Good idea?

Discussion in 'GA Laws and Politics' started by Malum Prohibitum, Aug 14, 2006.

  1. Malum Prohibitum

    Malum Prohibitum Moderator Staff Member

    63,041
    231
    63
    Repeal 16-11-127 - 128 (and some others) and insert the text of a new new OCGA 16-11-127:

    (a)(1) A firearms license issued pursuant to section 16-11-129 authorizes the licensee to carry a concealed pistol, revolver, or concealable firearm in all areas of the state, except as specifically limited in this section. A license does not authorize the licensee to use a firearm in a manner that would violate a provision of state law. No local government or state created authority may adopt or enforce an ordinance or resolution that would conflict with any provision of this section.

    (2) Nothing in this section shall be construed to authorize a law enforcement officer to inspect any weapon without probable cause that a crime has been committed.

    (b) A license issued pursuant to section 16-11-129 does not authorize a person to carry a concealed firearm into a place where the carrying of firearms is prohibited by federal law.

    (c)(1) A license issued pursuant to section 16-11-129 does not authorize a person to carry a concealed handgun into a public building at which:

    (A) Security personnel and electronic weapons screening devices are permanently in place at each entrance to the building;

    (B) Security personnel electronically screen each person who enters the building to determine whether the person is carrying a weapon of any kind; and

    (C) Security personnel require each person who is carrying a weapon of any kind to leave the weapon in possession of security personnel while the person is in the building.

    (2) The provisions of subsection (c) shall not apply to a person in possession of a firearms license issued pursuant to section 16-11-129 unless the public building is a courthouse, prison, or jail. The provisions of subsection (c) shall not apply to any public building unless the public building makes a provision for securely storing each person's loaded firearm and immediately returning it upon such person's departure.

    (d) Nothing in this code section shall be construed to limit, restrict, or prohibit in any manner the existing rights of a private property owner, private tenant, private employer, or private business entity.
     
  2. Malum Prohibitum

    Malum Prohibitum Moderator Staff Member

    63,041
    231
    63
    The above idea comes from my visit to Colorado, and the input of many members here, from this 4 page link: http://www.georgiapacking.org/forum/viewtopic.php?t=53

    I think it beyond the nitpicking stage at this point. Are there any drastic concerns that this overlooks something significant? I think nonresident licensing for one (because of the repeal).

    Is there anybody that would cry or get drunk from their despondency if this were to become the law in Georgia, and if so, why?
     

  3. jrm

    jrm Sledgehammer

    3,458
    1
    36
    Drastic concern: Include other weapons besides firearms (as FL does). There really is no reason why a licensee should not be able to carry a knife, club, taser, etc. instead of or in addition to a firearm.

    Would I cry or get drunk? Well, not from despondency.
     
  4. Gunstar1

    Gunstar1 Administrator

    8,460
    5
    38
    Yes, here is a page full of such people Anti-Gun Links

    You did say anybody... :p
     
  5. ICP_Juggalo

    ICP_Juggalo Active Member

    1,923
    0
    36
    YES! YES! YES! I strongly second what JRM is saying. Make the Georgia Firearms License a "Georgia Concealed Weapons and Firearms License".
     
  6. Malum Prohibitum

    Malum Prohibitum Moderator Staff Member

    63,041
    231
    63
    Is a change needed to accomplish what you propose? If 126 through 128 were deleted, as the opening paragraph states, would there be any crime to carrying a concealed knife?
     
  7. Malum Prohibitum

    Malum Prohibitum Moderator Staff Member

    63,041
    231
    63
    :? Would a license be required to carry a concealed pistol? :?

    We might have inadvertently identified a glaring problem. :roll:
     
  8. Malum Prohibitum

    Malum Prohibitum Moderator Staff Member

    63,041
    231
    63
    Which is why my original version left 126 intact (which also solves our nonresident problem).

    THEN we can add other things to the license.

    I added 126 to the repeal on page 3 of the above link.

    What if we add back in 126 (this still makes Georgia a tradional open carry state, like many other states) and then change the proposal from " . . . authorizes the licensee to carry a concealed pistol, revolver, or concealable firearm . . ." to "authorizes the licensee to carry a concealed weapon . . ."

    Happy?

    Please review this in context to make sure we did not screw up something else.
     
  9. Molon Labe

    Molon Labe New Member

    338
    0
    0
    Looks good to me but I'm not a lawyer and I don't play one on TV.

    Does the line
    prohibit them from adding restrictions in other sections of the Georgia code such as the MARTA hijacking clause?
     
  10. jrm

    jrm Sledgehammer

    3,458
    1
    36
    Your revised proposal is fine, but I also would be okay with no permit being required in the first place (actually, that would be my preference).
     
  11. ICP_Juggalo

    ICP_Juggalo Active Member

    1,923
    0
    36
    I like the idea of no permit being required to carry as well, however I would like to have Alaska's system in place to where there is no permit required to carry, but one is available if someone wishes to have the ability to carry out of state.
     
  12. USMC - Retired

    USMC - Retired New Member

    5,215
    0
    0
    While I agree with the no permit theory on the grounds of truely enforcing the right to keep and BEAR arms, I would have to vote to keep permits for the sole reason that they once again serve as an instant background check. That and so as to seperate law abiding citezens from thugs packing to use for criminal intent. Without a permit anyone who commits a crime with a gun would be used as a reason that none of us should be able to carry. We certainly don't need to give the Libs more ammo against us. Just my humble opinion...
     
  13. Malum Prohibitum

    Malum Prohibitum Moderator Staff Member

    63,041
    231
    63
    Our intention is to have something that is a foundation from which to work. I have included things that several other states are doing. For everything listed, one can say in response to objections that it is politically unfeasible, "That's already the law in Colorado, Oklahoma, &c."

    Even being the extremist I am, there is simply no hope for a "no licensing" Vermont law or even an Alaska model in the near future.

    Heck, Vermont would not even pass a Vermont law if it were up to them today. It is an accident of the law that they are in their current situation.

    Besides, the number one issue about which people complain are "Places Off Limits."

    And there is plenty about which to complain in Georgia.

    After my visit to Colorado, where no license is required for open carry and almost nothing is off limits, I thought, why can't this work in Georgia? Colorado is, after all, a very liberal state politically.

    Here is how they did it. Read Rocky Mountain Gun Owner's article, "How Colorado Got its Existing Law." http://www.rmgo.org/CCWsummary.html

    By the way, their new issue is an Alaska-style law. You can read about that on their web site, too.
     
  14. GeorgiaGlocker

    GeorgiaGlocker Romans 1:16

    4,379
    1
    38
    So it sounds like this gives us the right to carry at a public gathering. Do i understand this correctly?
     
  15. Malum Prohibitum

    Malum Prohibitum Moderator Staff Member

    63,041
    231
    63
    The term public gathering would no longer be a part of the criminal law, as it would be repealed. This would be the new statute in its place.
     
  16. geaux_tigers

    geaux_tigers Member

    994
    0
    16
    Looks great. I would be happy to pester my Rep/Senator to support a bill that contains the changes listed above.

    I have to agree with USMC - Retired. I want a permitting system in place for concealed carry. Plus the libs would undoubtedly come out of the wood work with lots of support from the media over such an attempt. Then again, they'll probably be all over the changes we're talking about here.

    MP, glad to see your optimism has its bounds. :wink:
     
  17. Malum Prohibitum

    Malum Prohibitum Moderator Staff Member

    63,041
    231
    63
    Repeal 16-11-127 - 128 (and some others) and insert the text of a new new OCGA 16-11-127:

    (a)(1) A license issued pursuant to section 16-11-129 authorizes the licensee to carry a concealed weapon in all areas of the state, except as specifically limited in this section. A license does not authorize the licensee to use a firearm in a manner that would violate a provision of state law. No local government or state created authority may adopt or enforce an ordinance or resolution that would conflict with any provision of this section.

    (2) Nothing in this section shall be construed to authorize a law enforcement officer to inspect any weapon without probable cause that a crime has been committed.

    (b) A license issued pursuant to section 16-11-129 does not authorize a person to carry a concealed firearm into a place where the carrying of firearms is prohibited by federal law.

    (c)(1) A license issued pursuant to section 16-11-129 does not authorize a person to carry a concealed weapon into a public building at which:

    (A) Security personnel and electronic weapons screening devices are permanently in place at each entrance to the building;

    (B) Security personnel electronically screen each person who enters the building to determine whether the person is carrying a weapon of any kind; and

    (C) Security personnel require each person who is carrying a weapon of any kind to leave the weapon in possession of security personnel while the person is in the building.

    (2) The provisions of subsection (c) shall not apply to a person in possession of a license issued pursuant to section 16-11-129 unless the public building is a courthouse, prison, or jail. The provisions of subsection (c) shall not apply to any public building unless the public building makes a provision for securely storing each person's loaded firearm or other weapon and immediately returning it upon such person's departure.

    (d) Nothing in this code section shall be construed to limit, restrict, or prohibit in any manner the existing rights of a private property owner, private tenant, private employer, or private business entity.
     
  18. Malum Prohibitum

    Malum Prohibitum Moderator Staff Member

    63,041
    231
    63
    I have incorporated the changes suggested above (with the exception of the Alaska/Vermont suggestions).

    I think in some ways the changes complicate this issue, since the license in section 129 is a "firearms license." So, 129 would have to be changed, too, as part of this, and it is getting away form a simple "pull out 127 through 128 and plug in this statute," which is what it was before.


    Philosophically, I agree with you guys, but I am not sure this should not be another, separate battle.

    GS1 (or anybody else), is the term "weapons" defined anywhere? If not, this is yet one more complication to address.

    Thoughts?

    I am looking for something palatable and realistic that would address our main concerns but be relatively easy to adopt. Unfortunately, I think the version in the first post is closer to that goal than is the one in the post immediately above this post.
     
  19. jrm

    jrm Sledgehammer

    3,458
    1
    36
    MP,

    I understand your point, but I think this version addresses what otherwise would be a glaring discrepancy in the law. It would be a crime to have a "fighting" knife in your car unless it were openly displayed. Plus, cities would remain free to ciminalize carry or even possession of such knives. It just doesn't make sense for someone to be free to carry a concealed firearm virtually anywhere, but be prohibited from carrying a concealed knife virtualy everywhere. I would hope this logic would appeal to legislators.

    I don't think it would be necessary to modify 129, as you suggest it might be. Although it might be more elegant and consistent from a drafting standpoint to change 129 to discuss "weapons" licenses instead of "firearms" licenses, the changes you have made to 127 are sufficient to accomplish that.

    And, I think the change you made is subtle. But, if legislators really hate it, they can go back to just "firearms" easily without scuttling the bill.
     
  20. Gunstar1

    Gunstar1 Administrator

    8,460
    5
    38
    Dangerous Weapon = NFA (silencers, full autos, sawn off shotguns) 16-11-121

    Concealed Weapon = unless in an open manner and fully exposed to view, any bludgeon, metal knuckles, firearm, knife designed for the purpose of offense and defense, or any other dangerous or deadly weapon or instrument of like character; 16-11-126