Malphurs v. the State
336 Ga. App. 867
Ga. Ct. App.2016Background
- On Oct. 10, 2014, Malphurs’ luggage screened at Hartsfield‑Jackson airport TSA checkpoint revealed a handgun; a police officer confirmed the weapon. Malphurs did not hold a weapons carry license.
- He was indicted on five counts: two counts under OCGA § 16‑11‑127 (carrying a weapon in an unauthorized location/government building), carrying a concealed weapon (OCGA § 16‑11‑126), reckless conduct, and carrying a weapon at a commercial airport (OCGA § 16‑11‑130.2).
- The trial court sustained a demurrer as to Count 1 (weapon in TSA checkpoint) but denied the general demurrer as to Count 2 (weapon carried into the airport/government building).
- Malphurs appealed the denial of the demurrer to Count 2, arguing § 16‑11‑130.2 (which requires knowing possession to prohibit entering the screening area) is the more specific statute and therefore preempts § 16‑11‑127 as applied to airports.
- The Court of Appeals reviewed de novo whether the indictment’s allegations were legally sufficient and whether the statutes conflict as applied.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Malphurs) | Defendant's Argument (State) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether § 16‑11‑130.2 conflicts with § 16‑11‑127 so that only § 16‑11‑130.2 applies to weapons at airports | § 16‑11‑130.2 is the specific airport statute and requires knowing possession, so it should control and preclude prosecution under § 16‑11‑127 | Both statutes can be harmonized; § 16‑11‑127 prohibits carrying by nonlicensees in government buildings while § 16‑11‑130.2 regulates entering the restricted screening area | No conflict; both apply. § 16‑11‑127 covers carrying into the airport generally; § 16‑11‑130.2 governs possession in the restricted screening area |
| Whether § 16‑11‑130.2’s carve‑out creates a general right to carry in non‑secure airport areas for nonlicensees | The legislative intent was to relax airport gun laws and protect carriers generally, so nonsecure areas should be treated as permissible | The carve‑out merely limits the scope of § 16‑11‑130.2’s prohibition; it does not create new affirmative rights for nonlicensees | Court rejects rights‑creating interpretation; carve‑out does not override other statutes that prohibit nonlicensee carriage in government buildings |
| Whether legislative history (op‑eds, law‑review article quoting legislators) can be used to interpret the statutes | Malphurs relies on quoted statements suggesting legislative intent to relax airport rules | State also cites the same secondary materials to support its view | Court declines to rely on that kind of legislative history; interpretation is governed by statutory text and context |
| Whether permitting both statutes leads to absurd expansion of other prohibitions (e.g., § 16‑11‑126) | Malphurs argues reading carve‑out as rights‑creating would expand nonlicensee carriage locations across statutes | State argues statutes should be read together to avoid creating unintended rights | Court agrees with State: statutes harmonized; does not create a new sanctuary for nonlicensees in nonsecure airport areas |
Key Cases Cited
- Sallee v. State, 329 Ga. App. 612 (court reviews demurrer de novo and sufficiency of indictment)
- Fulton Cnty. v. Corp. of Presiding Bishop of Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints, 133 Ga. App. 847 (statutes should be construed together to give full effect to legislative intent)
- Walters v. State, 335 Ga. App. 12 (limit reliance on subjective legislative statements; focus on statutory text)
- Rutter v. Rutter, 316 Ga. App. 894 (discusses appropriate sources of legislative history)
- Merritt v. State, 286 Ga. 650 (concurrent/special opinions on legislative history and statutory interpretation)
- Day v. Floyd County Bd. of Educ., 333 Ga. App. 144 (concurrent/special opinions on statutory interpretation)
- Keaton v. State, 311 Ga. App. 14 (concurrent/dissenting opinions relevant to reliance on legislative statements)
- Jones v. State, 241 Ga. App. 768 (court will exercise discretion to address arguments despite briefing defects)