House Public Safety and Homeland Security Committee, March 2, 2026
Video: https://vimeo.com/1168489098 (a timestamp t plays at https://vimeo.com/1168489098#t=<seconds>s)
Page: https://georgiacommons.org/meetings/2026-03-02/house-public-safety-and-homeland-security

This is a machine transcript of the General Assembly's video, made by a speech-recognition model. It is not an official record and can mishear words, names, and numbers. Speakers are not identified. The video is the record: every timestamp links to the moment it plays.
[0:13:01] All right. Good morning, everyone. We, uh, are gonna go ahead and get started. Just a couple minutes past 8:00. We have a day full of fun and excitement around here, so we're gonna go ahead and get started, see if we can't get, uh, some of these hearings knocked out. But before we do, I'm gonna ask, uh, Danny Mathis if he would open us up in a word of prayer. Representative Mathis.

[0:13:23] Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Let us pray. Father, be with us today. We just, uh, we pray for your love and, and protection on all the things that are going on in this world right now. It's a serious day for America and the world. Father, we just ask you to be with us, the safety, and watch over the, the folks that are tending to the problems that are going on. Father, we just ask today that we focus here, that we can do what's best for Georgia. We just thank you for everyone that's here.

[0:13:55] We ask you to watch over their families and keep them safe. For it's in Christ's name we pray. Amen.

[0:14:02] Thank you. All right, we are gonna start, uh, with House Bill 1454. Representative Ridley.

[0:14:18] Hello. Thank you. Good morning.

[0:14:22] Morning.

[0:14:22] All right. Uh, it's House Bill 1454, and it's LC63-0115. So I figure that's a copy everybody's got. Um, so I'm just gonna kind of give you a quick overview of what this bill does. Um, Section 1 just strengthens the prohibition against creating a database of weapon carry license and sharing those. Right now, um, whenever you get a carry permit, it's through your probate judge in your county. It's not allowed to be shared with another county or the city.

[0:14:53] Uh, and we've had some people kind of doing that, so that's what we're doing, is putting this prohibition in to keep that from happening. Um, and it goes on, the purpose of the claim to allow the court proceedings to go forward. Even if the agency stops sharing the database, they can be fined, uh, for doing so. Uh, Section 2 prohibits, uh, municipalities from banning, uh, from banning discharging firearms on a parcel of 10 acres or larger. Uh, dis- discharges are still subject to reasonable regulations such as a noise ordinance, um, and does not single out firearms, but they cannot be prohibited.

[0:15:29] Um, and I think we have a, a friendly amendment on that, uh, part right there that we're gonna, I think, uh, somebody's gonna put in. Um, and let me tell you, I got a personal deal I can tell you about this. Up in northwest Georgia, there's a 4H club, um, has a shotgun team. They were on 50 acres of property and been shooting. A guy lived over a mile away, drove by, there's no way you could hear it, complained about it, and so the city came in because part of the property's on the city, is in the city.

[0:16:01] Came in and won't let the kids shoot shotguns there. So, and this happens more often than we think it does, 'cause since I've, since I've got this bill, I've had a bunch call just saying, "Hey, they've stopped us from doing this or that." Um, shooting ranges that were already there, they've come in, built subdivisions next to them. Um, then all of a sudden they tell them they can't be a shooting range anymore, so this is just gonna protect people from doing that. And last, uh, Section 3 requires all municipalities that have seized firearms to auction them off, uh, once every 12 months so they're not stockpiling them.

[0:16:34] And then the bill also allows citizens, uh, to directly bid on them. Currently, it's only for dealers. Uh, this will allow citizens to bid on it, but they still have to go through a dealer to receive the gun, so they still have to go through a licensed FFL, um, carrier to actually get the gun once they do purchase it. Um, the purchase will still be subject and required to background checks, transfer of firearms, just like, just like you would at a, at a store, um, through a dealer. And that's what the bill does.

[0:17:04] Okay. Uh, let's see if we got some questions from the committee. Representative McCollum, is that you?

[0:17:11] Yes, sir.

[0:17:11] Okay. Go ahead.

[0:17:14] Thank you for the bill. I, I got a question. So I have, um, I have a little gun range on my property and it's, and I have four acres.

[0:17:21] Yes, sir.

[0:17:22] So, um, w- would you be open to changing that to a smaller amount?

[0:17:27] Yes, sir. I think me and you discussed that earlier-

[0:17:29] Mm-hmm

[0:17:29] ... and I told you I'd be, that'd be fine with me.

[0:17:31] Okay. Whenever we get ready, I got a amendment.

[0:17:36] Okay. All right, we'll get to that in just a couple of minutes. We got a couple speakers. Any more questions from the committee before we move on to those signed up to speak? Representative Holcomb.

[0:17:47] Thank, thank you, Mr. Chairman. Um, can you explain the private cause of action that's in several sections? Um, page four, like line 73 to 79, and then lines 89 to, um-

[0:18:04] Let's see. Section-

[0:18:04] ... 96. Like, what is, what is that? And specifically, like, I think it's for, um, both county or municipal governments that maintain firearms in their inventory, and it provides that a person interested in acquiring any such firearm may bring an action in mandamus, and then they can recover damages or reasonable attorney's fees. We, we rarely provide for private cause of actions and rarely provide for the provision of costs and attorney's fees.

[0:18:35] Can, so can you give a little context and color as to why that's...?

[0:18:39] Um, yeah. Well, so I've had three to four people that's had guns stolen. They were called and told that by the police department, they recovered their, their firearms, like out of their vehicle, you know, where they've been stolen. They went to pick them up with a bill of sale where they own the, the pistol and their information, and they refused to give it to them They told them they needed to turn it in on their insurance, um, but it's their firearms. Um, there's another one, another instance where they seized, a guy had some antique firearms, um, and I can't remember all the details.

[0:19:14] Anyway, they seized them. He, he was found not guilty, but they'd already auctioned those off, uh, to a dealer, uh, before he ever, before the case even got through. So this right here would just, is just saying that if, if, if you, if they don't follow, then they got, what? $100 fine, whichever's greater, or, uh, the actual damages. Um, so they could be sued for it. Um, and what... And used to, they used to do this a lot, still a lot of counties still do this. They'll, about once a year they'll have an auction on all the guns, and they'll auction them off, and this right here is just letting the, the individual be able to do it, but still have to go through the gun dealer to do, to be able to receive them.

[0:19:52] But this also prevents them just from stockpiling them and not selling them at all.

[0:19:57] Okay. Line 56 says that this pertains to unclaimed firearms. So the situations that you described sound like claimed firearms, where they're individuals who own them, have bills of sale and proof of ownership. So how does that remedy that problem?

[0:20:13] Well, so also unclaimed firearms, it keeps them from just stockpiling them. If somebody don't come in and claim the guns, they'll have, you know, 2,000 or 3,000 of these things just sitting around for years and years and years. And so what we're saying is that you've got to get, you've got to auction them off.

[0:20:30] Okay, but that's a different example than-

[0:20:32] Well, it does both

[0:20:33] ... what you described, right?

[0:20:33] So it would do both. One is we're gonna make them sell the firearms. Two, if you come, if your gun's stolen, you come in and you ask for your gun back, and they won't, and they refuse to give it back, then you can press charges against them for it.

[0:20:46] Where did that happen?

[0:20:48] Uh, one was here in Atlanta, one in DeKalb, and one was in, I want to think Acworth.

[0:20:57] Okay. All right. Thank you.

[0:21:01] All right. Uh, Chairman Jaspers.

[0:21:03] Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you, Mr. Ridley. I think on that private cause of action we're talking about, just simply stated the, we have to have that in there because these governments ignore the law.

[0:21:16] Correct.

[0:21:17] And that's just, they ignore it, and you have to have a way to implore them or make them do what we have directed them to do. And also just, I, I know someone asked me about a database here by text just a minute ago. You know, we don't... It's not true. We don't... There's not allowed, because these searchable databases of license holders-

[0:21:37] Mm-hmm

[0:21:37] ... because they're, they could be used to locate-

[0:21:39] Yeah

[0:21:39] ... you, they could be lo- locate a weapon that you have some, and also to harass an individual who in the neighborhood may have weapons by doing, by having a searchable database.

[0:21:50] Exactly.

[0:21:52] Thank you, Chairman.

[0:21:54] Yes, sir. All right. Representative Cummings.

[0:21:59] Thank you, Chairman. I'm gonna try to ask this the right way, and it's kind of a follow-up question. Somebody's been arrested, the gun was taken, and before the case is resolved, the gun was disposed of, so they couldn't get it back when they were found not guilty or something-

[0:22:16] Yeah

[0:22:16] ... or the case was dismissed.

[0:22:17] Yeah, in one instance it was a bunch of, uh, antique guns.

[0:22:21] So is there anything, um, in writing that directs law enforcement to retain the gun until the case is resolved?

[0:22:31] That would be a good question. I would think that there would. I think that just like any other case, that you would keep the stuff. But I guess under, um, seizure laws, you know, we've had this happen before with cars, with people getting DUIs and stuff, and they take the car and sell it before the case is even done. So that's what this is kind of trying to prevent with the firearm side of it.

[0:22:49] But it doesn't seem to prevent it. It seems to penalize at- after it's already occurred. And it seems to me that instead of creating another action of a tort, or now we're going to court and suing and everything, why not make sure that there's something in place? Because a gun is a piece of evidence like anything else that is held until the case is resolved, and then after the case is resolved, if you have a right to get it back, you do what you need to do to get it back, as opposed to just jump to the penal, you know, jump to, um, suing because it wasn't.

[0:23:25] Well, I think that's-

[0:23:25] Why shouldn't we make sure that there's something in place that directs it in the first place, uh, before we go filing complaints and suing because it wasn't done?

[0:23:35] Well, I think that is the current law now. I just think we don't have people following it. And I could be speaking wrong. Somebody might know better than me, but I'm pretty sure that they're supposed to hold all that until after the case.

[0:23:47] Because see, it just seems that if it's a state law, it would be referred to when in here.

[0:23:54] That's true.

[0:23:54] So I'm just-

[0:23:55] I guess that was a question for-

[0:23:56] ...

[0:23:59] just wondering

[0:24:00] ... the legislative

[0:24:05] .

[0:24:05] Sure. Make your, making her first appearance this morning. What, uh, what number you got down there?

[0:24:12] 15.

[0:24:13] 15.

[0:24:14] Um, it is in state law that, um, evidence including firearms are to be retained during the criminal proceedings until after they're resolved. So that does exist. It's in OCGA 17-5-54.

[0:24:26] But shouldn't that be 32? Maybe it is, so you know what you're violating.

[0:24:34] I, I don't know.

[0:24:35] Sorry, I turned your mic off.

[0:24:37] I guess if it's in a different code section, it wouldn't be, would it?

[0:24:40] Well, I think that's the evidentiary code, right?

[0:24:45] Oh, we are in?

[0:24:47] Yeah.

[0:24:47] Okay. Hold on.

[0:24:56] Well, because the... Yeah, yeah, yeah. Okay. Um- the bill that you guys are taking up right now though is dealing with unclaimed firearms.

[0:25:07] That would be... Yes. But that would still be... So yeah, so I, they would be held and then after the court proceedings, then they would, we're saying that they could be sold.

[0:25:16] Right.

[0:25:19] So you're saying, Megan, that this is not dealing with the, any firearms that are sold prior to a case being resolved or anything? That this, this code is just this section here that, uh, Representative Holcomb was talking about is simply for unclaimed firearms.

[0:25:41] But I think even an unclaimed wouldn't, because of the other parts of this code section, wouldn't be, shouldn't be getting disposed of before a case is resolved. That would still, that would still apply.

[0:25:53] Okay. All right. Thank you.

[0:25:54] Mm-hmm.

[0:25:56] All right. Uh, Representative Mathis.

[0:26:00] Thank you. Thank you for bringing this. Uh, I wanna, I wanna go back to section two. Uh, the 10 acres, I, I think that's a, a good number. That's just my... But my, my question is, when you're in proximity, I think Representative Ridley, you mentioned something about, uh, had a shotgun shooting team up in one of your areas. And, uh, does this limit the type of weapon or type of firearm that could be shot?

[0:26:25] No, sir.

[0:26:26] Uh, help me with the state. Uh, does the state have any regulations? 'Cause I, I just worry about maybe a high-powered rifle that's within a certain area of some of these in proximity of, uh... Even down where I live in a small town, we, we have city limits that's wooded. Uh, we have certain things like that. So is there any-

[0:26:49] So yeah, so-

[0:26:50] ... any thought about that?

[0:26:50] No, it wouldn't. It... So currently it's not. It's already legal to do it. The problem is we've got cities that are coming in and telling you they're, they're making ordinances saying you can't.

[0:27:00] Yeah.

[0:27:00] So this right here is just trying to, to sidetrack that kind of overstep of coming in.

[0:27:06] Yeah.

[0:27:06] You know, a lot of times, like in the cities, you can't shoot off a firearm, right? But out in the county you can. But we've got people coming in that's lived there for 40 years, and they're saying all of a sudden, "You can't shoot firearms here. We got a new ordinance-"

[0:27:17] Right. Yeah

[0:27:17] ... that says it that, or they're coming in and owning a gun range that's been there for 20 years, and they built a subdivision next to it. So that's just putting some p- put some parameters in place saying that you can't come in and just take over somebody's property and tell them they can't shoot a gun on it.

[0:27:33] Yeah. Well, I'm not against the bill. I don't think... I'm just concerned if you had a high-powered rifle, as people move in and that-

[0:27:39] Sure

[0:27:39] ... sort of thing, if we could, if it was... Certainly, you know, I don't want to shoot down a shooting team for these young folks, uh, but, uh, I just, just that's the only little bit of concern I got is w- w-

[0:27:52] Right. And that just shows the difference where me and you live at. It's flat down there. Up there where I'm at, you can't shoot-

[0:27:57] Yeah

[0:27:57] ... without hitting a hill.

[0:27:58] Yeah. That's right. That's right. Okay. But, but thank you.

[0:28:02] Yeah.

[0:28:04] All right. It looks like we've exhausted the questions from the committee. We have a few people signed. Oh, sorry. Hang on one second. Chairman Powell.

[0:28:14] Yeah, I'd like to make a comment. I wanna thank you for bringing this. Chairman Jasperse and I were sitting here looking at it. I said, "This, all this language looks vaguely familiar." Uh, I believe, if I'm not sure, that this is the exact language that w- that, that passed this legislature or the House of Representative a few years ago. It was vetted at that time, and it went over to the s- to the Senate. And somehow, as is typical of a dysfunctional body, it sort of- ... didn't quite make it through.

[0:28:45] So I wanna thank you for bringing this bill forward.

[0:28:48] Thank you.

[0:28:50] All right. James Rinkorn.

[0:29:06] Good morning, Mr. Chairman.

[0:29:07] Good morning.

[0:29:07] Thank you for letting me speak. Good morning to the members of the committee. Um, I'm James Rinkorn, president of Georgia Second Amendment, and we're here in support of this bill. And thank you, Representative Ridley, for putting it forth. Um, couple of points. The selling part of unclaimed firearms is already law. The only thing that we're doing is trying to add, um, a way for the citizens to be able to force their governments to do that, 'cause a lot of them are just warehousing these guns over years and years and years.

[0:29:40] So that's the big thing about that. The, the selling part's already law. We're not adding that. It's been law for a long time. So that, that's what we're doing with that. Um, as far as the shooting on gun ranges and things like that on private property, gun owners are still responsible for their, their bullets. Can't shoot across property lines. You know, you, you gotta have a good backstop and all those kind of things. As far as reducing it below 10 acres, we're all for that, if you wanna do that. I think as long as you're being safe and you're not endangering anyone around you, you know, half acre's fine, you know, as long as you have the proper backstop and stuff.

[0:30:19] So I'm available for any questions and appreciate y'all's time.

[0:30:23] Okay. I don't see any questions. Thank you.

[0:30:25] Thank you.

[0:30:27] All right. Heather Hallett.

[0:30:45] Good morning. Um, my name is Heather Hallett. I'm with Georgia Majority for Gun Safety. We're a nonpartisan coalition of regular Georgians, including lots of gun owners, um, and we advocate for policies that will increase gun safety and reduce the toll of gun violence in Georgia. Um, and as a voting citizen, it seems self-evid- evident that this legislation and, and whatever is discussed in this body should be designed to solve public safety issues, um, facing Georgians and should lead to increased public safety, and it seems that nothing about, um, HB 1454 fits that bill.

[0:31:22] This would just, um, simply exert more state control over local jurisdictions and their ability to make public safety decisions. Um, and it also exposes our municipalities to lawsuits and legal fees that, which will end up being costly for taxpayers. Um, so it just seems like the net impact on public safety is likely to be negative, and I'm here, I guess, just to say our, this is a public safety committee.

[0:31:53] We should be, um, uh, public safety should be our North Star as we're making these deci- um, decisions. And I guess just to echo, um, Representative Mathis' question, you know, does the committee think that the state better understands all of those public safety considerations on, you know, to where a shooting range is located, as to what firearms are being used? Um, it seems like our local municipalities should be invested with, the- they're the ones who are better situated to make those decisions, and I would encourage us to, um, not exert state control and let our local municipalities make those deci- decisions.

[0:32:37] And additionally, I just think that we should all think about, um, the number of frivolous lawsuits. I know that the sponsor talked about stockpiles of thousands of weapons, but I think that, um, the legal action can kick in at a stockpile of five weapons, and I just don't think that that's so- something that we want to expose our local municipalities to. So thank you so much for your time.

[0:33:02] You have a question?

[0:33:03] No.

[0:33:04] Chairman Powell?

[0:33:05] Yeah.

[0:33:06] I would like, as, as I said, I'm familiar with this bill from years ago, and, uh, I might ask you the question, like section one, the reinforcing the prohibition against the database. Do you think that, uh, that the government should keep databases on people?

[0:33:24] We already have a prohibition on the database. So I guess, I, I mean, I'm speaking about the other por- portions of the bill. I don't know, um, how this bill interacts with our current law. It seems that we already are, have prohibited databases. I've been a part of many discussions where the State of Georgia can't do that.

[0:33:50] Second question I might, uh, on section two, which deals with private property, personal property rights. Do you not feel that someone that owns 10 acres should have the, the right to discharge a weapon if they say they were practicing or, and I know that a lot of the folks that are anti-gun, they all want to get into the safety part or the, or the proficiency part. Do you feel that somebody that's got 10 acres, which is a sizable piece of a property, that if they want to step out with a handgun and maybe shoot targets or something like that, do you, knowing that they have a liable position if that bullet strays, but do you think that they don't, shouldn't have that private property right, which is paramount to a lot of our rights?

[0:34:35] Uh, that is not at all what I'm saying. What I'm saying is that I believe that the local jurisdiction, if they are saying, "Hey, there's some concerns about safety on your property in particular," and for whatever those reasons may be, it's a large state. There's a lot, I mean, I, we don't know exactly what those concerns would be. So I'm, I'm not at all saying that no, that person shouldn't have that right. I'm saying let's leave it up to the local jurisdictions to make those public safety considerations. That is more my point.

[0:35:06] Very good. Then last, last question on section three. You know, we've known for years, and this goes back to when I chaired this committee, that we have a lot of law enforcement agencies that stockpile weapons. Some of it they don't know what to do with, some of them aren't claimed. Should these not be sold back knowing that they have to go through a licensed law enfor- uh, firearms dealer for an individual to buy these? Should they not, do you not think that they should be able to buy these weapons? And it would also raise money for local governments.

[0:35:35] Again, that is already law. So we already require that those weapons are sold, um, but what this bill would do would just expose our local jurisdictions to lawsuits. And, and a- again, I think the threshold is, I, I don't consider five weapons a stockpile. Um, so I think the threshold is pretty low, and the exposure to frivolous lawsuits seems to me to be a net negative for our state.

[0:36:07] So that's my consideration.

[0:36:10] I'm not sure that, uh, that it's a law that they have to sell these or liquidate these, these stockpiles of munitions. I'm not sure that that is a current law, because I think this got stopped before. But, uh-

[0:36:24] I think it is.

[0:36:25] Thank you, ma'am.

[0:36:26] Okay. Thank you.

[0:36:30] All right. And last person signed to speak on this is, uh, Louis Valdez.

[0:36:48] Thank you, ladies and gentlemen of this committee, honorable members. Um, I just wanna say first, uh, Representative Ridley, thank you for introducing such a wonderful bill. And, uh, Chairman Powell, as the Southeast Director for Gun Owners of America, you guys do a hell of a lot better than DC, so I like how your legislature works. It's very smooth. Gun Owners of America fully supports HB 1454. As a former law enforcement officer, I could say this: Look, the stockpiling of unclaimed firearms, it's a burden on agencies, it's a burden on taxpayers. One of the best things to do is to allow these firearms to be sold back to the public.

[0:37:23] It's a way to raise funds for agencies, especially some of the more rural agencies that have tax issues. And, and on top of that, we're talking about an inalienable civil right. The people have the right to keep and bear arms. The Supreme Court has ruled that multiple times. And on top of that, it just comes down to it's good business. It's f- fine business. It's fiscally responsible both for the citizenry and the taxpayer and the agency. Regarding private property rights and ranges, it's very simple. This is America.

[0:37:53] Last I checked, we were founded on the idea that our home is our castle. That includes our land. The only issue that GOA currently has with the bill is we would like the 10 acre limit for state preemption to be reduced. Just across the border in Florida, there is a much smaller, uh, property rights, um, limitation, so we believe that would be good. If Florida could do it, and as you know how Florida man operates, Georgia especially could be the, uh, shining beacon on the hill to sh- outdo Florida. Because as a former Florida resident, I can tell you this, we always were envious of Georgia.

[0:38:28] Uh, lastly, regarding the issue with, um, databases tracking firearm ownership. Currently on the federal level, we are suing ATF for an illegal gun registry. The tracking of gun owners is wrong. My family fled communist Cuba in 1961. The first thing Fidel Castro did was enact gun control and tracked gun owners, and how has that resulted? The tracking of Americans exercising a civil right is wrong. It would be no different than the United States or any state or political subdivision tracking someone for exercising their First Amendment rights of what Bible or religious text they decided to read in their home.

[0:39:09] So again, Representative Ridley, thank you for introducing this bill. We would like this bill to be amended to simply have the 10 acre limit removed. And GOA fully supports this bill and wants it passed. Thank you. If there's any questions. Okay, I don't see any questions. Thank you. Thank you. Oh, well, hang on. He's a little slow on the button this morning. No questions. Just wanna be recognized for a motion. Okay. Thank you very much. Thank you. There are no questions. All right, I'll recognize you for that motion now, Chairman. Um, thank you, Mr.

[0:39:39] Chairman. Uh,

[0:39:43] I'd like to move that, uh, House Bill 1454 move forward in this committee with a do pass recommendation. Okay, we have a motion do pass. Second. And we have a second, and it seems like we have some discussion.

[0:40:03] Representative Panitch, is that you? Or Neal. Hey. Good morning. Go ahead. Good morning. Good morning. Thank you to the chair. Uh, to Chairman Powell's question of, um, if this position was already legal, I'm showing under code section 17-5-52.1, um, local agencies do have to, um, uh, engage in a sale rather than destruction.

[0:40:36] And it, it goes to outline everything that the, uh, the woman was speaking to a moment ago. So to your question that you asked earlier, yes, it is already current law. And it looks like right now, even when it comes to database on line 15, are we just putting the words together? Like, going from database separately to database together? 'Cause, like, someone mentioned earlier, that's already current law, too. So, um, I just wanted to give clarity to the, to the body. That's all I got. Yeah. Thank you. I think both of those things are already law, but, uh, I think both of those sections are adding some, um,

[0:41:13] some relief for people, uh, in case the local governments are not complying with that law. So I think that's, I think that's what we're trying to do here, is just give them, um, a- an option to compel them to do that if they're not complying with the law, so. Okay. Thank you. Uh, Representative McCollum. I'd like to make a motion for a friendly amendment. Okay, I'll entertain that motion. I'd like to amend line 48 by adding five acres more or less and removing 10 acres or more.

[0:41:45] I second. Okay, so you just simply wanna change 10 to five?

[0:41:55] Well, I wanted to change it to add five acres more or less and then remove 10 acres or more.

[0:42:05] Just the language.

[0:42:11] Okay, so, all right. Read line 48 how you want it to read. It should read, "Firearms on a parcel of land that is

[0:42:25] five acres more or less in size, provided that the owner are..."

[0:42:34] Okay.

[0:42:40] So you wanna put five acres more or less in size? Yes.

[0:42:50] Okay, so we're gonna change 10 to five, and we're gonna add or less after the word more

[0:42:58] It would take or out.

[0:42:59] I see. I need to get it

[0:42:59] Five acres more or less.

[0:43:01] Five acres more or less.

[0:43:05] So it'd be five acres more or less. Push that one out on both sides. So it's five acres more or less inside.

[0:43:18] We'll take out or.

[0:43:19] Yes, sir.

[0:43:19] Okay.

[0:43:22] Okay. Megan, did you get all that?

[0:43:27] Okay. All right. We, uh, the board is lit up. Um, Michael, any idea what order these things started lighting up in? Nope. All right. We'll just start with, uh, number one. Representative McCollum. I mean, Holcomb.

[0:43:43] Me?

[0:43:43] Sorry.

[0:43:43] Th- th- thank you, Mr. Chairman. Um, that makes no sense because then that effectively means that there's no limitation whatsoever by having more or less, so.

[0:43:59] Okay. Uh, 16, Representative Neal.

[0:44:04] Uh, thank you. So I think since the, uh, references kept being made to, um, a person shooting guns, whether it's more or less or not, especially we're going less, um, we have to consider how far bullets travel, and I think going less is defeating the purpose of... Even though I don't agree with the bill, I'm trying to clean it up, but I just don't agree with, like, that's a terrible idea. I think, um, the more acreage, the better. I appreciate the reference to Florida. Don't know if that's what we need to be modeling ourselves after. We are Georgia. Um, and so if you're gonna do 10, keep it at 10, but anything less than that I think definitely gets, um, trickier, especially with the higher caliber ri- rifle that tr- travels a further distance if you want to speak to gun practicing.

[0:44:52] Okay. Representative Panitch.

[0:44:56] Thank you. I join my colleagues. More or less is not a legal term, and I can't imagine arguing before a judge, "Meh, more or less." It's not a, not a thing. Um, we should be careful what we put in a, in a statute.

[0:45:12] Thank you. Repres- uh, Chairman Powell.

[0:45:15] Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Yeah, very, very reluctantly on the Second Amendment, uh, bill do I normally agree with the, uh, other caucus on this type of stuff, but I understand what the intent is of the, uh, our representative by moving the 10 to five. But the or less would, as, uh, Representative Holcomb has said, this would basically say that anything five acres or less, that it would go to practically a lot size. Now, that being said, I'm cautious when I say this, but, uh, having been at this for just a little bit, I know how hard it is to pass a bill, especially Second Amendment bills.

[0:45:58] By b- by putting the or less into it, I think it might be a kiss of death. Uh, the original bill, well, several years ago when, uh, Representative Chairman Jasperse and I had dealt with this issue, we started at five, and at that point, through, uh, deliberation and through prompting, we went to the 10 acres. The 10 acres sounded a whole lot better to folks. It had a whole lot less heartburn about it. So I would ask the gentleman to reconsider his motion.

[0:46:30] If he wants to go from 10 to five, that's one thing, but the or less, I think that he would be well-advised to leave that part out of it.

[0:46:40] Okay, thank you. Representative Cummings.

[0:46:44] I agree with the chairman.

[0:46:47] Okay, thank you. And Representative, oh, McCollum.

[0:46:53] Um, I have a question. So is it, is this gonna codify that if I have four acres and I have a range that I'm not gonna be able to shoot on it? That's my biggest fear. And also, a, a title, if you look at land, it all says more or less. So I mean, I have four acres more or less on my deed. So that's kind of the thinking on that. Um...

[0:47:21] Yeah. That, that is because on the deed it's a legal description, and it's done by metes and bounds description, and they don't know the exact acreage. That's why they say this amount more or less, depending on the, the metes and bounds description. Uh, but from a legal standpoint, I think that that would be a, a problem, and if you're trying to exactly identify a certain amount. Um, to your other question, I, I don't, I don't think it's gonna make it illegal. That would just not preclude local governments from passing an ordinance that would keep you from being able to shoot if it was less than five.

[0:47:57] Or as it's written now, if you have 10 acres or more, then a local government can't pass an ordinance to prevent you from being able to shoot on your property. If you reduced it to five, they wouldn't be able to pass an ordinance to prevent you from being able to shoot on your property with five or more acres. Um, that doesn't mean that you can't do it if you have four acres if there's no ordinance that says you can't.

[0:48:19] Right.

[0:48:22] Okay. Well, I'll remove my amendment.

[0:48:27] Okay. You want to remove your, your... You wanna withdraw your, your amendment-

[0:48:31] Withdraw my-

[0:48:31] ... altogether?

[0:48:32] Yes.

[0:48:33] Okay. All right. Motion is withdrawn.

[0:48:38] 123.

[0:48:40] Yes, sir, Mr. Chairman, I'd like to make a, uh, amendment to five acres. Just replace 10 to five.

[0:48:48] Okay.

[0:48:49] I second.

[0:48:50] All right. We have a motion and a second.

[0:48:54] Representative Mathis.

[0:48:57] All due respect, uh, the question I asked earlier, uh, I, I won't say this publicly, 'cause, 'cause I wish we'd leave it at 10. I feel good about 10.

[0:49:08] I wish we would not do the five. I appreciate what you're saying and what you're saying. I just think we need to stay at 10. And I would ask the committee, and I'm in favor of this bill from top to bottom if you'll leave it at 10.

[0:49:26] Okay. All right, thank you. Um, I would say that just for context, um, my oldest nephew, who many of you know is a sergeant with the sheriff's office and he used to do competition shooting. We had a range set up behind his house on three acres, but it had a fully bermed backstop, um, kind of dug into the hill, and, uh, you know, we, we shot a lot of rounds there and never had any problems, and that was only on three acres. So, uh, I think as long as you're exercising proper use of the firearm and, and being safe, um, you know, whether it's five or 10, I don't think is, uh, i- is going to make a big difference as long as you're exercising your right safely and properly.

[0:50:11] Um, Representative Neal.

[0:50:14] Yes. So I, while I understand, um, your, your, your comments, at the same time, I understand, uh, the comments of Mathis as well, because when you reduce the acreage, yes, we would like to think they would know how to build a berm and build it properly and, you know, mix the dirt with the, um, with the foliage and build it up high enough, and there's even, you know, uh, recommendations of how you do that. Um, buying all the dirt if they're not digging it, and if they can dig it, like a person, I don't know if the regular citizen that does not have experience such as yourself or myself would know how to properly build the proper faculties to, um, out- outdoor faculties in order to be able to shoot outdoors.

[0:50:54] So I think, I think we are stepping into a dangerous place when we drop the acreage and assume that everybody knows how to build the proper, um, outdoor setup in order to shoot. And so I just think it's, it's a dangerous, it's a dangerous line we're crossing. I agree, keep it at 10. Um, and I hope the committee could agree as well.

[0:51:18] Okay. All right, I don't see any further comments, so we'll now, uh, take a vote on the motion of Representative Richardson. All those in favor of the amendment say aye. Aye. All those opposed say no. No. Okay. I was going there. All right, all those in favor, please show by raising your right hand.

[0:51:49] One, two, three, four, five, six, seven, eight. Okay, all those opposed.

[0:51:54] One, two, three, four, five, six. All right. Motion passes. Now on to the full bill as amended. All those in favor say aye. Aye. All opposed say no. No. All right, all those in favor, please raise your right hand. One, two, three, four, five, six, seven, eight. Motion passes. Thank you. You're on the rules.

[0:52:24] House Bill 1436. Representative Gaines.

[0:52:40] Do you have a copy of the bill?

[0:52:42] Sure.

[0:52:43] What's up?

[0:53:20] Good morning, sir.

[0:53:21] Good morning.

[0:53:22] Floor is yours.

[0:53:23] Well, thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you committee members. Um, this bill is a simple piece of legislation. What it says is it reinforces what we've already passed here in Georgia to make it clear we do not support cashless bail policies that have been implemented in, uh, liberal jurisdictions across the country. And we passed a piece of legislation a couple years ago, SB 63, that I worked on extensively, that made it clear, uh, in Georgia we're not gonna support those sort of policies. What this legislation does is it, uh, reiterates that and puts some teeth in the legislation that we passed.

[0:53:57] This says that if any jurisdiction has a standing policy of cashless bail on po- on, on, uh, on offenses that we already say are bail restricted, which means you have to have bail, then your local government is not eligible for any state funding. So it's a simple piece of legislation. It reiterates what we've already passed and puts teeth in SB 63. One thing I would like to suggest is on line 16, at the appropriate time, Mr. Chairman, is, is changing code section 17-6-1 to 17-6-12.

[0:54:28] 17-6-1, uh, applies to the quote unquote "deadly, uh, sins offenses." 17-6-12 encompasses those, but it also encompasses all the, uh, bail restricted offenses that we passed with SB 63. So then this would identic- identically, uh, mirror what we did with SB 63 a couple of years ago. Um, and Mr. Chairman, that's the bill, and happy to answer any questions.

[0:54:55] Okay. All right, Representative Cummings.

[0:55:01] Um, thank you. Um, I was just wondering, with you saying that the current law that was put, put in place is being violated, can you give an example of that? And if it's violated, what action was taken?

[0:55:17] Uh, today we, th- the, the law has not been violated. What we're trying to make sure is that that doesn't happen in Georgia. We're gonna put teeth in what we passed with SB 63, and this is the way to do it.

[0:55:25] So you had no instance of a violation of the current law?

[0:55:29] Well, we just passed that, uh, two sessions ago.

[0:55:31] Mm-hmm.

[0:55:31] But to date we have not. Um, but this would put teeth in that policy to make sure there is no standing policy of local government to, to suggest that we're, you know, going to allow cashless bail on offenses that this legislature has already deemed, uh, should not be eligible for cashless bail.

[0:55:46] But if there is a violation, why not just say, "Stop violating or we're going to sue you"? It's kinda like we're... It sounded like this was being proposed 'cause nobody was paying attention and it wasn't being followed, but it seems like that's not the case. But now we're going to go even further and, um, take away funding, where maybe a simple letter might have done, might have

[0:56:11] Well, I think this sends a clear-

[0:56:12] So it sounds like jumping to the-

[0:56:13] Sure. Well, I think this sends a clear message that, uh, we're not going to, uh, put up with it in Georgia. I mean, President Trump did an executive order, uh, late last year, nationwide as well, uh, with a very similar policy. Um, so this is just making it crystal clear that, um, you know, if, if, if any local jurisdiction's violating the law that, that there will be no state funding.

[0:56:35] But there's been no violation.

[0:56:37] To date.

[0:56:38] Okay.

[0:56:41] So.

[0:56:41] Thank you.

[0:56:41] Thank you, Representative Cummings. And I, I would just say that I think that, uh, telling somebody that if, if they don't obey the law that we pass, we're gonna send a strongly worded letter, I don't know that that's-

[0:56:54] Public-

[0:56:54] ... got quite the amount of teeth that, that we would like for it to have. And, um, I think we've seen in the past, just with our earlier bill we were talking about, that a lot of the things that we do up here, if there's not some sort of recourse in them, it is likely to not be complied with. So I think that's the, that's the goal that the representative is aiming for, not to, not to speak for him. Um, Chairman McDonald.

[0:57:20] Uh, yes, Mr. Chairman. At the appropriate time, I'd like to m- make a motion do pass, and I'd like to offer a friendly amendment at, at that time also.

[0:57:28] Okay. I don't see any other questions, so I will, uh, I will entertain that motion. Oh, sorry. We do have, uh, somebody signed up to speak on this one. They added at the, at the end there. So let me come back to you in just a second. Vivian?

[0:57:46] Good job. The last name is Ernstes, but I'm always Vivian to everybody. Good morning.

[0:57:52] Well, that's the only part that I could-

[0:57:53] Read

[0:57:54] ... not mess up.

[0:57:55] It's okay. Good morning.

[0:57:57] Okay.

[0:57:57] My name is Vivian Ernstes. I am deputy general counsel for ACCG. And while I am new to ACCG, I am not new to local government. I have spent the last 30-odd years of my career as a old-fashioned police lawyer. Um, worked in metropolitan counties and finished my career for the last seven years as the county attorney for DeKalb County. And I just this morning have one question for Representative Gaines. He and I have talked about this bill, and it's a wording question, and it is related to line 20 of the bill.

[0:58:35] And I'll let you get to that, in that it starts at line 19, and the phraseology is that, "Limits secured cash bail."

[0:58:44] We, we actually did... Sorry, the sub this morning fixed, uh, the-

[0:58:48] Okay

[0:58:48] ... so it does read now, um, that, "Allows an unsecured judicial release as defined by Code Section 17-6-12."

[0:58:54] And that was my sole question, was trying to use the same term that is used in 17-6-12 in this bill so that they match.

[0:59:02] And apologies, we, we just got it, uh, uh-

[0:59:05] No problem

[0:59:05] ... shortly ago. But, uh, Vivian brought that, uh, issue to my attention and we fixed it in this piece of legislation. So I wanna thank ACCG and Vivian for-

[0:59:12] We'll get you a copy of the sub-

[0:59:13] ... helping. Thank you

[0:59:14] ... now too. Sorry about that.

[0:59:14] Thank you. No problem.

[0:59:15] We, we just gave him one when he got here too, so.

[0:59:17] Well, don't wanna waste your time. Thank you.

[0:59:18] No, no. Thank you very much.

[0:59:20] Thank you.

[0:59:20] Thank, thank you.

[0:59:25] Representative Panitch?

[0:59:26] I, I just want... Thank you to the other. I'm, I just wanna make clear, this relates to a, not like a rogue judge. This is for a, a rogue... Well, a policy that would be unlawful, put in by the county or whatever agency or, or municipality there is, right?

[0:59:46] That's right. It has to be a standing policy. Um, so this wouldn't even apply if there's a one-off, you know, decision of a judge. This is if there's a standing policy of cashless bail for offenses that the legislature's already deemed is not eligible for cashless bail.

[1:00:00] Okay. Thank you. And, and can I just-

[1:00:02] Sure.

[1:00:03] Vivian, does ACCG now endorse this bill or support it?

[1:00:06] We are neutral on that bill.

[1:00:08] You're... Okay. Thank you.

[1:00:09] Okay. All right. Thank you very much. Oh. Representative Holcomb.

[1:00:16] Thank you, Mr. Chairman. How does possession of marijuana pose a clear threat to public safety?

[1:00:23] Well, we, well, what we're... So this doesn't change any piece of legis- any, uh, offenses that are already bail restricted. Um-

[1:00:30] Right, which includes possession of marijuana. So how is that posed-

[1:00:32] Of a certain, of a certain amount

[1:00:34] ... posed a clear threat to public safety on this bill?

[1:00:36] Of a certain amount, right.

[1:00:40] Not according to the code section.

[1:00:42] I believe it. I, and I, I'm happy to try to pull it up on the spot, but I worked on that, 'cause that came up with SB 63. If I, uh, if I remember correctly, it's of a, you know, fairly substantial amount. Um, and so those are offenses the legislature has already deemed is not eligible for cash bail, so that wouldn't change, uh, with this piece of legislation.

[1:01:06] And, Mr. Chairman, I do think one other person actually would like to speak, uh, Elvia Davila. Uh, if that's o- if that's okay, just for one moment.

[1:01:15] Okay. We, we didn't have her signed up, but, uh, go ahead

[1:01:20] Good morning, everyone and members of the Public Safety and Homeland Security. Um, I am here, my name is Sylvia Davila. I am not here as a politician or an activist, but as a widow. Um, I support this bill, and, um, my husband was a conservative man. He believed in law and order, accountability, and standing for what was right. Uh, he refused to bow to criminals. He stood strong for his values, principle, and his life. Um, for that, he was murdered by m- members of terrorist organization.

[1:01:54] The killer was charged with malice murder, then was downgraded to felony murder, and then downgraded again to voluntary manslaughter. Um, when this happened in Gwinnett County, there was a 57 con- percent conviction rate. The final outcome was five years of house arrest, five years of probation, and fi- uh, first time offender status. And let me say that clearly. For taking a man's life, no prison, no real accountability, and no justice, um, my children receive a life sentence without their father, and I receive a life sentence of grief.

[1:02:32] Um, the killer received mercy. This is not justice. This is not public safety. This is not accountability. And this system that protects criminals and abandons victims needs to be reformed. When we downgrade murder, you downgrade human life. When you weaken consequences, you empower violence. When you normalize this, you invite more bloodshed. Violent offenders should not be cycling back into the communities with r- weak pretrial systems and broken accountability structures.

[1:03:05] Here I am to tell that victims, that, that this system is broken. Victims are being erased, families are being silenced, and criminals are being empowered. I will not be silent. My husband deserves justice. My children deserve protection. Our community deserves safety, and Georgia deserves a justice system that values human life more than criminals. I'm not asking for sympathy. I am demanding accountability, I am demanding reform, and I am demanding laws that protect families, not offenders.

[1:03:38] The scripture teach us that government is called to restrain evil and protect innocent. Mercy without accountability is not compassion, it is abandonment of victims. Mercy without justice is not compassion, it is betrayal. If this is what justice looks like in Georgia, then Georgia needs a reform now. This is not justice. This is a protection. This is not safety. This is surrender. For this reasons, I strongly support HB 1436.

[1:04:09] Thank you.

[1:04:09] Thank you. Uh, Representative Neal, did you have a question?

[1:04:12] Yeah, a question.

[1:04:13] Ma'am.

[1:04:14] What, what is it? Okay.

[1:04:15] Representative Neal had a-

[1:04:16] I'm sorry

[1:04:17] ... question or a comment for you.

[1:04:18] But, uh, thank you so much for coming today, and thank you, and so sorry for your loss of your husband. Just curious, what was the terrorist organization?

[1:04:25] CJNG.

[1:04:26] CJNG, okay. Thank you.

[1:04:31] Chairman Powell.

[1:04:34] I wanna thank the good lady for taking time to come up here today, and we grieve with, and we grieve with you for your loss. Uh, at the proper time, I'd like to move for the previous question.

[1:04:47] Okay.

[1:04:50] Thank you.

[1:04:53] Yeah. Thank you for being here. I think that's all the questions.

[1:04:55] Thank you.

[1:04:55] And, and I wanna echo what Chairman Powell said, and Representative Neal, we're sorry for your loss.

[1:05:02] Thank you.

[1:05:02] All right. Chairman Powell, you wanna make that motion?

[1:05:05] I did.

[1:05:05] Oh, sorry.

[1:05:08] I made the motion.

[1:05:08] Sorry. Okay. I think, Chairman McDonald, you, you're good? Okay. All right.

[1:05:18] We, we have a, we have a motion from the s- the senior chairman of the committee. Is there a second?

[1:05:23] Second.

[1:05:24] All right, we have a motion and a second. Chairman McDonald.

[1:05:28] Yes, I'd like to make a friendly amendment. On line 16, I'd like to change that code section 6, 17.6, 17-6-1 to 17-6-12.

[1:05:43] Okay. We have a motion for amendment. Is there a second?

[1:05:46] Second.

[1:05:47] Second. All right. Any discussion on that amendment? Seeing none, all in favor say aye. Aye. All opposed say no.

[1:05:59] No. The ayes have it. All right, and on the full bill as amended with the McDonald amendment, all in favor say aye. Aye. All opposed say no. No. Okay, the ayes have it. You are on the rules.

[1:06:14] Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you, committee.

[1:06:18] Thank you. All right, and House Bill 1412, Chairman McDonald.

[1:06:48] That's fine.

[1:06:56] I think we're gonna start losing some members of the committee, so I know other people are gonna have other, uh, meetings to get to. Um, just for the awareness of the committee, I think we're gonna have this be a hearing only for now. And, uh, so if you have some other places to, to get to, other meetings, I know we've got a packed day, um, feel free, but we want to have the discussion and, and hear from, uh, Chairman McDonald. So sir, the floor is yours.

[1:07:21] All right. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, members of the committee. Thank you for this opportunity to speak with you today. I'm here to address an issue that sits on the intersection of public safety, physical responsibility, and fairness to the state of Georgia. The Georgia State Patrol plays a critical role in protecting motorists across our state.

[1:07:38] Their work, especially on our interstate system, saves lives, reduces serious injuries, and keeps commerce moving safely. However, while the, the State Patrol generates substantial revenue through traffic enforcement, the State of Georgia currently does not receive a th- a fair share of those funds. I fully acknowledge that the misdemeanor cases carry a legitimate cost at the local level. But today, I believe it is both reasonably and necessary for the state to share in the, in the fine revenue when citations are issued by members of the Uniformed Division of the Department of Public Safety.

[1:08:11] The bill before you makes that principle clear by directing 70% of the applicable traffic fines to the general fund of the state treasury. This is not a new tax, nor is it an increase in fines. It is a rist- redistribution of existing revenue so that the state can reinvest in the very agency that it g- that generates it. If we expect the Georgia State Patrol to continue providing statewide service, offering, often in jurisdi- ju- jurisdictions that, that lack sufficient local enforcement, then the state must have a, a reliable mechanism to recover operational expenses.

[1:08:44] Allowing the general fund to receive a portion of these fines is one way to stabilize funding without the burden of taxpayers. I also want to emphasize the transparency provisions of this bill. It requires jurisdictions to report all revenue collected from these fines to four entities: the Georgia Department of Revenue, the county chair of board of commissioners, the mayor and the mun- municipality authority, and the colonel of the Department of Public Safety. These reporting requirements ensure accountability, uniformity, and public trust. Every dollar is tracked, reported, and visible.

[1:09:15] This is, this is good governance. I recognize that this proposal may not be, uh, popular in every jurisdiction. Change rarely is. But this legislation's not about taking money away from local governments. It's about re- recognizing that statewide law enforcement generates statewide benefits and should be supported at a state level. In closing, this bill is about fairness, transparency, and sustainability. It allows us to, uh, to regain essential revenue, support our troopers, and protect the citizens who rely on them every day.

[1:09:46] Mr. Chairman, I stand for any questions.

[1:09:50] All right. Thank you. Any questions from members of the committee? Chairman Powell.

[1:09:56] Yeah. To my friend, Chairman McDonald, I have some concerns with, with this, and I understand the, uh, we've, we've had this up before, so, a number of years. Um, and those number of years were back when the state didn't have quite the surplus we've got. And, uh, last counting, we had a $17 billion surplus, and it's probably shrunk now to about 13 or thereabouts after the budget. My concern is that local government, they have less resources.

[1:10:27] Even though we're doing our best with some tax reform this year to maybe put them on a diet, but that's gonna mean even less resources for our local law enforcement agencies. I have a concern with that, that the courts, the, uh, the locals, they run the courts and things like that. But one of my sheriffs contacted me this past weekend, and he said that what his concern was was that at, at this point it would create a disturbance between the local law enforcement agencies and the state agencies if this were to pass.

[1:11:00] Any comments to that? Have you talked to any of the sheriffs? Uh...

[1:11:05] I, I have talked to my, my sheriff. He called me, and, of course, he did have concerns. He mentioned about, you know, things that you're mentioning, the cost. Uh, as far as, uh, concerns about any, any, uh, animosity between local and state patrol, that never came up. But there was concerns from my local sheriff on, on court cost, and, and I do understand that. That's why in this has a, a 70/30% split to, to cover s- those costs.

[1:11:33] All right. Second question, if I may. Do you know where the Georgia Sheriff's Association stands on this bill?

[1:11:40] I have not talked to anyone in the Georgia Sheriff's Association yet.

[1:11:46] I think we're gonna hear from them shortly, so-

[1:11:49] Well...

[1:11:49] We'll, we'll find out where they...

[1:11:51] Mr. Chairman, some of us have another committee meeting to get to.

[1:11:54] Yes, sir.

[1:11:55] So they might be real quick. That might help to determine the fate.

[1:12:01] All right. Well, uh, Terry, you wanna go ahead and step up real quick? And Butch, if you're still in here, are you behind the pole over there?

[1:12:09] Yeah.

[1:12:10] All right. We'll go ahead and hear from, from our witnesses real quick since some of the folks have to go.

[1:12:15] Yes, sir, Mr. Chairman. I'm Terry Norris. I'm executive director of the Georgia Sheriff's Association. I know you all. I've been here longer than everybody except maybe Sheriff, uh, Chairman Powell. So yeah, the sheriffs have, have issues with this, and I'm here representing today the office of sheriff, and that sheriff's office in your county has more mandates, more s- requirements set forth by this legislature and governors throughout the history of our state. I'm also here representing the count- county governing authorities who must fund the sheriff's office to do these things.

[1:12:46] And finally, I'm here representing the taxpayers of all of our counties who pay for all this. So, uh, as Chairman Powell said, uh, 1412 is not a new idea. We've talked about it. I've been here 44 years in the General Assembly in some capacity. We've talked about this issue a number of, number of times. So it's not not new. And some of you may have heard from your sheriffs about this. We, we got a message out to the sheriffs late Friday, so some of you may not, but many of, of you have. So it does seek to return 70 p- percent of all the fine revenue on GSP interstate citations to the state.

[1:13:25] Um, the reason you may have heard from so- some of your sheriffs is the cost, the cost of housing arrested, uh, persons in county jails, and that's medical, that's mental health, that's every aspect of detention, and that's one of the county's most expensive, uh, endeavors throughout our state. 142 county jails, 38,000-plus people in county jails. That, in those counties where there is a jail, is probably the biggest piece of the county budget Big counties, little counties.

[1:13:57] So the cost of prosecution, the cost of, uh, indigent defense, the cost of first appearance, court costs, the administrative costs connected to all these entities. There's a lot there. And I wish I could stand here and tell you there's a formula that I- we've got and we've used to tell you what those costs are. But certainly, the costs are high. Then there's additional costs to jails when people who are put on, wh- who are charged with, could be a traffic violation, DUI, they're put on misdemeanor probation.

[1:14:31] Look, it's no secret that some people can't survive on probation, and when they can't, guess where they go? To the county jail, which kicks in all the medical, all the mental health, all those other costs.

[1:14:47] So r- really, issuing the citation, the cost of issuing the citation is the least cost of all of the related costs on, on matters of citations. So the, the way this works is, and has always worked, the theory behind this has been all cases made in the state, the fine revenue stays with the county or city. There are a bunch of add-ons that are on top of that that come to the state for various things, but the fine revenue stays home with the theory that we're gonna pay for the stuff, uh, to, for the administration of justice at that local level.

[1:15:25] So these revenue ... And sheriffs obviously think these revenues should stay at home. And, and not to, not to offend this committee or the members of this committee, and the folks like Ri- Rick Jasperse who have been here a while, there are things that state government does, and has done for decades, that impose additional costs on particularly county governing authorities. And some of those things are this. And we've got a bill, uh, Chairman Leverett has a bill for us this, this session, uh, that is pending in non-civil, that talks about the actual cost of housing state inmates in county jails.

[1:16:08] People who are convicted, they're sitting in a jail waiting to go to the state system. You know, the, the code now says $7.50 per day per inmate. The appropriation process throughout the years has raised that to 35 to 40. I don't remember exactly. Chairman Leverett's bill tries to make that, uh, that reimbursement to counties for those state inmates up to a, a, a cost, uh, more near what it actually costs.

[1:16:40] It's about $80 a day is what state corrections says it costs. Counties have been going in the hole for years on this matter. There's other costs that this House and the Senate helped with this year. Y'all funded 400, put $409 million, I believe it was, in the supplemental for a mental health facility. And in talking to Kevin Tanner over at DBHDD, to begin with, that 300-bed facility is gonna do what it can to remove those inmates from county jails who have been deemed incompetent and ordered by the sta- uh, judge to go to state custody.

[1:17:18] Kevin has nowhere to put them. They're sitting in county jails. They shouldn't be there. There's no reimbursement there. County taxpayers are paying every nickel of that. And then there's another, another issue, and there, there's several, but if you look at, if you look at the number of peace officers in our state, you know, the state patrol, the, they do a great job. We need them. I don't know how many troopers they got. I'm gonna say 1,000. Maybe it's more, may- few more, maybe it's a few less. If you look at the, the num- sheer number of local officers who make cases, it's far beyond what the state patrol can do.

[1:17:55] They can't do any more. So on all of those cases, those citations, those other cases, 10% comes to the state through the Peace Officer, Prosecutor, and Indigent Defense Training Fund. So most of the money that comes to the state every year is generated by local officers. And if you look at the ... And, and there's no number I can give you on this, but I suspect the state patrol and the cases it makes is enough, they make enough money through that fund to fund their training.

[1:18:32] But the Department of Corrections doesn't, Department of Human Justice doesn't, GBI doesn't, DNR do- don't. So this training money that's coming to the state is primarily spent on state officers, but the cases are made by local officers. So there's just three examples, and I'm not fussing about any of that. But what I am saying is local governments are paying more than their share in many instances. So we just hope that, uh, certainly we will open the talks and con- conversation about this particular matter, but, uh, the sheriffs just, uh, as it's written, are not favorable to the bill.

[1:19:17] Okay. I had a lot of likes, Lincoln, before. Any of these questions for Director Norris? All right. Representative Holcomb. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Um, the author of the bill said that this is not about taking away money from local governments, but practically speaking, it would, correct? Yes, sir. Okay. And then, um, second question, and it dovetails to what we just discussed. There is also a cost on the counties for, um, those within the bail system, which is before there's been a trial for those that can't afford the bail.

[1:19:51] Those individuals also needs to be housed, and that's also a cost, correct? Sure. All right. Thanks.

[1:19:59] Chairman Sainz. Uh, thank you, Mr. Chairman. Uh, quick question on the 70%, the line 77. Uh, currently that, that would be 0%, right? Correct. All right. Um, with, with the where the funds go now, and correct me if I'm wrong, it is going to the county, uh, or the municipalities that, uh, that are ticketed. Um, those appropriators account- city council and the county can decide to put that funding in public safety or not.

[1:20:31] Is that correct? That's correct. It's part of the general fund of the cities and counties. All right. Thank you. Yes, sir. All right. Chairman Jaspers. Yes, sir. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. You know, Terry, thank you for being here and, and trying to explain. I hope shed a little light on this. If you could take some time and so everyone who's involved in this would be clear on all the responsibilities that counties and cities sheriffs have in relationship to these ticket writing, is what I'll call it.

[1:21:08] I think it'd be very helpful. I know your testimony did, but I think if we had it where we could see it, and then it might put to bed some of this, uh, and I'll just say it like it is, jealousy over the dollars of where it's spent. And, um, 'cause I know there's a lot of expenses that we may not be aware of that occur, yeah, 'cause I hadn't thought of some that you described. But if you could provide that, in no hurry, but at some point, I'd love to see that. So you're just talking about a summary of those individual, uh- Yeah.

[1:21:39] How, how this money goes. Yeah. You know- What it, what the money's being used for. Or, or that, or the responsibilities. I think you was very, what you said was very clear, the responsibilities of the cities and counties after the citation's written. Yes, sir. It, it's a lot bigger than what I'd even thought of than in your description, and I appreciate that. Thank you, sir. Yes, sir.

[1:22:05] All right. Uh-oh.

[1:22:08] Okay. That looks like all of our questions. Thank you. Thank you.

[1:22:15] Butch, you want to go ahead and go?

[1:22:18] Uh, good morning. My name is Butch Ayres. I'm the Executive Director of the Georgia Association of Chiefs of Police, and thank you for the opportunity I have to speak to you this morning. Uh, police chiefs across Georgia believe that, uh, House Bill 1412 will have an impact on local law enforcement operational budgets, um, that are already operating under significant stress. Uh, a- and I wanna go back to, I think, one of the comments made earlier today, um, is there's absolutely no animosity amongst, uh, law enforcement groups, uh, a- pertaining to this bill.

[1:22:50] I, I don't, I haven't heard of that, and I don't think there ever would be. Um, DPS traffic citations are prosecuted by, uh, county and city prosecutors, and they're adjudicated in county and city courtrooms. All this, uh, results in expenses that the fines and fees from DPS traffic citations, uh, help to offset. Uh, and also, y- you may not be aware of the actual presence and the activity of local law enforcement on the interstate. Uh, in 2024, there were approximately four- 46,000 traffic accidents on the interstate system in the state of Georgia.

[1:23:26] Uh, of that amount, 57.5% were investigated, uh, by s- county police departments and city police departments. So we, we, uh, actually do a lot of work on the interstates as well. Uh, uh, we're here to support, uh, the sheriffs, uh, on a lot of their comments. I'm not gonna belabor the point. Um, but just wanna make sure that everyone i- is aware that, that we do have some, um, uh, assets on the interstates and, uh, you know, that actually processing the citations and everything, uh, does create an expense.

[1:23:59] I'll be glad to answer any questions.

[1:24:04] I don't see any questions. Thank you. Thank you. And, uh, Vivian. Welcome. Last but not least, perhaps. Welcome back. Thank you. Best for last, I think, is the way that usually goes, right? Eh, maybe. Maybe not. So we agree. ACCG, uh, opposes this bill. We agree with everything the Sheriffs Association, the Chiefs of Police have said this morning. I would point out one additional fact as you are considering what is a fair share. Um, in addition to what the chiefs of police and the sheriff have said, if you look at the offenses, you're talking about traffic offenses, and those are held in state courts, municipal courts, magistrate courts, probate courts.

[1:24:43] All of those courts, the solicitors, the judges, the public defenders, the probation, the administrative folks, are all funded by counties and cities. They are not superior court judges or district attorneys who are in large measure funded by the state. And with that, I will close. Oh, hang on. I think, uh, Representative Holcomb has a question or comment. Yes, sir. Uh, I have a question. Just what would some of the practical impacts be on the provision of, um, of law enforcement activities if this were to take effect?

[1:25:19] Hmm, could you be a little bit more specific? Sure. Like, what s- what, what would be the consequences in terms of county impact of being able to fulfill its- Okay. Understood ... public safety mission? So when you look at it, and you look at what the, the timeline from the stop, potentially an arrest, potentially just a citation, then the Georgia State Patrol officer is not involved unless and until there is either a plea and has to be in court or has to be there to testify at trial.

[1:25:50] At that point, it then becomes a county responsibility. And so the c- the costs begin to be incurred by that county, both either at the jail session, in any pretrial discussion, solicitors offices, um-

[1:26:04] ... expenses if that indivi- individual qualifies for a public defender, is indigent, qualifies for a public defender. Court costs, you've got to build a, you've got to have a courtroom, you've got to have the ability to hear the trial or the plea. And then post-trial or post-plea, assuming that they're found guilty or plead guilty, then you've got either probation, incarceration, and these offenses are traffic offenses, so they're not going to end up in the state system. And then any fines that have to be administratively, clerks have to administrate, administratively collect those fines and remit them to the various gen, um, jurisdictions.

[1:26:42] So those would be the costs.

[1:26:43] Okay. Thank you.

[1:26:44] Mm-hmm.

[1:26:45] All right. Thank you. Uh, Representative Richardson.

[1:26:48] Yes, ma'am. Ms. Bevin, I appreciate you being here. So would it be safe to say that if the local governments lost this funding, that the potential would be a burden falling on the local taxpayer to make up those differences?

[1:27:03] Yes, sir.

[1:27:04] Thank you very much.

[1:27:09] Okay. I don't see any other, any other questions or comments from, uh, members of the committee. Okay. Chairman McDonald, you got any, uh, follow-up you want to wrap up re-

[1:27:21] Sure

[1:27:21] ... re-

[1:27:21] Yeah

[1:27:21] ... regards to this?

[1:27:22] I appreciate it, Chair. I appreciate the comments from my friends in the Sheriff's Association, Georgia Chiefs of Police, and ACCG. Um, you know, Mr. Norris, he talked, uh, about, uh, Chairman Powell, knowing him all these years, I think he kind of probably remembers me running around here in almost diaper times. So, uh, we've had that relationship.

[1:27:41] I remember that.

[1:27:41] And, and we've had a great relationship over the years. So this is, this is, this is a business bill. Um, you know, I, I hear the concerns on the cost of jails, mental health. And, and looking at this, there are two parts. One part d- has not even been addressed, and that is the transparency from counties and cities, uh, to the state patrol, as they've asked for just reports, simple reports to say, "Hey, how much has, has our officers generated in your communities?" And I, I can go down list by list of counties and cities, no response, would not give.

[1:28:16] Um, I mean, I've got all the lists. Your, everybody, cities and counties that, that they've reached out to over the past few years just trying to get some general information for their statistical knowledge, and, and that's, that's kind of fallen on deaf ears. Uh, the second would be a friendly amendment that, that I would have a, adjust this bill, uh, to maybe 50/50 and, uh, and only to ticket citations of, of speeding. Uh, that takes away anything for DUI and, and others if somebody would be incarcerated. So I would at, at, at the time, uh, would discuss with, with, uh, those organizations and my, my colleagues for a friendly amendment there.

[1:28:54] But, so I just really want to bring up the transparency part, too, because that's something that's been left out.

[1:28:59] Okay. Uh, Chairman Sainz.

[1:29:03] Thank you, Chairman, for bringing what I understand is a public safety, a bill to get our state patrol that does a heavy lifting compared to other state, uh, uh, troopers, um, in, in ensuring public safety alongside. I, I've, I've got a couple questions, uh, but I'll lead with the core text of the bill. Um, and understand, uh, as you've made light and you address it in your legislation that we don't have great numbers, I guess, on a statewide level of knowing the impact to the state patrol this would be.

[1:29:35] But we're, if we're at zero now, where'd, where did the number 70% come from? Uh, line 28 and a couple other provisions. Where did we get to the idea of 70/30?

[1:29:46] I just looked at, you know, we're pr- the state is providing that service. It's, it's, they're providing not only the trooper, they're providing the vehicle, the insurance, the benefits. And, and as we look at what we've tried to do with, with raises and, and, uh, retirements or, or 401s is we, we're, we're investing in that. You, you know, you've got to have a recovery. Where are you going to get the money from as, as you, as you invest in your officers, um, invest in better equipment, uh, the safety of equipment, and it all costs money.

[1:30:17] And I, I, I know in this past budget supplemental that, that there was a reduction of approximately $3 million to public safety, uh, that was done in that budget. So, you know, if, why are we reducing money t- t- for our public safety, uh, in our state patrol, uh, $3 million? Well, this, this bill would, would kind of shore that up. We would not be shorting, shorting our guys in the blue.

[1:30:42] Well, I, I would, uh, I would agree with you of my concern that, with that concern as well as why are we not building a, a state, uh, prison when we could. But I, I'm gonna go back to the premise of this bill and what we can control here. Um, d- in line with, with kind of what you mentioned in terms of everything the state patrol is doing when it comes to these, uh, stops and interactions, do, do you, have you been given or asked for any information in correlation of what, how many of those calls for service, uh, have a mutual assistance from local infrastructure to where a deputy or a city officer is going alongside that state patrolman in, a state trooper in, in, uh, addressing that call, is depending on for their own public safety additional officers as backup, since we do depend on very limited state troopers throughout the state covering a wide territory?

[1:31:35] I think it goes both, m- uh, Chairman Sainz, I think it goes both ways. I think they're, you know, our, our blue is gonna support each other, no matter what jurisdiction they're in. I, I've, I haven't heard of anything, uh, that, that would tell me otherwise as far as, you know, the county wouldn't support a state trooper, a state trooper wouldn't support a county, whether it's in a chase or whether it's just pulling up for safety on the side of the road while, while a, a, a general road stop's being, w- is happening. So I, I can't, I don't have any stats there. And this, this bill is not a s- state patrol bill.

[1:32:06] It's not a department bill that was asked by them. I did, was just doing research as I, I looked at budgets and looked at, at, at how we can- Grow our state patrol, more patrolmen, uh, and it takes money. And so I was looking at ways to help generate from the general fund, and I, I believe in the appropriations process, the money should go in the appropriations process and, and, and then, uh, placed in the, in the proper departments for, for, for usage. And, and, but, um, the, as far as the 70/30, uh, that was just a number that I thought would, was a fair number.

[1:32:42] And, and I guess it does-

[1:32:43] But I, but I did say that I would, I would be willing to, to negotiate 50/50

[1:32:48] ... to modify. And I, I'll leave it at that, 'cause I do think you're very amenable to, to dealing with all, uh, the folks in the party. But to be clear, this does put it to the state general appropriations, correct? It doesn't directly ensure that. What we know is it'll take it directly from county and city coffers and put it to state general coffers, which you would agree may or may not go to public safety given the reduction that we just saw.

[1:33:11] Correct, uh, Mr. Chairman.

[1:33:12] All right.

[1:33:12] And also, you, you noticed in, in the bill the transparency where it would be going, the, the people to be notified, and one is, that is our state treasurer, the revenue department, uh, will be notified. And of course our state, uh, colonel of the state patrol would be notified. And that's just something that, that kind of clears up the issues of trying to gather data that they've asked for that counties and cities will not give them.

[1:33:34] I appreciate the transparency measure in there. I, I, I don't think anyone in this committee, uh ... I, I did not know that was an issue, and I thank you for bringing that part of the bill forward, and I definitely support that section of that transparency. 'Cause it is, would be good to know what we are, uh, generating from, whether it goes to the state or the counties, what, uh, the state patrol is playing not only in the public safety realm, but in the ins- the revenue realm of, of ensuring we have local infrastructure there.

[1:34:01] Well, thank you.

[1:34:01] I, I appreciate that, 'cause I think as, as, as the legislature, we are owed, uh, that, that transparency so that we know where, where our money is coming, where money is being spent, uh, in, in that realm.

[1:34:12] Thank you.

[1:34:14] All right. Thank you, Chairman Sainz. Um, Terry, did you-

[1:34:19] I just-

[1:34:19] No

[1:34:20] ... as a point of clarity, uh, the transparency issue is important. That would not be something that should or would fall on the, on the backs of the sheriffs or the chiefs. That'd be a court matter.

[1:34:31] Mm-hmm.

[1:34:32] Uh, and a lot of times, you know, fines are structured such that the fine doesn't always, uh, materialize in court setting as a, a maximum or a minimum. So there, there's a lot of variations there. So the courts would be the ones to provide that information.

[1:34:47] To that, to that point, a question I had earlier that I didn't want to, I didn't bring up then, but you mentioned the 10% of every citation that gets remitted back to the state for the, um-

[1:34:58] Training, yes

[1:34:58] ... training and indigent fund and that sort of thing. Um, do you know, is there an audit process with that? If we-

[1:35:07] There, there is-

[1:35:07] It seems like if we're supposed to be getting 10% of that, then some of that information on the total amount of the citations should be somewhere so that we know whether or not we're getting 10% of that or what 10% of it should be. Um, I'd just be curious as to, to what those numbers are and maybe where they're, where they're at. Um, and I know a lot of that training money goes back into the, the, um, you know, Georgia Public Safety Training Center and that, you know, the state provides a lot of training to not only state but local and, and county-

[1:35:39] Some training to locals, yeah.

[1:35:41] Okay.

[1:35:41] Some training to locals. Uh, sheriffs and chiefs had-

[1:35:44] A lot, a lot of, a lot of training for, for locals at no cost to, to local agencies. Um, you know, I've worked for a couple sheriff's offices and a county police department, and I've, I've been to GSPTC a lot, um, so.

[1:35:57] Well, but they do a good job at, at posting courses and having courses. The problem is that a lot of those courses are filled up. They can't help it.

[1:36:04] Mm-hmm.

[1:36:04] So it, it is limited, and that's why you'll see in Butcher-

[1:36:07] So some more funding for them would probably be beneficial if we could get more funding to help with that training, I guess.

[1:36:13] Sheriffs and chiefs have tended to do their training locally through their sheriff's offices. Not the mandate necessarily, but the in-service training and all specialized for their particular agency. So not saying GS- GSP- GSPTC only trains state officers at all, make clear on that. But it's become harder and harder to get in simply because of the limitations they've got and class sizes they can accommodate. So no disrespect to them, but that is a factor.

[1:36:37] Sure. Yeah, and I think to, to Chairman McDonald's point earlier, I think that's probably a, a, you know, consequence of funding as well. I think, you know, we've-

[1:36:48] It is. It is

[1:36:48] ... it's, it's, we're trying to figure out a way to, to, to find, um, funding for, for all of that training, retirement for, you know, state and local. I'd love to find a way to help fund better retirement for local-

[1:37:01] Yeah, there's some pretty-

[1:37:02] ... as well

[1:37:03] ... important POA bill, B bills coming forward, so hopefully we get some support on those.

[1:37:05] I'm looking forward to seeing those.

[1:37:07] Yeah, that helps everybody. That's not just a local thing. That's state patrol. That's GBI. That's corrections, a lot of things, so it's something.

[1:37:12] Sure.

[1:37:13] Thank you.

[1:37:13] Yep. Uh, Representative Richardson.

[1:37:16] I'd, I'd just like to say there are some communities that because you can't get into the training facility, uh, state, that have invested tremendous amounts of money to have local training. I know our, our community has spent tons of money, and as the commissioner, I supported every bit of it. And, uh, you know, for them to invest and try and do this training and, a- and to have, uh, officers and even locals so people are not having to travel so far to, to the state agency, um, you know, a- again, losing some of this revenue would just be detrimental in my mind.

[1:37:57] Thank you.

[1:37:58] Thank you. Well, I think, as I said a second ago, I think everybody, um, all of our departments, state, local, um, city, county, all of them are, are really focused on trying to protect the public, and I think that this is a conversation about, uh, I think it's a worthy conversation to have, um, just to make sure that, that we know where all the dollars are going and, and that they're going to where they can best be utilized to help accomplish that goal. And I think that's what Chairman McDonald is, is wanting to do, is have that conversation about is there a, a, a, a, a better use of funds or a, a more, um, advantageous way to distribute the funds that could provide more resources to everybody.

[1:38:40] So Chairman McDonald, anything else before we wrap up?

[1:38:44] Committee, I appreciate your time, and I look forward to discussing this matter not only with, with committee members but my friends, uh, behind me, uh, further discussion on how to, how we get a win-win.

[1:38:55] Okay. All right. Well, seeing no further business, we will stand adjourned. Thank y'all.