To answer the parliamentary secretary, I'm sorry if I misspoke, but that's not what I meant. What I meant was that.... Well, it proves my point actually: why would we codify something that's already in the code? Exactly. Why would we add a new immunity that's already in the code?
If section 25 is already codified and if subsections 487.014(1) and (2) are already codified, then why would we need to codify a new immunity if there's already an immunity in the code? That's what I meant.
Also, if sections 25 and 487.014 save a certain jurisprudence, then the parliamentary secretary would agree with me that if jurisprudence exists and the fact that the courts already apply the reasonable grounds criteria in their judgments, then why not codify it to make it law?
He proves my two points, that if there's already an immunity codified, then why do we need to codify a new one, and if so, why not codify a criteria that is already applied in the courts? Both of my arguments were made by the parliamentary secretary.
Thank you.