2018 GA Legislature Weapon Related Bills

Discussion in 'GA Laws and Politics' started by UtiPossidetis, Jan 9, 2018.

  1. UtiPossidetis

    UtiPossidetis American

    3,183
    247
    63
    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
     
  2. Mrs_Esterhouse

    Mrs_Esterhouse Swollen Member

    11,832
    507
    113
    A pretty terrible lineup so far.
     

  3. Craftsman

    Craftsman Well-Known Member

    2,974
    242
    63
    Never lead with trump cards.
     
  4. moe mensale

    moe mensale Well-Known Member

    12,641
    1,715
    113
    Why does being a former "anything" entitle you to extra benefits that your fellow citizens aren't entitled to?
     
  5. mark5019

    mark5019 what me worry?

    6,504
    13
    38
    hopefully those wont see daylight
     
  6. UtiPossidetis

    UtiPossidetis American

    3,183
    247
    63
    "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.
     
  7. moe mensale

    moe mensale Well-Known Member

    12,641
    1,715
    113
    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.
     
    gunsmoker likes this.
  8. UtiPossidetis

    UtiPossidetis American

    3,183
    247
    63
    Didn't say you did. I gave you a reasonable argument for doing so. Address that but don't straw man it.
     
  9. moe mensale

    moe mensale Well-Known Member

    12,641
    1,715
    113
    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.
     
    gunsmoker and phantoms like this.
  10. UtiPossidetis

    UtiPossidetis American

    3,183
    247
    63
    No, nothing strawman NOW. ;) Have a great day.
     
  11. Malum Prohibitum

    Malum Prohibitum Moderator Staff Member

    67,050
    1,428
    113
    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 . . .
     
  12. A. McClure

    A. McClure Well-Known Member

    2,115
    128
    63
    This is why you always read every line of every bill. Thanks MP.
     
  13. UtiPossidetis

    UtiPossidetis American

    3,183
    247
    63
    Thanks for the deeper analysis. Certainly looks flawed from your summary.
     
  14. gunsmoker

    gunsmoker Lawyer and Gun Activist

    27,546
    688
    113
    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).
     
  15. gunsmoker

    gunsmoker Lawyer and Gun Activist

    27,546
    688
    113
    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.
     
  16. Malum Prohibitum

    Malum Prohibitum Moderator Staff Member

    67,050
    1,428
    113
    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.
     
  17. Malum Prohibitum

    Malum Prohibitum Moderator Staff Member

    67,050
    1,428
    113
    Good catch.
     
  18. moe mensale

    moe mensale Well-Known Member

    12,641
    1,715
    113
    The line should be no special benefits for supposedly special groups. Federal, state or local. Period.
     
  19. moe mensale

    moe mensale Well-Known Member

    12,641
    1,715
    113
    Perhaps you should try making a legitimate case for why shiny badges should confer special benefits that shouldn't also accrue to the general citizenry.
     
  20. Phil1979

    Phil1979 Member Georgia Carry

    11,495
    601
    113
    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?