SB 396 made the front page of the AJC today, noting its passage from the Senate and over to the House. It won't be ahrd to spot, since they have it under a big photo of a handgun with a finger on the trigger. They claim that it allows deadly force out in public on sidewalks. What, that was not allowed before? Well, they claim that Sen. Goggans makes the same statement, but it is not in quotes, and since I did not attend the debate yesterday, I do not know whether this is true. Will one of you who saw it comment?
I just read the online version and thought the article was actually on the fence. It showed both sides of the gun world and brought out the changes this bill has. Of course we can always count on the anti voice and a quote from the NRA. The Senate approved Senate Bill 396 by a vote of 40-13, and the measure now heads to the House. That pretty much shows that the majority believe in this. Of course now it would be nice for the public places to be better outlined!!!! If they can do this and the public places that would definitely be a leap. Of course I sent an email to my reps to keep positive energy flowing!
OCGA 16-3-21. (a) A person is justified in threatening or using force against another when and to the extent that he or she reasonably believes that such threat or force is necessary to defend himself or herself or a third person against such other´s imminent use of unlawful force; however, except as provided in Code Section 16-3-23, a person is justified in using force which is intended or likely to cause death or great bodily harm only if he or she reasonably believes that such force is necessary to prevent death or great bodily injury to himself or herself or a third person or to prevent the commission of a forcible felony. I do not see anything in the current law prohibiting one from using deadly force "in public" out on the sidewalk or anywhere else. I am a little baffled that the newspaper, and Sen. Goggans, if the statement attributed to him is true (which I doubt), seem to think that it is currently prohibited. That is why the man who shot the carjacker north of town (unfortunately too late for the woman victim of the carjacking and kidnapping) was not charged with anything. I think the newspaper just wanted an opportunity to scare people with the thought of lots blasting away out in public (picture of a gun and all). It would not have quite the same effect if people knew that was already the law and nothing is really going to change. While they may have "ostensibly" presented both sides, our side was not explained very well at all by the AJC.
Yeah you have a point and are correct. That situation in Cobb county was proof of the law already being there. I guess the civil liability part of the bill is the part I like. Am I reading it correctly that this bill, if passed will act like Floridas Castle Doctrine removing civil liability?
The civil liability part of the bill is great! There is a lot of good the bill will accomplish. It is just that the ability to use deadly force in a public place is not one of them. That is already allowed, provided certain standards are met, and those standards will not change with this bill.