There is indeed a canon of interpretation which upholds a prior specific rule over a later in time general rule which does not specifically repeal the earlier one, and isn't directly conflicting. In that case, the general rule will be read if possible to avoid the earlier rule. Legislatures need to explicitly repeal something if it could be an issue.

See the section in the following CRS report titled "Repeals by implication": http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/97-589.pdf

Edit: Foiled again!