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/

[Pepe]

A step in the right direction.

[SAR Skipper]

Let's hear it for Ga (again)

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!

[John E]

but is drinking while carrying really a victory?

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

[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.