Comité Judiciary del Senado, 23 de febrero de 2026

Transcripción

757 turnos. Seleccione un tiempo para reproducir ese momento del video.

1. 0:21:25

   Welcome to the Senate Judiciary Committee. I know folks are still coming in. We're gonna go ahead and get started. If you want to be heard on any of the bills that we're taking up today, please come sign up. The sign-up sheet's up here on the table. We're gonna collect those in a second. So please come and sign up if you have not done so already.

2. 0:21:48

   And Senator Bearden, would you like to open us up in a word of prayer? You would not. Senator Watson, are you feeling it? You... Okay, he is feeling it. If not, I can. What's your mic number? 15? All y'all bow with us, please.

3. 0:22:02

   Uh, dear Lord, I thank you for continuing to look over us and guide us in our decisions. And please continue to, uh, keep us safe and put a halo around, uh, everyone here. And remember those, uh, in the cold and in the outside. Uh, in Christ's name I pray. Amen.

4. 0:22:18

   Thank you for that.

5. 0:22:40

   All right, we're gonna start with Senate Bill 470. Yeah, Jada, if you don't mind getting the sign-up sheets for me. Come on up, Senator Albers.

6. 0:22:51

   Mr. Chairman.

7. 0:22:52

   How are you?

8. 0:22:53

   I am wonderful. Would you mind if I fill for the GBI company needs?

9. 0:22:57

   Sure. Come on up.

10. 0:23:05

    Now, let's make sure we're all working off the same bill number. We have a substitute LC492658S. Is that correct?

11. 0:23:16

    Yes, sir. Thank you.

12. 0:23:17

    All right. The floor is yours.

13. 0:23:19

    Thank you, Mr. Chairman and committee members. Uh, this is Senate Bill 470, the Emergency and Public Safety Signal Protection Act. Senate Bill 470 creates a new crime for the possession, distribution, and use of signal jammers. First, let me explain what a signal jammer is. So if you, uh, have watched, uh, any of the exciting TV series or movies in the last many years, you've probably seen someone use a signal jammer. Let's say they pull down a street and you're at the end of the street.

14. 0:23:51

    They put a signal jammer on your house, which means, all of a sudden, your alarm system, it doesn't communicate out. Your cellphone, it does not work. Your Wi-Fi doesn't work. GPS doesn't work. Your satellite doesn't work because they literally have blocked all communications. Why would someone do that? Well, they want to break in your house without the police notifying. Might be a home invasion, and you can't call for help. They also use these devices for businesses. They wanna break into a business, or they wanna do harm. Think it even further, in a 911 center, a police department, a fire department, a major scene where we've had a catastrophic accident, whether it be, uh, something of God or of man.

15. 0:24:34

    These are very, very dangerous devices, and they've become a lot more prevalent. They have everything from a very small handheld device, which works in close proximity, to large ones that work literally over a football field away that can block all those signals. So this piece of legislation, through our friends at the GBI, is going to put the type of parameters of definitions of what they are and the criminal penalties about those bad actors that use them.

16. 0:25:04

    So I'll take you through the bill. Uh, beginning in, uh, section 1 obviously is the name. But section 2 defines, uh, all the cri- critical, uh, items that we see in bills from what a communication signal is, critical infrastructure, uh, the different agencies, what a signal jammer is. I think they're pretty straightforward. And then in section 2.2, it criminalizes people possessing, using, or operating with these to interfere with communications. And as, again, mentioned earlier, all the different ways that it can block those are GPS, radio, cellular, cable, satellite, Wi-Fi, et cetera.

17. 0:25:41

    Uh, and it really focuses on the intent to disrupt communication, and it targets that conduct. Uh, it does make this a felony, uh, with one to seven years in prison, up to a $10,000 fine. Uh, and it continues to increase fines as we go through. It's important to note toward the end of the bill, it's not a very long bill, though, we do have two different areas where the FCC or local state law has allowed those to happen. Think of places like prisons or airports, et cetera, where we're using different technology.

18. 0:26:15

    Those already are in code, uh, and are carved out specifically for those specific purposes where we're using those for other public safety initiatives. Uh, again, I think this is a pretty straightforward bill. Uh, and we are glad to answer any questions you or your members may have.

19. 0:26:32

    All right. Mr. Curtis, do you want to add anything to what he said on the presentation?

20. 0:26:36

    Uh, no, just, uh, hello, good mor- or excuse me, good afternoon. My j- my name's Philip Curtis. I'm attorney with the Georgia Bureau of Investigation. I think Chairman Albers adequately and, and excellently described the bill, but happy to answer any questions.

21. 0:26:47

    All right. Thank you for being with us this evening or af- afternoon. Feels like evening to me. It's been a long day. This afternoon as well. Any questions from the committee for the author or Mr. Curtis?

22. 0:26:59

    No questions from the committee. No one has signed up to speak on the bill. What's the pleasure of the committee?

23. 0:27:05

    Motion to pass.

24. 0:27:06

    Motion to pass by committee substitute-

25. 0:27:07

    Second

26. 0:27:07

    ... from Senator Watson, a second from Senator Parent. Any discussion? All those in favor of the motion, please raise your hand. It is unanimous.

27. 0:27:17

    Thank you so much, Mr. Chairman.

28. 0:27:18

    Congratulations.

29. 0:27:18

    Thank you so much.

30. 0:27:18

    Quickest I've ever been in and out of the Judiciary Committee.

31. 0:27:21

    Yeah.

32. 0:27:21

    I'm gonna leave and go buy a lottery ticket right now.

33. 0:27:22

    Is there anything else you need today?

34. 0:27:24

    Uh, no.

35. 0:27:25

    Okay. 'Cause I may have some more-

36. 0:27:26

    Well, as a matter of fact-

37. 0:27:27

    ... bills coming your way, so I'm gonna be asking.

38. 0:27:29

    Whatever you need, Mr. Chairman.

39. 0:27:30

    Okay. Well, thank you for being with us. No other bills while you're here. Nothing else you need?

40. 0:27:33

    No, not today.

41. 0:27:34

    You're good? Okay, that's great. All right. Thank you for being here. Thank you, Mr. Curtis. For the record, I've asked that question, right? Anything else he needed?

42. 0:27:43

    Yeah.

43. 0:27:43

    'Cause I'll be needing some stuff from him in the next week.

44. 0:27:46

    Okay.

45. 0:27:46

    All right. Let's move on to Senate Bill 499. Senator Ginn, come on up.

46. 0:27:54

    Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

47. 0:27:55

    And we are-

48. 0:27:55

    Is it okay if I ask Knox Williams to join me from the American Suppressor Association?

49. 0:27:59

    Sure, that'll be fine.

50. 0:28:03

    Mr. Williams, is that right?

51. 0:28:05

    Yes, sir.

52. 0:28:05

    All right. Kn- Knox Williams, is that what you said?

53. 0:28:07

    Yes, sir.

54. 0:28:07

    All right. Welcome as well.

55. 0:28:09

    Apologies for my chicken scratch on that.

56. 0:28:11

    Oh, you were good. I didn't even look at it yet. I was just based on what you said. Um, we are working off, tell me if I'm right, LC394970S. Is that what you have?

57. 0:28:20

    Yes, sir.

58. 0:28:21

    All right. The floor is yours.

59. 0:28:22

    Uh, thank you, Mr. Chairman. Uh, ladies and gentlemen of the committee, you know, my district attorney is a fellow named Parch White. He's a great all-American kind of guy, said they, uh, uh, reads an awful lot of things that, that, uh, would bore me to death. And I don't want to say anything about my judiciary committee, but yeah, I'm, I'm glad y'all are here, and I'm not most of the time. So, uh, uh, had a, a, last year when, uh, Congress was working on the Big Beautiful Bill, if they'd have passed the bill as it started, what would have happened would it, it would have taken away the federal tax stamp that you get when you buy a suppressor in Georgia.

60. 0:28:59

    And we want to make sure that we comply with federal law. So he asked me, he said, "Frank, if, if the..." Unfortunately, they changed the Big Beautiful Bill, and they didn't take away that tax stamp. But at the same token, I don't want anybody that has a suppressor to, to find themselves on the outside of Georgia law. So the original idea on the bill was just, we're just dealing with suppressors and what we've got to do. The, uh, working with my friends and with the National Rifle Association, the, uh, uh, and the American Suppressor Association, they, they had some, uh, substitute language that they wanted to use, and you see the bill in front of you.

61. 0:29:36

    The, uh, one of the things that, uh, I think some of y'all may know that I was a competitive shooter in high school and college. The, uh, and unfortunately, they, uh, didn't have the best hearing protection, so I have some hearing loss due to that. Uh, just so you, you know, on a personal note, so the, uh, many of y'all know I have a farm, the, uh, in Madison County. They, uh, have, uh, the 30 caliber hunting club. They, uh, those guys, uh, get out too early in the morning and want to go hunting. One of the nice things about suppressors is, is that if you put one on a deer rifle instead of letting everybody wake up at the, the crack of dawn when they go hunting, uh, the, this would help eliminate some of that, uh, excess noise that, uh, kind of interferes with other people's, uh, peace and quiet.

62. 0:30:21

    So, uh, be glad to answer questions about the bill if there, there's anything you want me to address.

63. 0:30:28

    So is, is it true that, um, 42 states, um, legalize suppressors right now, but Georgia's one of the eight that doesn't, I guess? Is that right? Or...

64. 0:30:39

    The, uh, I, I, I'm gonna a- I, I can't-

65. 0:30:41

    Okay

66. 0:30:41

    ... can't tell you what other states do. I, I apologize.

67. 0:30:43

    Okay.

68. 0:30:43

    But, but, uh, Knox may be able to address that, so.

69. 0:30:46

    Do you want to... Go ahead.

70. 0:30:47

    Yes, sir. Mr. Chairman, thank you so much. Um, Georgia is one of the 42 states where civilians can legally possess and own suppressors. Uh, they're also one of 41 states where, where hunters can legally use them in the field to help protect their hearing. Um, currently, there are over five million in circulation nationwide. In order to purchase a suppressor, you do have to go through a process of registration with the National Firearms Act, uh, specifically with the ATF, um, where you're submitting, uh, paperwork called a Form 4, uh, passport style photos, fingerprint cards.

71. 0:31:17

    Um, and in essence, you're effectively submitting this paperwork to be put into a federal registry, uh, but, um, passing the same background check that you would when purchasing a Title I firearm like a rifle, pistol, or a shotgun. Um, so there are federal background check requirements. There are quite a few of these in common use throughout the country with, again, over five million in circulation. Georgia is one of the biggest states when it comes to suppressor possession in all of the country.

72. 0:31:43

    And what we're actually doing, Mr. Chairman, is the, uh, making sure we don't reference a particular federal statute, but it complies with federal law. So whatever the, the law is that changes on the federal level, the, uh, we want it to be in compliance with federal law.

73. 0:31:57

    And can you elaborate on that a little bit? Um, what was your last name again? Sorry. Mr. Williams, uh, the issue with the current federal law and how that may be changing and how, what the bill's trying to get ahead of.

74. 0:32:07

    Yes, sir. So with the One Big Beautiful Bill Act, um, one of the provisions, uh, on, uh, initially being debated was the complete removal of suppressors from the National Firearms Act. Um, if that had occurred, these still are, uh, classified as firearms under federal law as part of the Gun Control Act. Um, so these would be treated just like rifles, pistols, and shotguns for all intents and purposes. There is some nuance there. Be happy to get into those specifics if we want to split those weeds, uh, or hairs. But, uh, but for the purposes of this discussion, uh, they would still be treated as firearms, which means if purchasing them, uh, you know, uh, you'd have to follow the same regulations as trying to buy any other type of firearm, including passage of a background check and a Form 4473 at point of sale, uh, if you're gonna be buying them through a licensed, uh, FFL, um, just like you would for a rifle, pistol, or a shotgun.

75. 0:32:54

    Um, the initial bill was trying to remove them. Uh, that ended up not where it landed. Um, you know, the Senate parliamentarian in, uh, effectively ruled that that was not germane to the reconciliation process. Um, however, the reduction, or excuse me, the elimination of the $200 transfer tax that had stood in place since 1934, uh, was eliminated. So for the first time since 1934, when that law took effect on January 1st, uh, civilians no longer had to pay a $200 punitive excise tax to be able to purchase a firearm suppressor.

76. 0:33:29

    All right. Do you have other questions, the committee? Senator Hatchett?

77. 0:33:33

    Yes. Um, I'm following and tracking section one through- Really four. Section five, that deals with the unlawful possession of a firearm during the commission or attempted commission of a crime. I'm with the lawful possession and going through the proper channels, but why are we taking it out of code section 1611160 when it's talking about, "It shall be unlawful for any person to possess or use a machine gun, sawed off," et cetera, "during the commission or the attempted commission of any of the following offenses"?

78. 0:34:23

    And I believe that, that, uh... Oh, and, and because we share our district attorney, Senator, uh, Parks White, they, uh, uh, he was... A- and this gets... I'm not a lawyer. You, you, this, you got me on this one. But he said that if, uh, an individual, they, uh, had a suppressor, said they, uh, that, that they used to defend themselves in their home, said and it was not registered, they would be, uh, guilty and would, would have to serve, I think there's a minimum sentence in there.

79. 0:34:55

    They, uh, I don't remember what he told me the minimum sentence was. But he said, you know, somebody had a suppressor, that if they didn't use the suppressor, they, uh, they'd be fine. But if they had a suppressor on a firearm that they used to defend their home, it's, they're automatically going to jail for, and I wanna say it was 25 years. I'm not sure on that, but, but you know, that's... You, you, you probably wanna talk to Parks. The, uh, he, he, and, and, uh, that was where I think that's where that section comes from right there.

80. 0:35:22

    Well, I guess I understand that if you're defending your home. Um, there's also a lot of other defenses that you could have there, but I'm more concerned about wouldn't a suppressor be the weapon of choice if someone was to go in and try to commit a crime? And I guess, uh, do you have any insight as to why that would be taken out? 'Cause I, I, I'm... All the other sections I think follow the same policy tracking, but this one just stands out to me.

81. 0:35:52

    Mr. Williams?

82. 0:35:53

    Yeah. So to address that, it's a bit of a multifaceted answer. I think it's critical to note that, uh, it is basically impossible to use a suppressor in the commission of a crime on its own without a host firearm. The use of those, uh, the, of the gun-

83. 0:36:06

    Well, th- this is actually a firearm equipped with a silencer.

84. 0:36:09

    Correct.

85. 0:36:10

    That's, that's what's taken out. Yeah.

86. 0:36:11

    Yes, sir. However, suppressors are effectively inert devices, right? These are devices that reduce the noise of a firearm. They are technically classified as firearms under federal law and under state law currently. Um, however, uh, there is no inherent danger in having the, a suppressor in any capacity. Um, you know, when you're talking about affixing it to the end of a firearm and using it in the commission of a crime, that will still maintain, uh, stiff federal penalties. Um, I believe at the federal level, the use of a suppressor in the commission of a crime carries a 30-year mandatory, uh, prison sentence.

87. 0:36:45

    Um, you know, there are very few laws that are more punitive than that. I guess the question would be really how often and frequently are Georgians being prosecuted for the use of a suppressor in the commission of a crime? I can't speak directly to that yet. I can certainly find that answer. But when you look at, uh, federally speaking, um, you know, where is ATF on, on suppressors and their impact with public safety? Um, you know, again, tabling hearing protection discussions and that I've got significant testimony to dive into that, which I'd be happy to share, uh, when y'all hear proponent testimony.

88. 0:37:16

    Um, but, uh, you look at, at a quote from Ronald Turk, the former number two at ATF. He was the associate deputy director and chief operating officer, and this was while he was still at ATF in his official capacity. Uh, he published a, a, a white paper that, that said, and I'm quoting directly, "Silencers are very rarely used in criminal shootings. Given the lack of criminality associated with silencers, it is reasonable to conclude that they should not be viewed as a threat to public safety." And one of the main reasons why is because silencers don't actually silence noise of gunshot. You can call it a muffler, a moderator, a suppressor, a silencer can.

89. 0:37:48

    People use all of those terms interchangeably. These are devices that take a dangerous sound level associated with the use of a firearm, and they make it less dangerous. However, the science bears out that even with suppressors, gunshots are still loud enough to the point where you should still wear traditional hearing protections like earplugs and earmuffs. And I, I don't think that, you know, any of us can make a logical assertion that something is loud enough that you should still wear earplugs, but quiet enough to make it inaudible, and thus a enhanced threat to public safety. Um, coupling that with, uh, you know, ShotSpotter technology, there's a lot of, a lot of discussion around, um, being able to localize and detect, uh, the noise of a gunshot, you know, because it's unsuppressed.

90. 0:38:29

    And again, I think that a lot of that focus is around the misconception that suppressors, again, eliminate the noise. I, I could pull the trigger on a suppressed firearm in this room and nobody would hear it. It would be loud enough to the point where our, those of us in the immediate vicinity, our ears would still be ringing, and every single human in this room would think, "Wow, what was that loud noise that just transpired?" Um, getting back to, to ShotSpotter, uh, when posed the question about whether or not ShotSpotter technology could detect the sound of suppressed gunfire, um, the CEO, and I'm not sure if he's still the CEO, uh, but Ralph Clark, who at the time, uh, of his interview was the CEO of ShotSpotter, um, again, that's the law enforcement tool that helps, uh, police identify and localize gunshots in cities and urban areas.

91. 0:39:09

    Um, he stated directly that suppressed gunfire can still be detected by their technology. Um, that was 10 years ago, you know, and their technology has advanced significantly. Um, you know, the effectiveness and the sound reduction of suppressors has been basically the same since the '30s. Um, so, you know, there are a lot of reasons why criminals don't wanna use them. A, they don't actually silence anything. B, there are significant criminal penalties on the federal side. Uh, they make them inherently harder to conceal. When you look at the guns that are typically used in crimes, you're talking about handguns. Um, and adding six to nine inches in length, um, and if you're actually shooting the gun, these things heat up very, very quickly, and then you're talking about trying to conceal it again on your person.

92. 0:39:49

    Um, if you fire more than about 10 rounds and you put it on, on your skin, you are going to get a third degree burn, um, in addition to just making them inherently less concealable. So there's a host of reasons why these are rarely used in criminal settings, the primary of which is they don't actually silence anything. Um, but at the end of the day, you know, treating what is in effect a hearing safety device as a dangerous and unusual weapon, especially when these things are in common use with hundreds of thousands of them in circulation here in the state of Georgia, um, it- From our perspective, just seems kind of nonsensical, if that makes sense.

93. 0:40:24

    If I can, Mr. Chairman. So your position is because they, the, I guess the firearm would still make a noise and that the silencers themselves are not dangerous, that they should be taken off. And if you have the bill in front of you, it's on line 64. I just, I think if you're committing a crime, and I know not all silencers are created equal, neither are guns. A silencer on a .22 Hornet does a pretty good job.

94. 0:40:54

    Sure.

95. 0:40:54

    But in this situation, if you are committing a crime and your intent is to use a firearm that doesn't make as much of a noise, I don't know why that shouldn't be a... I'm just struggling with why that shouldn't be a heightened penalty, and why we're changing that.

96. 0:41:15

    On that point, so the... And that's a policy question for us to answer, obviously. But what the bill consistently is doing is going in the code where we have sawed-off shotgun, sawed-off rifle, machine gun, or dangerous weapon is defined. And where silencer is included with those other types of weapons, we're consistently removing that. I guess the question might be to answer is, what is the policy difference there when it comes to a silencer versus a sawed-off shotgun, sawed-off rifle, a machine gun, as far as how we regulate them federally or under state law, and why pull silencer out of that category?

97. 0:41:54

    Do you wanna address that or?

98. 0:41:57

    You know, for me, it- it's, it's one of those things that, oh, I'm trying to help people with their hearing and, and, oh, not infringing on other folks that don't wanna have this as much noise. They, now they, you know... I, I only shot a suppressor one time, and it was, it was... I have, have a hog problem at my farm. The, uh... Then I used a, oh, a suppressor on trying to hunt hogs. The, uh... It, it doesn't work. The hogs can hear better than I can. So the, uh, uh, that was, that was my experience with them, and the, uh...

99. 0:42:31

    I, I can't address, uh, exactly, but I'll let, oh, Mr. Williams.

100. 0:42:36

     Go ahead.

101. 0:42:36

     Mr. Chairman, thank you so much, sir. Um, so at the end of the day, you look at these items, and the suppressor is the only device on this list that's not actually a firearm. You cannot put a bullet into a suppressor or a silencer, whatever you wanna call it, and actually pull a trigger because there is no trigger mechanism, right? This is an inert device that only reduces the noise of a gunshot. And I, I think, uh, if, if you don't mind, if I can kinda take a step back and explain sort of the hearing conservation aspect to suppressors and what they actually do, and more importantly almost, what they don't do. I'd love to share some, uh, some, some quotes from, uh, a lot of different government organizations, scientists, and, uh, medical professionals from around the country.

102. 0:43:14

     So first and foremost, according to Dr. William W. Clark, the director of Washington University School of Medicine's program in audiology, uh, "The most serious threat to hearing comes from recreational hunting or target shooting." That is a direct quote. Multiple studies have found that between 70 to 80% of hunters never wear earplugs or earmuffs, almost always because they wanna maintain auditory situational awareness when they're out in the field. Um, and nearly half of all target shooters don't consistently wear traditional hearing protection. Um, according to the CDC, "The only potentially effective noise control method to reduce students' or instructors' noise exposure from gun fires through the use of noise suppressors that can be attached to the end of a gun barrel." That is a direct quote from a study.

103. 0:43:53

     According to the National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health, from a separate study, "If feasible and legally permissible, attach noise suppressors to firearms to reduce peak sound pressure levels." According to the National Hearing Conservation Association, quote, "Although firearm suppressors do not completely eliminate the risk of noise-induced hearing loss from firearms noise, the risk can be significantly reduced. Therefore, the National Hearing Conservation Association supports the use of firearm noise suppressors as a form of engineering noise control to reduce hazardous firearm noise exposures." The Academy of Doctors of Audiology echoes the statement by stating, quote, "While the use of conventional hearing protection tools such as earplugs and earmuffs are fundamental for preventing noise-induced hearing loss in firearms users, conventional hearing protection alone does not always offer adequate protection from noise exposure." I wanna highlight that.

104. 0:44:38

     Uh, again, "While the use of conventional hearing protection tools such as earplugs and earmuffs are fundamental for preventing noise-induced hearing loss in firearms users, conventional hearing protection alone does not always offer adequate protection from noise exposure." What that basically means is that there are many instances in which people can, uh, can use earplugs and earmuffs in conjunction with one another and still not protect their hearing if they're not using a suppressor. Um, you know, uh, they go on to say, "Firearm noise suppressors can be an effective supplement to traditional hearing protection." The way that we like to, to view this and the way that the medical community, uh, relays this is a comprehensive approach to protection, a layered approach is the most effective way to do that.

105. 0:45:20

     For the same reason that automobiles that have airbags also have seat belts a- and other safety features, right? Like, this is very much a layered approach, and suppressors are inherently different from these other items in as much as they're irrefutably safety devices, uh, that help ensure that people who are exercising their God-given constitutionally protected right, uh, to keep and bear arms don't have to sacrifice one of their five senses, uh, when they're exercising those constitutional rights.

106. 0:45:49

     We have a question for Senator Parent.

107. 0:45:52

     Thank you. Thank you, um, for being with us, and thank you, of course, to my good friend, senator from the 47th. Um, I'm all about the hearing protection. I mean, that makes a lot of sense. Um, my research was showing that, you know, that piece could pretty much be, um, adequately dealt with with, um, the, you know, earmuffs or, or earplugs. My concern is, um, to use one recent example, the, the, uh-

108. 0:46:20

     ... killer who murdered the UnitedHealthcare CEO in Manhattan had one. And you can see in the video that it was very early in the morning, you probably recall, but, um, people around him, it took them a l- a while to realize what actually happened. And so that would be my concern in like a crowd or a mass shooting situation, or even in that one where you can tell obviously he, you know, the, the killer had his target. But bystanders, you know, I mean, if there is a mass shooting or even just shots getting fired or some crime being committed, I mean, people do get caught in, in, um, crossfire, um, erroneously and die.

109. 0:46:57

     So it's, uh, safer to be able to hear where it might be coming from and get out of the way. So that's why it took the bystander a while to get out of the way. So just curious about your thoughts on that.

110. 0:47:09

     The, the study that you have where the sup- the, uh, listening devices for firearms, what's the m- uh, manufacturer on that? The, uh, on, on, for, you know, the shots, uh-

111. 0:47:22

     ShotSpotter.

112. 0:47:23

     Sh- ShotSpotter.

113. 0:47:24

     Yes, sir.

114. 0:47:24

     You know, the technology that ShotSpotter uses, the, uh, I don't know if you wanna read a quote, but they can still identify a gunshot even with a suppressor on it. And so for me, that's one of those things that, uh, I, I don't know how the ShotSpotter technology works-

115. 0:47:40

     Mm-hmm

116. 0:47:40

     ... but, uh, I think that's, that's pretty indicative that, uh, while at the same token, you know, if you've been around firearms, yeah, I guarantee if, if, if a car backfires or gun fires, you know, it's probably difficult for somebody that's not a-

117. 0:47:54

     Right

118. 0:47:54

     ... regular shooter to acknowledge what has happened. And that's w- would be my guess is what happens in New York, 'cause I'm hoping not a lot of gun fires going off in New York City, but, you know, 'cause they, they have some of the toughest gun laws-

119. 0:48:06

     Yeah

120. 0:48:06

     ... the, uh, in the country. But, uh, that, that was where for me, I kinda wonder the, uh, the ShotSpotters, if they have those installed, and did they actual- were they actually able to identify that at that point?

121. 0:48:18

     Right. It seems like, um, you said, you know, the testimony was a lot of people would still be able to tell there was a, a gun fired, but it seems that that isn't the case in, in every instance. And so then the question for me is just about the public safety aspect in a, a crowded environment where someone is committing a crime. And, you know, this, this other gentleman, well, I shouldn't call him that, but this other murderer, um, who killed, you know, I can't remember how many people it was, it was like 12 or 15 in that supermarket in Buffalo.

122. 0:48:48

     He, he said, "I tried to get one, but they're banned in New York. They're hard to get legally." Um, so I think that would've been dangerous in that supermarket mass shooting had he had one.

123. 0:49:00

     And what I'm, I'm trying to do with this legislation is make sure they still comply with federal law. The, uh, and so, uh, you know, right now it's just, it's just one specific federal law, and I'm trying to make sure whatever the federal law changes to, that's what we wanna make sure that-

124. 0:49:15

     Yeah. And it has not changed yet, right?

125. 0:49:17

     That's right.

126. 0:49:18

     Right. Okay.

127. 0:49:18

     That's, that's my understanding. I, I'm not a, I'm not a lawyer. You are.

128. 0:49:22

     You're pretty smart, though. So, all right. Thank you so much.

129. 0:49:25

     And that is correct. And if, if I may, Mr. Chairman, thank you. Um, and to answer your question, you know, you, you're talking about the, the UnitedHealthcare CEO shooting.

130. 0:49:32

     Mm-hmm.

131. 0:49:33

     Um, you know, one of the cabbies that was in queue about 100 yards away, um, you know, went on the news, uh, immediately thereafter and said, "You know, I heard gunshots." Um, uh, you know, didn't really know what was happening. And I think that, um, you know, if you've ever been around gunfire unexpectedly, uh, you're probably gonna enter a state of panic, and I would reckon that that was what happened with the, the bystander that happened to be standing there. Um, you know, I've, I've not personally experienced that. Um, however, I have, uh, you know, witnessed horrific car accidents in person, and even then, I mean, it took me quite some time to be able to register what was actually transpiring.

132. 0:50:06

     Uh, the use of a suppressor, honestly, I don't believe had any impact on, on that situation or would've had any impact on any of these others, again, because suppressed gunfire is still incredibly loud. Loud enough to the point where, you know, I'd be more than happy to take you or any members of the committee out to the shooting range. In fact, the Congressional Sportsman's Foundation, the Georgia Sportsman's Caucus, is hosting a demonstration tomorrow. Uh, we would invite all of the members, uh, interested to come out and shoot, and I'd be more than happy to show you, um, some suppressed, uh, firearms firsthand so that you can hear the difference between unsuppressed and suppressed gunfire.

133. 0:50:37

     Um, I will be wearing earplugs and earmuffs while I am shooting those suppressed guns. I recommend everybody else do the same. However, that is a personal choice.

134. 0:50:45

     Mm-hmm.

135. 0:50:45

     I value my hearing. Um, and, you know, if, if that's something that you'd like to do, I'd, you know, leave that choice to y'all. But, but the invite is certainly there.

136. 0:50:52

     I would, I would add one other thing as a personal note, 'cause, you know, it's always revolves around us. So the, uh, so years ago, I, I ran a municipal water system, and the neighboring municipality was in the process of raising a water tank. So they, uh, they had a crane collapse, uh, during that process, and the, they dropped the water tank. You can imagine the, uh, a, a 100,000-gallon water tank hitting the ground makes quite a bit of noise. Matter of fact, it was heard as far as 10 miles away. I went over the next day to, to, uh, visit the scene and talk to some of the people that were there.

137. 0:51:27

     They told me they heard nothing. They, they... When they, when they saw the tank falling, they, they... I don't know, you know, if that's a human characteristic or what, but they said, "No, we didn't hear a thing." They, uh... So I, I don't know. You know, that's kinda one of those situations that, explain it to me, I'll, I'll, I'll know something better. But, but those guys, they, they told me, they said, "No, that fat boy over there, he jumped over that eight-foot fence." See? Kind of exciting, but...

138. 0:51:54

     Chairman Bearden, did you have a question?

139. 0:51:57

     I did. Um, and as Mr. Williams-

140. 0:52:00

     Yes, sir

141. 0:52:01

     ... stated, if you're not expecting a gunshot, excuse me, 98% of people are gonna go into panic mode trying to figure out what's going on. Sections 1 through 4, I think, is perfect for the law-abiding citizen with a suppressor. But I don't think I've really got a solid answer on section 5 To why we'd be striking that part out for someone in commission of a crime to take out or a firearm equipped with a silencer.

142. 0:52:32

     I just don't think I got a clear answer on that. I'm just trying to get a definitive to why we would do that.

143. 0:52:41

     Line 64.

144. 0:52:51

     Because we are taking a jump from law-abiding citizens through sections one through four, then we're talking about in commission of a crime here in section five.

145. 0:53:12

     I, I, I don't have... I, I didn't, I didn't make that change, so I, I'm can't really address that. The, uh, it's a substitute that, that I was, uh, modifying, so I-

146. 0:53:25

     Yes, sir. The idea is basically making the state statute consistent by deleting the definitions-

147. 0:53:30

     Mm-hmm

148. 0:53:30

     ... and making sure that it doesn't have something, uh, referenced on that. But I'd be more than happy to circle up with y'all on that as well.

149. 0:53:37

     Mm-hmm.

150. 0:53:37

     Um, additionally, I mean, the, the basic concept is, you know, these are hearing protection devices. Um, they are almost never used in the commission of crimes, um, including here in Georgia.

151. 0:53:49

     And I, I'm, I'm open to a, uh, if you wanna unstrike, uh, that on line 64. I mean, I, I, I get your point. The, uh, I understand what you're saying, so the, uh, you know, that's, that's where for me, uh, in order to continue to move the bill forward, I'm, I'm, uh, very satisfied to have that unstruck.

152. 0:54:17

     Leader Jones.

153. 0:54:19

     Thank you, Mr. Chair, a- a- and thank you for bringing the bill. M- my question would be, I'd imagine that the language in there about silencers was put in for some, some law enforcement purpose. So I guess my question would be, what has changed from a law enforcement perspective that we now would take it out? I mean, what would be the difference now? Um, I've heard about the hearing and things of that nature, but I'm just curious from a law enforcement perspective, what has changed to where we wouldn't need this any, these particular laws anymore?

154. 0:54:46

     The, uh, the, the main thing was what was going on on the federal level because the... Uh, we wanna make sure they're compliant with federal law, but we don't know what the federal law is gonna massage around to, to, to make. And so the, the idea that my district attorney brought to me was he said, "Hey, if they'd have passed the big, beautiful bill, you, you, you would've made, uh, criminals out of everybody that had a suppressor because they can't have that federal, uh, tax," the, uh, I, I don't know if you'd call it a stamp.

155. 0:55:13

     Yes, sir.

156. 0:55:14

     The, uh, oh, they couldn't get a federal tax stamp. And so for me, that was, that was the intent of the, uh, legislation that my district attorney brought to me.

157. 0:55:24

     If, if I-

158. 0:55:26

     Yeah. Mic six.

159. 0:55:28

     Thank you.

160. 0:55:31

     And I, and I may be completely wrong, but I think on that 63, page four, which persons have kind of pointed out, I don't, I don't know if you can unstrike that or... Because if you're making it legal, you can't enhance a penalty because you're basically legalizing, so you wouldn't be able to enhance the penalty if you're using a legal device. When you say unstrike it, you, you, you can't because you have a legal device there, so you can't enhance a penalty for if you're using a legal device, I wouldn't think.

161. 0:56:02

     That's just my take on it. So in other words, I think you're kind of stuck there.

162. 0:56:05

     If it's, if it's federally legal-

163. 0:56:08

     Which we haven't got there yet

164. 0:56:09

     ... the, uh, and then, then they use it as in a crime, said, uh, "I'm, I'm not a lawyer." I, yeah, no, you are. I'm the, uh, so I'll, I'll leave it to you 'cause you a- actually were a prosecutor, I believe, uh, in, in your past. And that's where, you know, I'm, I'm looking for, for how do I, how do I get you, uh, comfortable with, okay, let's, let's don't take that portion out if that's what's the, the issue? And-

165. 0:56:32

     And I just want to clarify because I keep hearing that. Is, is it federally legal now or not, or we think it's gonna become it? I'm just-

166. 0:56:37

     It, it is, it is federally legal if you buy your, the tax stamp. Said the, uh-

167. 0:56:41

     Sir

168. 0:56:41

     ... and, and we're saying that it's still gonna be compliant with federal law. So whatever the-

169. 0:56:47

     Can I make a statement? Let me know if this is correct. Currently, under federal law, if you have, if you have a silencer, um, with that tax stamp, as you call it, then none of these laws we're amending currently applies to someone possessing a silencer. Is that correct?

170. 0:57:03

     I think that-

171. 0:57:03

     Based on the current language in lines 44 through 48. Mr. Walker, am I right on that?

172. 0:57:09

     I don't believe so.

173. 0:57:10

     Okay. 'Cause I think the only thing, it seems to me what you're doing, the biggest change here is in line 48. 'Cause you do go outside the National Firearms Act and say, "Well, any of these items that someone legally has in accordance with federal law, then these enhancements and the illegal possession do not apply." The problem is, if we strike the last section here, the le- change in the last section, and leave the silencer there, then I think we also have to change line 47, because suddenly we're gonna expand the current law when it comes to silencers potentially.

174. 0:57:49

     Does that make sense? You may, we may be going another direction and, um, having silencers that are allowed by federal law suddenly now be a sentence enhancement when someone's using those. Am I correct on what I'm saying? Mr. Chairman, I believe that is, that is the case. Um, and you're absolutely correct in your characterization of lines 47 to 48. Um, you know, this is intended to make sure that any changes to the National Firearms Act and, you know, federal law changes, um, that Georgians, uh, are still able to possess and, and purchase these lawful items.

175. 0:58:25

     They have always been lawful. Um, even though they've been federally regulated since 1934, they have always been legal for civilians here in the state of Georgia. Um, so yes, sir, I do think that that's a fair characterization. I believe that that, that strike through was something that came back from ledge council

176. 0:58:40

     So currently-

177. 0:58:40

     ... uh, was the initial bill

178. 0:58:41

     ... looking at lines 44 through 48 then, and somebody correct me if I'm wrong, under f- current, current law

179. 0:58:47

     The enhancements we have dealing with silencers are not applicable as long as someone is complying with federal law, right, and, and possessing that.

180. 0:58:56

     Currently, it's, it's as long as they are authorized to possess, uh, or have, and have registered these items, including silencers, uh, with the dictates of the National Firearms Act.

181. 0:59:07

     So your goal of the bill is in the event this is no longer even regulated by the feds, suddenly we're gonna have this new outlaw on our Georgia lawyer trying to get ahead of.

182. 0:59:14

     Correct. Yes, sir. And, and, you know, in, in our legislative initiatives at the federal level, we also have, uh, two, almost three active lawsuits, um, we're filing our third this week, fingers crossed, um, challenging the inclusion of these items in the National Firearms Act because it was justified as a registry, uh, tracking taxes paid. And now that there are no taxes being paid, um, our assertion is that it's an unconstitutional firearms registry. Uh, but even if we are successful with our litigation or our legislative initiatives, um, these still will be federally regulated under the Gun Control Act, so they'd be treated and regulated very similarly to rifles, pistols, and shotguns.

183. 0:59:50

     Um, you know, it's not as if there would be no federal regulations on them. They would just be outside of the dictates of the National Firearms Act, and having that included in Georgia State statute would create a direct conflict, uh, that would, at, at a minimum, prevent Georgians from being able to, to make or purchase these items moving forward.

184. 1:00:08

     All right, we do have three others that wanna speak on the bill, but we'll take... Do you want, you wanna again ask your question now? Okay, go ahead, Senator Hatchett.

185. 1:00:14

     So just my philosophy on the Second Amendment as, in my position, is very strong. I mean, I'm very in favor. I think it goes a lot further than we allow it to. Um, but with that being said, I'm for everything in this bill except for that one section. L- looking at the types of offenses that this would enhance, two of them are breaking and entering into a vehicle, breaking and entering into a house, um, where I think someone would use a silencer to be more covert.

186. 1:00:51

     You know, you don't wanna be heard. And I think in that situation, I, I'm gonna be inclined to try to amend it to keep, to, to take that section out because I do think it should be, it should still be in there based on just I'm all for protecting lawful abiding gun owners, but this is not that. So just wanna... If you have any rebuttal to change my mind, I'd be glad to hear it, but otherwise, I think I'm, at least at some point during this committee hearing, will try to amend that.

187. 1:01:19

     Mr. Chairman, and I'm gonna have to add a dollar to that. I'm not a lawyer, Jor.

188. 1:01:23

     Frank Ardios, three. We're keeping count. You've said it three times. We raised the fee this year to $5 per-

189. 1:01:29

     $5

190. 1:01:29

     ... offense.

191. 1:01:30

     I get it. I, I, I'll bring my lawyers next time, Senator, but I think there's plenty on the committee.

192. 1:01:35

     Mm-hmm. That's $15 you owe us right now.

193. 1:01:40

     We haven't voted you on your bill either. Might be a good time to pay. Um, let's do this. Let's hear from the other speakers, and then we'll come back. Um, so if y'all will s- move back to the bench behind you, let's bring up Heather Hallett with Georgia Major- Majority Gun Safety.

194. 1:02:02

     Is it Ms. Hallett? Am I saying it right?

195. 1:02:04

     Hallet.

196. 1:02:04

     Hallett.

197. 1:02:05

     Like Mallow.

198. 1:02:05

     That makes more sense.

199. 1:02:07

     Yeah.

200. 1:02:08

     Welcome, Ms. Hallett of the Georgians.

201. 1:02:11

     Thank you. Um, yes. So Georgia Majority for Gun Safety, we are a coalition of gun owners. Um, it, it's bipartisan, n- non-gun owners, but the, the bottom line is, um, trying to encourage responsible gun ownership in Georgia. And, um, uh, I think that there was a lot of comment that kind of teased around the, the central issue here is that there is, um, uh, uh, we wanna promote public safety, and we wanna protect public safety, and, uh, I guess balancing that with, um, w- like, why are we trying to pass legislation?

202. 1:02:49

     And it seems that the, the rationale is to protect hearing, and we know that there are devices that can protect, um, the hearing for people who are shooting guns. And I think that in the testimony, um, the gentleman said that 70% of hunters are not using those hearing protection devices. So, um, uh, given that there are some real concerns around people using silencers in the commission of crimes, and I'm happy to send you a listing.

203. 1:03:24

     I mean, I, I just did some quick research. There's plenty of times when silencers are used in the commission of crimes. It, I mean, I, I think it's just reasonable to understand that if you have something that suppresses the sound of a gun, that it is going to be harder for law enforcement to detect where that gunfire came from. Um, I mean, you know, whether or not it's because people are in shock or because the sound is, is muffled, there's a reason why criminals are trying to use silencers.

204. 1:03:56

     So there definitely is a public safety component of, um, uh, uh, you know, why would we pass this bill? Um, and given that there are ways to protect hearing that don't involve jeopardizing public safety, um, uh, you know, I, I guess I just am wondering why, what the rationale, why would we be passing public policy when there is a real defined risk to public safety? And again, I, I just echo Senator Hatchett's comments that, um, in effect, the only outcome of this legislation right now is actually to decrease penalties on criminals in the commission of acts with a silencer.

205. 1:04:43

     So, uh, uh, I feel like the majority of Georgians expect better out of our legislature. Um, it, you know, we expect public policy that will protect people, not criminals. So just weighing those two things, I think is, is my basic comment. Thank you.

206. 1:05:01

     Do you... Before you go, do you know under Georgia law if anybody's currently being prosecuted for these enhanced penalties for using silencers in commission of a crime?

207. 1:05:09

     I saw that there was a gentleman in Macon in 2025 who, um, it was possession of, I mean, uh, the, of silencers. But I mean, uh, it seems like that gentleman was, uh, intended to do harm. I mean, he was... It was like 3D printing of machine guns-

208. 1:05:27

     Yeah

209. 1:05:27

     ... and silencers. So, um, I can only imagine that he was not trying to protect his hearing.

210. 1:05:33

     And do you, do you agree that under current Georgia law if you've registered your silencer, that these laws don't apply at all to it now?

211. 1:05:43

     Correct.

212. 1:05:43

     Okay.

213. 1:05:43

     The only change from this bill, the only active change from this bill would be to co- um, protect criminals.

214. 1:05:55

     Okay. Unless the federal law didn't regulate this at all, then we would be, without changing it-

215. 1:06:00

     Correct

216. 1:06:00

     ... we would be... And so do you have an issue if the bill simply made certain that the current law stayed as it is? In other words, as long as, as someone is registering a silencer, at that point would you have issue with, um, with a bill that confirmed that someone could have legally possess a silencer under Georgia law and use that weapon-

217. 1:06:22

     So-

218. 1:06:22

     ... as said on a gun?

219. 1:06:24

     I'm, uh, at risk of I don't have cash, so I can't put anything in your glass.

220. 1:06:28

     I was trying to get you. I wanna get you 20 bucks.

221. 1:06:29

     But my concern would be the loopholes in our background check system in Georgia. Um, and that I would have to dive in to make sure that all silencers, if federal law were no longer to require the r- registration, that we would make sure that all silencer purchases were actually required to go through the background check system, because about 25% of our gun sales are not subject to background checks.

222. 1:07:01

     So that would be my concern. But again, read your glass. I don't, I don't know.

223. 1:07:08

     Okay. That's fair.

224. 1:07:09

     But-

225. 1:07:09

     Any other questions for Ms. Hallett? All right, thank you.

226. 1:07:14

     Thank you so much.

227. 1:07:15

     Next we have Mike Greenwald, visit clinicians for gun safety. I'm ter- okay. Come on up.

228. 1:07:24

     Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I represent a broad array of clinicians in the state of Georgia, some emergency medicine physicians, some psychologists, nurses, therapists who take care of people every day from gun violence. Uh, I see and treat children who suffer gun violence injuries on a regular basis. That used to not be the case. It is the case now. There are a number of things that these families and my colleagues ask for, for the real problems that we face in Georgia right now. Silencers is not among them.

229. 1:07:55

     I wanna make it very clear that my colleagues are not asking for silencers. The American College of Surgeons, which is the organizing body that manages trauma in our country, is not asking for silencers. What we do want is some common sense regulation to help bring down gun violence in this country. If the sound of a gun saves the life of someone because of that split second reaction to that loud sound, then that's an important difference to make. I would urge you to not pass this legislation.

230. 1:08:26

     All right. Any questions for Mr. Greenwald? Thank you. Next person is Thomas Weaver. Come on up, Mr. Weaver.

231. 1:08:43

     Good afternoon.

232. 1:08:44

     Good afternoon, Mr. Chairman. How are you?

233. 1:08:46

     I'm good. How are things going for you?

234. 1:08:48

     Life is good.

235. 1:08:48

     Good.

236. 1:08:49

     Thank you. To, to each member of the committee, I can maybe, uh, help assuage some of the concerns and answer some of your questions. So if I may, Mr. Chairman, with the assent of your colleagues. When the United States Federal Congress first passed the United States Na- National Federal Firearms Act, it was passed in the 1930s during the Al Capone gang era, the roaring '30s, right? The United States Federal Supreme Court ruled in 1939, uh, under the, uh, leadership of Chief Justice Hughes, that the NFA can stand under the court's understanding of Second Amendment jurisprudence at that time.

237. 1:09:28

     Fast-forward to today, the Bruen Court has overturned predicate decisions and has reversed intermediate means and scrutiny analysis and has displaced it with a historical text and tradition that requires that any federal or state level firearm regulation be contorted and comport to at either the time of the founding or the framers, although there is argument still as to which one is controlling. There was an interceding Fifth Circuit Court case at the federal level in the Fifth Circuit, which covers Texas, Arkansas, and Louisiana, governing suppressors specifically, and the Fifth Circuit held in 2025 that the regulation can stand because it's supported by Congress's taxing power for the $200 tax stamp.

238. 1:10:17

     The United States Federal Congress recently under the One Big Beautiful Act, eviscerated and reduced to zero the underlining taxing component of suppressor regulation, along with other firearms under the NFA, inclusive of short barrel rifles, short barrel shotguns, and what's called AOWs to zero. So the question now before the court is since because the Supreme Court previously held that the only reason why NFA is even a law at all, uh, is because of Congress's power to tax, now that Congress has removed all taxing authority in respect to such w- uh, weaponry, does those regulations then crumple?

239. 1:10:57

     So that's answering to the legal status as, as to why it is the way it is right now. Going to the public safety question that was raised by, by Senator Hatchett and others, uh, I can learn to better appreciate the governing majority's concern as to whether or not removing a, a silencer on line 64 would open up the possibility for a bad actor to escape enhanced criminal penalties. But what was noticeably absent from the committee's consideration was Georgia Code Section 16-11-106 and 16-11-133, which aren't touched under this bill, which remain intact.

240. 1:11:34

     16-11-106 is possession of a firearm during the commission of certain crimes, and 16-11-133 is possession of a firearm by a convicted felon during the commission of certain felonies. Those crimes continue to remain intact and akin to the United States Federal Armed Career Criminal Act, which is 18 U.S.C. 924 subsection C, paragraph one, capital B and C. Anyone who possesses a suppressor twice during the commission of any fe- of any felony is subject to an automatic sentence of life imprisonment before the district court at the federal sovereign.

241. 1:12:07

     And in the state sovereign, if you're a convicted felon already and you have a, a suppressor during the commission of a separate and distinct felony, absent... Or excuse me, uh, what's the right word? Either concurrent with or in addition to a separate and distinct predicate felony, then you're also subject to a term of life imprisonment under 16-11-133. And under Georgia law, unlike the federal sovereign, life is with the possibility of parole unless it's sentence is life without the possibility of parole.

242. 1:12:39

     But if you're sentenced to life sentence under Georgia law, that's 30 years to the door before your first parole board hearing. So if a person, whether armed, w- if a person uses a firearm, whether armed with a suppressor or not, during the commission of a felony, certain felonies as spelled out under Georgia law, that's going to draw an automatic sentence anyway. And if there's a suppressor on that gun, the case can then be referred to the United States Federal Attorney General's Office for prosecution within the federal sovereign, and depending on where you are in Georgia, either the northern, central or southern district court, which also under the ACCA mandates mandatory minimum penalties, which again, under federal law, all penalties are spelled out in months, not years, and are served without the benefit of, of probation or parole because the federal sovereign has, has eliminated that.

243. 1:13:33

     So if you get sentenced federally, whatever the judge imposes, that's what you serve. There is no, there is no safety outlet. If the judge says, 'cause the previous speaker is right, under the ACCA, it's a 30-year draw for strike one automatically, so that's 360 months. That's 360 months to the door. Uh, there is no, there, there is no probation or anything like that under, under the federal system. So from public policy standpoint, removing it here, I would imagine, without speaking on behalf of anyone, just me having done this for so long, if I had to guess, it was just a legislative drafting component that maybe the LC counsel who drew this bill, they just struck the word silencer, which is a term of art.

244. 1:14:20

     Under federal law, the ter- the term silencer is used under federal code, but it's used interchangeably with the word suppressor and muffler. When a f- when a firearm is equipped with a silencer, the decibels that it reduces is usually about 20 decibels per shot. It goes from about 140 decibels to about 120, which is still loud. That's as loud as a jet engine at Hartsfield taking off. So if you were standing at Hartsfield, Hartsfield, uh, Jackson International Airport and you heard a Delta jet as it was taking off, you would hear the roar of that jet engine.

245. 1:14:54

     You would also hear the, the report of the discharge of a firearm armed with a suppressor. It's just a cylindrical piece of metal that functions just like a muffler on a car. You can be obnoxious as possible, and you can remove the muffler from a vehicle to just make more noise, but the suppressor's just a little piece of metal. It doesn't shoot anything in and of itself. Why it was put in there by Congress in the 1930s, I didn't have an opportunity sitting in the back bench to read through the journal to find out on congress.gov, but it's, those are just thoughts, and I was hoping to maybe clear the air on some of the things to make the governing majority more comfortable to keep the bill fully intact and move the bill in its current form, akin to how our friends and colleagues did across the marble earlier today at the State Capitol building.

246. 1:15:46

     It-

247. 1:15:46

     You have a question from Leader Hatchett.

248. 1:15:50

     Thank you, as always. It's a pleasure when you testify, and I'm always impressed at your knowledge of not just our code, but the federal code. So are you saying that this is duplicative and we don't need it because the federal law would supersede this anyway?

249. 1:16:04

     Right. So if an individual were, if an individual were to be illegally armed with a firearm equipped with a suppressor and were to come in here and commit a crime, under federal law, we don't... Not state level, we're talking about the federal sovereign. The federal sovereign, the United States Federal Department, or excuse me, I misspoke. The United States Federal Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives, agents within the bureau could apprehend that, that bad actor and could take that bad actor into federal custody and can commence federal process against that bad actor in the court of law federally.

250. 1:16:43

     And under federal law, if that bad actor is adjudicated guilty of having committed a crime that falls within federal law and has, and they used that firearm that was equipped with a suppressor- At the time of that crime, under the ACCA, the, the district court judge doesn't have any discretion in the matter. The district court judge has to impose a 360-month term on, on that offense. And then if that bad actor then again commits another firearm crime under the ACCA, another one, doesn't matter what, another one, under federal law they're sentenced to life under the ACCA, which the Supreme Court did uphold in other cases recently, even though there's some provisions regarding bifurcated punishments and what latches when.

251. 1:17:38

     But the overarching structure of ACCA has been upheld federally.

252. 1:17:44

     And just one follow-up. Um, so I- I- I use the word duplicative, but in essence it's concurrent with federal law. Like-

253. 1:17:54

     But this, th- th- this would be concurrent to federal law. This would-

254. 1:17:56

     The change or, or before?

255. 1:17:58

     No. A- as it, as it stands right now, the law as it stands today, it would just... It authorizes state agents to move forward on a state level prosecution within the state sovereign. But even if this is, what I'm trying to tell you and other members of the governing majority is, is even if line 64 stays intact, and y'all move the bill in the LC version that it is in with no amendments, if a bad actor within the state level commits a crime armed with a firearm during the commission of certain felonies, that's either 16-11-106 or 16-11-133, and if they're a convicted felon already, that's also 16-11-131 right off the rip.

256. 1:18:44

     So at a minimum, they're looking at five or 10 years, depending on their GCIC, and if it's certain crimes that are in their GCIC as opposed to just any generic felony, they're looking at a mandatory minimum of 15 to life at the state level, regardless of whether or not the firearm they used either was equipped with or not equipped with a suppressor. So having this here saying we're going to treat a firearm with a suppressor more serious, I understand why that can make some people nervous to take it out, but if you do take it out, 16-11-106 and 16-11-133 are still fully intact and can still be charged as counts on the indictment, and those draw mandatory minimums that are not probatable and that cannot be reduced to misdemeanors under 17-10-5.

257. 1:19:34

     Nothing changes. It's just removing, for legislative drafting, it's just removing the same term throughout Georgia Code such that the word silencer under our firearm laws no longer appears, but it's consistent.

258. 1:19:50

     Any other questions for Mr. Weaver? Thank you.

259. 1:19:54

     You're welcome.

260. 1:19:54

     Appreciate your help as always. All right, as everyone that signed up to speak on the bill, y'all wanna come back up. Any final thoughts? It seems like to me we have... And it's a policy question of whether we're going to still include silencers as an enhancement in, in other types of weapons, and, um, we have machine guns, sawed-off rifles, sawed-off shotguns. Are we gonna still have silencer in that same category or not? But I'll s- say to the committee, if you're gonna do that, you can't just strike Section 5, because silencer is a defined term under this code section, and we are striking the definition in Section 1 of silencer from the law.

261. 1:20:35

     So you'd have to now create a new definition of silencer or leave that definition in place and just have this one code section still applicable. Um, any final thoughts from the author before we consider the bill?

262. 1:20:47

     I'm only thinking about my last $5 I got.

263. 1:20:52

     The, uh, but I think the, the, the chairman, who a- actually is an attorney, said, and I think you're, you're, you're wanting to be a general attorney, if I'm not mistaken.

264. 1:21:00

     That's right.

265. 1:21:00

     The, uh-

266. 1:21:01

     Country lawyer.

267. 1:21:01

     The country lawyer.

268. 1:21:02

     That's right.

269. 1:21:02

     And the, uh, oh, said it better than I could, so thank you.

270. 1:21:08

     All right.

271. 1:21:12

     What's the pleasure of the committee? Motion to pass. Motion to pass from Leader Hatchett. Is there a second? Second. Second from Senator Bearden. Any discussion or amendments? Leader Hatchett.

272. 1:21:25

     I would like to propose an amendment.

273. 1:21:27

     Okay.

274. 1:21:28

     Um, for clarity, before I do this, did you say we were striking the definition of a firearm equipped with a silencer?

275. 1:21:37

     And Mr. Walker's gonna wanna weigh in, but I believe under Section 1, silencer is a defined term under this section, and we are striking that, and I think that's why the bill's drafted like it is. Everywhere silencer is referenced, it's taken out. I'll let Mr. Walker weigh in.

276. 1:21:55

     Yes, sir. That is correct. I will point out that the definition for silencer is unique to, uh, a particular part, and I use part specifically, of the code, uh, that would not include the code provision that's in, uh, Section 5. So it would still have utility as a definition, but it would essentially be, um, a definition without a term, um, without-

277. 1:22:18

     So in other words, it'd be a s-

278. 1:22:20

     It'd just be a dangling definition, and the reason we keep it in there be- is because we're relying on it elsewhere in the code, but it actually would not be defining any term used in that part for that purpose. So it's a, it's a fine solution. It's just a-

279. 1:22:33

     Mm-hmm

280. 1:22:33

     ... little bit messy and subject to being kind of cleaned up in code revision at some point along the way.

281. 1:22:39

     It, I'll s- as chair, if- if the intent is, if the committee is struggling with the final section, I think it's best we hold the bill and work on some language. If that's, if the intent of the committee is to strike section, the changes in Section 5 of the bill, I think we need to hold this and make sure you have a clear definition of silencer, because you're not gonna have any federal law to reference. You're gonna create a new definition, um, and- We may not get to where we need to be on the bill if that's what, if that's what the committee wants to do.

282. 1:23:09

     Is, was it your intention to offer an amendment?

283. 1:23:12

     Yeah, my amendment was gonna be to take out the strike of, for a firearm equipped with a silencer.

284. 1:23:17

     I think we should hold on the bill unless somebody has some strong objection. We have a motion to pass. I'd suggest withdraw on your motion. We have two more committee hearings at least before crossover day, and we could work on that language if that's what we wanna do and make sure that's what we wanna do.

285. 1:23:32

     I would suggest an, a floor amendment at this point, but I don't know what I'd be stepping into on that one.

286. 1:23:37

     No, I don't think-

287. 1:23:38

     Trying to amend a gun bill on the floor

288. 1:23:39

     ... we don't wanna do this on the floor.

289. 1:23:41

     Oh, yeah.

290. 1:23:41

     Who made the motion to pass? Was it you?

291. 1:23:44

     It was. I withdraw that now.

292. 1:23:44

     You wanna withdraw that motion? Let's do that, and let's work on the language. I'd suggest y'all get with the committee members that have asked these questions and, and let's make sure we have a clear understanding of what we're doing. We've kind of gone back and forth a little bit on that some. And then if that's the intent to draw an amendment like that, I would lor- work with Leader Hatchett and make sure we have it drawn correctly.

293. 1:24:06

     Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I will say one, one other-

294. 1:24:08

     Oh, your mic's off. Now you're back.

295. 1:24:09

     Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I will say one other thing. Said they, uh, oh, you know, this is the third time in 16 years at being in front of judiciary. And, and the, the, uh, first one I withdrew the bill. The second one you helped me just like this with the bill. Said they, uh, "And yes, I'm not a lawyer," said they-

296. 1:24:29

     It's $20

297. 1:24:29

     ... "but I'm gonna get $20 in this picture somewhere." So thank you very much.

298. 1:24:32

     And for the record, the money does not go to the chair or the committee.

299. 1:24:35

     Fine.

300. 1:24:35

     The money goes to a charity which will be selected by the committee at the end of the session. Is that good? Did I clear that up, Elena?

301. 1:24:41

     Yeah, very good.

302. 1:24:41

     All right. Okay. Thank you. Appreciate y'all's work.

303. 1:24:44

     Thank you.

304. 1:24:45

     And so we'll work on this and get it back on another agenda. All right.

305. 1:24:50

     I'll bring some more lawyer things.

306. 1:24:52

     Please.

307. 1:25:09

     Is Chairman Dolezal in the room still? Come on up. Let's, I'm gonna take you out of order based on the number of people that are signed up to speak. Um, come on up. And we're gonna call Senate Bill 486.

308. 1:25:28

     And this will be at the end of your packet, members of the committee. We are working off of the bill as filed, LC492550. Is that what you have?

309. 1:25:39

     Yes, sir.

310. 1:25:40

     All right. The floor is yours.

311. 1:25:42

     Thank you, Mr. Chairman, members of the committee. Thank you, Chairman, for hearing this bill. I saw Chairman Meeks in the hallway, and I told him I'm always nervous testifying before the Judiciary Committee 'cause I feel like everyone is smarter than I am. And he said, "That's how I feel when I come to the Senate." So I'll give you a, a second, let that sink in. But, um, Senate Bill 486 really builds on existing Georgia code, uh, to f- make sure that we fully enshrine, uh, essentially a legal framework that has made its way into 13, the, the law of 13 other states.

312. 1:26:13

     Uh, it's, it's referred to as American Law for American Courts. If you look at the existing code, uh, that we're building on here on line 25, uh, the existing code states the laws of other states and foreign nations shall have no force or effect of themselves within the state, uh, further than is provided by the Constitution of the United States and is recognized by the, uh, Committee of States. So we are really doing two things here. One, we're defining foreign law, and that's what you'll see on lines 18 through 22.

313. 1:26:44

     And then we are ensuring that tribunals are captured, um, into essentially what I believe is the current spirit of the law, um, as outlined on line 25. So what we have seen is foreign laws make their way into, uh, American courts in a number of ways. Uh, one is the enforcement of foreign judgments via comity, uh, the application of foreign laws through conflicts of laws, the enforcement of choices of, of, uh, law clauses that exist in contracts. We actually deal with some of that on lines 36 through 41.

314. 1:27:14

     Uh, and then lastly, a number of arbitration clauses and the, uh, what we've seen in other states is religious specific, uh, arbitration tribunals that have popped up and sought to replace, uh, the court system in those states. And Texas is one example of where that has happened, um, that the governor of Texas has specifically spoken out about. And I can, I can outline that more if the committee would like. But the meat of the bill really captures tribunals on lines 30 through 32.

315. 1:27:45

     And all that we're saying is we're not saying the tribunals have to go away. We are saying that the tribunal's ruling shall be void and unenforceable if essentially they try to supersede any of the rights granted to citizens under the United States Constitution. And that is the, the core of the bill. Uh, we exempt religious entities, um, on line 35. Uh, we e- e- exempt international arbitration on line 34, and they already re- referenced the corporate carve-out. So with that, Mr. Chairman, I'm happy to answer, um, questions.

316. 1:28:16

     I probably would prefer to reserve the bulk of my time for, uh, to come up after, uh, folks have testified, as I know there's a l- number of people that have signed up to do so.

317. 1:28:25

     Yes. Any questions for the author before we move on to those that signed up to speak on the bill? All right, we're gonna do this. We have a number of people signed up. I'm gonna do 20 minutes, um, against the bill, and we'll do, uh, I think there's only one speaker signed up for it, but I'll give the same time for the bill. Um, so we're gonna start the clock and do 20 minutes, and I will call you up based on when you signed up to speak. And if you want to, um, use, give your time to someone else, you can pass on it to someone else on the list.

318. 1:29:00

     Are you gonna start a clock for me?

319. 1:29:03

     20 minute timer.

320. 1:29:03

     Yeah, 20 minute. All right. So we're gonna start the timer when the first person comes up, and we'll stop it for any questions from the committee. So the committee, if you have questions, you will not interfere with the timer of those that came here to speak. Uh, Ms. Megan Gordon, up first. Come on up.

321. 1:29:25

     And now I can say good evening, right?

322. 1:29:27

     Yeah, I was just thinking, I don't know if it counts as afternoon or evening or where that line is-

323. 1:29:31

     It's evening now

324. 1:29:32

     ... but whatever it is, good time to you all, and thank you for your time. Um, I, my name is Megan Gordon. I'm the Policy Director at the Council on American Islamic Relations, Georgia Chapter. We're a Muslim civil rights organization. And I confess that I am winging it right now because I want to draw your attention to something that didn't come up in the presentation of the bill, which is that a couple weeks ago, after he introduced the piece of legislation, the sponsor posted a video on the website formerly known as Twitter, saying that the purpose of this bill is to ban Sharia law, um, which is, it...

325. 1:30:09

     Some folks will come up after me to elaborate on how that is not, um, a thing in the way a lot of people think it is. But it is clear that the purpose of the law, whatever it is, is to target, um, the faith and practice of Muslim Americans, and that is a First Amendment violation. Facially neutral language does not save a law that is motivated by religious animus. This is very clear.

326. 1:30:40

     And now that I have addressed what this is about more clearly, um, I wanna talk about some of the ways that this could actually be disruptive to family law. Um, there are clear instances in family law where foreign laws need to be ap- applied. Um, I'm gonna give y'all two examples. First, so my colleague Robert, he married a Bangladeshi woman. They were married in a Muslim ceremony in Bangladesh with, by an imam, which is just a Muslim preacher, and a notary from the Bangladeshi Religious Ministry 'cause that's how marriages work in Bangladesh.

327. 1:31:16

     In Muslim tradition, the marriage is very much a contract. It places obligations on both parties. In the event of a divorce, it's a lot like a prenup. If Robert and his wife were ever to get divorced here in the US, a court would not be able to base its ruling on the marriage contract that they agreed to and entered into willingly because they did it in a foreign country. Let me give you another example. Our national office recently had a case where an American family of Moroccan ancestry went to Morocco, adopted children there, and brought them back home to the US.

328. 1:31:48

     Because the adoption was done in Morocco, with, the adoption documents were based on Morocco's Sharia-based legal system. If for any reason a court ever wound up looking at that adoption, it would not be able to consider the actual adoption documents at issue. In addition to being disruptive to family laws and families that transcend borders, this is both unnecessary and unconstitutional. It's unnecessary because the Supremacy Clause already ensures that foreign and religious law cannot supersede US law.

329. 1:32:19

     So any problem that Senate Bill 486 purports to solve is already prevented by the Supremacy Clause, so we simply don't need to do that. Finally, as I already addressed at the beginning, this is unconstitutional because despite the facial neutrality of the language, this aims to ban the religious law of one particular faith, and facial neutrality cannot save bills that are clearly motivated by animus. This is a textbook First Amendment violation. For all those reasons, I ask you to please vote no on this bill.

330. 1:32:47

     I'm gonna stop the clock. A question for you.

331. 1:32:50

     Yes, sir.

332. 1:32:50

     So based on your testimony under current law, it, how would a court treat those two examples you gave in family law differently than any other case coming before them under current law? And then if this bill passes, what will be different in those cases?

333. 1:33:06

     Wish I had the paper in front of me. I think better when I can look at paper. Um, so for example, what this would look like would be if I'm ... Not to wish divorce on Robert, but if they were getting divorced, it would essentially be like looking at a prenup that was done in Bangladesh under Bangladeshi law, right? And so then the, the court cannot base its ruling on a foreign piece of law, which is their marriage contract.

334. 1:33:38

     The court can, couldn't do that now unless that prenup met the specifics of Georgia law, right?

335. 1:33:43

     My understanding is that choice of law provisions would also protect. But yes, so like nothing, because of the Supremacy Clause, as I already said, nothing unconstitutional is happening under these provisions already.

336. 1:33:54

     So is it safe to say his bill wouldn't change what's happening right now then in our states when it comes to family law or other types of cases? But your testimony against it is the intent is, is not good, potentially targeting a certain group, therefore, the bill shouldn't pass.

337. 1:34:10

     I'm sorry. Can you repeat the first part of the question?

338. 1:34:12

     Yeah. So if his bill becomes law-

339. 1:34:15

     Mm-hmm

340. 1:34:15

     ... would we have the same result that we currently have then based on the Supremacy Clause right now when it comes to divorce cases, other types of civil cases in our state?

341. 1:34:26

     I'm not sure. Just to be honest, I will, I will call the lawyers who are smarter than me-

342. 1:34:32

     Okay

343. 1:34:32

     ... and get back to you. Um, oh my God, I just noticed the actual jar. I am a lawyer. I just don't know the answer to that question.

344. 1:34:37

     You don't have to be. Yeah.

345. 1:34:37

     So I'm gonna go call the other people and, and-

346. 1:34:39

     Okay

347. 1:34:39

     ... get back to you. I think that's a good question. But I will still go back to the fact that it is, um, because of the fundamental motivations, it's, it's still unconstitutional regardless of, of what the practical impact would be.

348. 1:34:52

     Okay. Any other questions from the committee? All right, thank you.

349. 1:34:56

     Thank you.

350. 1:34:59

     And I apologize, is it Harwani? Um-

351. 1:35:05

     Shirwani.

352. 1:35:06

     Yes. Shirwani. Come on up. Yes, ma'am. I see the S now. All right. Ms. Shirwani.

353. 1:35:16

     Hello, everyone.

354. 1:35:17

     Hey, good evening.

355. 1:35:18

     Good evening. My name is, uh, Jawahir Shirwani, and I am a Muslim. I was here for something else, and I was about to leave. Then my friend mentioned, um, they are staying for the Sharia law bill. I was shocked. I never heard, um- Any where of Sharia being applied in y- in the US, so I decided to stay. I want to tell you that, uh, Sharia tell us to obey the law of the land that we're in, not to try to enforce Islamic law into those around us.

356. 1:35:55

     I was shocked that this bill was actually presented, and I'm still shocked. This is silly, and it does not reflect on reality anything. Uh, so please, um, oppose the SB 486.

357. 1:36:12

     All right. Thank you. No questions.

358. 1:36:15

     Thank you.

359. 1:36:19

     And the next name, is it, um, Y-A-Y-O...

360. 1:36:23

     Yacoob.

361. 1:36:25

     How do you pronounce your name? I'm sorry.

362. 1:36:28

     Hello. My name is, uh, Aisha Yacoob. Um, I'm speaking, uh, as a resident of Cobb County and someone who's called Georgia home for the last 25 years. Uh, I know it doesn't explicitly say in this bill that it is about Sharia law, but as we've established, that was, uh, part of the initial intent of, of the bill. Um, and I know when many people hear those words, Sharia law, they often imagine something dangerous or foreign as this bill suggests. Um, but for me and many other Muslims, it simply means living my faith with integrity, discipline, and responsibility.

363. 1:37:03

     Sharia guides me to seek interest-free loans so that I can avoid paying interest, which you all know is insanely expensive. Um, it teaches me to give 2.5% of my wealth to charity each year. It encourages me not to drink alcohol, which we all know is better for our health. Um, and right now, during the month of Ramadan, it calls me to fast each day from dawn to dusk, from, from dawn to sunset, building patience, gratitude, and empathy for those who struggle. Just as importantly, my faith teaches me to obey the laws of Georgia and the United States, to be a good neighbor and a responsible citizen.

364. 1:37:40

     These are just some of the examples of how I follow Sharia in my daily life. None of them threaten anyone. None of them undermine our legal system. Muslims use Sharia to guide our personal decisions, uh, using our faith, while fully respecting the laws of this country as the previous speaker mentioned. These anti-Sharia bills don't protect anyone. They single out Muslims and turn our beliefs into something to fear. We do not need unnecessary measures that seek to vilify our communities and divide neighbors.

365. 1:38:12

     Um, I strongly oppose this bill, and I ask that you choose understanding over fear, unity over division, and respect over suspicion. And, um, just as a, another note, I've advocated in this building for many years and lobbied many of you all here on a number of issues. Not once have I ever tried to, uh, encourage you all to adopt Sharia in any of your bills. Um, that is not our aim here today. We're simply trying to showcase how we use Sharia in our day-to-day lives as, as the means to which we live, um, and why it is not something that needs to be, uh, legislated further over.

366. 1:38:50

     All right. Thank you. Is it Ms. Shaw that's next? Mr. Shaw.

367. 1:38:59

     Come on up. Good evening.

368. 1:39:02

     Good evening.

369. 1:39:04

     And by the way, we have 13 minutes-

370. 1:39:06

     Okay

371. 1:39:06

     ... and 20-somethin' seconds left, so-

372. 1:39:08

     Um, thank you, Mr. Chairman and committee members. My name is Rahim Shaw Khunkhail, and I have been a Georgian for the past 35 years. Uh, I'm a business owner. I've multiple business in Georgia, South Carolina, North Carolina, Kentucky, Indiana. And, um, I was traveling to South Carolina, but I got bunch of, uh, messages and emails from my community members that there is something going with Sharia law, and there's a bill that being passed, uh, targeting Muslims.

373. 1:39:39

     And then these people start sharing this video with me, and the video, it specifically talks about, uh, Sharia law coming to Georgia. So I'm shocked and surprised because I really don't know what Sharia la- Sharia law is. In fact, there are, there are 57 Muslim countries in the world, and I know of only two countries where there are Sharia laws. I was born in Pakistan. There is no Sharia laws. 98% of the population is Muslims. We don't have Sharia laws.

374. 1:40:10

     And if you look at the constitution of this country, it clearly say that no religious or no foreign law can supersede the law of this country. So I don't know why we're creating these anxieties and fear-mongering in certain communities. We're being targeted continuously. There's a lot of fear in our communities. And I'm here just to have this understanding among ourselves that we're, we're, we're human beings first.

375. 1:40:44

     Yes, we're Christians, we're Muslims and Hindus and, uh, you know, Buddhist and all that, but, uh, we're, we're, we're, we're humans first. Why are we going so far to target one specific community? And, and, and these are very productive, uh, citizen of the state. We're doctors, engineers, business peoples, taxi drivers, restaurant owners, but we feel very enlightened, very, uh, isolated, very being targeted.

376. 1:41:18

     So my, my, my request is that Georgia faces a lot of challenges when it comes to poverty, homelessness, you know, or infrastructures or business, uh, you know, challenges. Let's focus on them. Let's come together, work together so we can solve these issues for Georgians. Um, and, and, and if the, if the author of the bill has different intention, I would welcome him And all of you to come to my house, let's have, let's have a dialogue, let's talk, let's understand each other.

377. 1:41:51

     Because we love this country as much as anyone else would. Okay? Uh, uh, we have, we have, we have, we have, we have cemeteries here, so that means we're gonna die here. We're gonna be buried here. So I would strongly suggest, recommend, a, you know, if I need to talk to the author of the bill, I would be more than happy to take him out for a dinner. It's on me. But I think we need to have understanding for each other, and let's not target one specific religion, one specific community. Thank you very much.

378. 1:42:21

     All right. Thank you. Next we have Mr... Is it Fahim?

379. 1:42:26

     Yes.

380. 1:42:27

     Come on up.

381. 1:42:32

     Thanks for being with us. Good evening. You still have 10 minutes left.

382. 1:42:38

     Good evening. Thank you for having me. Uh, I just wanted to reiterate a few of the points that were made, uh, by, uh, my brothers and sisters, and just share some insights related to what exactly Sharia law is. In fact, even when I say Sharia law, I'm kind of saying, uh, something silly because I'm, like, kinda saying law, law. 'Cause Sharia kinda comes to mean law nowadays, but if you look at the original meaning of the word, uh, and I kind of can share some points about this, 'cause I teach Arabic and I'm a student of Arabic. If you look at the origins of the word, actually what it meant was a path towards water, and specifically water being a source of life.

383. 1:43:16

     So really what this is, is a path to life because, uh, the laws of God are meant to be a life-giving source. So when we talk about the Sharia, what we're talking about is a ethical and religious framework that gives Muslims guidance around how to have a relationship with each other and, uh, how to have a relationship with God. So, so much of the Sharia talks about points like how to fast, how to pray, how to give charity, how to be a good neighbor, how to do all kinds of different things.

384. 1:43:51

     And yes, there are certain things that are also mentioned related to, um, you know, states, uh, things that, uh, pertain to what the state should be doing. But the Sharia encompasses, uh, an understanding of jurisdiction, like who is responsible for carrying what, uh, activities out. That's not for you and I to just, uh, carry out without any knowledge, right? So there's experts and there's specialists and there's people with certain jurisdictions who are supposed to carry out, uh, certain parts of the law.

385. 1:44:25

     But for the majority of what the Sharia includes, it's very much related to what the common man does on a day-to-day basis. So I found it very offensive, uh, when I came across the video, um, uh, where it felt like Sharia was being targeted, Muslims were being targeted, and it felt like we were being sidelined and vilified, uh, when that's not the case at all, right? Like, when we as Muslims live in this country, we live with the understanding that the Sharia, um, you know, allows us to, and, and encourages us to live according to the laws of the land, and there are certain things within the scope of our personal life and family life that we're supposed to live by in order to win the pleasure of God, and, uh, that's something that we all do as per the Sharia law.

386. 1:45:07

     But there's no malicious intentions, there's no reason for there to be suspicion, and there's no reason for the language that was used, uh, in that video that was mentioned earlier to kind of, um... It felt like demonize or, uh, vilify Muslims. So thank you, and I, I hope that, uh, everybody on this committee will, um, uh, will, uh, oppose this bill.

387. 1:45:29

     You do have a question from the committee. Senator Bearden?

388. 1:45:33

     Yes. You know, just real quick. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Um, I've heard the comment video a couple times, but what this committee does is look at the text of the bill that's in front of it. I've looked at this many times. Can you point me in the direction of the bill where it specifically targets one group, like you said, Sharia? Or does it just say foreign law? It's-

389. 1:45:58

     Right. So I think the concern is that, um, the bill seeks to use very ambiguous language, but the intention very clearly seems to be that the, uh, specific intent is going after a particular community using this kind of ambiguous language. Uh, but I can let some of my colleagues speak to that a little bit more, um, if you have more specific questions about the actual letter.

390. 1:46:20

     No, I just wanted to ask if anyone's seen in the text of the bill.

391. 1:46:23

     I don't believe that the term is mentioned in the text of the bill itself.

392. 1:46:27

     That's fine.

393. 1:46:27

     But again... Right. So, but, but the, but again, the intention seems to be to use, uh, cloudy language to, uh, then go after a particular community, as we saw on the social media.

394. 1:46:39

     I appreciate your answer, but I think it's pretty clear. But I appreciate it.

395. 1:46:43

     All right.

396. 1:46:47

     Thank you.

397. 1:46:47

     All right. Next we have, we have seven minutes still. Um, Mr... Is it Nadeem? Come on up.

398. 1:47:03

     Good evening.

399. 1:47:03

     Good evening. Uh, my name is Mohammed Nadeem, and I'm resident of Georgia for last 21 years. And, uh, when I heard about this, um, uh, bill, and especially about that, uh, video, uh, it not only offend me, but, um, I saw this, uh, a fear-mongering attempt, and I, so I just present here to oppose this bill strongly. So I would request the committee member to consider it.

400. 1:47:37

     All right, no questions from the committee. Thank you. One of our colleagues has signed up to speak as well. Senator Parkes, do you wanna come down? We still have six minutes and 41 seconds remaining. No pressure, don't talk too fast.

401. 1:47:54

     I'm known for talking too fast. Um, well, thank you, colleagues. I, I'm here to, uh, to speak against Senate Bill 486. Um, this bill, uh, was dubbed as the, uh, anti-Sharia law bill in the selfie video that, uh, Senator Greg Dolezal put out. Um, yet if we look throughout the bill, it does not mention Sharia once at all. Not a single time is Sharia mentioned in this entire bill. Um, when a bill is marketed one way but written another way, we should ask what we are really trying to accomplish here.

402. 1:48:27

     The United States Constitution, as many people before me mentioned, already contains a supremacy clause. I'm sure all of you on the Judiciary Committee understand how that works. Um, judges already, are already bound by that framework. So federal constitutional law is the supreme law of the land. Also, um, Senator Greg Dolezal mentioned that he's banning foreign law when it comes to criminal, civil, and family law. His own bill actually makes a carve-out for civil transactions for international businesses.

403. 1:48:57

     Um, now when it comes to foreign law and family matters, um, when I got married, I... When I married my husband, I got under, m- married under, you know, two ways. So it was under Islamic law, which is called the Nikah, and which is a marriage contract, and it was recognized by my religion, and I also got married, um, by a judge. So what this bill, uh, potentially will do is ban the ability for marriages to be recognized by our respective religions. So we're spending taxpayer dollars to send a harmful message to minority communities, Muslim Georgians, um, and it's deeply concerning.

404. 1:49:33

     We're doing this in, in the time of the Ramadan, like we're just s- super slap in our faces. Um, and we should not u- waste taxpayer resources on symbolic bills that solve no real problem and instead risk demonizing our neighbors. As a state senator who happens to also be Muslim, I do not want Islamic Sharia law to be law of the land. I want us to abide by American laws. In fact, um, to be clear here, there's never been a single instance of an American court that has abided by Sharia law. Georgia deserves thoughtful, necessary legislation, not fear-based messaging.

405. 1:50:06

     And as your own Muslim colleague, I ask you to vote no on this legislation that creates Islamophobia towards your Muslim neighbors. Thank you.

406. 1:50:15

     I have question. How, how does this bill itself put at risk anyone still going through their church or their faith to get married? If the current law is, we have state law, how we recognize marriage, but individuals, as you mentioned, still go through their church, but they still may make their marriage legal in Georgia by going through another protocol in the event whatever you do through your church is not recognized under Georgia law. So how does this bill undo that?

407. 1:50:43

     So from my understanding, and correct me if I'm wrong here, lines 38 through 41, what it, it... In your words, what does that do?

408. 1:50:56

     Well, that is confirming what other types of contracts that we recognize as far as prenups under Georgia law. And so I think what that is trying to do is carve out, um, an exception when it comes to corporations may have, like an arbitration clause where you may agree to, to go and deal with civil matters in a certain way. I think he has an exception that still allows that, but that confirms that we're still gonna have, under Georgia law, um, prenups enforced as they currently are.

409. 1:51:26

     Still have domestic law be the same under Georgia law. That's my understanding of it.

410. 1:51:29

     So lines 38 through 39 says, "However, that the exception provided by this paragraph shall not apply to domestic relation contracts, including but not limited to, to antenuptial agreements or contracts, divorce agreements, adoptions, et cetera." So it takes it out.

411. 1:51:44

     So the code section would apply to those types-

412. 1:51:48

     Yes

413. 1:51:48

     ... of agreements, correct?

414. 1:51:49

     Yes.

415. 1:51:50

     So, but going back to my question, so if that's the case, how is this bill changing what our current law is as we're currently operating when it comes to recognizing marriages, such as your own marriage, as you mentioned? How would your own marriage be threatened by this bill passing?

416. 1:52:05

     Because of this exception that has been put in this bill.

417. 1:52:08

     Well, the exception deals with where the code section would not apply. So I believe what the author's doing with that exception is still saying, we're gonna only recognize, um, prenups and divorce agreements that are consistent with Georgia law.

418. 1:52:22

     Okay. Is, is that the understanding of everyone on the committee? 'Cause I-

419. 1:52:26

     Never seen that.

420. 1:52:27

     Well, that's... I, I'm asking you, though.

421. 1:52:29

     Yeah.

422. 1:52:29

     'Cause you testified that this would put at risk-

423. 1:52:32

     Yeah. No, I-

424. 1:52:32

     ... marriages in our state.

425. 1:52:33

     I, from what I understand and from what several of my colleagues understood is that it would change it. And so if, if that's the case, then I, I don't, I think this is a flawed bill. It should not move forward. But if you're saying that it doesn't change it, I, I just don't see what the point of the bill is in the first place.

426. 1:52:48

     Well, it goes back to your statement earlier. Your statement seems to be, and correct me if I'm wrong, is the law already protects us. We're not gonna have foreign laws, um, whether it be religious laws or other countries' laws enforced under Georgia law already. Therefore, this is not necessary, and the bill is targeting a certain community. Is that, in essence, part of what you testified to?

427. 1:53:08

     The, the author of the bill is in a video saying that this is an anti-Sharia bill, law bill. So yes.

428. 1:53:13

     Okay. So is there anything under this law as you see it now that changes how we currently do things in Georgia when it comes to enforcing any international law, whether it be religious law or other countries' laws?

429. 1:53:26

     The only, the only exception I see, that I see where it would change it is those lines 38 through 41. You and I seem, seem to have a disagreement on that, but, I mean, that's where I stand on this bill.

430. 1:53:39

     Okay. Any other questions from the committee? You do have another question.

431. 1:53:44

     That's the last one.

432. 1:53:45

     No, there's a, there's two, three others, I believe.

433. 1:53:48

     I gotta, I gotta pick... Oh, go ahead. I gotta pick up my kid from daycare. Okay, you're good? Okay.

434. 1:53:51

     You wanna ask her now? You... Okay.

435. 1:53:53

     Yeah.

436. 1:53:53

     All right, thank you.

437. 1:53:58

     All right, we have We have four minutes left. Next-

438. 1:54:02

     We need more lawyers

439. 1:54:03

     ... Al Adros?

440. 1:54:06

     Adros, yep, that's me.

441. 1:54:06

     Adros. I was close.

442. 1:54:08

     Thank you.

443. 1:54:08

     Come on up. And then on deck. Susie Bowles, were you testifying for or against it? You signed up on both sheets.

444. 1:54:16

     I must have signed up on both. I'm testifying-

445. 1:54:20

     For

446. 1:54:20

     ... for.

447. 1:54:20

     For, okay. There's, there's one other person, um, Tori Branham, that's signed up to speak against, so you are the final two against. We have four minutes left, so go ahead.

448. 1:54:31

     Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and members of the committee. My name is Habib El Adros. I am a resident of Forsyth County, uh, Senator Dolezal's, uh, district. Uh, thank you for this opportunity to speak, uh, against this bill. I know we've mentioned this a number of times, this, this bill doesn't mention Sharia, but that's what the intent is, and my senator has made that clear in the video that he made a few days back. It transparently aims at stigmatizing one religion rather than any real legal concern. And the notion that Sharia law is infiltrating American courts or governance is not a constitutional reality.

449. 1:55:07

     It is a recycled fear narrative deployed for political gains. Every American, regardless of faith, whether you're Jewish or Christian or Hindu, you, you should be concerned when you have the government officials using legislative power to stigmatize one religion, and setting a precedent that endangers everyone's freedom. This singles out one group for disfa- disfavor, and it attempts to do precisely what our Founding Fathers sought to prevent when they crafted our Constitution and Bill of Rights, which is deny fundamental rights to a group of citizens based on a vote of a state legislature or the results of a statewide referendum.

450. 1:55:53

     This bill wouldn't be right even if it's, you know, uh, written the way it's written, very vague language, but targeting, uh, the Jewish community or the Christian community or the Hindu community, and it is not right if it is targeting the Muslim community. With that, I urge the committee members to not pass this bill. Thank you.

451. 1:56:15

     All right, thank you. And our final speaker opposed is Tori Z-

452. 1:56:21

     I'm for the bill, sorry.

453. 1:56:22

     For the bill. Got you on the wrong side. Okay. Well, that concludes our testimony, um, against the bill. Come on up, Ms. Tori Branham. Am I saying it correctly?

454. 1:56:32

     Yes.

455. 1:56:32

     Come on up. We will now start the clock. There's three speakers, um, speaking for the bill. But I don't think y'all need the full 20 minutes, right?

456. 1:56:41

     I do.

457. 1:56:41

     Okay, go ahead.

458. 1:56:42

     I, I wrote it down because I wanted to not m- leave anything out. Um, first I wanna say I'm not acting on emotion. I'm not acting on fancy laws. I'm acting on someone that has lived experience. I am a congressional candidate for Georgia's District 12, but I'm also a Marine veteran that served during the War on Terror. And since they wanted to bring up Sharia law, and that seemed to be the main point that they were driving home, they felt there, there was some prejudice there. I wanna read this to y'all. And, uh, so, um, I've been covering some projects going on in our state that are deeply concerning to Georgians, and we are facing a s- a spread of Islam.

459. 1:57:20

     Um, Texas is currently ground zero, in that Supreme Court terminology, for, um, what could potentially be a civil war. We are fourth in line. If, if we don't look to them as an example of what can happen when you aren't paying attention, we will have problems we cannot fix. With that said, I'm a mom of seven daughters. That's right, seven.

460. 1:57:39

     Hmm.

461. 1:57:39

     And when you're raising seven girls, you think very seriously about the future you're leaving behind when you leave them on this Earth, should things go in natural order. Right now, they have a Marine mom standing watch for those who took an oath to defend this country against all enemies, foreign and domestic. Sorry, this really hits home with me, so. This oath never expires. I lost friends in the War on Terror, and I understand the implications of, of what radical Islam is capable of. Right now, House Bill SB 486 in the Georgia State Senate would ensure no foreign religious law can ever override our constitution in this state.

462. 1:58:11

     That is not racism or prejudice. That is preventative measures and protection. This legislation protects women, children, and vulnerable parties from being disadvantaged by foreign legal systems that do not recognize equal rights. And let me be very clear, I support it 100%. This is not about attacking anyone's right to worship. We live in the greatest country in the world because people like me protected freedom of religion and served to protect our Constitution. But freedom of religion does not mean replacing the Constitution with religious rule.

463. 1:58:42

     We have seen what happens when that line gets blurred. Look at Iran before 1979. Women were doctors, lawyers, teachers. They chose what they wore. They had careers. They had voices. Then in the blink of an eye, while they slept and went on with their daily lives, an extremist regime took control. And in a matter of months, women were forced to cover their hair, their bodies, their laughter, their opinions. They couldn't dance in public. They couldn't sing freely. They couldn't speak loudly. They went from citizens to controlled subjects. And this is not a Republican or Democrat issue. This is an American issue.

464. 1:59:15

     This is what happens when religious ideology becomes state law. Now, 25 years later, tens of thousands of women, offspring of those who allowed it to happen, are losing their lives for freedom in Iran. And we better look in the mirror. And I will tell you something, as long as I have breath in my lungs, that will never happen to my daughters. Georgia is governed by the United States Constitution and Georgia law, not by religious doctrine from anywhere else in the world. Preventative measures are not hate. They are common sense, protection, and wisdom. We welcome anyone who comes here legally and respects our laws.

465. 1:59:46

     We defend the right of every person to worship freely. But we do not surrender our legal system, we do not compromise women's rights, we do not trade liberty for political correctness, and we do not apologize for saying America's built on constitutional governance, not religious role. My daughters deserve freedom. Your daughters deserve freedom. And if we have to pass laws now to make sure that freedom is protected for the next generation and the next generation and the one after that, that's exactly what we should do. Because once rights are gone, they are not coming back.

466. 2:00:17

     We are not going to wait until it's too late. Not in Georgia, not in America. In closing, it costs you nothing to pass the bill, but it can cost you everything if you don't. People can say Sharia is not an issue, and that depends on how you look at it, because it is a derivile- derivative of Islam, and you cannot separate the wheat from the tare, the bad from the good. People come in all different forms, good and evil, and in this Islam radicalization that's going on, you cannot separate.

467. 2:00:52

     And so there's nothing wrong with having a roadblock in place. It hurts nobody. But, it, you can lose everything by not passing this bill. It needs to be a good, nice roadblock put in place. And I don't need a fancy law, and I don't have to be a lawyer. I have lived experience. I've seen what happened from serving in the military and the experiences of my friends and losing friends. And so I can also turn on my TV and look at what's happening in, uh, London and Western Europe, and I feel like the preventative will actually make a lot...

468. 2:01:26

     Uh, it'll be a lot easier for people to... You know, it'll give people peace of mind with everything that's going on. So that's all I have to say about it.

469. 2:01:35

     All right. No questions from the committee. Thank you.

470. 2:01:37

     Thank you.

471. 2:01:39

     Sorry. All right, Mr. Thomas Weaver.

472. 2:01:43

     Mr. Chairman, I'll waive.

473. 2:01:45

     All right, Mr. Weaver waives. That leaves you, Ms. Voyles. Come on up. Suzie Voyles.

474. 2:01:54

     I believe I covered everybody.

475. 2:01:59

     I'm sorry that I signed the wrong list.

476. 2:02:02

     That's okay.

477. 2:02:04

     First of all, I want to thank you all for remaining here this late. I know that there are so many things that, um, are pressing on you, including probably a nice quiet dinner at home. Hopefully you can do that. I'm Suzie Voyles. I'm a wife, I'm a mother, um, and now I am a grandmother, uh, which is probably the best job I have ever had. One of the things I would like to remind people, there is a title on this bill. It is American Laws for American Courts.

478. 2:02:35

     And the reason it's that, it is not singling out anything as we have heard today. We also have Chinese courts that are popping up in our country. We have to make sure that this covers more, and that's why it has a simple bill. It was not singling out anybody. But I think one of the things that we have to realize is, um, we are currently facing the consequences of mass migration and the importation of ideologies that are fundamentally incompatible with American values and Western civilization.

479. 2:03:14

     And before you think that I am anti-immigrant, I am married to an immigrant and my son-in-law is an immigrant. Both are naturalized citizens. So this has nothing to do with immigration, legal or otherwise. In 1802, Marbury versus Madison stated, "The U.S. Constitution is the supreme law of the land." That was 1802. I'm sorry.

480. 2:03:45

     We talk about laws that are here and are not here, but on the other hand, there are hundreds of reported cases throughout the U.S. where they have attempted to apply foreign law and often have succeeded, even here in the state of Georgia. And I will be happy to submit to the record, I have pages of those laws where these have gone to court, um, court cases. One of the tragic ones here in Georgia was one where a mother was being severely beaten in Pakistan.

481. 2:04:26

     Her uncle and aunt, who lived here, wanted to help her and her children escape that. She was not afforded those privileges here. They were able... I mean, there. She was able to come here. Because she came here and lived with her aunt and uncle, and her children, the father divorced her in Pakistan. And when he divorced her there, he als- he divorced her for the reason of abandonment, and then he accused her, fallaciously, of adultery because she was living in the home of her uncle.

482. 2:05:04

     Nothing could've been further from the truth. The other issue with this was then, because he did this over there, he was able to come back, and the wife remained here, but the two children had to go back with their dad. Um, we are seeing examples of this over and over and over, and they particularly are, are in the area of child custody judgments or jurisdictions.

483. 2:05:35

     And there is gender discrimination, and we can't have that. That's already been thoroughly covered. I'm not going to go, go there. Go back there. But the free exercise clause of the First Amendment of the United States Constitution protects religious exercise. However, the Congress and the United States may regulate activity that is not solely religious in its observance, even though a religion may claim that the practice is essential to religious practice.

484. 2:06:12

     For example, the US Supreme Court has upheld bans on polygamy even though some Mormons have claimed the practlish- practice to be religious. Courts have also upheld bans on Native Americans smoking peyote, and the KKK from wearing hoods, even though the claims were these practices are part of their religion. I think the thing that we have to realize, I was not gonna bring up Sharia, but since it has been brought up, Islamic Sharia governs practices that would be adjudged as religious exercise, such as rules on praying, but Islamic Sharia also includes the regulation of matters which are part of civil law, such as marriage, divorce, child custody, marital property, rules of evidence, regulation of speech as blasphemy.

485. 2:07:09

     The application of those aspects of Sharia can be banned by Georgia as a foreign law that violates Georgia's constitutional norms. Americans for 250 years have toiled and suffered, we're celebrating our birthday this Fourth of July, including the spilling of blood towards guaranteed fundamental constitutional rights by war against foreign tyrannies and domestic insurrection by engaging in social and political movements such as the suffragette or civil rights movements, and by creating landmark legal precedents.

486. 2:07:55

     No US citizen should be denied the fundamental liberties guaranteed in our constitutional republic. No US citizen should be held accountable for something from a foreign country. Women and children are the common victims of discriminatory foreign laws, and they especially deserve the protection that is provided under our United States and Georgia constitutions.

487. 2:08:26

     The intrusion of foreign laws, including Sharia, into the American legal system should be resisted. I not only want to thank you for your time, but I want you to remember what this bill was named. It was named American Laws for American Courts. We see other courts, as I mentioned earlier, like Chinese courts popping up. And I'll leave you with the- what the Federalist Paper Number 78 said.

488. 2:09:02

     He described the judiciary as possessing neither force nor will, but merely judgments. The courts were designed to interpret law within constitutional boundaries. The modern judicial activism often crosses that line. Original meaning means something. We have to protect our American laws for American courts. Thank you for your time.

489. 2:09:31

     Thank you. No questions from the committee. All right, Senator Dolezal, you want to come back up and close it out and let you take any other questions the committee members have?

490. 2:09:41

     Chairman, I know you have other bills. I'd be happy to answer questions. Um, I think that the committee's kind of heard both sides of this as well as, uh, I think what was your understanding of the bill, so.

491. 2:09:49

     Any questions for the author from the committee? All right, what's the pleasure of the committee?

492. 2:09:57

     Motion to pass.

493. 2:09:57

     We have a motion to pass by Senator Bearden. Do we have a second?

494. 2:10:01

     Senator Hatchett, I'll second it.

495. 2:10:02

     Uh, from... We all sound the same. Motion to pass by Senator Hatchett, a second from Senator Bearden. Any discussion? All those in favor of the motion, please raise your hand. It's three. All those opposed, it is three. The chair votes in favor of the motion, so the motion carries four to three. Thank you.

496. 2:10:25

     Thank you, Chairman, members of the committee.

497. 2:10:28

     All right, two other bills on the agenda. Next is Senate Bill 327. Senator Parent, do you want to go down there or you want to stay where you are?

498. 2:10:35

     No.

499. 2:10:35

     Okay.

500. 2:10:39

     I want video, please.

501. 2:10:40

     Pardon, please.

502. 2:10:40

     Yeah, both videos at me. Yeah.

503. 2:10:42

     All right. Let's remain orderly as we exit. Please do not speak to each other.

504. 2:10:47

     Thank you.

505. 2:10:47

     And please, let's just exit the room.

506. 2:10:55

     Thank you, um, Mr. Chairman and members of the committee. Um, I... It's a long hearing for us today, so I'll, I'll be real fast. Um, I am presenting for your consideration Senate Bill 327, and I do want to thank the chairman and the committee for hearing this piece of legislation. I am prese- this, uh, particular bill would provide for a sixth judge for the Clayton Judicial Circuit. So I want to just briefly give the, uh, history here. Clayton Judicial Circuit is actually the highest workload circuit in the entire state.

507. 2:11:33

     Um, it was not forwarded to, um, this committee as the highest workload circuit in the entire state, and that's what I'm gonna explain. Um, and I, and I have some documents in your packets that you can review to kind of see what the timeline is. Essent- but the, the, the history is in, uh, 2020, um, Clayton was, Clayton Judicial Circuit was approved for the, the list of circuits that were in line for a new judge And it remained on the list for four years because typically it's three until you need a renewal.

508. 2:12:11

     But in this instance, it was four because the pandemic was in there and they sort of essentially, the, um, Judicial Council left the circuits that had, had made the list, um, the same for that next year. So what our practice has been, most of you already know this, but I guess I'll, I'll quickly go over it. The practice has been that you ha- if once you get a, a workload value per judge of one point two, you "qualify" for the list, um, at the Judicial Council.

509. 2:12:45

     Um, and the workload assessment to get that figure is done by, um, the Judicial Workload Assessment Committee, a committee underneath the Judicial Council at the Administrative Office of the Courts. Each, uh, circuit, once a request has been made that a workload study be conducted, the circuit needs to submit numbers for that assessment to be run. So that happened in twenty twenty. Clayton qualified for the list, but, um, and so for the next five-- four years, it was fifth on the list, fifth on the list, sixth, and then fourth.

510. 2:13:26

     And then after a certain amount of time, the, um, it, you, you... a circuit lapses off the list until a new request is put in. Our practice, as many of you know, has been of late that the top three circuits in terms of workload are the ones given, uh, granted the new judgeships through, um, the, the, the budget and through bills moving through the legislature. So Clayton never did get to the top three during that time.

511. 2:13:59

     Closest it got was fourth. Very high. Well, um, now, now to the, the history of the last year. I put in a request in April twenty twenty-five for a, for the workload, uh, study to be done, and the numbers were submitted in July. I was notified by the, um, Judicial Council, as was Clayton Chief Judge Mack, that, um, th- that Clayton didn't qualify for the list.

512. 2:14:30

     But immediately, the chief judge was like, "Something's wrong," because we'd been on it for years, and our workload's only gone up, so something is wrong with the numbers. And that is what had occurred. The, the clerk had inadvertently submitted, um, cases with multiple defendants as one case, as opposed to breaking them all out, which is what you are supposed to do per the rules for the calculation, if that makes sense. And, and my, uh, witnesses can tell you more about that if you have more questions. So, um, they said, "Hey, they didn't qualify." Judge Mack said, "Yeah, something's wrong." So Clayton reran the numbers, resubmitted the numbers September third, um, on...

513. 2:15:11

     The committee met again November eighteenth, I have the document, um, and said, "Yep, your value is one point three eight," which if you look at the letter from Judge Leonard that I have in your packet, um, one point three eight is actually the highest workload value of any circuit in the state, as I mentioned, uh, earlier. But they also said, "Sorry, you can't qualify because you submitted your numbers too late." And what, um, I want to submit for, for all of you is, you know, I greatly respect the work of the Judicial Council.

514. 2:15:51

     I think the workload assessment process is an important one. I think that it, um, streamlines everything and tries to make sure that we don't have, you know, forty-nine circuits all begging us for a new judge, and no one knows what the numbers are every year. So all that is, is very important and cr- and, and I think critical. But I do wanna read you what, um, when they send in a letter with the circuits that qualify, this is what they say. "The Administrative Office of the Courts utilizes an objective, nationally recognized best practice methodology, which supports the, what the goal is of promoting speedy and just dis- disposition of cases through equitably distributed workload.

515. 2:16:35

     The recommendations are made with the objective of achieving a reasonable balance and equitable distribution of judicial services among the forty-nine judicial circuits." But what we have here is a sort of like rote application of a, quote, "rule" that has made it where none of that would happen if Clayton did not, um, if Clayton's sixth judge request could not move through our process this year. Because Clayton's circuit is the most overburdened circuit in our entire state.

516. 2:17:10

     And I've been in, um, contact with the governor's office about this several times and, and working also with House members, and certainly, um, Chairman Tillery and Chairman Strickland have been, have been very, very helpful. Um, the reality is I appreciate their process. It is a good one. However, the numbers got back in to them September third, and they did not meet until November fourteenth and then said, "Oh, it's too late." I submit to you that that's simply a miscarriage of justice in the sense of the whole process is supposed to ensure that the new judges go to the circuits that have, that are the most overburdened, trying to keep our community safe.

517. 2:17:50

     And I, the decision, frankly, is ours. It is not theirs. And I d- I believe that a sort of unthinking application of that is sort of contrary to the interests of what this General Assembly typically would stand for in terms of our assignment of new judges. So, um, I'm happy to take questions, but I actually want you to get to hear from the Clayton County DA and the, uh, one of the, the judges.

518. 2:18:15

     All right. Any questions for the author from the committee?

519. 2:18:18

     I make a motion.

520. 2:18:20

     Uh, before you do that, I was gonna... I was trying to read the room. I can't always read my committee, but Judge Mason and Ms. Mosley, thank y'all for being here. District attorney, one of our superior court judges from my next door-

521. 2:18:30

     Yeah

522. 2:18:30

     ... in Clayton County, and I practice over there. I'm in, I'm in front of you a good bit, too, and I know y'all are a very busy court, and so I was happy to work with the author to make sure we got this moving. We still have to fund these things, obviously, and that's another challenge. Um, Senator Hatchett.

523. 2:18:47

     That is actually where I was going with this, 'cause I've done this in the past, created a new judge for the mountain circuit. Um, I know there has to be an appropriation.

524. 2:18:55

     Mm-hmm.

525. 2:18:55

     This is saying that the effective date is January 1, 2026, based on the bill. Has this been appropriated? And one of the reasons I ask is I've got some new judges going in my neck of the woods, and I wouldn't want them to get bumped at this point if it hasn't been appropriated.

526. 2:19:12

     Right. So now what's your... What circuit is yours, Senator Hatchett?

527. 2:19:15

     I have several, um-

528. 2:19:17

     Yeah

529. 2:19:17

     ... but I think the one-

530. 2:19:17

     Oh

531. 2:19:18

     ... that would be impacted here would be the one in Hall County.

532. 2:19:21

     Northeastern? Is that northeastern?

533. 2:19:23

     Yes.

534. 2:19:24

     Okay. Um, so yes, my understanding... So I am... It is all in process, is, is my answer to you. The reason the date... Let me just be clear. I filed this last year, so that would need to be-

535. 2:19:36

     That needs to be changed.

536. 2:19:37

     Yes, that needs to be changed. I filed this bill last year, so that's, that's why it says that. So that's erroneous, obviously. Um, but yes, um, on the appropriation side, I would not... It, it, it is... The conversations are in process, and I can certainly pledge to you and all other committee members that we would, you know, need to ensure that there was, um, funding in the budget. And as I understand it, there... From, uh, superior court colleagues, there, there, there is funding in the budget, but we obviously have to work with the appropriations committees to s- so that it would stay in the budget.

537. 2:20:10

     Does that make sense?

538. 2:20:11

     Yeah.

539. 2:20:11

     So moving the bill would give you a chance to make that case, and we ultimately make the decision on what we're gonna fund, and whether or not this bill gets to the floor of the Senate obviously may be impacted by whether or not there's a commitment to fund it, too.

540. 2:20:22

     That's right. Yeah, of course, the chairman knows of what he speaks. Um, but I, I would love you guys to very briefly hear from-

541. 2:20:28

     Do y'all wanna come up?

542. 2:20:30

     Um, just, just so that you have an understanding of, of what workload and some of the specifics to Clayton-

543. 2:20:35

     Mm-hmm

544. 2:20:35

     ... which are actually critical for, for the whole state, and why I think the bill's important.

545. 2:20:42

     Okay.

546. 2:20:45

     Well, good evening, everyone.

547. 2:20:46

     I don't feel like it.

548. 2:20:48

     Good evening.

549. 2:20:48

     I'm Judge Er- Judge Aaron Mason. Um, Judge Mack asked me to come speak on his behalf. He couldn't make it this evening. Um, first, I wanna thank you for the opportunity. I come before you with deep respect for this body, for the Judicial Council, and for the Judicial Workload Assessment Committee. Now, JWAC serves a vital purpose to assess the true needs of Georgia's judicial circuits and provide an objective tr- data-driven recommendation on when a new judgeship is warranted.

550. 2:21:19

     Their work is essential to the administration of justice. But when the data is clear and when the need is urgent, JWAC's procedural technicalities stand between the people and timely justice, it is the general assembly that has both the authority and responsibility to act. Procedure should never defeat substance when the facts are clear, or this clear. For years, Clayton County has exceeded the threshold for a sixth superior court judgeship. The JWAC standard, as you heard, is 1.20. Clayton County stood at 1.33 from 2020 through 2023, four consecutive years, remained on Judicial Council's list for '21, '22, and '23.

551. 2:22:03

     Under the council's own rules, a circuit may remain on that list for only three years. Clayton County's eligibility expired in 2022, as you heard. Um, we were removed not because our need diminished, um, it d- it did not, but because the rule required it. Now, the workload remained above the threshold. The need remained real. The only procedural... Only thing is proc- procedural clock ran out on us. Some may ask, if Clayton County qualified for years, why didn't we receive the judgeship?

552. 2:22:34

     During the year when circuits were encouraged to appear before JWAC, Clayton County was not in the room. Other circuits were, and their needs were directly heard. Without that same opportunity, our needs did not receive the visibility they deserved. Now, Clayton County was passed over not because the need was unsubstantiated, but because no one was present to articulate it. Um, that is the context in which Senator Parent requested a new workload assessment in April of last year, well before the deadline.

553. 2:23:04

     Um, the number of, the numbers submitted by the clerk's office, as you heard later, were discovered to be erroneous. The AOC acknowledged the mistake, encouraged us to submit corrected data, which we did. JWAC approved those corrected numbers in November, um, and they show that Clayton County now carries the highest workload value in the state of Georgia, as you heard, 1.38. Yet we were told it's too late to consider the corrected data because of JWAC's June, June 1st deadline that applies to requests, not to the correction of acknowledged clerical errors.

554. 2:23:40

     The request was timely. The error was clerical, and by the time the corrected numbers were available, JWAC meeting calendar simply did not allow for further consideration this year. Clayton County should not be denied a judgeship because of a clerical error, error or a calendar, and this is where the purpose of JWAC matters. JWAC exists to measure true need. The corrected numbers confirm Clayton County has the highest workload in Georgia. The data has spoken. The need is established. The only barrier is timing, and this is where precedents matter.

555. 2:24:13

     In 2021- The General Assembly created the Columbia Judicial Circuit by splitting it from the Augusta Circuit. That action occurred outside JWAC's timeline and after the JWAC deadline, because the need was clear and justice required timely action. The legislature exercised its constitutional authority responsibly then. The circumstances before you today are no less compelling. Process should guide us, not blind us, especially when the data shows Clayton County carries the heaviest judicial workload in Georgia.

556. 2:24:48

     This is not about politics. It's not about personalities. It's about ensuring victims, families, and defendants in Clayton County receive timely justice. It's about giving judges the capacity to do their job well. It's about honoring the principle that when facts are clear, procedure should never defeat substance. I respectfully ask your support in moving this bill forward and funding Clayton County's sixth superior court judgeship. The need is real. Precedent exists, and JWAC has confirmed the workload.

557. 2:25:20

     Justice requires action. Thank you.

558. 2:25:22

     Thank you, Judge. Ms. Moseley.

559. 2:25:25

     Hi, good evening. Tosha Moseley, District Attorney, Clayton Judicial Circuit. Um, I'm just asking you to support this, this bill. We need more judges. Honestly, we probably need about three more. Um, the judges are averaging about two, uh, there's on average about 245 murders. Each judge is about 40, 45 murders in their, in their courts. Um, out of those murders that they have, about five of them are multi-defendant, um, cases. Right now, I'm looking at, take off my glasses here, 26 murder cases that are unindicted that I have coming down the pipeline.

560. 2:26:02

     On serious violent felonies, what we've termed, I've got 35, which several are multi-defendant. On just my felony sex crimes that are unindicted that we will get on in the next few days or the next few weeks, 78, and then I have a grand total of seven felony traffic or, um, serious injury. A lot of those are multi-defendant cases, and usually the cases are severed. So whenever I have a murder, like we just finished one, we called it the Libby Lane.

561. 2:26:36

     Mm-hmm.

562. 2:26:36

     There were 16 to 20 defendants on there. We finally-

563. 2:26:40

     23.

564. 2:26:40

     23.

565. 2:26:40

     Yeah.

566. 2:26:40

     We finally got the last one convicted two weeks ago.

567. 2:26:44

     Mm-hmm.

568. 2:26:44

     Um, part of that one too was YSL, because the defense attorney was on the YSL. So we finally got the last one. I have, we have tried two murders last week. We got two murders going on this week, and if you remember my count, so I'm saying I'm disposing of four murders out of the 245, but I've got 26 in the pipeline. I went to court this morning, came, well, when I rushed out of my lobby to go to court this morning, I had two family members of two different murders in my lobby.

569. 2:27:16

     I couldn't talk to them right then, but when I came back from court, they were still there. These are mothers that their children have been murdered, and these are cases that have been pending for, one, over five years. We've been trying to get to it, and it's not that, you know, for lack of trying. It's that we just have that many cases, the judges have that many cases, that they have older cases above that murder. So we keep going, but we keep replacing, and these, uh, defense attorneys will spot file speedy trial demand, which bumps murders down.

570. 2:27:48

     And so we're in this constant vicious cycle. So I'm asking, begging, pleading, please give us the sixth judge. Fund it, because we need it, so that way we can divide some of these cases and hopefully move them quicker. Get these defendants convicted, well, alleged murderers and s- you know, people convicted, because we have a good high conviction rate, and get them in the state system. And that too will probably, in a roundabout way, help my jail. But understand, people, Clayton County has Hartsville Jackson.

571. 2:28:22

     All of that comes to us.

572. 2:28:24

     Mm-hmm.

573. 2:28:24

     And we've got the World Cup coming.

574. 2:28:27

     Mm-hmm.

575. 2:28:27

     And I'm telling you right now, it scares the dickens out of me, because we know somebody's gonna commit a crime, and the crime that I suspect they're gonna commit is those sex crimes. So imagine how we're gonna be more in- inundated after the World Cup with these defendants sitting in jail, and then me having to try all of these cases with only five judges, when our caseload level is 1.38. Now, honestly, I don't know how they get to that, that number, but that seems kind of, you know, high.

576. 2:28:57

     So we need for them to get distributed amongst the more. So if you feel it in your heart, you know, we asking for six, but in reality we need 10. So I figure-

577. 2:29:09

     You want more

578. 2:29:09

     ... you know, if you don't ask, you don't receive. You know? So I'm just, I'm just saying but-

579. 2:29:13

     Maybe land around eight and see where it goes.

580. 2:29:15

     You know, I, I figure five, let me, uh, go big and ask for 10, so y'all know we'll come in a couple more years. But- ... in all honesty, um, this would definitely help out, um, getting some of those cases, 'cause that means we can try more. Like I said, in the last two weeks, we've got two murder trials that went out today. So in the last two weeks, we would've tried four murders, just the month of February.

581. 2:29:37

     All right. Any questions for District Attorney Moseley or Judge Mason? Thank y'all.

582. 2:29:44

     Thank y'all.

583. 2:29:44

     We have one other person, Mr. Sullivan from the Black Republican Council, that's here. You want the last word?

584. 2:29:52

     Yes, sir.

585. 2:29:52

     Come on down. Oh, thank you. Nobody else told me. You know, this whole time, maybe it was better, I don't know.

586. 2:30:04

     Okay, I will make this quick and brief. Um, I support the bill. Um, five reasons why. Number one is the growing caseload and population demand in Clayton County. Um, Clayton County continue to experience significant population growth and increased court filings as population rises to do so. Criminal cases, family law, juvenile proceedings, civil disputes, and current judges are handling heavy dockets, which can lead delays in hearings, trials, and rulings.

587. 2:30:41

     A sixth judge would help ensure timely access to justice. Number two, reducing case backlogs. Backlog cases prolong pretrial detention for defendants, delay courts for victims, increase costs for taxpayers, restrain court staff and law enforcement resources. Adding a judge improve docket management, reduces overcrowding in court calendars, and strengthens overall judicial efficiency. Number three, which I feel is very important as a conservative, ensuring constitutional rights.

588. 2:31:17

     The US Constitution guarantees the right to speedy trial. Overburdened court risk violating that right. A sixth judge helps protect due process, reduce continuance caused by scheduling conflicts, ensure fair and prompt adjudication. Number four, public safety and community confidence. Timely court proceedings enhance public trust in the justice system, improve coordination with prosecutors, public defenders, and law enforcement, ensures victims and family receive resolution without unnecessary delays.

589. 2:31:52

     Justice delayed can feel like justice denied. And number five, economic and administrative efficiency. Delays in civil and business cases can negatively affect the economy development. Efficient courts attract businesses, support stable families, reduce detention and housing costs. Investing in one additional judgeship can reduce long-term systematic costs. Within closing, I say this, the question before us is not whether we can afford a sixth judge in the Clayton County Judicial Circuit.

590. 2:32:26

     It is whether we can to afford to compromise the constitutional safeguards. The rights to a speedy trial, due process of law, and equal protection under the law are not optional provisions. They are foundational guarantees enshrined in our Constitution. When court dockets become overloaded and delays grow longer and those guarantees are strained, justice delayed risk becoming justice denied for defendants awaiting trial, for victims seeking closure, and for families depending on timely court decisions.

591. 2:33:01

     The creation of the sixth superior court judgeship is not an expansion of government for its own sake. It is a measured and necessary response to increase caseload constitutional obligations and our sworn duty to uphold the rule of law. An adequate staffed judiciary ensures careful review, timely hearings, thoughtful rulings, and all essential components of due process. Our citizens deserves a court system that move cases efficiently, protect individ- individual rights, maintain public confidence.

592. 2:33:36

     By establishing a sixth judgeship, we strengthen the integrity of our courts and reaffirm, reaffirm that constitutional protections are not merely words on paper, but promises actively upheld in every courtroom. I respectfully urge this committee to support the creation of the sixth superior court judgeship to ensure the administration of justice in Clayton County remains fair, timely, and constitutionally sound. And I also speak on as a personal perspective as being a former law enforcement officer in Clayton County Sheriff's Office.

593. 2:34:14

     I do agree that the jail need help. We really need help. And Clayton County as well, and this will actually reduce that for us. Thank you.

594. 2:34:25

     Thank you, Mr. Sullivan. All right, that's everyone signed up to speak. Um, quick question. Let's see if we have a motion from the committee. Motion to pass. Motion to pass. Senator Yarber still here with us. Senator Rhett, second from Senator Jones. Um, Mr. Walker, do we need to change, or do you know, Senator Parent, the dates? Do we wanna-- I know that January 1st, '26, I'm assuming you wanna go January 1st, '27?

595. 2:34:50

     Yes.

596. 2:34:51

     And so are you also wanting to then reset the terms? Because the current way it's drafted has the initial term for January 1st, '26 through December 31st, '28. Does that need to be a '29 in each place? We have '28 and then the new term, the person taking office January 1st, 2030?

597. 2:35:12

     Yeah. I would, um, say, Mr. Chairman, that conforming, um, change is necessary due to it being a year later.

598. 2:35:20

     Mr. Walker?

599. 2:35:21

     And rocking would need to be made.

600. 2:35:23

     That would be, uh, that would be your, your pleasure, Senator. It wouldn't be required. I think the only requirement would be that the incumbent have at least six months in office before they have to stand for election. So if you want to have it all roll back a year, we can make all of those changes. There wouldn't be any legal requirement to other than to change the January 1, 2026 dates to 2027 on line 23 and line 108.

601. 2:35:47

     Do you wanna check with your, with Judge Mason to see, do you all have a preference on the terms? Uh, well, 'cause sometimes jurisdictions look at it based on how other, how their judges are in terms and divide those up. Is there any preference as to how we do that?

602. 2:36:00

     No, we'll get it.

603. 2:36:04

     Um, uh, you know, when, when we had it drafted, we did it per kind of the standard-

604. 2:36:10

     Yeah

605. 2:36:10

     ... right? And so I'm not, uh, trying to ask for special... I'm already asking for a special treatment-

606. 2:36:14

     Oh, I understand

607. 2:36:15

     ... right now.

608. 2:36:16

     And I don't know.

609. 2:36:16

     You know, so, um, so-

610. 2:36:16

     Just based on my experience, some counties stagger theirs where judges are up different years. Maybe you don't have a preference to keep it consistent.

611. 2:36:30

     Leave it.

612. 2:36:30

     Okay. The, um, well, Judge Mason and DA Mosley's opinion is they could run in '28.

613. 2:36:37

     So we would just change the January 1st. I'm getting another thumbs up. Okay. So then is the only change, Mr. Walker, line 23, January 1st, 26 being January 1st, 27, and then line-

614. 2:36:49

     108

615. 2:36:50

     ... 108, changing that to 27. Is that, are those the only changes?

616. 2:36:54

     That is correct.

617. 2:36:55

     Um, we have so moved by Senator Hatchett. We have a second from Senator Beard on the amendment. All those favor the amendment, raise your hand. It's unanimous. Back to our line of motion do pass now as amended. All in favor, raise your hand. It is unanimous.

618. 2:37:09

     Thank you so much-

619. 2:37:09

     All right. Thank y'all

620. 2:37:10

     ... committee members.

621. 2:37:11

     Thank you. All right. We still have a quorum if nobody else leaves. So we have one last bill. Um, Senate Bill 202. Come on down, Senator Jones. We have four, three individuals signed up to speak for, one opposed. We gotta keep a quorum to move the bill. Now of course, Ms. Basiloni, you signed up for and against it, so which one is a good-

622. 2:37:38

     I'm not against it.

623. 2:37:38

     I know. I'm just giving you a hard time. I'm just giving you a hard time.

624. 2:37:41

     You might get that.

625. 2:37:44

     Give us the LC number, Senator Jones, and-

626. 2:37:46

     L... Yes, LC 492176.

627. 2:37:49

     All right. That's filed. The floor is yours.

628. 2:37:51

     All right. Thank you. So this is Bill SB 202. So currently in, in court, and I also have my solicitor general from Augusta, Georgia here, Solicitor Mika Loggins. Um, so currently in court what happens is with felony cases you have a defense and, and of course prosecution, and the prosecution hands the defense everything they basically have. The defense then hands the prosecutor everything basically they ha- have concerning the case. Within misdemeanor cases right now, that does not exist. Prosecution hands the defense everything that they have, but it's not necessarily reciprocal.

629. 2:38:22

     This basically creates it being reciprocal. If the defendant elects to actually participate in this, it's the defendant's election. Then for misdemeanor cases, we're talking about DUIs, shoplifting cases, also domestic violence cases are pretty much your big three. Um, in those particular cases now, if the defense elects, the defense will give w- everything they have. The prosecution of course will always still give what they have. It actually places some timelines. I wanted to actually kinda I think tighten that up a little bit to where it talks about within 10 days, you know, you have to have it in.

630. 2:38:53

     So it does give timelines for, uh, the defense and the prosecution to understand what they're kinda working with. And similar to also felony level, if one side does not do its prosecution, does not actually do what they're supposed to do, the judge actually could actually stop, um, any evidence or any of those witnesses from being able to testify, which is also similar on the felony level. So it just adds reciprocity there to both sides now know what the other side actually has. As a former prosecutor, I actually think that helps, um, not only from a prosecution standpoint, from a defense standpoint, 'cause now we actually have an idea really what the defense is to some extent, to where we can say, "Hey, we may not have the strongest case as we actually believe that we th- had before." And I actually think it's, it's not one to give an advantage.

631. 2:39:36

     It actually puts everyone on a level playing field. And if anything, sometimes it actually may help the defense, um, because now I kinda know and say, "Okay, my s- case was not as strong as I thought," and then th- therefore I may actually make a, um, ruling or a judgment that actually may actually be in the defendant's favor if I don't have that information. So that's what, um, SB 202 basically is. And I'll allow my solicitor also to kinda, uh, talk about it too because she now is a solicitor and been there I think six, six years now.

632. 2:40:00

     Seven.

633. 2:40:00

     Seven years now.

634. 2:40:01

     Sorry. Um, Mr. Chairman and colleagues, thank you. I'll try to be as brief as, um, I can. Um, I wanna bring your attention to, um, the current misdemeanor law. So basically from the prosecution standpoint, we're required to only provide certain things: the charging document, which is in our case the accusation, list of witnesses, um, defendant statements, and scientific reports. That's it. So any other police reports, any other, um, videos, that's not required by the current statute, okay?

635. 2:40:32

     Now, and a lot of times we do do more, meaning the prosecution does, um, release more than we have to for various reasons. Um, but let's just be clear, for the statute, that's it. And as Senator Jones said, for the defense side, guess what they produce? Nothing. That includes no witnesses. So let me give an example how sometimes that plays out. As a trial, we get ready to get start, started. We try to have all the motions that we possibly have pre-trial to kinda make the, the trial go, um, as smoothly as possible and as efficiently and effectively as possible.

636. 2:41:04

     And then defense comes up, "Oh, I have five, six witnesses." One of those witnesses may be an expert, okay, that we had no knowledge of. We don't have an opportunity to get a counter expert. Sometimes there's a pause in the trial and the judge may say, "Okay, well, we gotta now give the prosecution a time to at least confer with the expert to see where they're going because we can't just go into the trial, you know, blindly." That's if the judge allows that. In some jurisdictions they say the statute is what the statute is. We, you just gotta be trial by fire. My point is, is that if the whole point is to get to justice and fairness, why is it that one side does not have to give anything, not even a list of witnesses?

637. 2:41:43

     When we're talking about, um, fairness, the whole point is to see the whole picture. Sometimes that fairness means it's not a conviction. Sometimes that fairness means another decision needs to be made. But if we don't have an opportunity to get that information, it's not fair. Um, last I want to say real briefly is that, um, I've had opportunity in my, um, legal career to not only practice, uh, misdemeanor, felony law, criminal law, but civil law and family law. Even in civil cases you have a discovery process where both sides have to give information. My question t- or my point to you would be is when we're talking about criminal cases where we're actually dealing with people's lives, um, not just money, but actual lives where people can go to jail, people have other, um, consequences, victims that are involved, why would you not want that same, uh, affordability or fairness for in a criminal case that you would in a civil case?

638. 2:42:32

     And lastly, when you're talking about separate cases, misdemeanors versus felonies, why is there a distinction between what is, um- ... needed or what should be done in a misdemeanor case versus a felony case. Particularly when we talk about those more complicated cases such as the vehicular homicides, the, um, DUI cases, the family violence cases. Why would we not want to have a process that is fair across the board, and why are we making distinction between felony cases and misdemeanor cases when it comes to discovery rules?

639. 2:43:05

     Well, a little quick history. I told Leader Jones this back in, I think it was 2016. I went back and looked. I carried, I think, pretty much the exact same bill from the House.

640. 2:43:14

     Oh, shoot.

641. 2:43:14

     Passed the House about-

642. 2:43:16

     Oh, wow

643. 2:43:17

     ... 170 to one or so. Had a great day. I got over to the Senate and sailed through committee and got to the Senate floor, and one particular senator didn't like it, who had a little power back then. He still has a little power now, and he killed it, and it killed the issue for a while. I won't say who that was, but you can figure it out. Um, and so the issue comes back, and I appreciate Leader Jones for-

644. 2:43:38

     Yes

645. 2:43:38

     ... now carrying it. Hopefully you'll have better luck than I had.

646. 2:43:40

     Yeah.

647. 2:43:40

     Questions on the committee. Senator Hatchett.

648. 2:43:42

     Yes. Uh, I have a question about lines 24 and 25. Could you explain to me how, if a defendant seeks discovery pursuant to Chapter 11 of Title 9, that they automatically, I guess, invoke... This is automatically invoked on them?

649. 2:44:05

     Um, and so Senator Jones used the term, is reciprocal discovery. I mean, if they elect, then not only... Remember I told you before that there was those m- limited things that the prosecution has to turn over. Well, it now expands what the prosecution turns over, not just those, um, accusation witness statements and reports. It goes further into police reports, um, all those other things that's not listed. So what this bill does is expand what the prosecution is obligated to provide, and then if the defense opts in, they then only have to provide a list of witnesses, and so it's kind of like, um, reciprocity.

650. 2:44:40

     Um, yes.

651. 2:44:42

     So I guess in this situation, I'm thinking you're a defendant. You get pulled over for something. You file a claim against, a civil claim against the officer that pulls you over, like a wrongful stop or you're contesting in a civil, on the civil side. Does that open you up to discovery? That, that automatically makes you opt in to discovery for the criminal side?

652. 2:45:08

     No.

653. 2:45:10

     Okay.

654. 2:45:10

     And I don't know if that-

655. 2:45:13

     Is this similar to how it works with felonies? What's the difference?

656. 2:45:16

     Yes. And so, um, and maybe that will help clarify that. All that we're trying to do is the felony statute every, already exists. What you see in Senate Bill 202 is it, it mimics the felony statute. Only thing we're trying to do is put misdemeanor cases in that same posture, allowing the same thing to happen in misdemeanor prosecution as our felony counterparts have.

657. 2:45:38

     No, and I, I-

658. 2:45:38

     Okay

659. 2:45:39

     ... I understand that completely. The part that I'm struggling with is, or not ne- not necessarily struggling, I don't even know if I'm opposed to this, I'm just trying to understand it a little bit, is in order to get, I guess, get the benefit of the discovery for a misdemeanor case, the defendant has to opt in. Is-

660. 2:45:58

     So I think there were... Yes, but there are still things that the prosecutors will still be mandated to give-

661. 2:46:02

     Right

662. 2:46:03

     ... such as the, you know, those minimum, bare minimum things. This just, um, does two things. It expands it, what the misdemeanor prosecutors have to turn over, and then it only requires that the defense, um, turn over a list of witnesses, per se. Um, and so a short story, end of it is it just basically follows the felony, uh, misdemeanor discovery, I mean, excuse me, the felony discovery statute.

663. 2:46:26

     So when else would a defendant seek discovery pursuant to Title 9, the Chapter 11 title on the Georgia Civil Practice Act? I guess if, if they're-

664. 2:46:38

     I'm trying to think of when I did it, but I was a defense attorney. I don't remember. I was wrong. So you're saying when would this come into play on the civil side?

665. 2:46:45

     'Cause it just says it auto-... You, you're automatically opted into this if you seek discovery pur- pursuant to the Civil Practice Act, 'cause I d- and I do civil law. I don't do criminal.

666. 2:46:54

     Got it.

667. 2:46:54

     My, my law partner does all the criminal stuff. But we, if I'm a criminal attorney and I'm representing someone and I do have a claim against, I don't know, an arresting officer, for example. That's the only one I can think of right now. But if I were to seek discovery in a separate civil case against him, the way I'm reading this is it automatically opts me into the criminal discovery rules.

668. 2:47:23

     And it won't... Okay, go ahead.

669. 2:47:24

     And I don't know if that's a bad thing. I'm just trying to-

670. 2:47:26

     It actually goes into your blood results, if I'm not mistaken, is if you look at that, if I'm not mistaken, it deals with medical.

671. 2:47:33

     Mm-hmm.

672. 2:47:33

     I think that's going to, if you're seeking discovery as far as your blood results are concerned, it may be pursuant to a civil case.

673. 2:47:40

     I see what you're saying.

674. 2:47:41

     Yeah.

675. 2:47:41

     Okay.

676. 2:47:42

     Thank you.

677. 2:47:43

     Thanks.

678. 2:47:43

     I punt it to Senator Jones.

679. 2:47:45

     Yeah.

680. 2:47:45

     Who's also a lawyer.

681. 2:47:47

     Any other questions from the committee? All right. Were y'all wanting to weigh in? Anybody else want to weigh in, Mr.-

682. 2:47:54

     And I just, um, yes, I have, um, this is Bill F-

683. 2:47:56

     Mr. Finch

684. 2:47:57

     ... uh, William Finch from Forsyth County and Luana Nolan from the Paulding County. I think Bill's going to go.

685. 2:48:03

     Yeah, that way you have microphones. We have thousands watching online around the country, around the world.

686. 2:48:08

     Around the world.

687. 2:48:09

     No pressure.

688. 2:48:10

     No pressure. Tens, maybe tens this evening. And somebody will text me right now and say, "I'm watching." I'm like, "Why are you watching?" But yes. Welcome, Mr. Finch.

689. 2:48:18

     Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

690. 2:48:19

     I don't know, Ms. Nolan, if you want to come up or not, but you're welcome to if you want to join.

691. 2:48:22

     I wanted to address a couple of things, is number one, your, um, history is correct. Uh, the numbers were a little off. It was 168 to one.

692. 2:48:31

     Oh.

693. 2:48:31

     And we're, uh, wa- well aware of what happened, um, in 2016. Uh, we are currently operating under discovery rules that were enacted in 1983 I know I was in college in 1983, but I don't remember much else from that time.

694. 2:48:52

     Um, DUI law has changed substantially, uh, since 1983, what's admissible, uh, what, um, expert witnesses are available now. Uh, it is un- it is fundamentally unfair for me to walk into a courtroom and spot a, um, a defense expert on the morning of trial. Uh, it is, our discovery statutes are intended to, uh, stop a trial by ambush. It's not allowed in state civil court, it is not allowed in s- uh, in felony world, and it's not allowed in, uh, superior civil matters.

695. 2:49:33

     But somehow, we are stuck with a 1983 mechanism to try cases in 2026. Uh, so I appreciate, uh, the senator from, um, Richland County, uh, bringing this forward. Um, I want you to understand that I, I represent a, um, very red county, and I am very, uh, much in support of this. Uh, it is a prosecutor bill. It is not, uh, it is not one that, that is Democrat or Republican, and that is why I'm standing here.

696. 2:50:07

     Um, I, I know that we need to maintain a quorum, so I'm gonna stop talking and answer any questions that y'all may have of me.

697. 2:50:16

     Any questions for Mr. Finch? Ms. Nolan, do you have anything you want to add?

698. 2:50:24

     Just to say that the association

699. 2:50:27

     Yeah. Okay. Come on up. And then Ms. Gurtin, you're on deck.

700. 2:50:31

     I apologize. You, you know you can't give a lawyer an opportunity to speak-

701. 2:50:34

     I know that. I saw you looking at me like that

702. 2:50:36

     ... and pass.

703. 2:50:37

     I don't want to be in trouble about not letting you have a chance.

704. 2:50:39

     So, um, thank you, uh, for the opportunity to speak. Uh, I know it's getting late. Uh, I just wanna focus on one issue of fairness, um, that hasn't been talked about yet. We, uh, prosecutors also have the, uh, Crime Victim Bill of Rights. Uh, we are required to uphold and fight with the victim and walk them through the judicial process, uh, as they go through it. So th- this is a prosecutor bill, but this is really also touches very much on victim rights.

705. 2:51:10

     Um, when a defendant is being represented by an attorney, if they do not have familiarity with the case, if they are not prepared, if they have not reviewed their discovery, they are, uh, subject to an ineffective assistance of counsel claim. Okay? So for a defense attorney, it would be ineffective for them not to be aware of what's going on in the case. However, on the prosecution side, prosecutors every day in this state are required to be ineffective, because we are going forward in front of juries and in front of judges and making arguments on behalf of the victim when we have no idea what the other side is going to say, what expert witnesses are going to be put forth.

706. 2:51:56

     So I, I, I feel that that is a stark contrast, one that needs to be remedied. Um, and mostly because the American Bar Association has literally said, if you look at their website, it says that, um, "Discovery enables the parties to know before the trial begins what evidence may be presented. It's designed to prevent trial by ambush, where one side doesn't learn of the other side's evidence or witnesses until the trial when there's no time to obtain, uh, answering evidence." So that goes to the heart of being able to represent victims, uh, across our state, and that is why we are standing, uh, in support, uh, of this bill, and the entire Solicitor General Association, uh, has signed off on this bill.

707. 2:52:42

     All right. Any questions for Ms. Nolan? Thank you.

708. 2:52:46

     Thank you.

709. 2:52:48

     All right. The other side, Ms. Maisie Lynn Gurtin, come on up. What happened to your GACTL member of the day?

710. 2:52:54

     Behind the post.

711. 2:52:55

     Oh, he's hiding back there.

712. 2:52:57

     I know.

713. 2:52:57

     Why is he not joining you?

714. 2:52:58

     Probably catching up on actual work.

715. 2:53:00

     Do you want him to come up with you, or?

716. 2:53:01

     Sure. If he-

717. 2:53:02

     Harold, do you mind letting him sit there?

718. 2:53:03

     No, no. Not, not at all.

719. 2:53:05

     I'm Maisie Lynn Gurtin, Executive Director at the Georgia Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers. I am joined by Andrew Hall today, who is a practitioner here in the metro area. Um, a defense lawyer now, but has a history of being a prosecutor as well. Um, he worked in the DeKalb County Superior Court-

720. 2:53:22

     Yeah

721. 2:53:22

     ... DA's office. Um, so not fair to fully say I, we oppose this bill. We actually are sort of cutting the middle here, because a lot of the things that you've just heard, we agree with. Um, we don't like being ambushed either. We have lawyers being told to bring 20 terabyte hard drives to pick up their discovery, and as you know from the bill that's in front of you, it's a 10-day before trial timeline. And this is a, these are felony discovery rules, because right now, like you've heard, we only really have robust discovery, reciprocal discovery in felony cases.

722. 2:53:57

     Um, we actually, um ... So I know, I, let me just say, I know the chambers are a little jealous, right, of, like, who gets to pass the bill. This bill started last, last spring, and at that time, we spoke with, um, Leader Jones about the bill, and we spoke with prosecutors, and we all agreed, PAC and GACTL and, um, the different associations on their, um, in their mix, that we would get together and discuss this over the interim.

723. 2:54:27

     And we have. We have been meeting, um, for the last year or so. In fact, the last meeting we had was on February 12th. Both Mr. Finch and Ms. Nolan were in attendance, along with Randy McGinley, who's the DA out in, um, the Alcovy Circuit.

724. 2:54:44

     Alcovy.

725. 2:54:45

     We've also met with the sheriffs and the chiefs of police because the concept that, um, we brought in response to this bill, as, as it was mentioned, you know, we're stuck in 1983 and if you pass this bill, we will still be stuck in 1983 because it essentially takes the current felony discovery rubric and shoehorns it into state court without addressing any of the real concerns that we already have in felony cases with this rubric that is also dated. So what we came to the table with was, um, ideas around timelines being, being extended.

726. 2:55:22

     So spoiler alert, there's a bill in the House, it's House Bill 1255 and it's the one that we've been discussing with the prosecutors for the last year, um, including, like I said, some of the ones in the room. It would bring the idea of reciprocal discovery into both felony and misdemeanor prosecutions in courts where juries can be impaneled unless the both sides agreed to a non-juried case having reciprocal discovery a- applied.

727. 2:55:55

     But generally speaking, the rubric is laid out so that it would only impact courts where juries can be impaneled, whether it's a misdemeanor prosecution by the solicitor or a felony prosecution by the district attorney. But that way we'd have one structure that's governing everything that's happening. And as you all know, and probably have even seen, people migrate between these two courts, whether they're defense lawyers who are practicing in both courts or they're people who start out in the solicitor's office and go to the DA's office or vice versa over the course of their career.

728. 2:56:25

     So having one rubric that's, um, familiar to everyone involved in the system also seemed to be a practical, uh, response from our standpoint. We've even t- uh, tried to address some of the other practical issues that are, um, relevant to discovery like subpoenaing, when we need to issue a subpoena, um, for a state's witness, like a law enforcement officer. As you all know, um, who practice in this space, we require personal service, um, in order to have someone come to court, which when you couple that with the work that's been done under this dome lately around things like doxing and swatting and wanting to protect the residential, um, locations of people like law enforcement officers, we thought, "Well, what if we bring a more sort of professional mechanism into play so that we can provide subpoenas at those law enforcement agencies through a defined process?" We've engaged, um, the chiefs of police, we've engaged with the sheriffs.

729. 2:57:25

     The chiefs gave us some really helpful feedback because, um, Butch Ayres had actually done this in Gwinnett County. We made some adjustments to, um, the original language. We had a conversation very recently with the sheriffs and are trying to figure out some ways to accommodate some of their requests and we are on, I believe, our third iteration of the, of HB 1255 based on some of the feedback that we've gotten from the DAs. And even just most recently in that February 12th meeting, Ms., um, Nolan raised a particular concern that we, uh, modified as a result of the conversation.

730. 2:57:57

     So as much as I understand, um, that this bill is in play here and I, um, know that the committee, you know, has to review it, um, we also did provide, uh, House Bill 1255 to Senator Jones', um, staff and discussed it with, um, his staff more than two weeks ago. That was prior to that February 12th meeting. So we've really been earnestly trying to follow through on what we agreed to last spring to have some collaborative conversations, recognizing that we probably are not gonna come to either body, you or the House, with 100% agreement, right?

731. 2:58:35

     When has the state and the defense ever done that? But I would say we've gotten close on a lot of the big ticket items here. W- things like none of us want to be ambushed. We all need time to prepare when we're talking about the types of evidence that we have, whether it's, like Mr. Finch said, in a DUI case or we've got lots of body cam video or jail phone calls to listen to. We are at a place and time where we have hours of evidence to review and like I said, terabytes worth of it.

732. 2:59:05

     So

733. 2:59:08

     I- I'm asking you to table this bill today and let us continue the conversations that we've been having. Um, it doesn't seem like you were aware of them and, um, or potentially find a way to at least migrate some of the work we've been doing over the past year into the legislation you're considering here 'cause we've, we've all been earnestly working here to try to find a way to collaborate and come out of this with a functioning discovery rubric that we can all, um, offer effective representation to our various parties with and I, I just honestly don't think SB 202 does it, which is where we started this conversation with Senator Jones last spring.

734. 2:59:54

     All right. Questions for Ms. Gerton or Mr. Hall from the committee? You don't get off that easy.

735. 3:00:02

     All right, no questions at this time. Thank you.

736. 3:00:05

     Thank you.

737. 3:00:06

     Senator Jones, do you want the ... Mr. Leader Jones, excuse me, do you want the last word?

738. 3:00:10

     Yes. I'll allow my solicitor to speak one, right quick.

739. 3:00:15

     Okay.

740. 3:00:15

     And just real briefly, and, um, Ms. Maselyn is correct. We have been trying to work with that. The issue is, is what she just said, is that, that the things that they're asking, that's gonna take a lot more time and a lot more cooperation. We're willing to do that, but at this time we're talking about another session, another session. What I'm asking for today is go ahead and get the misdemeanor prosecutors to the table. Let's go ahead and pass this bill so we at least have the, um, the flat platform for the discovery process so we can continue to, um, support our victims in the way we need, so we can continue to move effectively.

741. 3:00:49

     And then after that, yes, we can continue to have those conversations with GACTL and, and the sheriff's office and all those, but the things that they're saying is a much larger conversation. Of course, we will continue to have those, but what I'm asking is let's go ahead and give us the, what we're asking for, the bare minimum today, and then allow us to continue to have those conversations however long it has.

742. 3:01:10

     Yeah, and I'll just add, um, Mr. Chair, that that's exactly right and this may actually help spur those negotiations, ma- making them go a little bit faster if possible. Otherwise, we're gonna have victims of crime, especially on domestic violence cases, waiting a whole another year to actually get this re- reciprocal discovery.

743. 3:01:26

     All right. Any other questions from the committee? What's the pleasure of the committee?

744. 3:01:34

     Make a motion to pass.

745. 3:01:34

     We have a motion to pass from Senator Rhett. Do we have a second?

746. 3:01:37

     Second.

747. 3:01:37

     Second from Senator Parent. Any discussion? All those in favor of the motion, please raise your hand. It is unanimous. All right, thank you.

748. 3:01:48

     Thank you all.

749. 3:01:48

     Thank you.

750. 3:01:48

     Thank you for your time.

751. 3:01:49

     Thank you.

752. 3:01:49

     And thank you for allowing us to stay and-

753. 3:01:51

     Of course. Thank you all for sticking around.

754. 3:01:53

     It's, it's almost like the judiciary meeting's a little-

755. 3:01:55

     Hey, that's Jesse Stone. Be proud this evening.

756. 3:01:59

     Proud.

757. 3:01:59

     With that, we are adjourned. Thank you