Federal Appeals Court Rules: Lawmaker Did Not Understand His Own Law?

Yes, you read the title correct. In the following piece and the article it comes from a federal appeals court upheld the dismissal of a law suit based mainly on the grounds that the intent of the law was not fully understood. Surprisingly one of the plaintiffs that wanted to law upheld was the lawmaker who wrote the law himself!?

"News outlets across the country are reporting that a federal appeals court in Atlanta yesterday upheld the dismissal of a lawsuit that sought to stop the City of Atlanta from arresting people carrying firearms in the unsecured areas of Atlanta’s airport...The basis for the judges’ decision is a determination that the new law was not intended to include airports. Ironically, Georgia General Assembly Representative Tim Bearden (R-68), who wrote the new law, is also the plaintiff who filed the lawsuit to enforce it. It is a rare event for the author of a law to be a party arguing in court over what the law means, and it is extremely rare for the court to conclude that the law meant something completely different from what its writer intended...Rep. Bearden still showed visible signs of frustration with the court’s decision. "We write the laws, not judges,". [link]

Sounds to me like another good case for: