Georgia Firearm Forums - Georgia Packing banner
81 - 100 of 128 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,180 Posts
That's a shame. That was one of the best things about this bill. Didn't believe they'd have enough trouble with this one this one to strip it out.
There are still opportunities ahead on this to get stuff back, once it passes the House.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
47 Posts
Looks like the latest version is up. I'm liking the new additions regarding online issuance and the 22 day notification window.

Does make me wonder if this language:

"The probate court shall be authorized to implement online application processes for
weapons carry licenses and renewal licenses."

Should be changed to:

"The probate court shall be authorized to implement online application processes for
weapons carry licenses and renewal licenses..." (and obviously the currently available methods)


My concern is the Democrat counties will drag their feet in actually implementing it, if at all. I'd guess a number of the Metro ATL counties would get around to it in 3-5 years or so and Chatham County might have it by around 2035 or so, if left to their own devices. It'll cost an extra $55 on top of the current license cost, just because they say so, regardless of the law. They'll scream and holler that they need more money, and the usual excuses.

Definitely some good changes in the bill, in regards to this issue, though.

I'm gonna tell my Rep and Senator my thoughts. :)
 

·
Moderator
Joined
·
69,738 Posts
Looks like the latest version is up. I'm liking the new additions regarding online issuance and the 22 day notification window.

Does make me wonder if this language:

"The probate court shall be authorized to implement online application processes for
weapons carry licenses and renewal licenses."

Should be changed to:

"The probate court shall be authorized to implement online application processes for
weapons carry licenses and renewal licenses..." (and obviously the currently available methods)


My concern is the Democrat counties will drag their feet in actually implementing it, if at all. I'd guess a number of the Metro ATL counties would get around to it in 3-5 years or so and Chatham County might have it by around 2035 or so, if left to their own devices. It'll cost an extra $55 on top of the current license cost, just because they say so, regardless of the law. They'll scream and holler that they need more money, and the usual excuses.

Definitely some good changes in the bill, in regards to this issue, though.

I'm gonna tell my Rep and Senator my thoughts. :)
Whoa! Slow down.

Think about the context of why that language was added.

The bill said (and still says) that they must accept applicants first come- first served. The probate judges cried. Covid. We are all going to die. So the legislature said, Fine. You can do it online or by mail. But the language about first come-first served is still there.

See?

If the probate judge refuses to provide an online application process, then she must accept applications first come, first served and cannot complain about not using alternatives that the legislature made available by law for her.
 

·
Senior Mumbler
Joined
·
6,573 Posts
Does that mean first come for any probate matter, thus marriage licenses must get in line with GWCL licenses on a first come first served basis?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
47 Posts
Whoa! Slow down.

Think about the context of why that language was added.

The bill said (and still says) that they must accept applicants first come- first served. The probate judges cried. Covid. We are all going to die. So the legislature said, Fine. You can do it online or by mail. But the language about first come-first served is still there.

See?

If the probate judge refuses to provide an online application process, then she must accept applications first come, first served and cannot complain about not using alternatives that the legislature made available by law for her.

Don't get me wrong, I love the idea, but you know as well as I do that Probate Judge don't care what the law says. Remember when they forgot that Georgia was shall issue? This issue reminds me of that. If things aren't mandated and spelled out directly for Probate Judges, they don't do them. Even then, it's 50/50.

Many are still violating issuance times now, and (as far as I can tell) cost requirements.

I'm just trying to be thorough here.

I'm still pleased that portion was added though and I've already made my feelings known to my Rep and Senator.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,180 Posts
I would be interested in hearing the pros/cons of letting the DNR become the issuing authority. My limited knowledge tells me that they are already adept and well able to handle tons of online applications & renewals. Plus, don't they already have access to NICS? Couldn't they perform the background checks w/o another agency having to do it for them? Wouldn't this be eliminating a middle man?
 
  • Like
Reactions: Adam5

·
Registered
Joined
·
8,740 Posts
I would be interested in hearing the pros/cons of letting the DNR become the issuing authority. My limited knowledge tells me that they are already adept and well able to handle tons of online applications & renewals. Plus, don't they already have access to NICS? Couldn't they perform the background checks w/o another agency having to do it for them? Wouldn't this be eliminating a middle man?
Historically there is resistance to aggregation of power from local probates (159) to a single state agency. I live in DeKalb, therefore a well-behaved state agency would benefit me. There are about 149 examples where well-behaved local probates are more beneficial to others than a single state agency might be though. Yes, it would solve misbehaving probate whack-a-mole but there would be far fewer people that shake hands with, dine with, and attend worship with issuers if it were rolled up to state level. There is also a concern that if an anti-2A individual were placed over a single state agency...

Also, there’s administrative vs judicial responsibilities. Who else could issue within a day’s walk from my house?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,180 Posts
Give it to anyone but the the Probate Judges.

#112daysandcounting
This is a shame and a disgrace, Covid or not. It adds further credence to just going ahead and making the license optional for lawful Georgia citizens. The PJs want to claim they aren't infringing on anyone's rights, just how your allowed to exercise them.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,210 Posts
Realistically, it would take a Red majority less than a week to consolidate all the probate records into a single, central database. I know I could write the integration software in under two days. I strongly suspect that many of the large, anti-gun jurisdictions ( Fulton, Dekalb...) have sent their entire databases to places like Maryland that vacuum up every LEO database in existence. In short, the protection against consolidated data is an illusion. So let's get licenses under an agency that will give us proper response and service. Plus we get a "single throat to choke" if they stop responding. Logistics and implementation are still going to be a challenge, but we should seriously consider changes.
 
  • Like
Reactions: A. McClure

·
Man of Myth and Legend
Joined
·
15,050 Posts
Better idea. No permit/license/permission slip necessary. A few places off limits but all is generally open to carry. If permission denied by property owner so be it. But property owner is liable to the victim for any criminal activity that occurs on that property and immune from liability for any legal self defense activity if something goes wrong by person claiming self defense.

Nemo
 

·
Professional Troll
Joined
·
2,163 Posts
Better idea. No permit/license/permission slip necessary. A few places off limits but all is generally open to carry. If permission denied by property owner so be it. But property owner is liable to the victim for any criminal activity that occurs on that property and immune from liability for any legal self defense activity if something goes wrong by person claiming self defense.

Nemo
That was brought up in the committee hearings on HB640 several times. The word was on the tip of everyone's tongue, but no one could pronounce it. You could almost hear it.. "permitless carr.."
 

·
Man of Myth and Legend
Joined
·
15,050 Posts
On the tip of a tongue. Almost hear it. No one could pronounce it.

They seem just plain afraid of the idea. Call that idea simple freedom and personal responsibility.

Nemo
 

·
Sledgehammer
Joined
·
4,812 Posts
On the tip of a tongue. Almost hear it. No one could pronounce it.

They seem just plain afraid of the idea. Call that idea simple freedom and personal responsibility.

Nemo
We'll get there at some point, absent a sea change in control of the legislature to a less gun-friendly stance. But it's a process and not an event. A lot of people are in favor of it now, but enough are timid about it that it will take time to warm them up to make a majority.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,210 Posts
I still like my idea of "a brief history of firearm freedom in Georgia" to be played for legislators evaluating new gun laws. Specifically the doom and gloom, bodies in the street predictions of the anti-gunners and the cold statistics showing the exact opposite. Every single prediction of theirs has been proven wrong. Let's use their own words against them.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Speevl

·
Registered
Joined
·
14,956 Posts
We'll get there at some point, absent a sea change in control of the legislature to a less gun-friendly stance. But it's a process and not an event. A lot of people are in favor of it now, but enough are timid about it that it will take time to warm them up to make a majority.
The legislature is a process also. Names and faces come and go, some longer than others but always changing. Why can't you take Mr or Ms X, smack 'em across the head, remind them that they claimed they were in favor of "X" and gently persuade them to get "X" passed? Sometimes you gotta take the bull by the........horns, eh?
 
81 - 100 of 128 Posts
Top