Wildlife bill introduced

lampern

Senior Member
HB 998. By Representatives Rhodes of the 120th, Buckner of the 137th, Corbett of the 174th, McCall of the 33rd, and Tarvin of the 2nd: A BILL to be entitled an Act to amend Title 27 of the O.C.G.A., relating to game and fish, so as to change the effective date of rules and regulations promulgated by the Board of Natural Resources; to revise the implied consent warning for hunting under the influence; to amend Code Section 52-7-12.5 of the O.C.G.A., relating to ordering drug, alcohol, or other substance tests and implied consent notice relative to operation of watercraft, so as to revise the implied consent warning; to amend Article 3 of Chapter 3 of Title 50 of the O.C.G.A., relating to other state symbols, so as to designate the shoal bass as the official Georgia state riverine sport fish; to provide for legislative findings; to provide for related matters; to repeal conflicting laws; and for other purposes. Referred to the Committee on GAME, FISH, & PARKS

http://www.legis.ga.gov/Legislation/en-US/display/20192020/HB/998
 

Milkman

Deer Farmer Moderator
Staff member
Paging anyone with a law degree to interpret this.

Where is twenty five ought six when we need him??
 

Throwback

Chief Big Taw
It’s a bill to adjust the BUI/HUI law because of court cases in reference to implied consent
 

Throwback

Chief Big Taw
They want to make it mandatory for you to give blood or urine if the GW think you are hunting drunk or high.
Also want to make the Shoal Bass some kind of state fish.
That’s my quick read.

Reread it
It literally changes one word to do the exact opposite
 

Milkman

Deer Farmer Moderator
Staff member
Naaaa. T done come in with the scoop
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Lilly001

Senior Member
Reread it
It literally changes one word to do the exact opposite
So it changes the wording to now allow the use of refusal in court?
I know that the courts look at nuances that we don’t consider, but sometimes it just looks like busy body meddling.
 

Throwback

Chief Big Taw
So it changes the wording to now allow the use of refusal in court?
I know that the courts look at nuances that we don’t consider, but sometimes it just looks like busy body meddling.

When it comes to law sometimes the meaning of “is” really does matter
 

ryanh487

Senior Member
The GA supreme court already ruled that "implied consent" is in violation of 4th and 5th amendment rights. They cannot charge you for refusing the test and they cannot test without consent or a warrant. They are required to secure a warrant if you do not consent and if a warrant is unable to be secured, then no testing will be admissable in court for your prosecution. GA has been sued on this issue already and has still not removed implied consent laws from the books.

https://law.justia.com/cases/georgia/supreme-court/2015/s14a1625.html
 

bfriendly

Bigfoot friendly
So I should say no to the test:huh:
 
Top