Georgia Firearm Forums - Georgia Packing banner

1 - 20 of 140 Posts

·
Moderator
Joined
·
68,657 Posts
Discussion Starter · #2 ·
:soon:

Today is the day! Come to the Coweta or Forsyth meetings if possible this evening.
 

·
Moderator
Joined
·
68,657 Posts
Discussion Starter · #3 ·
Ladies and Gentlemen:

Lee County's commission meeting is Tuesday, December 12, 2006. I have linked the county attorney's advice to the county commision here.

MP
 

·
Moderator
Joined
·
68,657 Posts
Discussion Starter · #4 ·
Malum Prohibitum said:
Ladies and Gentlemen:

Lee County's commission meeting is Tuesday, December 12, 2006. I have linked the county attorney's advice to the county commision here.

MP
Today is the first Lee County Hearing.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
4,322 Posts
What time is the meeting (if public). It's just down the road for me and I am planning on attending.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
4,322 Posts
Called the Commissioners office and the meeting is scheduled for 6pm for anyone that is interested.
 

·
Moderator
Joined
·
68,657 Posts
Discussion Starter · #7 ·
I can't make the 6 hour round trip today, but I would appreciate a full report back here! :D

Especially since the other GCO member who initiated this is out of town today and cannot be there.

He did state that two friends of his from the group "Friends of the NRA" will be there to speak.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
4,322 Posts
I definatly be there. I'll try to get some video too if I can, at the least some transcripts or personal notes.

One thing that does concern me is the wording in the Atorneys Opinion, specifically concerning discharge of a firearm. INAL but it would appear that discharging a firearm, regardless if in self defense would be in violation, maybe I'm just reading it wrong. I don't have the original wording of the code available, so I'm not sure if that provision has been made.
 

·
Moderator
Joined
·
68,657 Posts
Discussion Starter · #9 ·
A quick primer on Georgia's preemption statute. You may review the actual statute, O.C.G.A. 16-11-173, here.

You will note that 173(b)(1) bans the county from regulating "in any manner" the "possession . . . [and] carrying" of firearms, along with a great many other things.

Then subsections (c), (d), and (e) give three exceptions. These are the only three things the county can regulate. The last exception is discharge of firearms. So, the county may regulate the discharge of weapons in the park. That is not a problem under the preemption statute.

Read the AG opinon on preemption here.

Study the two links, and you will know what there is to know.

In short, counties may not regulate firearms unless it is one of the three exceptions: (1) Their own employees; (2) requiring heads of households to own firearms, or (3) the discharge of firearms.

I hope you find this helpful.
 

·
Moderator
Joined
·
68,657 Posts
Discussion Starter · #10 ·
slabertooch said:
INAL but it would appear that discharging a firearm, regardless if in self defense would be in violation, maybe I'm just reading it wrong.
I would speak to this issue. The statute states that the county may "reasonably" limit or prohibit the discharge of firearms.

The new ordinance is part of the county attorney's opinion. It inserts a prohibition on the "use of weapons of any type at any time."

"Use" could certainly include self defense.

This could be corrected with a simple pointer to the self defense statute in state law.

" . . . except as permitted under O.C.G.A. 16-3-21."

What does everyone think of that?

It is not really a big deal because 16-3-21 states, "(c) Any rule, regulation, or policy of any agency of the state or any ordinance, resolution, rule, regulation, or policy of any county, municipality, or other political subdivision of the state which is in conflict with this Code section shall be null, void, and of no force and effect."

:D
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
8,460 Posts
slabertooch said:
One thing that does concern me is the wording in the Atorneys Opinion, specifically concerning discharge of a firearm. INAL but it would appear that discharging a firearm, regardless if in self defense would be in violation, maybe I'm just reading it wrong. I don't have the original wording of the code available, so I'm not sure if that provision has been made.
Good question, it appears that it has not.
Sec. 46-6. Discharging of firearms within residential subdivisions, residential developments, and within a certain proximity to a residence.
(a) It shall be unlawful for any person to use, discharge, or shoot any firearm, handgun, pistol, rifle, shotgun, or an air rifle which projects with a velocity of greater than 500 feet per second, within an area of the unincorporated portions of the county which is designated, pursuant to chapter 58 of this Code, as a residential subdivision or residential development, or within 200 linear feet of a residence located in the unincorporated portion of the county, except in defense of personal property as otherwise authorized by the general law of this state, or after obtaining a written permit from the sheriff, or his designee.
(b) This section shall not apply to certified peace officers while in the course of their employment as peace officers.
(c) A person committing a violation of this section shall, upon conviction, be punished as provided in section 1-12 of this Code.
The discharge in a subdivision for self defense is ok here, but the suggested change to the park law will not allow self defense as a reason for discharge.
 

·
Moderator
Joined
·
68,657 Posts
Discussion Starter · #12 ·
Gunstar1 said:
. . . but the suggested change to the park law will not allow self defense as a reason for discharge.
Except that the self defense statute O.C.G.A. 16-3-21 states, "(c) Any rule, regulation, or policy of any agency of the state or any ordinance, resolution, rule, regulation, or policy of any county, municipality, or other political subdivision of the state which is in conflict with this Code section shall be null, void, and of no force and effect."

Maybe slabertooch should suggest stealing the language from 46-6 and inserting it into the new parks ordinance?

UPDATE: NO! Read it. Who drafted that, anyway?

I like my first suggestion better. Tack on " . . . except as permitted under O.C.G.A. 16-3-21."
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
4,322 Posts
Thanks for the links and info, I will bring this up tonight. If anything get an opinion on the record. Doesn't seem prudent to me to allow someone to carry a weapon but not afford them right to defend themselves.
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
8,460 Posts
MP you must have posted while I was writing, I meant the county attorney's suggested change in the law would not allow self defense.

I agree with your suggestion, though self defense that could be used in a park are 16-3-21 (forcible felony), 16-3-23 (habitation, which can include your car), and 16-3-24 (other property).

instead maybe say...
except as permitted for self defense as defined by state law.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
4,322 Posts
Ok just got back from the meeting.

The County Attorney stated that in his opinion the ordnance would not infringe on anyones right to self defense because the State Code already preempts and provides for that right. The council decided that they would look at it further and review it at a later meeting.
There was a couple other people that also expressed concern over the wording of the ordnance and it's impact on self defense.

All in all it was a pretty positive event, the councilmen/women seemed very sincere about their desire not to negatively impact the rights of lawful citizens, but didn't seem to want to change the wording of the ordnance, mostly at the insistance of the County Attorney (Jimmy Skipper).

The wording can still change though, but I'm not sure if it really needs to, looks like one of those legal grey areas. Technically if you defend yourself or another with any weapon, an overzealus prosecuter (God knows they don't exist right) could in theory charge you with use.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
5,215 Posts
Hey guys, Sittin in my hotel room here in the land of fruits and nuts going over this thread and a few emails from my fellow Friends of NRA committee members. First off, Thanks go out to slabertooch for representing GPO at the meeting tonight. My buddies were very impressed with you and spoke highly of your spaech and presence. Now, from what I;m getting, the only issue on the table here is if we need to completely remove the paragraph or leave a prohibition of "use". The definition of "nature recreation facility" is a bit vague (where have we had this problem before) and leave room for an overly zealous prosicuter to nail a citizen for shooting a rattlesnake on a horse trail to prevent it from biting his horse or himself. The resolution has been posponed for another meeting and you can bet thaqt if I am able I will be there! OK, gonna hit the sack now. There was a wine "tasting" in the hotel tonight and that combined with the jet lag has me a bit drowsy. Thanks all, looks like we're on the road to fixing another one!
 

·
Moderator
Joined
·
68,657 Posts
Discussion Starter · #17 ·
slabertooch said:
The County Attorney stated that in his opinion the ordnance would not infringe on anyones right to self defense because the State Code already preempts and provides for that right.
Um, kind of like the state law already preempted the ban to begin with? So, let me see if I have this right. He purposely is proposing a revision to the ordinance that he readily admits is "null, void, and of no force and effect?"

Why?

What possible purpose could he have in intentionally advising the county to pass void, null ordinances that are of no force and effect?

Huh?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
4,322 Posts
Actually from what I understood from the meeting, he is proposing a change in the wording that would put it in line with the state code, but resisting adding wording to the ordnance that would explicitly provide for the legal use of a weapon as defined by State Code.

I think the reasoning behind his resistance is, because the state already affords you to use a weapon in self defense, there is no reason to include it into the county ordnance.
 

·
Moderator
Joined
·
68,657 Posts
Discussion Starter · #19 ·
LEE COUNTY

USMC - Retired said:
MP, No new news, as far as I know at this moment it will be voted on at the January Meeting on Tuesday the 9th. I will be there either way....
Reminder!
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
5,215 Posts
It won't be tonight. They have "shelved" it till either the 23 jan meeting or the 13 Feb meeting.... :x
 
1 - 20 of 140 Posts
Top