Georgia Firearm Forums - Georgia Packing banner
1 - 20 of 25 Posts

·
American
Joined
·
3,289 Posts
Discussion Starter · #1 ·
The Following are listed as "Prefiled" as of 1/9/18 in the Georgia Legislature on their website. Links below are taken from that site.

HB 11
Firearms; completion of safety training by certain persons for carry license; require
(1) Waites, Keisha 60th HC: SC:
Status: Nov/28/2016 - House Prefiled
http://www.legis.ga.gov/Legislation/en-US/display/20172018/HB/11

HB 651Georgia Firearms and Weapons Act; enact
(1) Oliver, Mary Margaret 82nd HC: SC:
Status: Nov/15/2017 - House Prefile
http://www.legis.ga.gov/Legislation/en-US/display/20172018/HB/651

HB 657Firearms; providing to person on probation as a felony first offender; make unlawful
(1) Petrea, Jesse 166th HC: SC:
Status: Dec/13/2017 - House Prefiled
http://www.legis.ga.gov/Legislation/en-US/display/20172018/HB/657

SB 9Weapons Carry License; issued without payment of certain fees; former law enforcement officers (PF)
(1) Rhett, Michael 'Doc' 33rd SC: HC:
Status: Dec/09/2016 - Senate Prefiled
http://www.legis.ga.gov/Legislation/en-US/display/20172018/SB/9
 

·
Swollen Member
Joined
·
11,969 Posts
A pretty terrible lineup so far.
 

·
American
Joined
·
3,289 Posts
Discussion Starter · #6 ·
Why does being a former "anything" entitle you to extra benefits that your fellow citizens aren't entitled to?
"Former" LEOs, it can be argued, still have a higher chance of having a criminal attack them due to their past interactions with said criminal, one of their family, or one of their group. Being able to lawfully carry without direct cost doesn't strike me as an unreasonable move to support former LEOs.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
14,962 Posts
"Former" LEOs, it can be argued, still have a higher chance of having a criminal attack them due to their past interactions with said criminal, one of their family, or one of their group. Being able to lawfully carry without direct cost doesn't strike me as an unreasonable move to support former LEOs.
I didn't say former cops shouldn't be eligible for a carry license. Of course they should. But there's no reason, none whatsoever, that entitles them to acquire it at no cost.
 
  • Like
Reactions: gunsmoker

·
American
Joined
·
3,289 Posts
Discussion Starter · #8 ·
I didn't say former cops shouldn't be eligible for a carry license. Of course they should. But there's no reason, none whatsoever, that entitles them to acquire it at no cost.
Didn't say you did. I gave you a reasonable argument for doing so. Address that but don't straw man it.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
14,962 Posts
Didn't say you did. I gave you a reasonable argument for doing so. Address that but don't straw man it.
OK. Having
...a higher chance of having a criminal attack them due to their past interactions with said criminal, one of their family, or one of their group...
is not a reason to get a no-cost benefit just because someone thinks he and his group are special. He and they are not.

Should I be able to acquire a free carry license after I provide incriminating testimony that puts Joe Perp behind bars for 5 years and I get word that he's coming for me when he gets out? Yes but I won't. If I want one I'll be made to pay for it.

Nothing straw man here. Shiny badges don't confer special benefits to anyone. Officer Friendly's life, retired or not, is not worth more than yours or mine is.
 

·
American
Joined
·
3,289 Posts
Discussion Starter · #10 ·
OK. Having is not a reason to get a no-cost benefit just because someone thinks he and his group are special. He and they are not.

Should I be able to acquire a free carry license after I provide incriminating testimony that puts Joe Perp behind bars for 5 years and I get word that he's coming for me when he gets out? Yes but I won't. If I want one I'll be made to pay for it.

Nothing straw man here. Shiny badges don't confer special benefits to anyone. Officer Friendly's life, retired or not, is not worth more than yours or mine is.
No, nothing strawman NOW. ;) Have a great day.
 

·
Super Moderator
Joined
·
69,784 Posts
I am adamantly opposed to SB9 for an entirely different reason.

The license cost is already removed for former law enforcement with 12 years experience. This is current law. This bill would make it 10 years, bringing it in line with the federal law on reciprocity for former law enforcement when carrying out of state. This part is probably a good thing, that is, standardize things. If there is going to be a line, make it at the same place.

But this bill ADDS - the Peace Officer's Benefit and Annuity Fund or drawing a pension from a city or county.


THE POBAF is a membership driven pension. You join. You pay dues. You get a pension.

What this bill does is drastically reduces the number of former law enforcement officers who are eligible.

It also harms the issue I pointed out above, standardization. The federal law, HR 218, requires only 10 years service. There is no requirement that a former officer be drawing a pension. Georgia should not add this requirement. I fear that is what POST is going to try to do with SB 292 from last year (remember they are issuing guidelines this month, January of 2018?). There is no warrant for that in the law, but you know how things go . . .
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,187 Posts
I am adamantly opposed to SB9 for an entirely different reason.

The license cost is already removed for former law enforcement with 12 years experience. This is current law. This bill would make it 10 years, bringing it in line with the federal law on reciprocity for former law enforcement when carrying out of state. This part is probably a good thing, that is, standardize things. If there is going to be a line, make it at the same place.

But this bill ADDS - the Peace Officer's Benefit and Annuity Fund or drawing a pension from a city or county.

THE POBAF is a membership driven pension. You join. You pay dues. You get a pension.

What this bill does is drastically reduces the number of former law enforcement officers who are eligible.

It also harms the issue I pointed out above, standardization. The federal law, HR 218, requires only 10 years service. There is no requirement that a former officer be drawing a pension. Georgia should not add this requirement. I fear that is what POST is going to try to do with SB 292 from last year (remember they are issuing guidelines this month, January of 2018?). There is no warrant for that in the law, but you know how things go . . .
This is why you always read every line of every bill. Thanks MP.
 

·
American
Joined
·
3,289 Posts
Discussion Starter · #13 ·
I am adamantly opposed to SB9 for an entirely different reason.

The license cost is already removed for former law enforcement with 12 years experience. This is current law. This bill would make it 10 years, bringing it in line with the federal law on reciprocity for former law enforcement when carrying out of state. This part is probably a good thing, that is, standardize things. If there is going to be a line, make it at the same place.

But this bill ADDS - the Peace Officer's Benefit and Annuity Fund or drawing a pension from a city or county.

THE POBAF is a membership driven pension. You join. You pay dues. You get a pension.

What this bill does is drastically reduces the number of former law enforcement officers who are eligible.

It also harms the issue I pointed out above, standardization. The federal law, HR 218, requires only 10 years service. There is no requirement that a former officer be drawing a pension. Georgia should not add this requirement. I fear that is what POST is going to try to do with SB 292 from last year (remember they are issuing guidelines this month, January of 2018?). There is no warrant for that in the law, but you know how things go . . .
Thanks for the deeper analysis. Certainly looks flawed from your summary.
 

·
Lawyer and Gun Activist
Joined
·
28,608 Posts
All good points. Malum, thanks for the inside information on retired and former LEOs.

If a citizen who recently retired from a career as a public school teacher wanted to get a carry permit, he'd have to pay. Even if in his career he was hated by some of the worst troublemaking hoodlums at school and sent many of them to detention, and got others suspended or expelled.

If the citizen who recently retired as an auto repo man, legally stealing cars out of deadbeats' driveways, must PAY his fees to get his carry permit just in case he is attacked by some angry dude who car he hauled-off in the past...

... let the ex-cops pay their fees, too.

(But, unlike HR 218, I'd be OK with giving such retired cops the privilege of carrying in secured government buildings and other places that are generally off-limits to the armed public, ONLY BECAUSE those cops have a mandatory training requirement. Likewise, I think it would be a fair trade to compromise with a two-tier license in Georgia for our non-LEO citizens, by letting those who can pass a book knowledge test and a range marksmanship test get an "expanded" license and carry in places that the rest of us cannot.

(That's a second choice, obviously less desirable than my real preference, which is let vetted and permit-holding citizens carry pretty much anywhere).
 

·
Lawyer and Gun Activist
Joined
·
28,608 Posts
The third bill down the list, about "making" it a crime to supply a gun to a prohibited person, is already a crime. It's just not one specific crime on this particular issue. It's a crime to aid and assist any other person in the commission of a crime. It's already a felony for a prohibited person (or first offender probationer for a felony who hasn't completed the probation yet) to have a gun. Therefore, anybody who knows of that prohibited status who helps him acquire a gun IS also a party to the crime, and get get the same punishment as the original prohibited person.

Therefore, I oppose HB 657 simply because it's not needed, and it would complicate the law by adding an alternative path to charging crimes and prosecuting them.
 

·
Super Moderator
Joined
·
69,784 Posts
... let the ex-cops pay their fees, too.
Got it, but, again, gunsmoker, "ex-cops" do not currently pay the fee if they have 12 years experience. That is current law. This is not at issue in the pending bill under discussion.

This is like being opposed to driver's licenses, and a bill coming to lower a teenager's cost for a license, and everybody posting "there should be no driver's license." It really has nothing to do with the legislation.
 

·
Super Moderator
Joined
·
69,784 Posts
The third bill down the list, about "making" it a crime to supply a gun to a prohibited person, is already a crime. It's just not one specific crime on this particular issue. It's a crime to aid and assist any other person in the commission of a crime. It's already a felony for a prohibited person (or first offender probationer for a felony who hasn't completed the probation yet) to have a gun. Therefore, anybody who knows of that prohibited status who helps him acquire a gun IS also a party to the crime, and get get the same punishment as the original prohibited person.

Therefore, I oppose HB 657 simply because it's not needed, and it would complicate the law by adding an alternative path to charging crimes and prosecuting them.
Good catch.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
14,962 Posts
The license cost is already removed for former law enforcement with 12 years experience. This is current law. This bill would make it 10 years, bringing it in line with the federal law on reciprocity for former law enforcement when carrying out of state. This part is probably a good thing, that is, standardize things. If there is going to be a line, make it at the same place.
The line should be no special benefits for supposedly special groups. Federal, state or local. Period.
 

·
Member Georgia Carry
Joined
·
11,933 Posts
Did anyone hear recently on the radio about a high level lawmaker under the Gold Dome saying he doesn't want to deal with any pro-gun rights legislation this session?

Will he get his wish?
 
1 - 20 of 25 Posts
Top