Good thing Georgia passed that new gun law (school, exemption)

[Sunny_Isles]

I'm far from a right-wing extremist, but I take offense to people labeling all Georgians as idiots. By the way, not every gun owner is right-wing. I'll also defend the right to desecrate the U.S. flag, not that I have a desire to do it myself.

[cwkimbro]

Originally Posted by Sunny_Isles

I'm far from a right-wing extremist, but I take offense to people labeling all Georgians as idiots. By the way, not every gun owner is right-wing. I'll also defend the right to desecrate the U.S. flag, not that I have a desire to do it myself.

Fair enough, but no one has labeled all Georgians idiots.

Originally Posted by Sunny_Isles

# 1 & 2 Did you even read my post critically? Yes, it's called open carry, which is already legal in Georgia. He was in a parking lot and a public park, both of which are places one can already open carry in Georgia. I said that the new law had nothing to do with the article posted, which was about a man open carrying. So, what's your point with your #1 & 2?

You're getting yourself mixed up with the open carry vs concealed carry. I know this becomes more important in other states.

This law changed the previous exemptions for both. Open carry still had to abide by the same exceptions in the law, like bars and churches. It wasn't just concealed previously.

Go read the entirety of the law. Georgia does not do much to differentiate where you can open carry vs conceal carry. I think you have let yourself get mixed up from bad information. The parts of the law they changed apply to both.

#4 wasn't an analogy. It was a weak argument from an extremely defensive point of view that mostly likely even the most ardant supporters of pro-gun rights in this state would probably shake their heads at for having nothing to do with the subject.

The other thing is keep in mind there was one good point form the guy from Wisconsin... the more people behave that way with a gun, the more people will want to control them. There are some idiots out there. There is a reason to craft careful gun controls.

[Born 2 Roll]

Some quick points about the provision of the new gun law that involves allowing guns in bars and churches.

Those provisions in the law of course were not explained very-well (if at all) to public, but from what I understand (I may be wrong), those provisions were crafted into the law mainly to allow bars and churches to have armed guards and to arm their employees if they so desire.

That's because under current law, from what I understand, bars and churches are not allowed to arm their employees if they so desire. That's also because many people already illegally carry weapons into unsecured bars (bars without metal detectors, etc) and even churches.

With bars, the new gun law allows smaller bars that may not necessarily be able to afford higher levels of security to arm their employees and bouncers if they so desire.

With churches, the new gun law repeals prohibitions against guns in churches that were supposedly put in place during the Jim Crow era of lawful discrimination against blacks expressly to keep blacks from arming themselves in church against the violent government-sanctioned white supremacist terrorist groups of the time (the KKK and the like).

With government buildings, the intent of the new gun is to supposedly allow government employees with permits to possess firearms in unsecured buildings (buildings without security and metal detectors, etc) if a government body so chooses to do so.

Also, with the provision of the new gun law that prohibits law enforcement from detaining someone just to check if they have a gun permit, law enforcement can still detain someone with a gun if they are deemed to be acting suspicious. Though the law does seem to leave law enforcement agencies and local governments more vulnerable to litigation if permitted firearms carrier claims that a law enforcement officer (a LEO) detained them for no other reason but to check the status of their firearms permit.

[cwkimbro]

Originally Posted by Born 2 Roll

Some quick points about the provision of the new gun law that involves allowing guns in bars and churches.

Those provisions in the law of course were not explained very-well (if at all) to public, but from what I understand (I may be wrong), those provisions were crafted into the law mainly to allow bars and churches to have armed guards and to arm their employees if they so desire.

That's because under current law, from what I understand, bars and churches are not allowed to arm their employees if they so desire. That's also because many people already illegally carry weapons into unsecured bars (bars without metal detectors, etc) and even churches.

With bars, the new gun law allows smaller bars that may not necessarily be able to afford higher levels of security to arm their employees and bouncers if they so desire.

With churches, the new gun law repeals prohibitions against guns in churches that were supposedly put in place during the Jim Crow era of lawful discrimination against blacks expressly to keep blacks from arming themselves in church against the violent government-sanctioned white supremacist terrorist groups of the time (the KKK and the like).

With government buildings, the intent of the new gun is to supposedly allow government employees with permits to possess firearms in unsecured buildings (buildings without security and metal detectors, etc) if a government body so chooses to do so.

Also, with the provision of the new gun law that prohibits law enforcement from detaining someone just to check if they have a gun permit, law enforcement can still detain someone with a gun if they are deemed to be acting suspicious. Though the law does seem to leave law enforcement agencies and local governments more vulnerable to litigation if permitted firearms carrier claims that a law enforcement officer (a LEO) detained them for no other reason but to check the status of their firearms permit.

not exactly.

The provision they are removing on bars was on a list of exceptions on allowing weapons. It stated "(6) In a bar, unless the owner of the bar permits the carrying of weapons or long guns by license holders."

So previously guns were allowed if permitted.

With this provision removed a bar owner can still ask a weapons carrier to leave, but not having a weapon and seeking permission is no longer the default. If a weapon is concealed and the bar operator wants a weapons free environment they can't legally make that happen. They can't just post a sign. They have to ask individual people to leave. Under the old system the burden was on getting permission or the bar publicly giving permission to carrying, so if they wanted armed security before... they could make this happen.

Perhaps this portion of the law change wouldn't be as big of a deal, if a business or private property owner could simply post a new firearms symbol/sign at the entrance. Right now they can, but its only enforceable if you have been asked to leave individually. A sign is really only suggestive. There are responsible pro-gun rights groups that ask their members to obey such signs in respect, but it isn't the law.

Although, in most situations bar security doesn't need weapons as much as muscle.

Now the provision on places of worship -IS- different. They made it more like the old bar provision. The old law state "(4) In a place of worship"... that's it no exception. The new law states "(4) In a place of worship, unless the governing body or authority of the place of worship permits the carrying of weapons or long guns by license holder."

Under this change, the law is now like the old bar provision. The default is no guns in place of worship, unless it has been permitted. The default is no-carry... not being asked to leave after the fact.

HB*60*2013-2014 Regular Session

This links shows HB60 with the original law written out with changes. Crossed out parts are removed from the old law, underlined parts are added.

[AnsleyPark]

What a bunch of nut jobs running this state...

[ellie]

Originally Posted by Sunny_Isles

I'm far from a right-wing extremist, but I take offense to people labeling all Georgians as idiots. By the way, not every gun owner is right-wing. I'll also defend the right to desecrate the U.S. flag, not that I have a desire to do it myself.

Let's just accept that most Georgians are idiots or this wouldn't have happened.

Though the idea of lugging a big old shotgun to church or a bar is comically appealing, we're not paranoid enough to think we need one EXCEPT to protect ourselves from the these hero wannabes hiding their silly handguns down their pants in case trouble breaks out in Wally World. (We need advanced training in duck and cover, if nothing else.)

This bunch of fearful, paleface "Christians" is playing with fire because they've succumbed to FOX News' brainwashing tactics. Lord help us all!

[Bideshi]

Originally Posted by Sunny_Isles

You know, not just appeal to emotion, which is what all of those articles on that site you've linked to do.

Conservatives reason. Liberals emote.

[AnsleyPark]

Originally Posted by Brian_M

So, all the safeguards and protections to Get a license would still make those who have done heinous acts ineligible to have a license. They are still going to illegal carry, and commit other illegal acts.

This is about the worst argument in favor of liberal carry laws that folks can make. I have no doubt that many more spur of the moment shootings would have occurred had there always been liberal carry laws.

[AnsleyPark]

Originally Posted by Bideshi

Conservatives reason. Liberals emote.

Which are you???

[MattCW]

Originally Posted by cwkimbro

*SNIP*

One thing I don't like about this law in particular involves government buildings. Government buildings are allowed to be firearm free places, but they have to set up security screening points to turn people away from guns. I assume this is because enough people carrying can't read a sign (?).

The issue here is why can't a local government simply be allowed to choose locally whether it is allowed or not, like before. Why can't a properly placed sign at all entrances be sufficient, compared to operating a security screening point at all entrances? What they are really doing is driving up the costs of screening in most government buildings, so much it won't be done in most places... but can in larger facilities. The whole thing seems silly to me.

In the places that don't have checkpoints, what is keeping guns out of there now? Will someone with intent to shoot up a government build suddenly stop because there's a strongly-worded sign at the door? The only thing those signs do is provide an extra (misdemeanor?) charge to tack onto the shooter if they live.

Lastly and more concerning, is this law actually prevents officers from asking someone openly carrying a gun to see their weapons license. They can ask to see your driver's license any time, just not the weapons license. It actually removes the provision that you must have your license on you if you are carrying. If you're carrying legally it takes 5 seconds for a cop to ask and you to show it. No big deal.

The reason that is concerning to me is the whole purpose of licensing is to prevent certain people from having access to firearms. There are real reasons to prevent people who break laws, are violent, have mental disorders, etc.. from carrying weapons. However, the licensing process doesn't do anything if local law enforcement can't enforce it. There are other provisions in this law that would dilute enforcement of licensing for practical common sense reasons.

No, they can't ask to see your driver's license any time. They have to make a traffic stop with reasonable suspicion to (ignore Rehnquist's 1990 ruling, he was supposedly a judge, not a one-man Constitutional Convention) stop someone. Since carrying a gun isn't a crime, nor by itself suspicion of criminal activity, why should someone exercising their 2nd amendment rights be able to be randomly stopped? Photographers have enough of a problem because somehow since September 11th, 2001 (I refuse to use the term "9/11") photography has somehow become "suspicious" yet the Supreme Court (when actually functioning as such) as ruled that it is a first amendment-protected activity. Where's the difference?