16-11-127 change (working draft)...

Discussion in 'Previous Bills' started by Montieth, Jun 12, 2006.

  1. Montieth

    Montieth Active Member

    1,873
    0
    36


    GAGunOwner's version
     
  2. Montieth

    Montieth Active Member

    1,873
    0
    36
    Ok, that's the Code right now. Suggest changes and we'll work through it and I'll change it. Provide ammo for argument so when we get it to bill status and we're arguing it with truculent legislators, we can shoot down their objections.
     

  3. mzmtg

    mzmtg Active Member

    3,119
    0
    36
    The whole section needs to go. People are already prohibited from carrying without a GFL. We don't need any sections dictating where we (those with a GFL) can and can't carry.

    I cannot think of a single convincing argument for prohibiting carry in any particular place.
     
  4. jrm

    jrm Sledgehammer

    3,458
    1
    38
    Yep.
     
  5. wa4phy

    wa4phy New Member

    53
    0
    0
    The one area I'd like to see removed is at a rest stop along any interstate highway, more specifically, the parking lot and restrooms. If you wanted to go in the building proper, that's a different story, but really, I don't see why they should be off limits, other than it being a publicly owned/operated building. With all the muggings, and murder that have taken place, especially in Florida, they should be on the top of the list of places it is *legal* to carry.

    Other arguments sound reasonable to me, and I'm a reasonable person, else they would have not issued me a permit to carry a weapon!
     
  6. Broadside Bob

    Broadside Bob Member

    135
    0
    16
    Instead of publicly owned and operated...

    ...how about public or government owned where and when official government proceedings are taking place. Wouldn't that make highway reststops OK (unless Gov. Perdue needed to stop and take an official leak).
     
  7. kkennett

    kkennett New Member

    2,139
    0
    0
    I like the ideas above. I continue to hold up Alabama as my exemplar: stay out of the political protests and you're good to go.

    Realistically, how about a list like Florida's below (without the ambiguous 'nuisance' part):

    790.06 (12) License to Carry Concealed Weapon or Firearm

    Any place of nuisance as defined in s. 823.05
    any police, sheriff, or highway patrol station;
    any detention facility, prison, or jail;
    any courthouse; any courtroom, except that nothing in this section would preclude a judge from carrying a concealed weapon or determining who will carry a concealed weapon in his or her courtroom;
    any polling place;
    any meeting of the governing body of a county, public school district, municipality, or special district;
    any meeting of the Legislature or a committee thereof;
    any school, college, or professional athletic event not related to firearms;
    any school administration building;
    any portion of an establishment licensed to dispense alcoholic beverages for consumption on the premises, which portion of the establishment is primarily devoted to such purpose;
    any elementary or secondary school facility;
    any area vocational-technical center;
    any college or university facility unless the licensee is a registered student, employee, or faculty member of such college or university and the weapon is a stun gun or nonlethal electric weapon or device designed solely for defensive purposes and the weapon does not fire a dart or projectile;
    inside the passenger terminal and sterile area of any airport, provided that no person shall be prohibited from carrying any legal firearm into the terminal, which firearm is encased for shipment for purposes of checking such firearm as baggage to be lawfully transported on any aircraft; or
    any place where the carrying of firearms is prohibited by federal law


    I think it would make the 'antis' feel like they were getting a nice long list, while actually being a big improvement on GA's law. Basically it can be summed up as: law enforcement related buildings, educational facilities, or polling places. It would open up for us all the sporting & church events, restaurants, movie theaters, etc.
     
  8. jrm

    jrm Sledgehammer

    3,458
    1
    38
    I don't think anyone who wants to restrict the places where handguns may be carried will be mollified by the removal of some restrictions (which is, after all, what we are talking about) as long as a seemingly long list remains.

    I'm with mzmtg. There really is no reason to restrict carry anywhere. I'd start with that position, adding places to the list only to the extent necessary to get more than 50% of the votes. Starting with an attempt at compromise, when the process will by its nature try to gain additional concessions, is not necessary.
     
  9. ICP_Juggalo

    ICP_Juggalo Professional Troll

    1,926
    3
    38
    I'd say that I would have to agree with Gagunowner. The legislature is in love with 16-11-127. That law has been on the books since 1870! It is feel good law for the legislators and the only glimmer of hope we have of fixing the problem is re-writing the code around the GFL, not totally abolishing it. Here is a copy of a bill that I proposed a year ago. Didn't go anywhere of course, but feel free to read it and tear it apart as much as you'd like;

    O.C.G.A. 16-11-127. Deadly Weapons at public gatherings and secure areas.
    (a) Except as provided in Code Section 16-11-127.1, a person is guilty of a misdemeanor when he or she carries, while attending a public gathering or within a secure area, any explosive compound, firearm, knife designed for the purpose of offense and defense, or any other deadly weapon or instrument of like character.
    (b) For the purpose of this Code section, 'public gathering' shall include, athletic or sporting events, churches or church functions, political rallies or functions, publicly owned or operated buildings, establishments at which alcoholic beverages are sold for consumption on the premises, and organized events and/or functions the general public will gather for. Nothing in this Code section shall otherwise prohibit the carrying of a deadly weapon in any other public place by a person licensed or permitted to carry such weapon by this part.
    (c) For the purpose of this Code section, 'secure area' shall include any area as defined in Code Section 16-12-122(8) within any publicly owned or operated building or transportation terminal.
    (d) This Code section shall not apply to; competitors participating in organized sport shooting events. Persons licensed to carry firearms in accordance with Code Section 16-11-129, provided however this shall not apply to ‘secure areas’ of a courthouse or airport terminal. Law enforcement officers, peace officers retired from state or federal law enforcement agencies, judges, magistrates, solicitors-general, and district attorneys may carry pistols in publicly owned or operated buildings, secure areas of publicly owned or operated buildings, and secure areas of terminals.
    (e) It is an affirmative defense to a violation of this Code section if a person notifies a law enforcement officer or other person employed to provide security for a public gathering or within the secure area of the presence of such item as soon as possible after learning of its presence and surrenders or secures such item as directed by the law enforcement officer or other person employed to provide security for a public gathering or secure area.


    O.G.C.A. 16-11-129. Georgia Firearm License
    Replaces the last sentence in subsection (f) The reverse side of the license shall have imprinted thereon in its entirety Code Section 16-11-127. With the following addendum: (f) The reverse side of the license shall have imprinted thereon; The Georgia Firearms License is NOT valid under the following:
    1) O.G.C.A. 16-11-34.1 Carrying a firearm within the state capitol
    building, unless carried in an open manner and totally exposed to view.
    2) O.G.C.A. 16-11-127. Carrying a firearm within the secure area of a courthouse or airport terminal.
    3) O.G.C.A. 16-12-123. Carrying a firearm while boarding a commercial aircraft.
    4) O.G.C.A. 42-4-13. Carrying a firearm within the guard lines established at a jail or prison.
    5) O.G.C.A. 16-11-134. Possessing or discharging a firearm while under the influence of any drug or alcohol.


    O.G.C.A. 16-11-34.1
    (b) It shall be unlawful for any person, other than those persons who are exempt from the provisions of Code Sections 16-11-126 through 16-11-128, to enter, occupy, or remain within the state capitol building or any building housing committee offices, committee rooms, or offices of members, officials, or employees of the General Assembly or either house thereof while in the possession of any firearm, knife designed for the purpose of offense and defense, explosive or incendiary device or compound, bludgeon, metal knuckles, or any other dangerous or deadly weapon, instrument, or device. This subsection shall not apply to any person who is licensed to carry a firearm in accordance to Code Section 16-11-129, provided however the firearm or knife, whenever carried within the state capitol building, shall only be carried in an open manner and totally exposed to view. Carrying a firearm or knife on the person in a manner other than as provided in this subsection shall not be permitted and shall be a violation of this Code section.

    O.G.C.A. 16-11-134.
    (a) It shall be unlawful for any person to carry on or about their person a firearm and/or discharge a firearm while:
    (1) Under the influence of alcohol or any drug or any combination of alcohol and any drug to the extent that it is unsafe for the person to carry or discharge such firearm except in the defense of life, health, and property;
    (2) The person´s alcohol concentration is 0.08 grams or more at any time while carrying or discharging such firearm or within three hours after such discharge of such firearm from alcohol consumed before such discharge ended; or
    (3) Subject to the provisions of subsection (b) of this Code section, there is any amount of marijuana or a controlled substance, as defined in Code Section 16-13-21, present in the person´s blood or urine, or both, including the metabolites and derivatives of each or both without regard to whether or not any alcohol is present in the person´s breath or blood.
    (b) The fact that any person charged with violating this Code section is or has been legally entitled to use a drug shall not constitute a defense against any charge of violating this Code section; provided, however, that such person shall not be in violation of this Code section unless such person is rendered incapable of possessing or discharging a firearm safely as a result of using a drug other than alcohol which such person is legally entitled to use.
    (c) Any person convicted of violating subsection (a) of this Code section shall be guilty of a misdemeanor of a high and aggravated nature.
     
  10. Gunstar1

    Gunstar1 Administrator

    8,460
    5
    38
    I still have a copy of it. :wink:
     
  11. gunsmoker

    gunsmoker Lawyer and Gun Activist

    24,299
    110
    63
    Blanket Exceptions

    I suggest that if you tinker with any of Georgia's gun laws that are located between Code sections 16-11-125 and 16-11-129, you specifically incorporate and re-affirm that the exceptions and exemptions found in 16-11-130 also apply to the Code section you are amending. That way, it cannot be said that by writing a new list of exemptions within your particular section and subsection, you are rejecting the larger group of blanket exceptions found in 16-11-130 (peace officers, prison officials, military personnel and contractors, prosecutors, parole and probation officers, public safety directors, judges, federal prosecutors, court officials, retired cops, etc.)
     
  12. jrm

    jrm Sledgehammer

    3,458
    1
    38
    Gunsmoker,

    Good idea. And, what better way to re-affirm 16-11-130 than to add to the list: holders of licenses issued pursuant to 16-11-129.
     
  13. kkennett

    kkennett New Member

    2,139
    0
    0
    Few thoughts:

    jrm is probably right about not starting with a compromise position. It's improper to think of this process as a reasonable conversation amongst well-intentioned individuals. I suppose how much 'compromise' you really start with is determined by how much is necessary to get the bill rolling out of committee and get some real attention paid to it.

    GAGunOwner is also probably right about the influx of people, but remarkable things have been done in other states like Colorado and Kansas. Generally it seems to me that laws are trending in our favor these days. I don't think I fully subscribe the 'now or never' thought, but sooner rather than later is always good, if only because it could save someone's life someday. (Think of the lady in the Kennesaw park).

    ICP's bill. This is complicated and will require some thought. There are problems we haven't even thought of. For instance, I went to Houston Co. to do an inspection of an impounded vehicle and followed the sheriff's deputy into the parking lot of their court/prison complex while he went inside to get the key to the impound lot. The had posted signs out at the highway entrance to the whole complex quoting the "Guard line" code section. We're talking a many acre facility with the jail in the back, probably 300 yards from this sign. It seems to me that a 'guard line' ought to have to mean something (i.e., there's actually a guard around, or a metal detector) and not just be a sign in a grassy field somewhere. There were no parking places anywhere outside the 'guard line'.
    On the details of the 'public gatherings' part of ICP's bill, I'd really like to see at least the restaurant problem fixed (51% bit would work). Also, the 'organized events' part is still vague. Perhaps it could be changed to something like: 'specific functions, beginning at a time certain, to which the general public is invited'. That still wouldn't help for movies and the sort. I will have to think some more on how to deal with that.
     
  14. jrm

    jrm Sledgehammer

    3,458
    1
    38
    I agree about the guard line thing. I've seen signs announcing a guard line in rather unexpected places (like your example of an impound lot). I don't think the authorities ought to be able to declare everything to be a guard line. To me, the guard line, if we really want to continue using that phrase, ought to be the portion of a facility where nobody, including the police, can be armed.