16-12-123 and 16-12-127 further exemption discussion

Discussion in 'Places Off-Limits' started by GAGunOwner, Apr 28, 2006.

  1. Gunstar1

    Gunstar1 Administrator

    8,460
    5
    38
    I missed part of your logic. 16-12-123 and 127 are two seperate codes. Because you are exempt from one does not mean you are exempt from another.
    You started down the right track...
    Exactly, it means they wanted even fewer groups to be exempt from 123 than as listed in 16-11-130.

    The only thing you can infer from 16-12-127 is that they did not want those exempt under 16-12-123 to be exempt under 16-12-127, if they did they would have added them. Instead they said "any person" so they must mean exactly that.

    My interpretation of it is that only terminal security and leos are exempt.

    Does 123 conflict with 127? yes.
    Does these laws prevent or deter crime? nope.
     

  2. Gunstar1

    Gunstar1 Administrator

    8,460
    5
    38
    It is implied. Security Guards and Leos go through training and certifications to be able to have that kind of power over us common citizens.

    Also the people in charge of security of a gun-free area are pretty much expected to carry firearms or other protective devices (as that is their job). If any company or law does not allow me or security to carry firearms for my defense, then I will not go there.

    That includes places in Georgia (or England for that matter).
     
  3. Malum Prohibitum

    Malum Prohibitum Moderator Staff Member

    63,351
    383
    83
    The shorter answer is really a question - Who is going to arrest them?

    :lol: