I would speak to this issue. The statute states that the county may "reasonably" limit or prohibit the discharge of firearms.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.
Good question, it appears that it has not.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.
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.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.
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."Gunstar1 said:. . . but the suggested change to the park law will not allow self defense as a reason for discharge.
except as permitted for self defense as defined by state law.
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?"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.