--- title: House Judiciary Non-Civil Committee, March 18, 2026 collection: meetings id: 2026-03-18/house-judiciary-non-civil cite_as: House Judiciary Non-Civil Committee, March 18, 2026, video https://vimeo.com/1174526818 (machine transcript by Georgia Commons) canonical_url: https://georgiacommons.org/meetings/2026-03-18/house-judiciary-non-civil md_url: https://georgiacommons.org/meetings/2026-03-18/house-judiciary-non-civil.md text_url: https://georgiacommons.org/meetings/2026-03-18/house-judiciary-non-civil/text source_url: https://vimeo.com/1174526818 date: 2026-03-18 status: machine transcript corpus_version: meetings-2026-10-23-8c15ead0f18d license: Machine transcript and summaries by Georgia Commons from the General Assembly's public video; the video stays on the General Assembly's Vimeo channel; see about.md publisher: Georgia Commons, an independent project of Georgia Civic Data. Not the State of Georgia. Not legal advice. up: https://georgiacommons.org/meetings/2026-03-18.md previous: https://georgiacommons.org/meetings/2026-03-18/house-higher-education.md next: https://georgiacommons.org/meetings/2026-03-18/house-governmental-affairs.md index: https://georgiacommons.org/meetings/index.md chamber: House body: House Judiciary Non-Civil Committee body_url: https://georgiacommons.org/meetings/house-judiciary-non-civil.md meeting_kind: committee session: 2025-2026 Regular Session start_time: 2026-03-18T15:00:00-04:00 location: 132 CAP duration_seconds: 7143.0 video_id: 1174526818 video_title: 03.18.26 Judiciary Non-Civil agenda_url: https://www.legis.ga.gov/api/document/agendas/house/Judiciary Non-Civil%2FJudiciary Non-Civil committee meeting 3.18.26.pdf bills_discussed: - SB 604 - SB 605 - SB 547 - SB 499 summaries_model: gpt-6.1-sol transcript_turns: 367 transcript_chars: 90420 parts: - https://georgiacommons.org/meetings/2026-03-18/house-judiciary-non-civil.md?start=0 - https://georgiacommons.org/meetings/2026-03-18/house-judiciary-non-civil.md?start=59945 --- # House Judiciary Non-Civil Committee, March 18, 2026 House Judiciary Non-Civil Committee; March 18, 2026; 2025-2026 Regular Session. Video, on the General Assembly's Vimeo channel: https://vimeo.com/1174526818. Agenda: https://www.legis.ga.gov/api/document/agendas/house/Judiciary Non-Civil%2FJudiciary Non-Civil committee meeting 3.18.26.pdf. > 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. ## Summary written by Georgia Commons Written by gpt-6.1-sol from the transcript below. It is not part of the record. Quote the transcript or the video, not the summary. The committee approved [SB 604](https://georgiacommons.org/bills/2025-2026/sb604), which would expand the attorney general’s role in criminal prosecutions, [SB 605](https://georgiacommons.org/bills/2025-2026/sb605), which would add grounds for disciplining elected prosecutors, and [SB 547](https://georgiacommons.org/bills/2025-2026/sb547), which would make first offenses of pimping and pandering felonies. The vote on [SB 604](https://georgiacommons.org/bills/2025-2026/sb604) included one opposing vote. Members also heard testimony on [SB 499](https://georgiacommons.org/bills/2025-2026/sb499), which would remove the general state prohibition on possessing silencers. Discussion focused on federal registration requirements, hearing protection, public safety and a proposed amendment restricting possession by people barred from having firearms. No vote on that bill or its amendment occurred in the transcript. The chair announced that the committee would continue the next morning at 8:30. ## Bills discussed (4) Each account was written by gpt-6.1-sol from the stretch of the transcript it names. The bill's number is said in that stretch, unless it was the only bill on a committee's agenda. ### SB 604. Crimes and Offenses; the Attorney General concurrent jurisdiction with district attorneys to conduct criminal prosecutions of violent crimes, illegal immigration offenses, and fentanyl offenses; provide [SB 604](https://georgiacommons.org/bills/2025-2026/sb604) (2025-2026 Regular Session). From [0:29:15](https://vimeo.com/1174526818#t=1755s), turns 1 to 163. The sponsor said [SB 604](https://georgiacommons.org/bills/2025-2026/sb604) would allow district attorneys lacking staff or resources to request prosecution assistance from the attorney general for specified violent crimes and other offenses. The sponsor emphasized that the bill was not intended to take cases away from local prosecutors. The sponsor also said it would give the attorney general the first opportunity to handle cases when a local prosecutor is disqualified. If the attorney general declined, the Prosecuting Attorneys’ Council would seek another local prosecutor. Citing difficulties finding replacement prosecutors in past cases, the sponsor said the attorney general’s office had 150 attorneys available. A committee member asked whether this restored an earlier process. The sponsor said that was the information provided during Senate consideration, but acknowledged not personally checking the earlier law. No public witnesses testified on the bill. After initially waiting for enough members to vote, the committee approved it without amendments by voice vote, with one opposing vote recorded by the chair. ### SB 605. Prosecuting Attorneys; additional grounds for discipline of a district attorney or solicitor-general or for his or her removal or involuntary retirement from office; provide [SB 605](https://georgiacommons.org/bills/2025-2026/sb605) (2025-2026 Regular Session). From [0:34:20](https://vimeo.com/1174526818#t=2060s), turns 18 to 167. The sponsor said [SB 605](https://georgiacommons.org/bills/2025-2026/sb605) would explicitly authorize discipline of elected prosecutors for failures involving victims’ rights, public records, criminal discovery, impartiality and professional conduct. The sponsor said these were existing duties, and reasonable-effort language would account for circumstances such as overwhelming workloads or difficulty locating victims. One member asked about blanket refusals to enforce laws, and another member identified an existing provision addressing that concern. Another member asked about withholding sensitive crime-scene photographs. The sponsor said ongoing investigations were protected and discussed court orders and sealing records. The executive director of the Prosecuting Attorneys Qualifications Commission took no position but raised implementation concerns: the commission oversees elected prosecutors, not assistants who may handle the work, and commission findings could conflict with court rulings on the same issues. The sponsor responded that office policies and internal discipline could demonstrate reasonable efforts, and argued that court proceedings and commission discipline could operate alongside each other. The sponsor suggested broader oversight of assistants might be considered later, but it was not part of this bill. The committee approved the bill by voice vote without amendments; no vote count was stated. ### SB 547. Offenses of Pimping and Pandering; modify the penalties [SB 547](https://georgiacommons.org/bills/2025-2026/sb547) (2025-2026 Regular Session). From [0:57:50](https://vimeo.com/1174526818#t=3470s), turns 116 to 160. The sponsor said [SB 547](https://georgiacommons.org/bills/2025-2026/sb547) would make first offenses of pimping and pandering felonies rather than high and aggravated misdemeanors, arguing that stronger penalties would help combat trafficking. The sponsor credited students at the Forest School with proposing the change. A witness for the ACLU of Georgia warned that the existing definition of pimping could reach people who knowingly accept gifts from sex workers or provide transportation without coercion or exploitation. The witness suggested retaining the current pimping penalty while increasing the pandering penalty. A Street Grace witness supported stronger penalties, saying misdemeanor charges discourage resource-intensive investigations. The witness cited an eightfold increase in Texas enforcement operations after a 2022 change and a two-city study reporting fewer purchase attempts where enforcement was active: 16 versus 215 in 2025 and 37 versus 95 in 2026. A witness for She’s My Sister South Atlanta said youth ambassadors spent more than 300 hours studying trafficking. That witness said recruitment often begins at ages 12 to 14 and that difficult-to-prove trafficking cases may instead produce misdemeanor pimping or pandering charges. Members asked no substantive questions. No amendment was offered, and the committee approved the bill by voice vote without a stated count. ### SB 499. Dangerous Instrumentalities and Practices; prohibition on possessing a silencer; repeal [SB 499](https://georgiacommons.org/bills/2025-2026/sb499) (2025-2026 Regular Session). From [1:21:42](https://vimeo.com/1174526818#t=4902s), turns 177 to 363. The sponsor said [SB 499](https://georgiacommons.org/bills/2025-2026/sb499) would remove the general state prohibition on silencer possession while retaining penalties for use during specified crimes. The sponsor said possible federal changes could otherwise jeopardize lawful ownership of roughly 270,000 suppressors in Georgia. Members questioned removing state enforcement of registration requirements when federal registration remained required. The sponsor acknowledged that the anticipated federal repeal had not occurred. A proposed amendment would make knowing possession of a silencer a felony for someone who knows they are barred from possessing firearms, even without a firearm present. An American Suppressor Association witness said this covered more than convicted felons. A Georgia Sheriffs’ Association witness said the amendment would change the organization’s position from opposition to support. One member raised concerns about locating shooters, which that witness agreed could be harder with suppressors. Georgia Gun Owners supported the bill but opposed possession-based crimes and sentence enhancements. A Georgia Second Amendment witness supported the amended bill, saying suppressors reduce noise by about 25 to 40 decibels but generally do not eliminate the need for hearing protection. The American Suppressor Association witness also emphasized hearing protection. No vote occurred on the bill or amendment. The chair closed debate and announced continuation the next morning. > The transcript runs 90,420 characters. A reader that cannot take it at once can read it in 2 parts: part 1 https://georgiacommons.org/meetings/2026-03-18/house-judiciary-non-civil.md?start=0; part 2 https://georgiacommons.org/meetings/2026-03-18/house-judiciary-non-civil.md?start=59945. ## Transcript (367 turns) [0:10:04](https://vimeo.com/1174526818#t=604s) We're gonna stay in the days until we can get a senator down here. [0:28:48](https://vimeo.com/1174526818#t=1728s) All right. Hey. Okay, good afternoon. Thank y'all for your patience. Uh, we'll open up in a word of prayer real quick. Lord Jesus, thank you for this day. Thank you for all your blessings. We ask that you watch over us as we debate here today. Lord, help us do what would be pleasing to your will, Lord. In your name we pray, amen. Okay, uh, first up, by default of being the one that's here, uh, Senator Bo Casser, let's go in numerical order with Senate Bill 604. [0:29:22](https://vimeo.com/1174526818#t=1762s) Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Sorry I wasn't here at 3:00. We are still on the floor, and there, I was in the middle of a debate there. We got two more bills to go, so I think you'll have some other senators rolling in here before too long. [0:29:42](https://vimeo.com/1174526818#t=1782s) So we're gonna start with 604. This is a bill that's intended to be kind of a force multiplier for local district attorneys that request assistance. Uh, the attorney general's office has the ability to assist in prosecutions of a number of different types of crimes, mostly things like sex trafficking and gangs. Already they have concurrent jurisdiction. This is not to step on the toes of DAs, uh, or take cases away from them. [0:30:13](https://vimeo.com/1174526818#t=1813s) It is simply to allow, in the event that a district attorney needs help prosecuting certain types of offenses, we have all the, uh, seven deadly sins, so to speak, the very violent crimes, uh, and a couple of other categories here that, that need help in this state, that if a local district attorney does not have the resources they need, the manpower they need to prosecute these offenses, they can ask for help from the attorney general, and they would have jurisdiction to step in and help them. [0:30:44](https://vimeo.com/1174526818#t=1844s) It also sort of fixes a glitch that we found. Uh, we've actually gone back and forth a few times on what happens when there's a conflict or an attorney, uh, prosecutor is disqualified, and we saw that, uh, in some of these election interference cases where PAC was charged with finding another prosecutor to help, uh, prosecute cases, and went all around the state, basically, and couldn't find anybody on several of the, of the ca- at least a couple of the cases, the case against Burt Jones and the case against all the other, uh, Trump and the other defendants. [0:31:17](https://vimeo.com/1174526818#t=1877s) And ultimately, Pete Skandalakis had to do it himself as the head of PAC, and, and decided in those two cases not to prosecute. Back in the day, before 2021, that role fell to the attorney general. This reverts it back. In the case of disqualification, the attorney general will first have an opportunity to step in and, and prosecute the case. Um, the Ahmaud Arbery case comes to mind for me, because that's one where they first tried to give it to other local DAs, and one of them had a conflict. [0:31:49](https://vimeo.com/1174526818#t=1909s) One of them said he didn't have the manpower to do it, and ultimately, uh, you know, just sort of bounced around. Attorney general has 150 attorneys, and if this would give them the opportunity, basically the first bite at the apple, kind of a right of first refusal in a disqualification case to step in and assume that prosecution. Uh, if they do not choose to pursue that, then it goes back to PAC, and PAC will search for another local DA to do it. So that's what we're trying, uh, to accomplish in this bill. [0:32:20](https://vimeo.com/1174526818#t=1940s) I feel mighty safe here today with, uh- ... the Department of, of Public Safety here, with State Patrol and Department of, uh, what is it, Motor Care? Didn't we rename y'all? Commercial Vehicle. Okay, Commercial Vehicle. Okay. I knew we'd change that. Representative Hong. [0:32:36](https://vimeo.com/1174526818#t=1956s) Thank you, Chairman. Chairman, um, did I hear you right that in 2021 it was this way, and then we're reverting it back? Did- [0:32:44](https://vimeo.com/1174526818#t=1964s) That's what I was told during the presentation of the bill in the Senate. I hadn't looked up the law myself, but yes, they're, back in the day, let's just call it , up until five years ago, the attorney general would pick up the ball and run with it, where there were conflicts and, uh, I guess disqualifications or other reasons prosecutors withdrew or got removed from a case. [0:33:07](https://vimeo.com/1174526818#t=1987s) Okay. Uh, seeing no other questions from members of the committee, uh, Senator, thank you. If you need to run back up and work on that important business- [0:33:15](https://vimeo.com/1174526818#t=1995s) I, I'm gon- I'm gonna stick with you. [0:33:16](https://vimeo.com/1174526818#t=1996s) Okay, that's fine. Whatever you- [0:33:18](https://vimeo.com/1174526818#t=1998s) Uh, it's actually a bill that I'm not particularly in favor of, and I'm, I'm happy just, uh, not voting so that the, has the same effect without angering some of my friends. [0:33:29](https://vimeo.com/1174526818#t=2009s) All right. [0:33:35](https://vimeo.com/1174526818#t=2015s) All righty. Um, is anyone signed up for this? [0:33:43](https://vimeo.com/1174526818#t=2023s) Huh. Okay. Are PAC people here? Uh, they are. I don't... But they're not signed up. But if you haven't read, uh, the null price on the case that the senator mentioned earlier, it's one of the most beautiful and most thoroughly written null prices I believe I've ever read. So, uh, I would encourage every member to go and read that null price. There was a lot of thought, uh, put into that. So, all right. Well, I have no one signed up. [0:34:17](https://vimeo.com/1174526818#t=2057s) Okay. Senator, come on back down. We'll hear you on 605 now. [0:34:23](https://vimeo.com/1174526818#t=2063s) Glad I didn't go back upstairs now. [0:34:27](https://vimeo.com/1174526818#t=2067s) Go ahead. [0:34:27](https://vimeo.com/1174526818#t=2067s) I don't think there was opposition in the Senate on this. We worked with the prosecuting attorneys and PAC in the course of ironing out those details. It went through some iterations, so I'm optimistic that that's fine. 605, we did the same thing. Uh, this- Y'all remember we passed the, uh, the bill a few, I guess it was two years ago, two... Passed it a couple of times on the, um, sort of the, the panel that reviews, uh, conduct of district attorneys and solicitors, um, the Prosecuting, uh, Attorneys, uh, Qualifications Commission. [0:35:09](https://vimeo.com/1174526818#t=2109s) And we put in the code a number of grounds for, uh, a variety of sanctions. And actually the, the commission can go anywhere from an oral, um, rebuke to a wr- written reprimand to a suspension to a disqualification to, to basically removal from office. But it depends on the severity of the offense. I was, uh, the chairman of our special investigative committee in the Senate that looked into behavior of certain prosecutors and one thing that was, seemed almost unfair to the district attorney was to be removed from a case for the appearance of impropriety without going into details that was this. [0:35:52](https://vimeo.com/1174526818#t=2152s) Was there a, a, you know, bright line rule, a black letter law that said this is the type of behavior that can be sanctioned? Um, and it occurred to me that there were a number of other types of failures by prosecuting attorneys that were pretty obvious that were, uh, you know, not prosecuting your office the way you should and there's a couple of them. You know, everybody deals with cases that happen in their area. In Athens we had a district attorney, uh, Deborah Gonzalez, that was rebuked by courts several times for failing, uh, to comply with the Crime Victims Bill of Rights, particularly victim impact statements and notifying victims of crimes when their case was coming to court, you know, both, at all stages, arraignments, sentencing, so they could at least be heard. [0:36:43](https://vimeo.com/1174526818#t=2203s) I think she was ul- ultimately found in contempt for ignoring the law and not making reasonable efforts even to comply with it there. Um, I think that case might have gone to the court of appeals but the, the point being we've passed a law, the Crime Victims Bill of Rights, to give the crime victims a notification and I recognize we worked with the prosecuting attorneys in, in this bill that there might be times where your office is simply overwhelmed with the volume of cases and you're not able to technically comply every time or that you can't find the victim. [0:37:22](https://vimeo.com/1174526818#t=2242s) You know, maybe they've moved and didn't give you their new address. They might could have left the state or whatever. So I recognize there might be some occasional failures but at line 25 we said any failure to make reasonable efforts to strictly comply would be a ground of, of conduct that would be subject to sanctions. Of course what we're really looking after is where there's, uh, just no direction by the prosecuting attorney to f- to make sure this is complied with or no, um, sort of, um, discipline applied to, uh, assistant solicitors or assistant DAs if they repeatedly fail to do this. [0:38:00](https://vimeo.com/1174526818#t=2280s) And so I think that the, uh, DAs and the solicitors are comfortable with this that they have a statutory obligation to do it and if they fail to at least make reasonable efforts to strictly comply then they would be subject to sanctions. Same thing at line 27 is dealing with open records laws. Uh, we had the DA in the western district where I practice in Athens and the DA in Fulton County both refuse to provide records in response to open re- rec- records request and some arguments was that we just don't think we have to. [0:38:34](https://vimeo.com/1174526818#t=2314s) We're a constitutional officer. We're not gonna do it. Uh, those claims went to the court of appeals which made it clear district attorneys do have to comply with open records request. Many of the district attorneys that, that testified in, in our committee, uh, over in the Senate said that, you know, they have open, uh, file policies. That's the way it is in, in Clark County in the western circuit if you are a defense counsel for a case, prosecutors in both state court and superior court, uh, if you opt into discovery it's an open, uh, file and most are that way but this encourages transparency, um, by complying with our open records laws. [0:39:16](https://vimeo.com/1174526818#t=2356s) Uh, and also with discovery down at line 31, uh, we'd say reasonable efforts to comply with Title 17 which is discovery in a criminal procedure. Of course the greatest fear is if a prosecutor conceals exculpatory evidence and, you know, there is a statute there requiring, uh, that disclosure but that wasn't listed in the, the types of conduct that could be sanctioned by the Prosecutorial Oversight Commission. [0:39:47](https://vimeo.com/1174526818#t=2387s) So this is not developing new ground. It's just making it clear that if you fail to comply with that, uh, code section that requires you to disclose information, not only can there be actions taken in the underlying trial court which you could be, you know, have ultimately you could be null prost or something or you could have evidence excluded. It can be a ground for a sanction against a, uh, a prosecutor that doesn't make reasonable efforts to comply with discovery process. I skipped over one that's on, uh, line 29 is making a decision based on factors outlined in paragraph two of subsection I. [0:40:25](https://vimeo.com/1174526818#t=2425s) That's referring back in the code section to impartiality. Of course that's part of the, um, basically the oath of office of a prosecutor is that you will handle your duties of off- office in an impartial manner. This section specifies that you can't be failing to disclose a conflict of interest. You can't be prosecuting due to a personal animus. You can't be prosecuting for profit so to speak or personal gain and that just is referencing back earlier in the code section These are already obligations of a prosecutor. [0:41:03](https://vimeo.com/1174526818#t=2463s) It's simply making it clear that those type of failure to, to be impartial as already defined by the code can be a ground for a sanction, for a reprimand, a warning, a, um, any other type of, um, sanction. And then if I'm, I'm kind of skipping down now to line 33. I mean, this, you're probably sitting there saying, why do you even have to put this in a code section? Failure to reply, to comply with the Georgia Rules of Professional Conduct that all of attorneys are required. [0:41:37](https://vimeo.com/1174526818#t=2497s) That's how you get disbarred or suspended or, or sanctioned for failing to follow those, uh, rules of professional conduct, which of course includes candor with the court, uh, uh, you know, a variety of other things, avoidances of conflict of interest, et cetera. Rule 3.8 I listed because that is specifically to the duties and responsibility of prosecutors. It was stricter than some nationwide policies and it was promoted and drafted by PAC. [0:42:09](https://vimeo.com/1174526818#t=2529s) So this is the prosecutor's own suggested code of conduct and I think all of us recognize we need to have the utmost faith and confidence in the fairness, impartiality, integrity of our prosecutors. We have to, uh, sort of restore public faith in the fairness and equitable nature of our criminal justice system. This is simply saying these standards give grounds for s- for punishment through the Prosecutor's Oversight Qualifications Commission as well as the state bar and the Supreme Court so that can be something that can be used here. [0:42:53](https://vimeo.com/1174526818#t=2573s) I mean, it's, it, it may almost sound redundant but it wasn't specifically listed already and it, common sense is it could, you could be disbarred from that conduct but you couldn't be necessarily removed f- from office by this commission or reprimanded or sanctioned or suspended or whatever and so this allows you, uh, to do that. So that's where, uh, we're trying to get, uh, with this just to give more specific standards of behavior, uh, for prosecuting attorneys and make certain that the commission has the authority to take action against prosecutors that fail in these particular, uh, manners. [0:43:35](https://vimeo.com/1174526818#t=2615s) I'm happy to answer any questions. I think you may have Ian, uh, he may be here to give the views of, he's the executive director of the commission, may have some thoughts on it. He has been kind enough to speak with me and give me some thoughts and, uh, he's actually given me suggestions for additional legislation but I, you know, we're so far in the process this year I, I think I'd like to move the ball and we'll worry about other type of, uh, improvements or bells and whistles at a later time. [0:44:06](https://vimeo.com/1174526818#t=2646s) All right. And we've got some questions from members of the committee. Uh, Chairman Silcox. [0:44:11](https://vimeo.com/1174526818#t=2651s) Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And thank you, Mr. Chairman, for bringing this bill. [0:44:15](https://vimeo.com/1174526818#t=2655s) Thank you. [0:44:15](https://vimeo.com/1174526818#t=2655s) When you mentioned Deborah Gonzalez it, it raised, um, a point that I don't think is included here and that is because she kind of advertised what she wasn't going to enforce. Um, and so to me if you fail to enforce the law, I mean that sounds crazy but if you fail to enforce the existing Georgia law would also be a failure, um, to me that we should have included just because she just, she flouted the law. [0:44:48](https://vimeo.com/1174526818#t=2688s) I was of the opinion that we put that in this bill. I remember Representative Gaines, uh, was the original sponsor of this bill and I believe it was largely in reaction to her. [0:45:01](https://vimeo.com/1174526818#t=2701s) Her. [0:45:01](https://vimeo.com/1174526818#t=2701s) On her first day in office she issued what was referred to as a manifesto. [0:45:05](https://vimeo.com/1174526818#t=2705s) Right. [0:45:06](https://vimeo.com/1174526818#t=2706s) Uh, and that basically said, "I will not prosecute drug possession offenses." [0:45:13](https://vimeo.com/1174526818#t=2713s) These sins. Right. [0:45:14](https://vimeo.com/1174526818#t=2714s) And listed them and, and there were some others and said, "Unless you had enough of the drug to, uh, essentially be trafficking or, or dealing," and, and just essentially said, "I'm not gonna enforce the law." And, um, I thought that was- [0:45:29](https://vimeo.com/1174526818#t=2729s) Okay [0:45:29](https://vimeo.com/1174526818#t=2729s) ... in this somewhere that it- [0:45:30](https://vimeo.com/1174526818#t=2730s) Okay [0:45:30](https://vimeo.com/1174526818#t=2730s) ... added the- [0:45:31](https://vimeo.com/1174526818#t=2731s) Um, see, um, Representative Hong has just corrected me. She said that is included, um, under, uh, line 19- [0:45:38](https://vimeo.com/1174526818#t=2738s) Okay [0:45:38](https://vimeo.com/1174526818#t=2738s) ... code section 1518-6. So thank you for that. [0:45:42](https://vimeo.com/1174526818#t=2742s) Yeah. Thanks. So yeah, that, I believe that was in direct response to her. [0:45:45](https://vimeo.com/1174526818#t=2745s) Mm-hmm. [0:45:45](https://vimeo.com/1174526818#t=2745s) And she ultimately rescinded that- [0:45:48](https://vimeo.com/1174526818#t=2748s) Mm-hmm [0:45:48](https://vimeo.com/1174526818#t=2748s) ... after this bill passed and, uh, but then was defeated at the polls. Okay. Number 16, Chairman Gunter. [0:45:58](https://vimeo.com/1174526818#t=2758s) Thank you, Chairman Smith. Um, and thank you for bringing this bill. Um, I, I'm hoping I'm reading this correctly in lines 27 to 28. Uh, this is the open records request? [0:46:11](https://vimeo.com/1174526818#t=2771s) That is. [0:46:12](https://vimeo.com/1174526818#t=2772s) Okay. Um, I'm looking at the code here and I guess what I'm reading here is except which by order of a court of this state, I don't have my glasses on so I'm just kinda guessing here, or by law are specifically exempted from disclosure. So, um, I've had a case when I was DA that, um, caught national attention and they, everybody wanted to see the photographs of the body and all that kind of stuff. Uh, I would have to have an order, is that right, to be able to- [0:46:42](https://vimeo.com/1174526818#t=2802s) That is. And that, you know the, what you would remember from your prosecuting days that your open file if, of a ongoing investigation or prosecution, that's protected. [0:46:53](https://vimeo.com/1174526818#t=2813s) Right. [0:46:53](https://vimeo.com/1174526818#t=2813s) That is not subject to, to this and that's probably what you were ended up litigating there. Um- [0:46:59](https://vimeo.com/1174526818#t=2819s) Yeah, we had the, the case was a total of from the time of kidnapping to entry of a plea was 28 days. [0:47:05](https://vimeo.com/1174526818#t=2825s) Wow. [0:47:06](https://vimeo.com/1174526818#t=2826s) So at the end of the 28 days I started getting requests for pictures of the body in that case Um, so if that's... I would have to get an order from the court. Is that right? [0:47:16](https://vimeo.com/1174526818#t=2836s) That is. And of course, you could seal the records as well on some of those sensitive things you might want to, and sort of shift the burden there. Yeah. By so- Yeah ... by showing. But yeah, this- Because that's what I would do ... this does not apply to ongoing investigations or prosecutions. That is protected. Okay. And it's not subject to open records requests. I didn't remember getting an order from the court. I remembered sealing it myself and making sure if they wanted it, they could sue me for it. I think that's how it works. Okay. Yeah. [0:47:47](https://vimeo.com/1174526818#t=2867s) All right. Just making sure. You're, you're right. [0:47:50](https://vimeo.com/1174526818#t=2870s) Always the wealth of knowledge here on JNC from Judge Gunter. Thank you. Well, that's all the questions from members of the committee. We'll get to testimony now. Uh- [0:48:00](https://vimeo.com/1174526818#t=2880s) Thank you [0:48:00](https://vimeo.com/1174526818#t=2880s) ... Ian Heap, come on down. [0:48:06](https://vimeo.com/1174526818#t=2886s) You can sit right here, Ian. [0:48:07](https://vimeo.com/1174526818#t=2887s) Okay. [0:48:07](https://vimeo.com/1174526818#t=2887s) You, you can use that light there. [0:48:09](https://vimeo.com/1174526818#t=2889s) Turn this around? [0:48:15](https://vimeo.com/1174526818#t=2895s) I apologize. I do have some, uh, written materials which if given leave by the chair I could distribute, which might shorten me up considerably. Um- [0:48:30](https://vimeo.com/1174526818#t=2910s) Most of it, most of it- [0:48:31](https://vimeo.com/1174526818#t=2911s) Just a little light reading material I see there. [0:48:34](https://vimeo.com/1174526818#t=2914s) Mo- most of it is my 2025 annual report, which I've already pr- uh, provided hard copies of all of you in your office, but there are two sections in there which I have tabbed. Um, I, I... First of all, thank you. Um, second of all, I'm not here... And, and I'm an employ- Well, my name is Ian Heap. I am the executive director of the Prosecuting, Prosecuting Attorneys Qualifications Commission. Thank you for the opportunity to come here. I'll try to be brief. Um, although executive director sounds fancy, I'm an employee. [0:49:06](https://vimeo.com/1174526818#t=2946s) I work for a commission. We've discussed this particular, uh, uh, bill at my last open meeting, and I was instruct- We all agreed it would be, uh... Policy's up to y'all. I'm not taking a position, nor is the PAQC p- taking a position on this bill one way or the other. Y- y- you decide the policy. There are two areas in which implementation intersects with, I believe, the, um, intents of the bill. [0:49:37](https://vimeo.com/1174526818#t=2977s) Uh, the first is, um, that, um, the PAQC has jurisdiction over the elected district attorney and the elected, uh, solicitor general, not any of their assistants or any of their staff, uh, their victim witness, anything like that. Uh, there are some, uh, jurisdictions where district attorneys try a lot of cases themselves, and in that case, it would be real easy to implement these, and there are some where they're managers. [0:50:07](https://vimeo.com/1174526818#t=3007s) I've worked for five district attorneys, uh, two Republican, two Democrats, and an independent. While I was working for them over 26 years, they tried a handful of cases, mostly death penalty. Um, so in offices of that size, a failure to give discovery is not going to be attributable to the district attorney. A failure to, uh, do open records is not gonna be attributed to the district attorney. Um, so, and I, and I'm not saying... [0:50:39](https://vimeo.com/1174526818#t=3039s) I believe every one of these things, it should be done. All right? What I'm saying is, is I'm, I'm the guy who carries out the business of the commission, and it's going to be difficult for me to coordinate, to intersect what you're attempting to do with the jurisdiction that I have statutorily, uh, pronounced on me. Um, if that makes sense. And I, I could belabor it, but I wrote, I wrote it out pretty carefully a year, uh, six months ago, uh, in this report, and I've tabbed the two areas. [0:51:14](https://vimeo.com/1174526818#t=3074s) Um, the second is, um, uh, concurrent jurisdiction. Um, I, I, I'm just curious about, uh, uh, litigating, um, um, discovery issues when the Court of Appeals is also looking at it, and what if I say it is and they say it isn't? Um, it, it... But, but again, it's all, it's all in the thing. Um, so that's, that's what I have to say. Like I say, I'm not taking a position, nor am I supposed to, uh, take a position one way or another, uh, on the, the bill or the policy. [0:51:48](https://vimeo.com/1174526818#t=3108s) Uh, but there are implementation things that you may want to look at, um, even in perhaps fine-tuning. [0:51:58](https://vimeo.com/1174526818#t=3118s) Okay. Thank you, sir. I see no questions. [0:52:01](https://vimeo.com/1174526818#t=3121s) Thank you. [0:52:03](https://vimeo.com/1174526818#t=3123s) And thank you for the good reading material you've sent us and provided to us again here today. [0:52:08](https://vimeo.com/1174526818#t=3128s) Do you need more of these or less of these? I could take some back. I'll recycle them. [0:52:12](https://vimeo.com/1174526818#t=3132s) If you want to leave some copies, we'll, we'll make sure other members as they come in can get those. Okay. Is there anyone else signed up for this one? Maybe somebody that came late. Okay. All right. Senator, you want the last word on it real quick? [0:52:34](https://vimeo.com/1174526818#t=3154s) I will keep it very, very brief, and I... Mr. Heap was kind enough to meet with me and raise these concerns with me in advance, and he also testified in front of our special investigative committee. We didn't get into these details, but that was part of what led me to bring this bill. First of all, I do think there are some situations where there are concurrent-type paths to address the behavior. For example, a trial court can issue certain rulings, hold a, a DA in contempt for failing to comply with some of these bills, these, these areas of misconduct already, and exclude evidence, uh, if they wanted. [0:53:14](https://vimeo.com/1174526818#t=3194s) I don't think that should interfere with this to be happening concurrently. An attorney can be getting disbarred for a crime of moral turpitude at the same time they're being removed from office by the qu- commission. So I don't see that as being a conflict. He raises a very interesting point. Back in the depths of this law, uh, the oversight law, it does apply to the elected official or appointed official, the district attorney or the state court solicitor rather than the, I'll just call them the assistants or the, the, you know, the rank and file employees. [0:53:50](https://vimeo.com/1174526818#t=3230s) That is one reason why we worded this carefully to make reasonable efforts to comply. The buck stops with the boss and they are setting the policies for their office. And if they can show we have a policy that we are going to f- comply with the Victim Impact bill, you know, the victim rights, and they have some type of internal enforcement where if their assistants fail to do it, they're disciplined or reprimanded or fired or whatever, then that's making a reasonable effort to comply with it. [0:54:23](https://vimeo.com/1174526818#t=3263s) If I were, um, the, I guess, could, could go back and, and recreate the entire process, I probably would've made it apply to assistants, to any prosecutors. I don't know that there's any, uh, you know, legal reason why we couldn't have extended this to people other than the elected officials. Part of the impetus behind the original bill that Representative Gaines has was some of these people might need to be removed from office, suspended, you know, from office. [0:54:53](https://vimeo.com/1174526818#t=3293s) And you can't suspend somebody that's not the elected official, you know? So I think that's what it was aimed at. Um, but I, I think that would be a tweak, and maybe not this year but in the future if, if the commission, and Mr. Heap has expressed some concerns that he's not able to take, uh, action, disciplinary action against an assistant solicitor or an assistant DA, that that's beyond his jurisdictional reach, so to speak. That's not in this bill. Maybe another day or maybe this committee wants to add that, uh, to this bill if you amend it. [0:55:28](https://vimeo.com/1174526818#t=3328s) But that's sort of a, you know, my, my thoughts on that. But I do appreciate his, um, helpfulness. One thing that is a little disturbing to me, uh, is that there have been... Uh, I think in that report it was like 186 complaints brought, and out of those there have been a couple of consent orders that where the, the accused prosecutors agreed they did something wrong. And maybe that's where they were charged with a crime of moral turpitude. I don't know the facts 'cause it's all confidential. [0:56:01](https://vimeo.com/1174526818#t=3361s) But nobody has even had a hearing. Nothing has gone past the investigative panel. The hearing panel has not yet heard a single case. Now, maybe that's a great news for us that we have top-notch prosecutors in the state that haven't violated any of these rules of conduct to even warrant a hearing to determine if they did wrong. They're all dismissed. And maybe it's 'cause a bunch of them are just disgruntled prisoners that got arrested and they're all, "That dadgum prosecutor was unfair to me. [0:56:31](https://vimeo.com/1174526818#t=3391s) They had a personal animus against me," and then they're very easily explainable. I don't know. But I want, I want the public to have confidence that, that there is a watchdog and that we can trust that our prosecutors are gonna follow this, this law. I am just enamored by the prosecutors that I am before, and I've been in a lot of courts. I don't do a whole ton of criminal defense, but I, I ca- I can't remember ever feeling like I was treated unfairly or dishonestly by any prosecutor. [0:57:03](https://vimeo.com/1174526818#t=3423s) And, and I'm hopeful that that's why this committee has been pretty inactive. But, uh, I didn't get pushback from prosecutors on these very basic duties of prosecutors to be included in their oversight, and I would strongly encourage, uh, your favorable consideration of, of the bill, both of them. [0:57:24](https://vimeo.com/1174526818#t=3444s) Okay. Thank you. Uh, we will take it up as soon as I get the numbers to do it. [0:57:30](https://vimeo.com/1174526818#t=3450s) All right. [0:57:30](https://vimeo.com/1174526818#t=3450s) I think some of them are over in the Senate, uh, committees. [0:57:33](https://vimeo.com/1174526818#t=3453s) Well, I don't think our committees are meeting yet. [0:57:35](https://vimeo.com/1174526818#t=3455s) Oh, y'all still on the floor, huh? [0:57:37](https://vimeo.com/1174526818#t=3457s) I, I'm about to go find out. [0:57:38](https://vimeo.com/1174526818#t=3458s) Okay. [0:57:38](https://vimeo.com/1174526818#t=3458s) Thank you. [0:57:39](https://vimeo.com/1174526818#t=3459s) All right. [0:57:39](https://vimeo.com/1174526818#t=3459s) If I could be excused, I'll head back- [0:57:40](https://vimeo.com/1174526818#t=3460s) Yes, sir [0:57:41](https://vimeo.com/1174526818#t=3461s) ... up there and work on some House bills for you. [0:57:43](https://vimeo.com/1174526818#t=3463s) Thank you, sir. [0:57:44](https://vimeo.com/1174526818#t=3464s) Okay. [0:57:44](https://vimeo.com/1174526818#t=3464s) All right. Next up we have, uh, Senator Jon Burns. [0:57:50](https://vimeo.com/1174526818#t=3470s) Senate Bill 547. They still going upstairs there, Senator? [0:57:56](https://vimeo.com/1174526818#t=3476s) We are. We- [0:57:57](https://vimeo.com/1174526818#t=3477s) What in the world are y'all debating on? So- [0:57:59](https://vimeo.com/1174526818#t=3479s) So many House bills. We just had, I think, 55 had already passed today, another 100 to go, and so we're just rolling. It's unbelievable. [0:58:06](https://vimeo.com/1174526818#t=3486s) So are you as proficient in Latin as what Chairman Tillery is? [0:58:10](https://vimeo.com/1174526818#t=3490s) Uh, yeah, that... I guess you were watching then. [0:58:13](https://vimeo.com/1174526818#t=3493s) Uh, I, I was enamored by that one. Anyways, go ahead with your bill, Senator. [0:58:18](https://vimeo.com/1174526818#t=3498s) All right. I have, um, Senate Bill 547, LC 492697. And this bill is really straightforward, but it does something that I think is very important. It makes pimping and pandering on the first offense in our state a felony. Right now under current law it is a hi- high and aggravated misdemeanor first offense, and then subsequent offenses will make it a felony. But I think it's important that we make this stronger on the first offense because what some people may view as petty when it comes to pimping, which is the recruiting... [0:58:51](https://vimeo.com/1174526818#t=3531s) Let me back up. The managing, if you will, of a prostitute And pandering, which is the recruiting or the facilitation of a pros- prostitute act, an act of prostitution, these are things that some people may see on, on the streets as something that is not a felony type offense, but what you're doing is you're feeding a whole industry. And we've done, this body, the House and Senate both, have worked hard over the years to get a handle on human trafficking in our state. And we've, we started by recognizing the crime. We s- we then went after those that were profiting from it. [0:59:23](https://vimeo.com/1174526818#t=3563s) And then we started to realize that we gotta do a better job of supporting the victims, getting them out of the system. And with the help of our First Lady and Governor, we've had a lot of s- movement over the last decade, um, in this area. But now we're going back and looking at the supply side of this whole industry. And, uh, and so that's all the bill does. I wanna give a shout-out, I think some of the folks may be here today that may talk about this, but this idea was not my idea. It was brought to me by some young ladies from the Forest School down in Fayette County that came together and said, "We wanna do more to take on human trafficking." They, they met with me early in session and brought me several ideas of things they thought, as young people, we could do to take down this industry. [1:00:04](https://vimeo.com/1174526818#t=3604s) And this is their bill. This was their idea. And so always wanna give credit where credit's due, and I appreciate their work in this area, making sure that, um, young girls like them, when they become adults, there'll be less young girls caught up in this industry in our state. So happy to take any questions. [1:00:21](https://vimeo.com/1174526818#t=3621s) Seeing no questions, you have stunned and amazed Judiciary Non-Civil. All right. Uh, seeing no questions, Senator, if you want to just touch that on the side. [1:00:35](https://vimeo.com/1174526818#t=3635s) I'll stand down. [1:00:35](https://vimeo.com/1174526818#t=3635s) Okay. Let's start with, uh, Brandi Blue. [1:00:42](https://vimeo.com/1174526818#t=3642s) Ooh, I'm caught. Sorry, my chair was- [1:00:46](https://vimeo.com/1174526818#t=3646s) You're good. [1:00:57](https://vimeo.com/1174526818#t=3657s) Good afternoon, everyone, Mr. Chair, and members of the committee. My name is Brandi Blue. I'm a legislative fellow with the ACLU of Georgia, and I'm here today with just a few concerns about this bill, which changes the, increases the penalty for a first offense of pimping and pandering from high and aggravated misdemeanor to a felony. What I'd like to focus on is the definition of pimping under Georgia law. We believe that it is too broad. Increasing its penalty to a felony therefore could have consequences far beyond targeting those who actually manage or profit from prostitution. [1:01:35](https://vimeo.com/1174526818#t=3695s) The statute includes, for example, receiving money or valuables from a person engaged in prostitution, knowing the source of those funds. In practice, this could mean that a friend or a partner or a family member who receives a gift from a sex worker could face felony liability simply for being aware of the origin of the funds. Similarly, the statute criminalizes transporting someone to a place knowing it will be used for prostitution. This would subject individuals giving a ride to sex workers the same criminal penalties as a pimp, even though they have no financial stake or involvement in coercion. [1:02:11](https://vimeo.com/1174526818#t=3731s) So while we support efforts to protect Georgia safety, the ACLU of Georgia has concerns about this bill in its current form because the broad definition of pimping could potentially ensnare individuals with no involvement in coercion or explict- or, or exploitation. If the committee chooses to move forward with this legislation, we respectfully urge you to consider a narrow amendment. Specifically, the bill could maintain the enhanced penalty for a first offense of pandering, we're fine with that, while maintaining the same pan- penalty for pimping. [1:02:42](https://vimeo.com/1174526818#t=3762s) Thank you for your consideration, and I yield for questions. [1:02:47](https://vimeo.com/1174526818#t=3767s) I see no questions. Thank you. [1:02:48](https://vimeo.com/1174526818#t=3768s) Thank you. [1:02:49](https://vimeo.com/1174526818#t=3769s) All right. Next up, we have, uh, Camilla with Street Grace. Come on down. [1:02:54](https://vimeo.com/1174526818#t=3774s) All right. Thank you all. My name is Camilla Zolfaghari. I am a vice president of Government Affairs for Street Grace. Um, I've actually testified on this exact type of legislation in here before, so I don't really want to, um, go over everything again. I think this type of legislation originally actually, um, started in the House about eight years ago, and Georgia may have been the first to pass it. But since then, many states, many states always have had pimping as a felony. [1:03:29](https://vimeo.com/1174526818#t=3809s) Many states have added pandering as a felony. Our surrounding states, um, just recently North Carolina, it's looking like it's moving forward. In South Carolina it is, in F- in Florida. So, and it really makes a difference, this increased penalty. In Texas, when they passed it in 2022, they saw an eight times increased number of law enforcement operations trying to attack the demand. And this is the demand that fuels the commercial sex, which is what fuels the commercial sexual exploitation of children, child sex trafficking, and adult trafficking. [1:04:07](https://vimeo.com/1174526818#t=3847s) Trafficking commercial sex does not happen in a vacuum. It involves gangs, it involves, we have homicides, we have CSAM, commercial sexual abuse material, we used to call child pornography. Drug offenses are always tied in. When you are prosecuting one of these cases, you usually have a laundry list. But unfortunately, right now when it's still a misdemeanor, due to the restraints of law enforcement and the resources, it is very hard to put the time and effort into these investigations, because once you charge it, that guy is going to be out before you, before you even finish your report. [1:04:46](https://vimeo.com/1174526818#t=3886s) One new, um, study that I will bring, I've got other if you have questions, but just recently they took two cities, one that had a great... Um, number of going, ah, operations to go after demand and one that was not doing it. One's known for this, there's a lot of operations, one doesn't. The one that is known, so, and they posted ads both in '25 and in '26. In '25 when they posted ads, the smaller city but the... Sorry. Yes, the smaller city that was not doing anything, there were 215 attempts to buy this ad, and in the city where they were making operations, there were only 16 attempts to buy, even though it was a twice as large of a city. [1:05:29](https://vimeo.com/1174526818#t=3929s) Try again. In '26, the, uh, they did the same thing. We did it in January this year in a study, posted for two days, the same two days. In one city, same two days in the other city. In the city where they h- were not doing anything, where law enforcement was not active, when they weren't incentivized because there were reasonable penalties, there were 95 attempts to purchase, and in the city where they do, law enforcement does do operations, there were 37. So we're talking about it really makes a difference when law enforcement is incentivized, and when our punishments fit the crime of buying and selling another person for sex. [1:06:05](https://vimeo.com/1174526818#t=3965s) And now, any questions? I'll be sure. [1:06:08](https://vimeo.com/1174526818#t=3968s) I see none. Thank you for being with us again. [1:06:11](https://vimeo.com/1174526818#t=3971s) Thank you again. [1:06:12](https://vimeo.com/1174526818#t=3972s) Okay. Then, uh, you have very beautiful handwriting, but, uh- Who else signed up on this? Come on down. [1:06:24](https://vimeo.com/1174526818#t=3984s) Trish. [1:06:25](https://vimeo.com/1174526818#t=3985s) I betcha it was you. Go ahead. [1:06:29](https://vimeo.com/1174526818#t=3989s) Good afternoon. Um, my name is Trisha Boschert. I am the founder of She's My Sister South Atlanta. We are a non-profit organization dedicated to supporting adult female survivors of trafficking. So thank you for the opportunity to speak, and thank you to Senator Strickland for your work on this bill. In our work, we walk alongside adult survivors rebuilding their lives after exploitation. That experience has made one thing clear: exploitation continues because someone is willing to buy and someone is willing to profit. [1:07:00](https://vimeo.com/1174526818#t=4020s) Senate Bill 547 addresses both sides of that reality. Over the past year, as Senator Strickland mentioned, our youth ambassadors, high school students committed to understanding this issue, have spent more than 300 hours studying trafficking in Georgia, speaking with law enforcement, survivors, advocates, and prosecutors. One theme has consistently emerged: reducing demand is critical to reducing exploitation. In our work, we also see where this exploitation begins. [1:07:30](https://vimeo.com/1174526818#t=4050s) Across Georgia, recruitment often starts between the ages of 12 and 14 years old. Those children become the adults we serve, women whose exploitation began in childhood. I'm here today with a survivor I am honored to walk alongside. She was formally identified as a victim last year as an adult, but she was first sold, sold when she was 14 years old. Not only did the systems meant to protect her fail her as a child, they failed her as an adult as well. [1:08:01](https://vimeo.com/1174526818#t=4081s) She spent more than two decades trapped in exploitation. After she turned 18, it was only a misdemeanor to buy and/or sell her. While trafficking is a felony in Georgia, pimping and pandering are currently classified as misdemeanors, and in many adult exploitation cases, charges are brought under these statutes because trafficking offenses can be difficult to prove under current legal standards. As a result, individuals who profit from and facilitate exploitation often face only misdemeanor consequences, penalties that do not reflect the seriousness of the harm or deter the behavior. [1:08:36](https://vimeo.com/1174526818#t=4116s) Pimping and pandering are not minor offenses. They're how exploitation of human beings is organized, sustained, and profited from. Georgia has taken meaningful steps to address trafficking. Supporting Senate Bill 547 strengthens that commitment and to re- and reinforces our responsibility to protect vulnerable people, people in this state. I respectfully urge for you to support Senate Bill 547. Thank you. [1:09:01](https://vimeo.com/1174526818#t=4141s) Thank you. I see no questions. Okay. I see no one else signed up to, uh, speak on the bill, so... And guess what? Took us two days, but we have a quorum. [1:09:13](https://vimeo.com/1174526818#t=4153s) Move due pass. [1:09:14](https://vimeo.com/1174526818#t=4154s) All right, got a move due pass. Second. Second? All right. Move due pass and a second. [1:09:31](https://vimeo.com/1174526818#t=4171s) All right, we got a move due pass and a second. Any amendments? Seeing none, all those in favor of the passage of Senate Bill 547, LC 49, 2697, say aye. [1:09:43](https://vimeo.com/1174526818#t=4183s) Aye. [1:09:43](https://vimeo.com/1174526818#t=4183s) All those opposed, same sign. Congratulations- Thank you ... Mr. Chairman. If you'll get me the rules sheet, I will sign that. Yes, sir. Thank you. Appreciate y'all. Get back to work. Who's gonna, who's gonna be the house sponsor? I didn't ask you if I did the sponsor yet. Anybody wants to? I think I owe you one. Okay. Chairman Smith. Thank you. All right. Thanks, Senator. Appreciate y'all. Thank you for your work over in the Senate getting good House bills out. Good work. Okay. Uh, let's, uh, the committee will take up, uh, Senate Bill 604 now. [1:10:18](https://vimeo.com/1174526818#t=4218s) You heard the testimony of Chairman, uh, Cowser earlier. Uh, now would be the time for the committee to decide what we intend to do with that bill. I'll entertain a motion if there is one. Move due pass. All right, got a move due pass and a second. And just so I am clear on which- [1:10:41](https://vimeo.com/1174526818#t=4241s) 604 [1:10:41](https://vimeo.com/1174526818#t=4241s) ... one we have, uh, S- Senate Bill 604, SB604, CSFA. Uh, I've got a move and a second due pass. Any amendments? Seeing none, all those in favor of the passage of Senate Bill 604, say aye. All those opposed same sign? All right. Got one no vote. All right, it's on. Okay, uh, I'm gonna move on to Senate Bill 605. [1:11:12](https://vimeo.com/1174526818#t=4272s) Uh, this is LC474150S- SCS. Uh, now is that time if the committee has a motion. [1:11:22](https://vimeo.com/1174526818#t=4282s) Move to pass. [1:11:23](https://vimeo.com/1174526818#t=4283s) Second. [1:11:24](https://vimeo.com/1174526818#t=4284s) All right, got a move to pass and a second. Uh, any amendments? Seeing none, all those in favor of the passing of Senate Bill 605, say aye. Aye. All those opposed same sign. All right. Well, I think we're waiting on, uh, Senator Behn, so members bear with us. We're gonna stand at ease till Senator Behn arrives. Senator. [1:11:49](https://vimeo.com/1174526818#t=4309s) So I guess... [1:11:50](https://vimeo.com/1174526818#t=4310s) Senator. [1:11:51](https://vimeo.com/1174526818#t=4311s) Right. [1:11:52](https://vimeo.com/1174526818#t=4312s) It's, [1:12:01](https://vimeo.com/1174526818#t=4321s) it's... [1:12:01](https://vimeo.com/1174526818#t=4321s) Take your time for bathroom break. [1:12:08](https://vimeo.com/1174526818#t=4328s) As I was coming down the front You can proceed [1:20:45](https://vimeo.com/1174526818#t=4845s) when ready there, Senator. The, uh- Senate Bill- Thank you, Mr. Chairman and- ... ladies and, uh, gentlemen of the committee. Now, it's late in the day, and I know it's difficult, but for me, I, I just wanna make sure that this i- this is not to be construed as anything other than what it is today. But I know that sitting around here, as late as it's been and aggravating as it's been, I'm gonna, I'm gonna pass these around so the, uh, if y'all can just slide tho-... Oh, oh, oh, oh. The, uh, the, the, uh, I know we- nobody wants to be hangry in a committee. [1:21:15](https://vimeo.com/1174526818#t=4875s) So if y'all can help me with that. So the, uh, I know i- it's, it's one of those things that, that, uh, uh... They're not, it's not a bag of silencers. [1:21:28](https://vimeo.com/1174526818#t=4888s) That's right. The, uh... So for me, I, I try to make sure that, that, uh, I, I get where, where we're at. It's late in the day and been a long day, it has, so I know y'all have had a lot of fun. They, they, uh... And I, I thank y'all for taking up, uh, SB 499. You know, I, I wish I could say I was the guy that, that came up with the idea to have this, but I've got a really good district attorney that I share with, with, uh, Representative Chairman Rob Leverett, said the, uh, he knows my d- my district attorney, Parks White. The, uh, and in actually, he, he told me, he said, "Hey, if the Big Beautiful Bill had a pass like it was originally intended, the, uh, it would have made suppressors illegal for the 270,000, uh, Georgians that own them." And there's actually 270,000, uh, s- legal suppressors in Georgia. [1:22:14](https://vimeo.com/1174526818#t=4934s) And I said, "Well, you know, hey, I, I was a competitive shooter in high school and college." Unfortunately for me, they, uh, I probably didn't wear the, as effective hearing, uh, equipment as I needed to. And so for me, I suffer with hearing loss on that regard. The, uh, one of the things that m- many of y'all know, I have a farm in Madison County, and I, I lease some of my farmland to, uh, hunters. And, and, uh, when they get up at the crack of dawn and wanna go deer hunting or whatever, and you fire a, a, a high-powered rifle and the, the sound on that's about 170 decibels. [1:22:48](https://vimeo.com/1174526818#t=4968s) So not only do the, the hunters hear that shot, and they probably suffer some hearing loss, but if I happen to be asleep earlier in the morning at the crack of dawn when they pull that trigger, I have double pane windows and so forth, but I still get to wake up when I hear that, that, that gunfire. So for me, there's a lot of reasons why I wanna make sure that suppressors are still legal. The, um, and, uh, so I've, I've worked through, uh, this bill with, with the National Rifle Associ- Ri- National Rifle Association, the, uh, uh, GA2A, the, the American Suppressor Association, and the Georgia Sheriff's Association. [1:23:27](https://vimeo.com/1174526818#t=5007s) And one of the things that I've got a late arriving amendment that, that, uh, is being passed out that we wanna try to put into, oh, the right verbiage there, and that is the, uh, taking the place of... I think ma- many of y'all may have a, an amendment already, the, uh, on your desk. And I've asked, uh, Knox Williams. This is Knox Williams. If he, if he can, Mr. Chairman, can he come up and, and, uh, help, uh, me walk through some of these questions that people might have? But- Go ahead. The, uh, I was really proud of, of, uh, my colleague, Bo Hatchett, who helped us in, in judiciary, the, uh, with an amendment that, that, uh, we, we made a change when it went through committee in the Senate. [1:24:07](https://vimeo.com/1174526818#t=5047s) And if you look at basically section B there, 79, uh, and, and on, on through the, uh, about, uh, 103, line 79 through 103, you'll see that we spell out in the bill the, uh, that anybody that uses a suppressor in any of these crimes, the, uh, uh, there's a mandatory, uh, penalty involved there. And that's where to me, you know, I'm, I'm, I'm a big proponent for law enforcement and what we do to, to deal with that. [1:24:38](https://vimeo.com/1174526818#t=5078s) The, uh... And so working with the, the Georgia Sheriff's Association, if you look, and, and I'm sorry, I'm gonna have to kind of piece this together. But, uh, up on lines 24 through 27, the, uh... [1:25:00](https://vimeo.com/1174526818#t=5100s) The, uh, and it starts off there with a person commits an offense of unlawful possession. The, uh, what, what I wanna do is you've got section A there. We wanna add a section B, and that's in this, if you're looking at this sheet right here, the, uh, if you can, can see this sheet that's been, been passed out. The, the, uh, uh, a person commits the offense of unlawful possession of a silencer when the person possesses what he or she knows to be a silencer as defined by Code Section 16-11-160, and at the time of such possession knows he or she is prohibited from pos- possessing or receiving a firearm under the laws of this state, and upon conviction thereof- Or he, she, he or she shall be punished for a felony. [1:25:49](https://vimeo.com/1174526818#t=5149s) And to me, the, the idea there is, is, is you know, what the def... Anybody in here know the definition of a suppressor? [1:25:57](https://vimeo.com/1174526818#t=5157s) A little bit. [1:25:57](https://vimeo.com/1174526818#t=5157s) It's kinda funny. Said the, uh... Uh, Representative Byrd, can I borrow your water bottle? [1:26:02](https://vimeo.com/1174526818#t=5162s) Sure. [1:26:05](https://vimeo.com/1174526818#t=5165s) Thank you. If I empty this water bottle and, and I stick it on the end of a firearm, it would meet the definition of a suppressor. Now, we know it's not, it's not a suppressor, it's a water bottle. But, you know, this is where, for me, the, uh, the, the, I had this discussion with the Sheriffs Association. They said, "Hey, we wanna make sure that if a felon, you know, somehow they detach the suppressor from their gun, and they had the suppressor in, on their person or i- in their control, the, uh, that we can still charge them with a, with a, uh, a crime." And so what this amendment does is to make sure that, hey, somebody's got a suppressor out there that's a felon, it's the same penalty as if they had a firearm. [1:26:48](https://vimeo.com/1174526818#t=5208s) So for me, you know, we're not trying to do anything but, uh, make sure that, uh, we can still lock people up for doing the wrong thing, ha- possessing the wrong, uh, type of thing. But a suppressor by itself, the, uh, is, is nothing but a paperweight. The, uh, you can't... It doesn't make a bullet go any faster. It doesn't make anything change the, uh... But that's where, for me, it's very important that, you know, people understand suppressors are there to help people, uh, with their hearing. Now, one of the things that, uh, Mr. Williams may testify to is, you know, you, a lot of local governments and police departments do some things called a spot shotter. [1:27:24](https://vimeo.com/1174526818#t=5244s) The, uh, it's the technology that they can identify where a, a bullet is fired from. Spot shotters work with suppressors. You s- you put a suppressor on a gun, you're still gonna be, be able to recognize that with a spot shotter. So for me, the, uh, I think it's im- important that, that, uh, we do this to, to make sure the, the bill basically takes it, instead of just listing the Federal Firearms Act, it lists any federal law, said the, uh... So anything that it's listed in, in federal law is still applicable. It takes it, the, uh, uh, out of state law for law-abiding citizens, but it spells it out so that if they're used by, uh, somebody in the, uh, commission of a crime, there's additional penalties that are listed, and if they, uh, are in possession of it, if a, if a felon is in possession, they get the same charge as if they had the, uh, a, a firearm in their hand or, or, uh, one of the, uh, things there. [1:28:15](https://vimeo.com/1174526818#t=5295s) So for, for me, I'll, I'll yield for a little bit, and I'd be glad to answer any questions or i- I know there's, you've got some people that have signed up to speak, uh, as well. [1:28:25](https://vimeo.com/1174526818#t=5305s) Okay. I wanna remind everybody we got a hard stop at 5:00. So the longer y'all talk, you may be asking for 8:30 AM, uh, committee meeting. So, uh, pick your poison as we go forward, ladies and gentlemen. All right, let's see. On this one, got a couple. Let's go with, uh, questions from, I'll say, Representative Panitch. [1:28:50](https://vimeo.com/1174526818#t=5330s) Thank you. Good afternoon, Senator. [1:28:52](https://vimeo.com/1174526818#t=5332s) Good afternoon. [1:28:52](https://vimeo.com/1174526818#t=5332s) Thank you for the chocolate bar. Can you... So if the House version of this didn't pass the House, what is different about this version? [1:29:00](https://vimeo.com/1174526818#t=5340s) Two things. One of them is the House version didn't have, won't have this amendment that I'm hoping that y'all will take up and pass, that, that puts the Sheriffs Association from a against the bill to for the bill. The, uh, and that's, that's a big, uh, thing there, you know, law enforcement supporting it. So the other thing is, is I think there was a good number of your House members that were absent from your, your, your vote, said they, uh, I'm not sure, you know, what was the deal there, but, you know, that's where, to me, I, I don't know all the House politics, but, but for me, that's, that's one of those things that, that, uh, I, I, I see there's two things that happened. [1:29:34](https://vimeo.com/1174526818#t=5374s) The bill, ideally, we make it better to have law enforcement support and, uh, make sure that, that it's not late in the day, said the, uh, uh, when it, when it goes onto the floor, so. [1:29:44](https://vimeo.com/1174526818#t=5384s) Thank you. [1:29:45](https://vimeo.com/1174526818#t=5385s) Thank you. [1:29:48](https://vimeo.com/1174526818#t=5388s) All right, number seven. Representative Roberts. [1:29:50](https://vimeo.com/1174526818#t=5390s) Thank you, Mr. Chair. I'm, can you... Uh, maybe I'm being dense, but where are you saying this is inserted? [1:29:56](https://vimeo.com/1174526818#t=5396s) That, that would be, if you look at, at, uh, section three, right after l- line 27. And what we're gonna do is we're gonna make that first section where it talks how the person commits the offense, we're gonna s- we're gonna call that, uh, section A, and then we're gonna have a section B below that. And I apologize the, the, uh, this is, you know, kinda, kinda s- uh, poor- poorly typed, but, but you know, I, I, I'm, uh, proud that, that we've got it in black and white so everybody can read it. [1:30:29](https://vimeo.com/1174526818#t=5429s) But we have a section B, the, uh, that would follow after line, the end of line 27, and you chart section B, and that, uh, verbiage that you have right there would be, uh, the, the wording for section B. And there is a slight typo at the very end of it. But that, I was very proud of Ms. Little for typing it up as quickly as she did, so. [1:30:49](https://vimeo.com/1174526818#t=5449s) Okay, so let me be clear, th- make sure I understand, 'cause I had studied the House version very carefully. So this bill would remove, um, the crime that, that held five years, up to five years penalty if you possessed an unregistered silencer? [1:31:11](https://vimeo.com/1174526818#t=5471s) Uh, what, what this bill does is it, it takes it out of state law. Still have federal law, which is- [1:31:15](https://vimeo.com/1174526818#t=5475s) I understand that [1:31:16](https://vimeo.com/1174526818#t=5476s) ... is a felony there. Said they, uh, uh, when you look at... W- we also spell out that, that when somebody uses, and this should've been, I believe the version that you had on the floor was identical to what you have right here. The, uh, uh, that was what was, uh, had passed. Y'all made a, a, a late amendment to that. I'm not sure, one of the things that I've been told by some of the members was this was not in y'all's book. [1:31:40](https://vimeo.com/1174526818#t=5500s) It was not on our desk, and so- [1:31:41](https://vimeo.com/1174526818#t=5501s) Yeah. And, and that's- [1:31:41](https://vimeo.com/1174526818#t=5501s) Yeah, I learned that after the fact [1:31:43](https://vimeo.com/1174526818#t=5503s) ... and, and that, and that was where, to me, that's a, that's where, uh, uh, Representative Panitch said, that's where to me, I, I look at it, I'm like, "Okay, a lot of confusion in what happened there," and I, I appreciate the fact that we're trying to make sure... But this is actually what we passed out of the Senate, and what should've been in y'all's, uh, or, or the, the exact same mirror of it was in your book. [1:32:02](https://vimeo.com/1174526818#t=5522s) Okay. [1:32:03](https://vimeo.com/1174526818#t=5523s) Because they were supposed to be identical verbiage. [1:32:05](https://vimeo.com/1174526818#t=5525s) Okay. But the code currently creates a crime in Georgia But if you possess basically an unregistered, well, I shouldn't say unregistered. If you possess a silencer, but under federal law, if it's registered, you can, you're fine, right? Am I correct? That's what the current law is. [1:32:24](https://vimeo.com/1174526818#t=5544s) That's correct. If you- [1:32:25](https://vimeo.com/1174526818#t=5545s) So now under this bill, that goes away, and the only thing we're addressing is if you are a felon in possession of a gun with a silencer. Is that correct? [1:32:35](https://vimeo.com/1174526818#t=5555s) The, two things that happen, and, and I'll, I'll ask Mr. Williams to help me address this, but you, you have a, a, a felon, a, a federal law that dictates the coverage there. [1:32:44](https://vimeo.com/1174526818#t=5564s) I understand what the federal law is. [1:32:45](https://vimeo.com/1174526818#t=5565s) The, uh, we take it out of state law because one of the things that, that, that was where legislative council said, "Easiest thing for us to do is reference the federal law on making sure that they still have to follow what's going on there." The, uh, and then one of the things that we're also doing is, is that possession by a felon, by anybody that's been convicted felon, the, uh, ah, would be also, ah, guilty with just having the silencer. [1:33:13](https://vimeo.com/1174526818#t=5593s) Okay. Um, but a person who's not a felon in the State of Georgia who doesn't register the silencer is no longer subject to- [1:33:25](https://vimeo.com/1174526818#t=5605s) State law [1:33:25](https://vimeo.com/1174526818#t=5605s) ... a state law crime. Okay. [1:33:27](https://vimeo.com/1174526818#t=5607s) The, uh, unless they use that, that silencer in a crime. If they use it- [1:33:31](https://vimeo.com/1174526818#t=5611s) And can you explain to me why law enforcement is in favor of this version? [1:33:36](https://vimeo.com/1174526818#t=5616s) I haven't, let me- [1:33:37](https://vimeo.com/1174526818#t=5617s) 'Cause I haven't heard that. [1:33:38](https://vimeo.com/1174526818#t=5618s) Let me... Can I, can I ask Mr. Williams? [1:33:39](https://vimeo.com/1174526818#t=5619s) Okay. Sure. [1:33:40](https://vimeo.com/1174526818#t=5620s) He's a, he's our expert on suppressor. He's the president of the American Suppressor Association. So Mr. Williams, if you don't mind, Mr. Chairman. [1:33:47](https://vimeo.com/1174526818#t=5627s) Thank y'all very much. Um, yes, ma'am. And to answer that question, uh, this amendment that, that we're trying to add in, uh, in committee here today, um, would make it a felony for a prohibited person of any type to possess, to merely possess a firearm suppressor independent of a firearm. Um, right, so that includes not just felons, but also anyone who's mentally adjudicated, um, you know, folks non, or excuse me, non-felons who are also prohibited person. There are more people, so it is in effect a bigger catchall that ensures that the wrong people do not have these items in the state. [1:34:21](https://vimeo.com/1174526818#t=5661s) Okay. But if... Okay. Um, and was law enforcement opposed to the original version? I understand you're saying they like this version, which I understand. [1:34:33](https://vimeo.com/1174526818#t=5673s) Uh, unfortunately for me, they, they didn't raise a question about this until after we had passed it through the Senate. The, uh, and, and so that being the question, do we, I said, "Hey, let's sit down and talk." So I had, uh, the Georgia Sheriff's Association, the National Rifle Association, GA2A, and the American Suppressor Association all sit in my office, and we went through and said, "Okay, what can we do to make it better?" And, and, oh, that's, that was, uh, yesterday. We, uh, Mr. Norris is here. He may testify as well on the bill, but that's where we want to try to make sure that we're listening to any opposition to address that, and that's important. [1:35:10](https://vimeo.com/1174526818#t=5710s) I mean, you know, that's, that's why we make things better, and I'll, I appreciate y'all working to help perfect the bill for us. [1:35:16](https://vimeo.com/1174526818#t=5716s) So how likely do you think it's going to be that federal law enforcement is gonna enforce somebody who doesn't register their suppressor here in Georgia now? 'Cause that's the only enforcement mechanism, if they don't register it, correct? [1:35:28](https://vimeo.com/1174526818#t=5728s) It, federally? [1:35:29](https://vimeo.com/1174526818#t=5729s) Yeah. [1:35:29](https://vimeo.com/1174526818#t=5729s) If they're unregistered? Yes, that is correct. Um, and they do it frequently. When people are caught with illegally obtained suppressors, they prosecute them regularly. It's not that many folks. Most people that are doing that are buying them illegally and manufacturing them illegally, so they've never been part of the legal process to begin with. Um, but it is, uh, you know, uh, according to the former number two at ATF, it's such a rare occurrence that it is, uh, suppressors are not, in their eyes, to be viewed as a threat to public safety. [1:35:58](https://vimeo.com/1174526818#t=5758s) Do you think that might be because they've been regulated so heavily previously? We won't know until after we deregulate them, so. [1:36:04](https://vimeo.com/1174526818#t=5764s) It, in actuality, the, the, uh, I think that, that when we look at somebody, the criminal pel- penalties here, somebody uses one as a crime, that's, that's where we get them. Uh, you know- [1:36:16](https://vimeo.com/1174526818#t=5776s) That's why we're having it before you change this [1:36:17](https://vimeo.com/1174526818#t=5777s) ... having, having, having a suppressor is nothing more than, than I, I, as a, and I appreciate, uh, Representative Byrd for sharing her water bottle. But, but, but- [1:36:25](https://vimeo.com/1174526818#t=5785s) Would you like it back? [1:36:27](https://vimeo.com/1174526818#t=5787s) But that's where for me the, uh, if they use a suppressor in a criminal activity, there's a lot more penalties here that come into play, and that's, that's the, the main thing is that, uh, when they use that, uh, uh, or actually a felon owning that possessor, that, uh, silencer is part of the problem. [1:36:47](https://vimeo.com/1174526818#t=5807s) Uh, we're still deregulating it statewi- statewide, um, and if, well, I guess time will tell, but, um, okay. Thank you. [1:36:58](https://vimeo.com/1174526818#t=5818s) Thank you. [1:37:00](https://vimeo.com/1174526818#t=5820s) Okay, number 13, Representative... Which one of y'all is it? All right, Chairman Lever. [1:37:08](https://vimeo.com/1174526818#t=5828s) Thank you, Senator. I appreciate you bringing the bill. I, I, I confess, I was not here for most of the discussion when Representative Reilly presented the bill, and so just if you wouldn't mind bringing me up to speed. My understanding from looking at the bill is currently in Georgia law, a silencer itself is deemed to be dangerous enough where you cannot possess that, just as you cannot possess a sawed-off shotgun, sawed-off rifle, machine gun, or other dangerous weapon. [1:37:34](https://vimeo.com/1174526818#t=5854s) Un- unregistered suppressor, the, uh, is, is what it's, it deals with. If it's, if you have... And there's 270,000 suppressors in Georgia, Senator, uh, but it, that they're all registered on the federal level. So those are all easily legal. [1:37:48](https://vimeo.com/1174526818#t=5868s) So the acceptance provided in section 16-1-124 means unless you have registered it, through, so then that was just a federal- [1:37:56](https://vimeo.com/1174526818#t=5876s) Through the National Firearms Act [1:37:57](https://vimeo.com/1174526818#t=5877s) ... registry. Okay. [1:37:58](https://vimeo.com/1174526818#t=5878s) And, and this is where we're, we're making it encompassing for all federal laws. [1:38:02](https://vimeo.com/1174526818#t=5882s) Well- [1:38:02](https://vimeo.com/1174526818#t=5882s) Any federal, any federal law that says, "Here's what you gotta do with a suppressor," they, they're, you're responsible for that. [1:38:09](https://vimeo.com/1174526818#t=5889s) So I, I guess I'm having a hard time understanding how you're preserving that if you're taking the word silencer out of 16-11-122. [1:38:15](https://vimeo.com/1174526818#t=5895s) The, that's in state law. We're, we're still, there's still, you still have to comply with federal law. [1:38:20](https://vimeo.com/1174526818#t=5900s) Okay. All right. [1:38:21](https://vimeo.com/1174526818#t=5901s) And, and, and if you look- [1:38:23](https://vimeo.com/1174526818#t=5903s) So with 1611124, did that require registration just at a federal level or does it require some kind of state registration also? [1:38:30](https://vimeo.com/1174526818#t=5910s) Our, our law, and this is what, what, where but our district attorney said, said, "Look, if they take it out of federal law," said, "y- then you got all these problems with these things." And so what we're doing, we're, we're... There was, there's two federal laws that deal with suppressors in, in general right now. We're... And, and all that, uh, Mr. Williams explained that. I'm, I'm not a lawyer, so they, uh, I shouldn't come to Judiciary and say I'm not a lawyer. I said they, uh, but, but for me, I'm trying to make sure that, uh, we don't have all of these citizens that have a suppressor find themselves illegal because it's not spelled out in the National Firearms Act. [1:39:06](https://vimeo.com/1174526818#t=5946s) That's what our current code requires is, is it's spelled out in the National Firearms Act. We're saying any federal law. So the, uh- [1:39:13](https://vimeo.com/1174526818#t=5953s) Federal [1:39:13](https://vimeo.com/1174526818#t=5953s) ... the big, the big beautiful bill, the, uh, was gonna strike suppressors out of the code section, out of the National Firearms Act. And if that w- had happened, then we got all these suppressors in Georgia that are, would become illegal. [1:39:27](https://vimeo.com/1174526818#t=5967s) Because they hadn't been registered in accordance with the federal- [1:39:30](https://vimeo.com/1174526818#t=5970s) Because our- [1:39:31](https://vimeo.com/1174526818#t=5971s) ... process that no longer existed? [1:39:33](https://vimeo.com/1174526818#t=5973s) Because our Georgia... That's right. Because the federal National Firearms Act didn't take it anymore, so you don't have a registration. [1:39:40](https://vimeo.com/1174526818#t=5980s) So has the law been changed now at a federal level where no one- [1:39:43](https://vimeo.com/1174526818#t=5983s) They, what they did was they, they dropped the fee from $200 to, I think it's free now. It's zero, yeah. Yeah, it's zero in the big beautiful bill. That was one of the things they, they did. They were gonna do away with the statute, but, but they just dropped the f- the fee to nothing. [1:39:56](https://vimeo.com/1174526818#t=5996s) But you still have to register one to possess one? [1:39:58](https://vimeo.com/1174526818#t=5998s) Yes, sir. [1:39:58](https://vimeo.com/1174526818#t=5998s) And, and if, as a matter of federal law? [1:40:01](https://vimeo.com/1174526818#t=6001s) Yes, sir. [1:40:01](https://vimeo.com/1174526818#t=6001s) Okay. So why... I, I, I'm just trying to understand. So why do we need to change state law if that's, if the current state law has not been changed but for the- [1:40:09](https://vimeo.com/1174526818#t=6009s) Because if the federal law changed, the National Firearms Act changed, it would make all our suppressors... Because we reference federal law in our statute. [1:40:18](https://vimeo.com/1174526818#t=6018s) But the federal law hasn't been changed to that extent. [1:40:20](https://vimeo.com/1174526818#t=6020s) It, it's, it may be. It may- [1:40:22](https://vimeo.com/1174526818#t=6022s) It could. Okay [1:40:22](https://vimeo.com/1174526818#t=6022s) ... it, it, that's right. And so we, we're just looking at, you know, and that's where, because initially the big beautiful bill was gonna strike it out. They, uh, and they didn't. They, they, they didn't strike it out, but that's where, you know, we, we both share a very adept, uh, district attorney that said, "Hey, I don't wanna have to prosecute somebody that's, that's legally obtained a, a suppressor. They, uh, make sure that, that, that you address this, the, uh, in the legislature." So he brought it to my attention, and I told him, I said, "Yeah, I, I can, I can work to, to pass that." [1:40:53](https://vimeo.com/1174526818#t=6053s) Okay. And, and I think we're still keeping it illegal to possess one during the commission of certain offenses. [1:41:01](https://vimeo.com/1174526818#t=6061s) Yes, sir. [1:41:01](https://vimeo.com/1174526818#t=6061s) In line 79 through 92, 93. [1:41:04](https://vimeo.com/1174526818#t=6064s) Oh, actually, yes. [1:41:06](https://vimeo.com/1174526818#t=6066s) Okay. [1:41:08](https://vimeo.com/1174526818#t=6068s) 98, 98, I think. [1:41:11](https://vimeo.com/1174526818#t=6071s) Well, I was looking at 79. It should be, "It's unlawful for any person to possess, use a machine gun, sawed-off rifle, sawed-off shotgun, or firearm equipped with a silencer," you kept silencer in and added, "or suppressor," um, and you didn't, you struck the reference to the definition 'cause you're now defining them in the statute, I'm assuming, "during the commission or the attempted commission within the following offenses," and you list them. That's on page four and up to the top of page five. [1:41:32](https://vimeo.com/1174526818#t=6092s) Yes, sir. [1:41:33](https://vimeo.com/1174526818#t=6093s) And then you may do it elsewhere, too. I just- [1:41:36](https://vimeo.com/1174526818#t=6096s) That's, that's where, in the, in the line 98, uh, 99 through 103 was struck, but- [1:41:41](https://vimeo.com/1174526818#t=6101s) Okay [1:41:41](https://vimeo.com/1174526818#t=6101s) ... but, you know. That's, that's where, uh, I was, I was proud that, uh, s- Senator Hatchett, the, uh, you know, made that amendment to the bill when it went through the Hou- the Senate committee. The, uh, and we were like, "Yeah, okay. We wanna make sure people understand. You use one of these things in the commission of a crime, y- you get an extra 10 years." [1:41:59](https://vimeo.com/1174526818#t=6119s) You still get, get sent... And then, uh, your amendment would make it illegal to possess the silencer if you're not allowed to possess a firearm regardless of whether or not you have the firearm or not. [1:42:11](https://vimeo.com/1174526818#t=6131s) That's correct. [1:42:12](https://vimeo.com/1174526818#t=6132s) Okay, just the possession. [1:42:13](https://vimeo.com/1174526818#t=6133s) So you, you got a suppressor in your pocket like you put a Snickers bar in your pocket, said they, "Uh, then, then we got a problem," said they, uh, they, they, they, if you're not able to, uh, obtain a firearm or own a firearm, guess what? You get the same criminal effect as o- having that firearm in, in your possession. [1:42:29](https://vimeo.com/1174526818#t=6149s) All right. Thank, thank you for your patience with me. I think I understand better now. [1:42:34](https://vimeo.com/1174526818#t=6154s) Okay. See no other questions. Uh, if y'all wanna slide over, gentlemen, uh, we will take some public comment. Ladies and gentlemen, if you're signed up on this, I will remind you we have a hard stop at 5:00, and if, uh, there should be any, uh, non-discriminating individuals who think they're gonna filibuster, uh, chairman wasn't born at night, or last night, just the night before. So, uh, let's go with Alex Dorr. [1:43:06](https://vimeo.com/1174526818#t=6186s) Come on down. [1:43:10](https://vimeo.com/1174526818#t=6190s) All right. [1:43:15](https://vimeo.com/1174526818#t=6195s) Thank y'all very much. I am Alex Dorr from Georgia Gun Owners. It's good to be back in front of this committee again two days in a row. We are in support of this bill, um, and the spirit of this bill. Uh, we do oppose, you know, saying that having an inanimate object makes you guilty of a crime in and of itself or, and as an enhancement. It's just as funny as saying that moccasins should be an enhancement if you're committing a crime. But I did hear a comment earlier that we don't know what an effect this is gonna have on crime, well, until we deregulate this. Somehow, um, trying to scare us, thinking that crime will rise because of this. [1:43:50](https://vimeo.com/1174526818#t=6230s) It's funny because I heard the same things in 2022 when we passed Senate Bill 319, constitutional carry. We were told that there would be blood in the streets, it'd be the Wild West, and crime would soar. But the FBI, here in Atlanta, just in August of last year, reported the crime reports from the year following the passage of constitutional carry. I love math. Georgia saw a 10 and a half percent drop in violent crime. Homicides fell by 16.8%, almost 17%. [1:44:23](https://vimeo.com/1174526818#t=6263s) and rapes dropped by 12.4%. Crime went down when we passed constitutional carry and gave people back their freedoms and their rights to carry a firearm without needing government permission. So to try and scare people in this committee to think that we're gonna have a problem if we remove suppressors from state code in preemption of when federal law gets overturned, God bless Clarence Thomas, and that is not going to make 277,000 criminals in Georgia overnight, me being one of them, a multiple, multiple time felon, um, if the, if the NFA gets repealed and we don't fix Georgia Code. [1:45:04](https://vimeo.com/1174526818#t=6304s) I'll have done nothing wrong, but I'll become a felon multiple times overnight. So we're in support of this bill, and we would, uh, the, urge the committee to pass it. [1:45:16](https://vimeo.com/1174526818#t=6316s) See no questions. Thank y'all. [1:45:17](https://vimeo.com/1174526818#t=6317s) Thank you. [1:45:18](https://vimeo.com/1174526818#t=6318s) Uh, next up I have Don Towers. [1:45:28](https://vimeo.com/1174526818#t=6328s) Good to have you with us again, Don. [1:45:31](https://vimeo.com/1174526818#t=6331s) Thank you, Mr. Chairman and members of the committee. Appreciate you allowing me to, uh, speak here just briefly. Uh, I do represent, uh, Georgia Second Amendment. Uh, I'm a board member, and, uh, we do, uh, endorse this bill. We would urge you to, uh, with the amendment. And thank you, Senator, for this bill. Uh, and, uh, as, as somebody who's been shooting for 50 years and 20 years in the mil- military, in the infantry, and a, and a firearms instructor, I probably have a little bit of hearing loss myself. So I, I appreciate, uh, the use of, uh, legal suppressors with, uh, legal gun owners, and, uh, I think they're very useful firearms a- accessories for noise abatement, adding, and added, uh, hearing protection. [1:46:12](https://vimeo.com/1174526818#t=6372s) And, uh, we think this is a really good bill. We'd encourage you to, uh, push this bill favorably forward. Thank you so much. [1:46:22](https://vimeo.com/1174526818#t=6382s) Don, looks like party Jackson got a question for you. Representative Panitch. [1:46:26](https://vimeo.com/1174526818#t=6386s) Hi. Good afternoon, everyone. [1:46:26](https://vimeo.com/1174526818#t=6386s) Hi. Hi. Good afternoon. [1:46:27](https://vimeo.com/1174526818#t=6387s) So my understanding is that... Well, I understand that, that it, your hearing can suffer from something that's so loud- [1:46:35](https://vimeo.com/1174526818#t=6395s) Mm-hmm [1:46:36](https://vimeo.com/1174526818#t=6396s) ... from a firearm. Does this, does the suppressor bring the decibel level down enough to not create harm? [1:46:44](https://vimeo.com/1174526818#t=6404s) Generally not. It'll bring it down a little bit. Um, generally, uh, you're looking at 25 to 40 decibel reduction, just depending on what caliber you're talking about. A 30-06 or a 308 Winchester, which is a high caliber round, is gonna have 150 to 170 decibel. Uh, you're gonna bring it down a little bit. You still need, even with suppressors, uh, some hearing protection- [1:47:06](https://vimeo.com/1174526818#t=6426s) Mm-hmm [1:47:06](https://vimeo.com/1174526818#t=6426s) ... pretty much. Um, so, uh, but it does abate the noise some. It does prevent neighbors from being disturbed with, uh, hunters go out in the, out in the woods, and so there is, uh, enough, enough reduction that it is a useful accessory. [1:47:20](https://vimeo.com/1174526818#t=6440s) Thank you. [1:47:20](https://vimeo.com/1174526818#t=6440s) You're welcome. [1:47:22](https://vimeo.com/1174526818#t=6442s) That's all the questions. Thank you for your time today. [1:47:24](https://vimeo.com/1174526818#t=6444s) Thank you, sir. [1:47:25](https://vimeo.com/1174526818#t=6445s) Okay. Uh, next up, Mike Mitchell. [1:47:28](https://vimeo.com/1174526818#t=6448s) Mr. Chairman, may I take Mike's place? [1:47:29](https://vimeo.com/1174526818#t=6449s) Come on down here. [1:47:31](https://vimeo.com/1174526818#t=6451s) They both have the same haircut. Mine's by design, his is by nature. [1:47:38](https://vimeo.com/1174526818#t=6458s) Come up. [1:47:41](https://vimeo.com/1174526818#t=6461s) Mr. Chairman, thank you, members of the committee, for hearing this bill. Uh, the sheriffs were originally opposed to this bill, and, and for fear that, uh, criminal actors would overuse suppressors. Uh, with the amendment that's been proposed, the sheriffs will move to the support side. Um, felons are presently not allowed to possess firearms in our state and other, other items, and, uh, this object of a silencer, uh, the mere possession, uh, should be, uh, construed as a felony and punishable there, you know, as a felony. [1:48:16](https://vimeo.com/1174526818#t=6496s) So with that amendment, the sheriffs will move to that position. [1:48:21](https://vimeo.com/1174526818#t=6501s) Okay. You got a question, uh, Representative Roberts? [1:48:24](https://vimeo.com/1174526818#t=6504s) Thank you, Mr. Chair. Um, I understand that the, what they're adding is positive, but do you see, if you're required to register a silencer under federal law anyway, we have a lot of state crimes, so wouldn't we also want to minimize the number of silencers from people who haven't gone and registered and had the background check and the fingerprinting? Um, there've been shoot- shooters in mass shootings that were, uh, tried to get a silencer and were denied them prior to it, and I've just seen a lot of reports that law enforcement has a hard time. [1:49:04](https://vimeo.com/1174526818#t=6544s) I understand it doesn't kill the sound. Everybody thinks we don't know what we're talking about here. I understand it, it doesn't kill it, but it makes it harder for you to figure out where a shooter is located. Is that accurate? [1:49:15](https://vimeo.com/1174526818#t=6555s) I think that is accurate. [1:49:16](https://vimeo.com/1174526818#t=6556s) Okay. [1:49:17](https://vimeo.com/1174526818#t=6557s) Um, however, any kind of registration for a silencer is, is not a state matter, uh, for us. Your, your point is well taken. However, we're, we're most concerned with, with the bill as it stands, and if w- we believe what's been said about the federal law and what's gonna happen there possibly. Um, but I do think that, uh, if we can have an additional state charge for felons in possession of silencers, it will make a big difference, uh, throughout, you know, I know the ranks of sheriffs and law enforcement in general. [1:49:47](https://vimeo.com/1174526818#t=6587s) We just don't have anything to charge them with at this point. We can charge them with felon possession of a firearm, but we can't charge them with felon possession of a silencer without this amendment. [1:49:57](https://vimeo.com/1174526818#t=6597s) But there is an enhanced penalty if they committed a crime with a silencer, correct? [1:50:00](https://vimeo.com/1174526818#t=6600s) But that's different. But that's different than just possessing the silencer by a felon. The other, uh, offenses in the bill do not contemplate whether you're a felon or not, I don't believe. They con- it contemplates using a silencer to commit these offenses. I may be wrong about that, but I believe I'm, I'm correct about that. [1:50:18](https://vimeo.com/1174526818#t=6618s) The current law is there's an enhanced penalty if you commit a crime and you use a silencer. [1:50:23](https://vimeo.com/1174526818#t=6623s) Under this bill [1:50:25](https://vimeo.com/1174526818#t=6625s) Yeah. No, I know, but I'm comparing current law to what we've got here. Current law is- [1:50:30](https://vimeo.com/1174526818#t=6630s) The silencer would, uh, my understanding wouldn't make a difference in that [1:50:33](https://vimeo.com/1174526818#t=6633s) There's an enhan- enhanced penalty under the current law if you use a silencer in the commission of a crime. [1:50:39](https://vimeo.com/1174526818#t=6639s) This deals directly with felons, though. That's all we're concerned about with our amendment. [1:50:44](https://vimeo.com/1174526818#t=6644s) Okay. [1:50:47](https://vimeo.com/1174526818#t=6647s) Okay. Item 13. Chairman. [1:50:51](https://vimeo.com/1174526818#t=6651s) Trying to take time, Mr. Chairman, real quickly. So my understanding is, based on looking at the bill, current law does render it illegal, regardless of your status as a felon or not, to possess or use a machine gun, et cetera, et cetera, equipped with a silencer or suppressor during the commission of certain crimes, and that doesn't... You don't have to be a felon for that, uh, it, uh, enhancement to, to kick in. [1:51:15](https://vimeo.com/1174526818#t=6675s) I agree with you. [1:51:16](https://vimeo.com/1174526818#t=6676s) You understand? Okay. And so we're... And I don't... As I read it, we're not really changing that in the bill. We're just moving some definitions around and changing the structure of that statute. The amendment would actually render the possession of a silencer alone by itself by a felon or someone who can't possess firearms to be illegal. [1:51:36](https://vimeo.com/1174526818#t=6696s) Correct. [1:51:36](https://vimeo.com/1174526818#t=6696s) And, and that's the, that's the change that makes, that brings you onto the support of the bill. [1:51:40](https://vimeo.com/1174526818#t=6700s) Yes, sir. [1:51:41](https://vimeo.com/1174526818#t=6701s) Okay. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. [1:51:44](https://vimeo.com/1174526818#t=6704s) Okay. Good job, Terry. You have no other questions. [1:51:48](https://vimeo.com/1174526818#t=6708s) Thank you. [1:51:48](https://vimeo.com/1174526818#t=6708s) All right. Last but not least, Knox, do you have anything you want to add? [1:51:54](https://vimeo.com/1174526818#t=6714s) I know you were just there as a phone-a-friend, so go ahead. [1:51:57](https://vimeo.com/1174526818#t=6717s) Well, thank y'all very much. Um, you know, in the interest of time, I'm, I'm obviously gonna condense what I say. Um, but a few things that I'd like to point out, um, suppressors are hearing protection devices, plain and simple. You can call them a muffler, a moderator, a suppressor, silencer, can. It really doesn't matter. At the end of the day, they're all terms to describe the same thing. Regardless of what you call them, nothing can make a gunshot silent. Guns are simply too loud. That's why the National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health, uh, references that suppressed gunshots are still as loud or louder than a jackhammer striking cement. [1:52:28](https://vimeo.com/1174526818#t=6748s) So the idea that a noise as loud as a jackhammer striking cement is somehow quiet, uh, and inaudible is, is just, you know, almost comical. Um, you know, the idea that, uh, suppressors are anything other than hearing protection devices, um, you know, as supported by the, the Centers for Disease Control, the National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health, the Academy of Doctors of Audiology, um, the American Academy of Otolaryngology-Head and Neck Surgery, um, all of these organizations recommend the use of suppressors, uh, as a hearing protection method. [1:52:58](https://vimeo.com/1174526818#t=6778s) What this bill is trying to do, plain and simply, is ensure that any future changes to federal law do not impact the ability of law-abiding Georgians to purchase and possess suppressors. That's it. Um, suppressors have been legal to own in this state, uh, for all of time. Um, in fact, there are over 270,000 in the state, uh, in Georgia. We just really wanna make sure that moving forward, law-abiding citizens have the ability to purchase and possess these items. [1:53:26](https://vimeo.com/1174526818#t=6806s) Thank you. [1:53:29](https://vimeo.com/1174526818#t=6809s) I see no questions. We're on standard days for, uh, a minute. [1:57:32](https://vimeo.com/1174526818#t=7052s) Okay. Uh, thank you for your patience. Ladies and gentlemen, I would like to invite you all to join us back here at 08:30, uh, tomorrow morning, Eastern Standard Time, for the continuation of judiciary non-civil. Senator, you can... You're more than welcome to join us tomorrow. Uh, we have concluded debate. If you want the last, uh, say so, you can. I don't think it's gonna, uh, affect too much, but you're more than welcome to join us at 08:30. [1:58:05](https://vimeo.com/1174526818#t=7085s) I would be remiss if I didn't, uh, uh, recognize Judge Barry Fleming. Uh, you know, I thought we had quorum for a minute and remembered you're on the bench now, uh, Judge. So- Thank you. We, we would love to. And, uh, Judge Ni- or Judge Cott, good to have you with us. What's your circuit again, Judge? White Cross Circuit. That's a great circuit down there. Is that what it is? Uh, we, we may have to come down there and see you also. Yes, sir. We're at the Four Seasons right now. I understood. [1:58:36](https://vimeo.com/1174526818#t=7116s) I understood. Well, uh, with that, ladies and gentlemen, we are adjourned. Would it [1:59:02](https://vimeo.com/1174526818#t=7142s) help if you-