through a designated school safety zone;

Going the other way, original and then applying HB 60...

(7) A person who is licensed in accordance with Code Section 16-11-129 or issued a permit pursuant to Code Section 43-38-10, when such person carries or picks up a student within a school safety zone, at a school function, or on a bus or other transportation furnished by the a school or a person who is licensed in accordance with Code Section 16-11-129 or issued a permit pursuant to Code Section 43-38-10 when he or she has any weapon legally kept within a vehicle when such vehicle is parked within a school safety zone or is in transit through a designated school safety zone;

And then applying HB 826...

(7) A person who is licensed in accordance with Code Section 16-11-129 or issued a permit pursuant to Code Section 43-38-10 when he or she is within a school safety zone or on a bus or other transportation furnished by the a school or a person who is licensed in accordance with Code Section 16-11-129 or issued a permit pursuant to Code Section 43-38-10 when he or she has any firearm legally kept within a vehicle when such vehicle is parked within a school safety zone or is in transit through a designated school safety zone;

 

[Phil1979]

"OCGA § 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."

So the Code Review Commission, Gov. Deal, and then Attorney General Sam Olens agreed to violate this state law, and the GA Supreme Court agreed that was okay.

Our Georgia General Assembly should be shocked that laws they enacted, such as the one above, can be so easily nullified by the Executive and Judicial branch.

Will our lawmakers do anything next session to make this abuse more difficult in the future?

 

[DKW]

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.

 

[CoffeeMate]

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

Apparently you are a minority in both the CRC and GA Judiciary.

Me too.

 

[Rugerer]

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

If they did that, they'd have to admit the gun part was not in conflict either. Can't have that.

 

[DKW]

If they did that, they'd have to admit the gun part was not in conflict either. Can't have that.

Whatever a persons opinion is on whether 16-11-127.1 is in conflict between the two bills since both bills change this section, it is inarguable there is any conflict between the bills for section 20.2-751 and 20-2-751.1 since only one of the bills addresses these sections.

 

[TimBob]

Question: can the legislature issue a reprimand directed at the GA Supreme Court for not following codified law?

 

[gunsmoker]

The clean-up bill gave the legislature's stamp of approval to the Governor's and Code Commission's treatment of these bills.
The exact same legislative body, with the same members serving, as passed both HB 60 and 826.
Why would the legislature want to call more attention to this problem that they created and wanted others to quietly cover up?

 

[AtlPhilip]

Even if voted down, having those who supported this bill sponsor a bill rebuking the state supreme court would put it on record that the court acted inappropriately. It might discourage future incidents.

 

[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.

 

[gunsmoker]

Some of 826 was codified, but nothing that would have modified any part of 16-11-127.1

 

[Malum Prohibitum]

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

 

[DKW]

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

Yeah. I was talking about title 20.

 

[Craftsman]

Again, we now know that those who believe themselves our lords and masters do not feel constrained by laws passed by mere mortals. Expensive education, but well worth it. We now know more about the tactics our enemies are willing to take to enforce their vision. While we should fear their punishment, they have forfeited any claim on our obedience, much less our respect. We should now proceed accordingly, knowing that they are willing to ignore laws they find inconvenient in the full knowledge that the media will not call them out.

The clean up bill did its job, closing the door on the prior session. We lost. Time to regroup and do something positive next session, this time without the foolish notion that they will actually play by the rules.

 

[gunsmoker]

The Georgia Supreme Court seems to think that HB 60, all of it, every word of the entire bill, was a new enactment of the legislature.
We know that's not true.
The general ban on campus carry, and the dozens of enumerated exceptions, were pre-existing law dating back to 2010, the last time any significant changes were made.
So why did the Supreme Court ignore Code section 28-9-5(b) (instructions to Code Commission about finding and dealing with conflicts)?
Did G.C.O. cite that Code section and argue it in its briefs to the Court? (I haven't checked).

Apparently, the Supreme Court is more concerned with consistency in the overall goals and purposes of an entire bill, and related laws already on the books, than they are with the technicalities of placing which words on paper in what order and with what spacing.

In the "big picture" view, the Ga. Supreme Court is noting that in one law, the legislature chose to leave a gun ban in place, but in another law, they chose to repeal it. That's a conflict in the Court's view.

Even if a different law says that bills are NOT supposed to be applied this way, and even though many appellate court cases in Georgia say that the legislature is presumed to know the existing statutory law when they make new ones, none of that matters to the Supreme Court.
They can find a conflict where they want to, and this feels like a conflict, even if it's technically not.
It sounds like the Judicial Branch is spanking the legislative branch for incompetence and approving of the Executive Branch's actions to resolve the problem.

Let's not have any problems like this in the future.
Looking back in hindsight, not a single word of HB 60 should have amended one jot or tittle of 16-11-127.1. That school weapons Code section should have been completely untouched by HB60 and dealt with only by HB 826.

 

[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?