GCO was working on this long before Deal signed it into law. I think it's safe to say, as evidenced through these coordinated efforts, that intent was most certainly there.,
Besides, aren't all legislators supposed to respect constitutional intent?
-
ODT Gun Show & Swap Meet - May 4, 2024! - Click here for info
Bill allowing campus carry signed by Gov. Deal
- Thread starter Kaikias
- Start date
GCO was working on this long before Deal signed it into law. I think it's safe to say, as evidenced through these coordinated efforts, that intent was most certainly there.,
Besides, aren't all legislators supposed to respect constitutional intent?
legislative intent will be determined by the debate in committee and on the floor.
If there is an ambiguity, yes. But There is no ambiguity in HB 826. It is explicit and painfully clear.
The "intent" in that summary is as clear as the changes that were made in the bill...VERY CLEAR!
John Monroe, GCO Board Member, GCO Life Member and Vice President will be on On The Record on GPB TV tonight talking about HB826.
@ 7 PM Tonight
It is already being reported on Twitter and the story is on the GPB News website.
@ 7 PM Tonight
It is already being reported on Twitter and the story is on the GPB News website.
Last edited:
Yeah, the Attorney General is singing the same tune as Gov. Deal-- they say HB 826 was signed first (one day prior to HB 60), and therefore HB 60 is the latest and final expression of legislative intent.
HB 60 doesn't change campus carry in any significant way. It's still limited to vehicle storage or in-vehicle carry, or implicitly even out of your vehicle if that's part of what you have to do to "carry or pick up" a student. 826 would remove the "carry or pick up" limiting language, leaving the law with an exception for any GWL holder who is within a school safety zone (or on a school bus). Is this a legal conflict? The courts will have to decide. At least one 1974 court case from the Georgia Supreme Court, involving two conflicting 1972 bills which both dealt with the issue of grand jury indictments and prosecutor-written accusations, said that since these laws had different provisions (one repeated the old law as to a particular sentence, while the other bill modified that sentence fully intending to change it) they were inconsistent, and one had to trump the other, and the one signed last by the governor is the one that controls. But there are other cases that say two bills coming from the same legislative session on the same subject matter are supposed to be reconciled if at all possible and read as if they were just one law, using the normal rules of statutory construction.
I don't care for the logic of the KEENAN case from 1974, and I would prefer that the courts rule that when one provision in the law is explicitly modified, while that same passage of the old law is merely repeated and carried-forward in a new law that only changes other things, but doesn't change that particular provision, then the CHANGED PART controls over the UNCHANGED PART. I'm not saying that's how it IS. I'm saying that's how it should be.
HB 60 doesn't change campus carry in any significant way. It's still limited to vehicle storage or in-vehicle carry, or implicitly even out of your vehicle if that's part of what you have to do to "carry or pick up" a student. 826 would remove the "carry or pick up" limiting language, leaving the law with an exception for any GWL holder who is within a school safety zone (or on a school bus). Is this a legal conflict? The courts will have to decide. At least one 1974 court case from the Georgia Supreme Court, involving two conflicting 1972 bills which both dealt with the issue of grand jury indictments and prosecutor-written accusations, said that since these laws had different provisions (one repeated the old law as to a particular sentence, while the other bill modified that sentence fully intending to change it) they were inconsistent, and one had to trump the other, and the one signed last by the governor is the one that controls. But there are other cases that say two bills coming from the same legislative session on the same subject matter are supposed to be reconciled if at all possible and read as if they were just one law, using the normal rules of statutory construction.
I don't care for the logic of the KEENAN case from 1974, and I would prefer that the courts rule that when one provision in the law is explicitly modified, while that same passage of the old law is merely repeated and carried-forward in a new law that only changes other things, but doesn't change that particular provision, then the CHANGED PART controls over the UNCHANGED PART. I'm not saying that's how it IS. I'm saying that's how it should be.
