Good thing Georgia passed that new gun law (Ila: 2014, fingerprinting)
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
The article you mentioned is about a crazed man engaged in open carry, which has absolutely nothing to do with the new concealed carry laws recently passed in Georgia. You'd know that if you made the effort to read the law, but it's a little long and probably too confusing to you as it involves more than the CC issue, and you'd have to understand some other issues. You know, not just appeal to emotion, which is what all of those articles on that site you've linked to do. By the way, the new law does not allow children to take guns to school, as many people have hysterically assumed. It really puts in some new safety laws while allowing for people who might already be in danger or find themselves in danger in the future by non-law-abiding citizen who are already carrying concealed weapons to carry them legally for protection. It's a ridiculous assumption that we will all suddenly say, "Woohoo, I'm gonna start carryin' me a gun wherever I go, especially them bars and churches." Note that the law has been left open to the individual property owners.
Just the facts here:
Today, Governor Nathan Deal (R) signed into law House Bill 60 , the most comprehensive pro-gun legislation in state history. HB 60 passed in the Georgia Senate by a 37-18 vote on March 18 and in the state House of Representatives by a 112-58 vote on March 20. HB 60 will take effect on July 1, 2014.
HB 60 enacts the following pro-gun reforms for all law-abiding gun owners in Georgia:
Removes fingerprinting for renewal of Weapons Carry Licenses (WCL).
Prohibits the state from creating and maintaining a database of WCL holders.
Creates an absolute defense for the legal use of deadly force in the face of a violent attack.
Lowers the age to obtain a concealed WCL for self-defense from 21 to 18 for active duty military, with specific training.
Allows for the use of firearm sound suppressors while hunting.
Repeals the unnecessary and duplicative state-required license for a firearms dealer, instead requiring only a Federal Firearms License (FFL).
Prohibits a ban on firearms in public housing, ensuring that the right to self-defense should not be infringed based on where one calls home.
Codifies the ability to legally carry, with a WCL, in sterile/non-secure areas of airports.
Requires reporting of those persons who have been involuntarily hospitalized or have been adjudicated mentally deficient to the NICS system while also providing the ability for relief through an application process to the court system allowing for restoration of gun rights.
Protects the Second Amendment rights of all law-abiding gun owners from being restricted or infringed by executive authority under a declared state of emergency.
Strengthens current firearms preemption statutes through further clarification of the regulatory authority of local governments, excluding firearm discharge ordinances.
Removes the sweeping restrictions on legally carrying a firearm with a WCL in bars, leaving this decision to private property owners.
Allows for churches to opt-in for legal carry with only a civil penalty of a $100 if a person happens to carry into a prohibited church unknowingly.
P.S. Now that I see that you're from Wisconsin I understand your concern with CC in bars given that your state has some of the highest arrest records in the country for drugs and alcohol, especially the colleges. And I did not just find that out after writing my post. I found it out when my husband interviewed for a job up there. If these laws have recently changed then please post the facts. What I found is that at the universities there are still some of the highest arrests in the country.
From The New York Times (excerpt; emphasis mine):
EDGERTON, Wis. — When a 15-year-old comes into Wile-e’s bar looking for a cold beer, the bartender, Mike Whaley, is happy to serve it up — as long as a parent is there to give permission.
Andy Manis for The New York Times
Mixing a shot at Wile-e's Bar.
“If they’re 15, 16, 17, it’s fine if they want to sit down and have a few beers,” said Mr. Whaley, who owns the tavern in this small town in southern Wisconsin.
While it might raise some eyebrows in most of America, it is perfectly legal in Wisconsin. Minors can drink alcohol in a bar or restaurant in Wisconsin if they are accompanied by a parent or legal guardian who gives consent. While there is no state law setting a minimum age, bartenders can use their discretion in deciding whom to serve.
When it comes to drinking, it seems, no state keeps pace with Wisconsin. This state, long famous for its breweries, has led the nation in binge drinking in every year since the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention began its surveys on the problem more than a decade ago. Binge drinking is defined as five drinks in a sitting for a man, four for a woman.
People in Wisconsin are more likely than anywhere else to drive drunk, according to the National Survey on Drug Use and Health. The state has among the highest incidence of drunken driving deaths in the United States.
1) Georgia allows open carry with the license. This includes the changes in the places excluded by law.
2) If the gun is loaded then open carry is the law. You can't conceal a loaded weapon in Georgia.
3) Most people against this (or well to some extent those for it too) don't really carry about open vs concealed. That is a non-issue to most. We don't want to encourage people to carry weapons into places where they are more likely to have a lapse of judgement or more likely to hurt a child.
Bars - drinking and lapse of judgement
gov't buildings - heated debate over court cases, civic debates, etc...
school - extra layer of protection allowing law enforcement and school administrators to spot threats to children earlier and to prevent kids who might have a lapse of judgment and make rash decisions in schools if they have the ability to take a firearm off someone else legally carrying (ie. school faculty).
4) Alcohol laws in Wisconsin have NOTHING to do with laws in Georgia, especially over firearms in Georgia.
5) That off-topic rant really does more to make you and your argument look bad, than it does to provide any good argument over laws in Georgia about firearms
6) I find it funny you taunt someone about reading and being confused over something so long, when you were actually wrong. Something tells me there is a parallel in the lack of maturity of that decision and actually taking the time to understand things as well.
Anyways for other more serious posters aside
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.
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.
2) If the gun is loaded then open carry is the law. You can't conceal a loaded weapon in Georgia.
3) Most people against this (or well to some extent those for it too) don't really carry about open vs concealed. That is a non-issue to most. We don't want to encourage people to carry weapons into places where they are more likely to have a lapse of judgement or more likely to hurt a child.
Bars - drinking and lapse of judgement
gov't buildings - heated debate over court cases, civic debates, etc...
school - extra layer of protection allowing law enforcement and school administrators to spot threats to children earlier and to prevent kids who might have a lapse of judgment and make rash decisions in schools if they have the ability to take a firearm off someone else legally carrying (ie. school faculty).
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.
Um, check your facts.. #2 is as wrong as the summer solstice day is long (speaking as a GWL holder, and a certified instructor who has previously taught CCW permit classes)
The people who are in #3 are biased and/or nothing thinking things through. Just because I'm in a bar doesn't mean I'm drinking or drinking to the point of making poor decisions (those days have been over for nearly 2 decades for me). Same story for Gov. facilities and schools (and we've seen LOTS of proof that Faster armed response can/would save children's lives). The rail fail point is that these anti-folks don't understand that law abiding folks, you know, the ones who actually have a GWL, want to remain law abiding. Criminals don't give one care in the world about breaking a law, Any law... which is why there have been school shootings in the first place. It's certainly not because those with GWL (or any state conceal permit holder) are going onto school grounds and opening fire.
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.
As for the open carry, the response is dictated by the LEO and that was added to the bill BECAUSE of abusive LEO behavior. Trust me, when a LEO approaches correctly even the most staunch of personal rights activists will gladly show their permit (or provide other reasonable assurances). But the whole mentality of "you open carry, assume breaking law" is just wrong from the get-go.
It's a polarized topic and without in-depth knowledge of Why each provision was included (which means probably 20~30 hours of back-reading after finding the right places to get that info) it's hard to have much of a debate. But if you Really have issue, then it's organizing a campaign to have the law changed because that is the last word on the topic.
Um, check your facts.. #2 is as wrong as the summer solstice day is long (speaking as a GWL holder, and a certified instructor who has previously taught CCW permit classes)
The people who are in #3 are biased and/or nothing thinking things through. Just because I'm in a bar doesn't mean I'm drinking or drinking to the point of making poor decisions (those days have been over for nearly 2 decades for me). Same story for Gov. facilities and schools (and we've seen LOTS of proof that Faster armed response can/would save children's lives). The rail fail point is that these anti-folks don't understand that law abiding folks, you know, the ones who actually have a GWL, want to remain law abiding. Criminals don't give one care in the world about breaking a law, Any law... which is why there have been school shootings in the first place. It's certainly not because those with GWL (or any state conceal permit holder) are going onto school grounds and opening fire.
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.
As for the open carry, the response is dictated by the LEO and that was added to the bill BECAUSE of abusive LEO behavior. Trust me, when a LEO approaches correctly even the most staunch of personal rights activists will gladly show their permit (or provide other reasonable assurances). But the whole mentality of "you open carry, assume breaking law" is just wrong from the get-go.
It's a polarized topic and without in-depth knowledge of Why each provision was included (which means probably 20~30 hours of back-reading after finding the right places to get that info) it's hard to have much of a debate. But if you Really have issue, then it's organizing a campaign to have the law changed because that is the last word on the topic.
Brian you make a good point on #2. I got a provision confused in regards those who carry long guns without a license, in which case open carry is a must.
Your characterization of people in #3 is off base. Plain and simply. You simply have a different opinion, which is a far ways away of them simply being biased and not thinking things through. If you really want to bring up the use of guns in prevention vs keeping them away, analyzing most countries with stricter gun control shows us that fewer crimes happen when guns aren't present. There is great deal of evidence on that side of the fence too.
With that said I still believe there is a decent public value to keeping firearms out of places where the main purpose of the establishment is to serve alcohol. People do get testy, make bad judgements, and get into bar fights sometimes. Many of these gun laws assume people are always completely rational and often times they aren't...and that is without bringing alcohol into the picture. When drinking people have a higher chance of losing their ability to be rational.
Overall that might not be your opinion, but that sure as hell isn't simply an opinion of people not thinking things through. For someone to say otherwise will not say much to their character when they are simply faced with people they disagree with.
I simply disagree with you over the license issue and this is no small thing to me. The point of the license is to ensure people who can legally have firearms can have them, while preventing thoughts who can't. We have to give police the ability to simply ask people if something seems out of place to them and/or they have a doubt in the back of their head, even if they don't the full legal suspicion of a crime to do it under the new law. This issue is far from a simply issue of... an assumption of guilt, just because you are carrying because you had to show a license. You said it yourself... people will illegally carry anyways, so lets give law enforcement the tools to catch them and legally punish to create some type of a deterrent. That is far better than making is impossible for law enforcement to enforce it, until after-the-fact in suspicion of another crime.
So we should get rid of the law because of one person? Should we outlaw vehicles since some folks are crazy reckless drivers?
The OP is a troll looking to stir the pot.. probably thinking most Georgia posters are right wing extreme conservatives who would take offense to what he said.
1) Georgia allows open carry with the license. This includes the changes in the places excluded by law.
2) If the gun is loaded then open carry is the law. You can't conceal a loaded weapon in Georgia.
3) Most people against this (or well to some extent those for it too) don't really carry about open vs concealed. That is a non-issue to most. We don't want to encourage people to carry weapons into places where they are more likely to have a lapse of judgement or more likely to hurt a child.
Bars - drinking and lapse of judgement
gov't buildings - heated debate over court cases, civic debates, etc...
school - extra layer of protection allowing law enforcement and school administrators to spot threats to children earlier and to prevent kids who might have a lapse of judgment and make rash decisions in schools if they have the ability to take a firearm off someone else legally carrying (ie. school faculty).
4) Alcohol laws in Wisconsin have NOTHING to do with laws in Georgia, especially over firearms in Georgia.
5) That off-topic rant really does more to make you and your argument look bad, than it does to provide any good argument over laws in Georgia about firearms
6) I find it funny you taunt someone about reading and being confused over something so long, when you were actually wrong. Something tells me there is a parallel in the lack of maturity of that decision and actually taking the time to understand things as well.
Anyways for other more serious posters aside
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.
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.
# 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?
Also, regarding #2 and the point Brian tried to make (I think) is that even before this recently passed concealed carry law goes into effect you can carry a loaded handgun, either open or concealed if you have a Georgia Firearms Weapons License. This law is not limited to long firearms.
Here's O.C.G.A. 16-11-126:
(g) Notwithstanding Code Sections 12-3-10, 27-3-1.1, 27-3-6, and 16-12-122 through 16-12-127, any person with a valid weapons carry license may carry a weapon in all parks, historic sites, or recreational areas, as such term is defined in Code Section 12-3-10, including all publicly owned buildings located in such parks, historic sites, and recreational areas, in wildlife management areas, and on public transportation; provided, however, that a person shall not carry a handgun into a place where it is prohibited by federal law.
Here's the afore-mentioned O.C.G.A. 12-3-10:
(2) It shall be unlawful for any person to use or possess in any park, historic site, or recreational area any firearms other than a handgun, as such term is defined in Code Section 16-11-125.1.
(3) It shall be unlawful for any person to use or possess in any park, historic site, or recreational area any handgun without a valid weapons carry license issued pursuant to Code Section 16-11-129.
#4 is called an analogy. Someone from Wisconsin where they have the highest rate of drunk driving DEATHS, yet they allow minors to drink alcohol, is criticizing Georgia over our new gun laws, which have created hysteria mostly over hype, because one idiot who didn't understand the law went out and waved his gun around. The analogy over concerns about safety and numbers of deaths is one that is perfectly apt to a critical reader.
The reason they don't want law enforcement to be able to ask for the gun license for just anyone carrying is to prevent easy harassment of those who are law abiding, but simply carrying a weapon. There must be probable cause to search someone.
Government buildings don't have screenings because law-abiding people aren't able to read signs. It's because those who aren't law-abiding just don't care.
I've stated nothing but facts from reputable sources. You and the OP have appealed to emotion. You've stated, "There are other provisions in this law that would dilute enforcement of licensing for practical common sense reasons." Go ahead; list them and explain. And cite your sources.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
