New Georgia gun law...

[case]

I know that there are several members here from Georgia and I'm sure several more that visit so I thought this might be of interest.

Last month Georgia's Governor signed into law SB308, which got rid of the hundred year old, rascist based Public Gathering law, which gave LEO leeway on deciding where firearm carry was and wasn't legal depending on opinion, the person carrying and the way the wind was blowing.

The most important points of the new law are:

-a set list of offlimits places.
-sporting events, concerts, parades, festivals, etc.. are now legal.
-you can now drink while carrying.
-you can now have a gun in your vehicle in the parking lot of offlimits places.
-you can have a firearm in your vehicle at a college.

There are others that I'm sure I've missed.

Here is the best site for additional information, as well as being the site of the organization responsible for restoring more firearms rights to Georgians than anyone else in the state's history http://www.georgiacarry.org/

 

[Payback]

A step in the right direction.

 

[Off Duty]

Let's hear it for Ga (again):coffeedrink:

First it was Kenesaw and the hand wringers whining about old west shoot outs and "blood in the streets."
Quite the opposite is true

One of these days, I'm gonna have to move up there!:coffeedrink:

 

[Hill Bill E.]

but is drinking while carrying really a victory?

I think I'd be downplaying that provision but that's just me.

Yes and no.

It's a victory for our rights, but could be a can of worms.

Owning/carrying/using a firearm is a serious responsibility, and needs to be treated as such.

Just like drinking and driving, you can drink, then drive, but it's against the law if you are 'over the limit'. Comes down to common sense and personal responsibility.

In MN, they treat carrying a handgun the same as driving with a CDL, the BAC limit is 0.04%, instead of the 0.08% for DUI with a regular vehicle.

 

[case]

but is drinking while carrying really a victory?

I think I'd be downplaying that provision but that's just me.

While I'm not much of a drinker, there are plenty of adults who can both carry a weapon and have a drink or two responsibly. For those who can't, there are already laws that deal with that.
I, personally, have never understood the need to strip everyone of something just because some people abuse it. I saw a drunk guy attack another guy with a Hilift handle, do we need a specific law banning the use of those if one's had a drink?


And I see no reason to downplay the lifting of any restrictions on the right to defend one's self. That's the way carrying a weapon in this country went from normal to taboo. The gun went from being a tool that people carried daily to something "evil" that the government needed to protect us from.


And Offtopic (a little), but this week a Georgia Pastor, along with GeorgiaCarry.Org, filed suit against the state challenging Georgia's law prohibiting churches and other places of worship from deciding whether or not they allow members to carry.

 

[SunTzuNephew]

I agree. We don't strip everyone of their right to the religion of their choice because some religions have practices that the vast majority consider odd, dangerous or abhorrent. We don't strip everyone of their right to a jury trial because some people try and influence juries. We don't strip everyone of their right not to testify against themselves because some people are just guilty. These are all Constitutional protections against government insults to citizens.

We don't even prevent everyone from driving, or drinking, because some commit crimes while they do it - and these are NOT Constitutionally protected.

But lots of folks think that its perfectly OK to take away the Constitutionally protected right to keep and bear firearms, because some people misuse them. Even though there is NO evidence that such prohibitions have any result in reducing violent crime: If they did, Washington DC and Chicago/Cook County, Illinois would be the safest cities in the US.

If people have ANY civil rights, or human rights, it's the right to defend themselves against injury and attack. A government doesn't have the right to take away that human, civil right. The USSC has said that, twice now: And yet politicians think that their provably false ideas trump civil rights.

 

[Z O O R O P A]

I find it ironic you reference "human rights" when you would deny health care based on your first impression of patients had you the choice - or so you've stated previously. By all means correct me if I'm wrong

I don't think the right to carry guns can be equated to the right to religion or licensed privileges by the government, state or federal. A firearm should require training and education because it has deadly consequences. That is the sole purpose. I believe outside the military guns have taken more lives than they have saved but perhaps that might not be the case if people had training?

I don't think it is a fair assessment for you to extrapolate what takes place in Chicago or elsewhere without examining the entire picture of why gun crimes are so high in those locations currently. If you think arming everyone in the city would deter violence I'd say that criminals weigh the risk of getting caught versus thinking about the consequences. In fact I'd say that is a cultural pathology in modern America. So it would actually increase violence not deter it. Crime isn't going to subside nor will everyone carry. In theory it might sound good but it's application leaves a lot to be desired.

the NRA and the 2nd Amendment are not under attack. They are well funded by big pocket lobbying firms and financially secure. Obama won't touch it despite the rumors

if you live in an area where you feel it necessary to carry a deadly weapon because you live in fear of your life perhaps you might reconsider your address

I'm sure you would agree that mixing booze with firearms or allowing firearms in public places where emotions run high might not be the best idea

Doesn't keeping a gun in a vehicle just seem like a risky proposition since automobiles are so prone to petty theft? Where would you keep it where it would be easily accessible? the glove box? under the seat? chances are you won't have time to acquire even if you needed it

I'm a fan of the 2nd Amendment. I have also seen the Jerry Springer show and I don't trust the majority of people to use good judgment in their car on the road much less when they have access to a firearm in a situation of high emotional stress or when a confrontation takes place and tempers flare.

That doesn't mean you don't have the right to defend yourself but in my experience people lack judicious judgment and often error when interpreting events. If gun ownership was accompanied by education I'd feel more confident in the 2nd Amendment

 

[Outback]

if you live in an area where you feel it necessary to carry a deadly weapon because you live in fear of your life perhaps you might reconsider your address




LOL...... Thats a rich one. Love that comment. So crime violent crime can and only happens in low income areas? Crime can happen anywhere! Also its a RIGHT. What part of that do you not get. If you say someone needs training before they can buy a gun then whats to stop "them" from saying you need training before you write anything. How about before you open your mouth to freely speak what you feel about... anything? Yes its a tremendous responsability to carry a firearm. And yes anyone who chooses to do so should have training. But under no means should they be made to, to "have" that RIGHT to do so. Its a Right.

 

[Hill Bill E.]

Ithe NRA and the 2nd Amendment are not under attack. They are well funded by big pocket lobbying firms and financially secure.


Doesn't keeping a gun in a vehicle just seem like a risky proposition since automobiles are so prone to petty theft? Where would you keep it where it would be easily accessible? the glove box? under the seat? chances are you won't have time to acquire even if you needed it

I'm a fan of the 2nd Amendment. I have also seen the Jerry Springer show

Big pocket lobbying firms? Not quite. I support the NRA-ILA, as do millions of other firearms owners. I do not have deep pockets, far from it. Yes, I'm sure they are supported by the firearms manufactures also, but the majority comes from law abiding members.

Guns in vehicles- that's a tricky one. If a person leaves a weapon in a vehicle, they have to do so responsibly (cable/lockbox/etc) I prefer to carry mine, and have control of it, rather than leave it unattended. I do have a secure way to store it when required.


Hmmm, the Second Amendment and Jerry Springer? Not to be used in the same sentence. Jerry Springer is, like pro wrestling, entertainment. Period.

Certainly not a true representation of the US populace.

And, the Second Amendment is "The Right to Keep and Bear Arms" not the right to defend oneself.

You say you are a fan of the Second Amendment, but your statements say otherwise, in my opinion.

 

[Z O O R O P A]

if you live in an area where you feel it necessary to carry a deadly weapon because you live in fear of your life perhaps you might reconsider your address




LOL...... Thats a rich one. Love that comment. So crime violent crime can and only happens in low income areas? Crime can happen anywhere! Also its a RIGHT. What part of that do you not get. If you say someone needs training before they can buy a gun then whats to stop "them" from saying you need training before you write anything. How about before you open your mouth to freely speak what you feel about... anything? Yes its a tremendous responsability to carry a firearm. And yes anyone who chooses to do so should have training. But under no means should they be made to, to "have" that RIGHT to do so. Its a Right.

how can you compare firearms to speech? that's an unfair and inappropriate exaggerated hyperbole. If you'd like to make an analogy do so where it illustrates the point. Speech doesn't have direct deadly consequences among common citizens

emancipation, suffrage, civil rights all changed practices in our country that did not make sense and infringed on other people's rights

riding a motorcycle with a helmet makes sense, but no you don't have to wear a helmet in some states. That doesn't mean it is the sensible thing to do. Just because you can doesn't make it right or that you should. Can you understand that or is it absolutely necessary to polarize everything?

can't we have an evolved 2nd Amendment to cope with the development of social change and social behavior? it isn't 1776, your livelihood doesn't depend on your firearm so this is about sport, defense, and the BOR right?

Laws are constantly changed because the world evolves so legislation has to adjust with that growth; budgets, ordinances, business practices, etc.
again emancipation, suffrage, civil rights all changed practices in our country that did not make sense - see that, we can change old habits and tradition that impedes other peoples rights to life because of negligent operation that could have been remedied by education! hah see how that works man. If education saved one person's life, it would be worth it.

Having gun safety training makes sense. it lowers the risk of potential deadly consequences

yes it is a right, but as the world and society changes the responsibility grows. The mere fact people can't have an intelligent discussion without insulting one another should mirror the point.

I understand you'd be afraid of setting precedents that might limit the 2nd Amendment but show me an example where education concerning a deadly object was not a great and beneficial idea

 

[captblack]

The most important points of the new law are:

-a set list of offlimits places.
-sporting events, concerts, parades, festivals, etc.. are now legal.
-you can now drink while carrying.
-you can now have a gun in your vehicle in the parking lot of offlimits places.
-you can have a firearm in your vehicle at a college.

I believe the new law allows you to enter a restaurant that makes over 60% sales of food but you still cannot drink while carrying.

Remember, we are an open carry state. The same license is required to OC or to conceal. I live in an area with hardly any crime of any type yet I carry (concealed) anytime I am not at work. It is not that I feel I need to protect myself but I have the right to protect myself, love ones and property. Don't forget DC - violent crime down 27% since the gun ban was lifted.

Remember, to ensure gun control, you must practice, practice, practice ...

 

[Z O O R O P A]

H.Billie -

that is a good point, it is the Right to Bear Arms - what exactly is the interpretation of that in your opinion? What does that stand for.

I am not questioning it as a Right though - I am not challenging the 2nd Amendment I'm saying hey, this is important stuff with potential catastrophic consequences and people are irresponsible and lack judgment, lets evolve the Right to include education to better equip the people of this country so when they Bear arms, they know what the heck they are doing!

Have you never known a gun owner who didn't know what he/she was doing or someone that sported iron and did so without any experience? it's a bad idea to give a loaded weapon to someone who does not have a clue or whose motivation is inspired by bravado. People are not created equal when it comes to commonsense, skill, or cognitive prowess

Thanks for making a sensible argument, I appreciate it. It resonated with me and I think you have elevated the discussion

let me clarify my remarks:

I'm for education when it comes to gun ownership - it should be mandatory. If it saves one life, it would be worth and lets face it, we know it would

the Jerry Springer comment was about the behavior of people. Americans in particular are hostile, trigger happy, romance guns and cinema, etc. education might help remedy some of that - not all people are influenced as such or subject to poor impulse control, but it is a safe bet that with some education in safety fewer might be yes?

Look at Utah's CC law right, how it is used and abused more importantly in other states. An across the board education safety class would help people become intimately involved with their firearms and might in fact strengthen the 2nd Amendment in my opinion

I'd rather people have some time at the range and in the hands of an instructor than just drop 500 beans and not know how to properly aim or load. It's a safety issue not a Right issue

the Right to Arm is not in contention here, just increasing the safety factor. I think that is pro 2nd Amendment

can you show me where education would be a bad thing, where it would impede the Right? doesn't mean you can't buy a gun or 12 guns at a time, it means we the people want to know you know how to use it properly and safely because, there are some real dip sh!ts out there and also negligent operation happens on a regular basis

for example:

a person recently was manipulating a 9mm when it went off and through the floor striking his roommate in the thigh. Accidental discharge, which with some education may have prevented this. Even with hunter education people ignore the basic rules of identifying targets before engaging on a regular basis - every season

it's not a guarantee, it's to increase the skill of the owner, promote safety, and lower the probability of accidents that can be deadly - and if it saved one life, it would be worth it and you know it would

look forward to your response

anyway, have a great Sunday night everyone

 

[captblack]

can't we have an evolved 2nd Amendment to cope with the development of social change and social behavior? it isn't 1776, your livelihood doesn't depend on your firearm so this is about sport, defense, and the BOR right?

I understand you'd be afraid of setting precedents that might limit the 2nd Amendment but show me an example where education concerning a deadly object was not a great and beneficial idea

I am afraid that anyone willing to change the Constitution just to make folks feel better will run our country into the ground quickly with no hope of recovery.

Carrying a weapon also includes a great responsibility. I would say 99% of those licensed to carry do so with that in mind. There will always be a cowboy out there that makes a bad impression. I assure you that the bad guys don't worry about the law, a license or background checks.

Perhaps it would be a good idea to encourage the enforcement of laws on the books, not taking away basic rights set up by the founders of this country. Don't forget the irresponsible owners that do not properly secure their weapons yet blame the manufactures because a child found the gun and killed himself or someone else.

Stepping off the soap box now ...

 

[Z O O R O P A]

I am afraid that anyone willing to change the Constitution just to make folks feel better will run our country into the ground quickly with no hope of recovery.

Carrying a weapon also includes a great responsibility. I would say 99% of those licensed to carry do so with that in mind. There will always be a cowboy out there that makes a bad impression. I assure you that the bad guys don't worry about the law, a license or background checks.

Perhaps it would be a good idea to encourage the enforcement of laws on the books, not taking away basic rights set up by the founders of this country. Don't forget the irresponsible owners that do not properly secure their weapons yet blame the manufactures because a child found the gun and killed himself or someone else.

Stepping off the soap box now ...

some great stuff there, thanks for contributing and please stay on the soap box

good point about securing weapons and shifting blame, totally agree

but it's not taking away a Right, it's adding safety education - how does that get interpreted as taking away anything?

I disagree with you that change runs the country into the ground, on the contrary, embracing tradition to the point of stagnation prohibits growth. Not all change is good, but some just makes sense.

Besides this is not to make people feel better, it is about the safe practice of firearms - what's bad about that?

not about feelings, it's about information

can you show me some info on why you think 99% of owners are responsible and educated on the practical use of discharging a weapon?

now if i would believe that criminals instead of weighing the risks of getting caught might weigh the consequences if they knew people who had guns knew how shoot accurately. That might bring some hesitation into the criminal mind

 

[Z O O R O P A]

by the way, I know this is never going to happen

the gun/ammo industry is on a roll right now and no one wants to engage it. But like so many other things, that doesn't mean we shouldn't right?

if you think it isn't a compelling argument I'd sure like to see it differently

again, I am all for the 2nd, I just think we would all be better off if the average buyer had some training but right now that is only up to the individual

it's just hypothetical discussion and thanks for entertaining it so politely