Nathan Deal to veto Georgia’s ‘campus carry’ legislation (high crime, college)

[primaltech]

Originally Posted by Patriot777

Of course the pathetic beta liberal resorts to personal attacks when he has no argument. If you don't like this country or its laws, move.

I do like this country, and its laws. Quit trying to make stupid ones.

Or, you should just move to one of the Muslim countries, where it's already a theocracy, and they already execute the liberals, and they already hand out assault rifles to everyone, and walk around with them everywhere. You'd love it over there.

[Newsboy]

Originally Posted by primaltech

My God, you are astoundingly a moron.

He's not implementing any gun control, first of all. No change to anything is happening, here. In fact, that's the point.

Secondly, exactly 0% of people who decide to shoot up a school, ever make it out of there alive. So what part of no chance of survival or escaping capture = "safe"?

Brilliant. Well said.

[mcwali2009]

Originally Posted by primaltech

Exactly. Crime is about the element of surprise, which inherently nullifies the victim's defenses or weapons.

Agree and since some students will be paranoid the'll end up shooting/hurting their fellow students.Alot of them just dont relize more guns is not the answer MORE cameras,police and security is a BETTER solution.Of course police arent their all the time but remeber the criminals target AREAS were their is LITTLE to NO police presence.Granted if more officers are presence and the students are alert more often it will decrease crime on campus by 99%.Giving a student a gun just makes the criminal even more dangerous because they KNOW your armed,so they will feel threatened.And rather then them robbing you,they are now trying to kill you,is it worth it?If we can train the students to walk in groups,be alert and avoid looking like a easy target then crime will decrease,but arming the student is not the solution all it does is create a blood bath or war zone.

[skbl17]

Originally Posted by MattCW

Time to impeach this "bad deal" clown! The people spoke loud and clear and he ignored them AGAIN! Enough's enough.

You'd have to convince the House to vote to impeach him, and two-thirds of the state Senate to move to convict him. There aren't enough Republicans in the state Senate to get the latter done.

If I wanted to get Deal out of office, I would try to initiate a recall election, which is authorized by the state constitution (Article II, Section II, Paragraph IV). However, the state constitution only authorizes the General Assembly to provide for a recall mechanism; the constitution itself is silent on how a recall election should be conducted.

Title 21 of the OCGA outlines how recalls are conducted.

Originally Posted by § 21-4-4

(a) Every public official who holds elective office, either by election or by appointment, is subject to recall from office by electors who are registered and qualified to vote in the recall election and who reside in the electoral district from which candidates are elected to that office:

(1) In the case of a state officer whose electoral district encompasses the entire state, the number of electors necessary to petition the recall of the officer shall be equal to at least 15 percent of the number of electors who were registered and qualified to vote at the last preceding election for any candidate offering for the office held by the officer. At least one-fifteenth of the number of electors necessary to petition the recall of the officer must reside in each of the United States congressional districts in the state as said congressional districts may now or hereafter exist; or

(2) In the case of a state officer whose electoral district encompasses only a part of the state or in the case of a local officer, the number of electors necessary to petition the recall of the officer shall be equal to at least 30 percent of the number of electors registered and qualified to vote at the last preceding election for any candidate offering for the office held by the officer.

(b) No recall petition shall demand the recall of more than one public official.

(c) Every public official who holds elective office, either by election or by appointment, is subject to recall on the grounds that such public official has, while holding any public office, conducted himself or herself in a manner which relates to and adversely affects the administration of his or her current office and adversely affects the rights and interests of the public if one or more additional grounds for recall exist as set forth in subparagraph (B) of paragraph (7) of Code Section 21-4-3.

As Gov. Deal is an executive officer elected statewide, you'd need to get 15% of registered voters to sign on to a recall petition. In November 2014, there were 5,191,182 registered voters in Georgia; using those numbers, you'd need 778,678 voters to sign on. I'm sure there are more than 778,678 voters angry with Gov. Deal.

That said, opponents of a recall effort could stall it in court by arguing over whether Gov. Deal's veto of a bill constitutes legal grounds for a recall, as outlined in OCGA § 21-4-3:

Originally Posted by § 21-4-3

(7) "Grounds for recall" means:

(A) That the official has, while holding public office, conducted himself or herself in a manner which relates to and adversely affects the administration of his or her office and adversely affects the rights and interests of the public; and

(B) That the official:

(i) Has committed an act or acts of malfeasance while in office;

(ii) Has violated his or her oath of office;

(iii) Has committed an act of misconduct in office;

(iv) Is guilty of a failure to perform duties prescribed by law; or

(v) Has willfully misused, converted, or misappropriated, without authority, public property or public funds entrusted to or associated with the elective office to which the official has been elected or appointed.

Discretionary performance of a lawful act or a prescribed duty shall not constitute a ground for recall of an elected public official.

(7.1) "Legal sufficiency" means, solely as applied to the duties or functions of the election superintendent, a determination of the completeness of an application for a recall petition or a recall petition and a determination that an application for a recall petition or a recall petition contains a sufficient number of valid signatures. Such determinations shall not include any review of the sufficiency of the ground or grounds for the recall and the fact or facts upon which such ground or grounds are based.

(8) "Misconduct in office" means an unlawful act committed willfully by an elected public official or a willful violation of the code of ethics for government service contained in Code Section 45-10-1.

(9) "Official sponsors" or "sponsors" means the electors who circulate or file an application for a recall petition who were registered and eligible to vote in the last general or special election for the office held by the officer sought to be recalled and who reside in the electoral district of the officer sought to be recalled.

A veto likely falls under the bolded section, which would not be grounds for a recall.

Finally, getting a recall effort off the ground takes time, especially if the effort gets tied up in court. By the time a recall election can be held, it will probably be November 2018 - the time when Georgia elects a new governor to replace the term-limited Gov. Deal.

- skbl17

[Patriot777]

Well, whatever needs to be done, he needs to be replaced. Can't have someone who tries to strip rights away from the American public.

[someguyfrommarsonearth]

Originally Posted by Patriot777

Well, whatever needs to be done, he needs to be replaced. Can't have someone who tries to strip rights away from the American public.

He didnt strip the rights away,ALL his doing is banning fire arms on school grounds.And the majority of the people voted to ban fire arms on campus.Good job Deal

[wasel]

Stripping away the hysteria from both sides of the debate, I can see both arguments. I get that people worry about the likelihood of some emo-angst ridden 20-something blowing his brains out and taking his roommates or his professor with him. I also get that people see weaponry as their only self defense against the crazies who want to blow everyone away. (Because police will likely be called only after someone is alerted by the initial gunfire.)

My personal opinion is that both of these scenarios are extreme outliers compared to the population. I personally don't worry about ordinary citizens being armed. And if someone who means harm wants to bring a gun on campus they will do it regardless of the law.

However, the truth is, taking the "moral question" out of it, this legislation was a complete waste of time -- and caused a PR debacle for the state -- because even if it passed it would have done absolutely nothing that it intended to do. The legislation stated that only people 21 years and older who had a weapons license could carry, and only in certain places (for instance, NOT inside dorms or sororities/fraternities or athletic events). So if the pro-gun lobby was seeking the rights of all students to protect themselves, this wouldn't have been accomplished anyway since most students aren't 21 and wouldn't have had protection in the very place they feel vulnerable -- their own dwelling. Right there they would have only been giving "rights" to a minority of people vs the majority.

The other thing that keeps coming to my mind: If football coaches are granted the protection of armed officers at games, then professors and faculty should be granted the same privilege and protection. Why are football coaches any more vulnerable than faculty members who are dealing with kids paranoid about getting a bad grade? If we are protecting coaches with armed guards, what are we protecting them from -- and wouldn't the same threat hold true for all members of campus? I say either let faculty members carry, or station armed officers outside their doors. OR stop the protection of football coaches.

[wasel]

Originally Posted by rcsteiner

Mass killings are more related to the media and certain types of social friction in this country, and I don't see putting guns in the hands of everyone solving that issue, but I don't see them stopping until this country allows federal agencies like the CDC and various law enforcement agencies to aggregate and analyze data about the perps of such killings. If we don't know causal patterns, it's much harder to deal with the core issues.

I'm not familiar with this -- you're saying the federal government prohibits collecting this data? Please elaborate.

[JoeP]

Yes, the CDC can't evaluate guns. That's how ridiculous things have become.

[rcsteiner]

Originally Posted by wasel

I'm not familiar with this -- you're saying the federal government prohibits collecting this data? Please elaborate.

I have gotten the impression in other online discussions that the CDC has been explicitly banned from involvement in the issue:

Forbes - Congress Still Bans CDC Scientists From Studying Gun Violence

Smithsonian - Why So Few Scientists Are Studying the Causes of Gun Violence

Huffington Post - Why The Ban On Gun Violence Research Is A Public Health Issue

and while there are some statistics from the FBI and other agencies, there doesn't appear to be much information linking mass killings with various causal factors.