Source: https://www.georgiapacking.org/threads/is-hartsfield-indeed-off-limits.274226/
Timestamp: 2018-05-21 16:51:37
Document Index: 660133904

Matched Legal Cases: ['§ 16', '§ 16', '§ 16', '§ 16', '§ 16', '§ 16', '§ 16', '§ 16', '§ 16', '§ 16', '§ 16', '§ 16', '§ 16', '§ 16', '§ 16', '§ 16', '§ 16', '§ 16', '§ 16', '§ 16']

Is Hartsfield indeed off limits??? | Georgia Packing - Keeping You Informed about Georgia Gun Laws
Discussion in 'Places Off-Limits' started by Malum Prohibitum, Feb 14, 2018.
Remember Tasha Mosley, a prosecutor, in the news, on a mission about guns in airports? She was the attorney for the prosecution in this case.
Watch out if you do not have a carry license!!!
The focus of OCGA § 16–11–130.2's protection is on weapons carry license holders. License holders—and only license holders—have the opportunity to leave the security area without criminal penalty after being notified they have a firearm; people like Malphurs who lack a license have no similar opportunity. See OCGA § 16–11–130.2(b).
The same statutory distinction is also present in OCGA § 16–11–127. There, license holders—and only license holders—may carry firearms in non-secure portions of government buildings and have the opportunity to leave a security screening area without criminal penalty after being notified that they have a weapon. OCGA § 16–11–127(e)(1). People who lack a license may not carry weapons in government buildings at all. OCGA § 16–11–127(b)(1).
If Malphurs was a license holder, he could have carried his firearm in the nonsecure portion of the airport under both OCGA § 16–11–130.2 (because OCGA § 16–11–130.2 carves that portion out from its prohibition for all people) and OCGA § 16–11–127 (because license holders can carry firearms in non-secure portions of government buildings). He also could have left the security screening area without criminal penalty once his gun was discovered under both OCGA § 16–11–130.2 (because the statute allows license holders to do so) and OCGA § 16–11–127 (because the statute allows license holders to do so).
But because Malphurs was not a license holder, he is not entitled to the protections the General Assembly applied only to license holders. Not being a license holder, Malphurs **417 could have carried his firearm in the non-secure portion of the airport under OCGA § 16–11–130.2 (because OCGA § 16–11–130.2 carves those portions out from its prohibition for all people), but not under OCGA § 16–11–127 (because people who lack weapons carry licenses cannot carry firearms in any portion of government buildings). And not being a license holder, neither OCGA § 16–11–130.2 nor OCGA § 16–11–127 allowed him to leave the security screening area without criminal penalty.
Instead, Malphurs is left merely to argue that the General Assembly intended to protect carriers of firearms generally, and thus we should read the statutory scheme to protect him. But that is not how legislative intent or laws work. The General Assembly does not *871 enact a general intention; it enacts statutes. Statutes have words, and words have meanings. It is those meanings that we interpret and apply, not some amorphous general intention.
Our conclusion is buttressed by the implications Malphurs' argument would have for other firearm statutes. Malphurs was also charged with violating OCGA § 16–11–126, which prohibits persons without a weapons carry license from carrying a weapon anywhere outside of their property, their motor vehicle, or their place of business. If OCGA § 16–11–130.2's carve-out of non-secure portions of airports affords not merely protection against prosecution under OCGA § 16–11–130.2, but also creates an affirmative right for anyone to carry a weapon in those portions of airports, the necessary implication is that OCGA § 16–11–126 now has a fourth place in which persons who lack weapons carry licenses can carry weapons: their home, their car, their place of business, and non-secure portions of airports. The language of OCGA § 16–11–130.2's carve-out is not rights-creating language (such as “persons may carry weapons”), it is a double negative (no person shall carry weapons in a restricted access area, but such area shall not include non-secure locations). We decline Malphurs' invitation to invent new rights not created by the General Assembly.
Malphurs v. State, 336 Ga. App. 867, 870–71, 785 S.E.2d 414, 416–17 (2016)
...Malphurs **417...
...does not *871...
moe mensale, Feb 15, 2018
Case citation to find that specific case decision. Standard method of reporting.
Malphurs v. State, Name of those involved/Title of Case.
336 Ga. App. 867 Citation to case
336 Volume Number
Ga. App-- Georgia Appellate Court
867-- Page number case decision begins on.
870–71-- Pages for specific quotation/language relied on
785 S.E.2d-- Volume Number, Southeast Reporter, Second Edition
414-- Page number for beginning of case
416–17-- Pages for specific quotation/language relied on
(2016)-- year of decision
Nemo, Feb 15, 2018
Welcome. Look at any reported case and the cite will be there. Makes it real easy to find in the law library.
Looks like he was also charged with reckless conduct. I wonder what that was for.
budder, Feb 17, 2018
budder said: ↑
Unfortunately, I do not know more than was in the Ct. of Appeals case.
This was an interlocutory appeal regarding Counts One and Two, so Count Three (reckless conduct) was not tried yet - and still may not be, I dunno. This is a 2016 appellate case. I suppose one could look it up online at Clayton County.
Malum Prohibitum, Feb 22, 2018
https://www.leagle.com/decision/ingaco20160419196