HB 1001, Removes open view restriction in car

Discussion in 'Previous Bills' started by Gunstar1, Jan 22, 2006.

  1. Gunstar1

    Gunstar1 Administrator

    8,460
    5
    38
    http://www.legis.ga.gov/legis/2005_06/search/hb1001.htm

    At first glance I thought this was a restriction. Then I remebered you have to think backwards to understand 16-11-126.
    Paragraph (a) says you cannot conceal, you must open carry outside of home or business unless paragraph (c) or (d) allows you to conceal.

    So if you re-read the bill you will see it basically allows those that are not listed as ineligible to carry anywhere inside a car. Notice that those with a GFL are more or less certified that they are not enumerated as ineligible, so we are included as well.
     
  2. Malum Prohibitum

    Malum Prohibitum Moderator Staff Member

    63,041
    231
    63
    Why isn't the first sentence deleted? :?
     

  3. Malum Prohibitum

    Malum Prohibitum Moderator Staff Member

    63,041
    231
    63
    Does the first sentence add anything? It allows carry of cased, unloaded weapons.

    Since the second sentence allows weapons in the car, does the first sentence cover some situation of which I am unaware? Perhaps there is a circumstance it is designed to cover?

    Anybody think it should not be deleted? If so, why?
     
  4. ICP_Juggalo

    ICP_Juggalo Active Member

    1,923
    0
    36
    I am just grasping at straws here, but I think the purpose of the first sentence is just to satisfy U.S. Code 18US926A.
     
  5. jrm

    jrm Sledgehammer

    3,458
    1
    36
    Given the proposed deletion of the second half of the second sentence, the first sentence does very little, but it probably has to stay (unless the second sentence is modified to clarify that it applies to loaded and unloaded guns). There used to be a 2-tiered approach. Unloaded, encased guns could be anywhere in the car. Loaded guns had to be in plain view (unless you had a license). Under the bill, both unloaded, encased and loaded guns can be anywhere in the car. If we had only the second sentence (i.e., if the first sentence were deleted), arguably you would have to keep a gun loaded if you wanted to make sure you were in compliance (because an unloaded gun could be construed to be in violation of the law and not covered by the exception in the second sentence that applies to loaded guns.
     
  6. Malum Prohibitum

    Malum Prohibitum Moderator Staff Member

    63,041
    231
    63
    In that case, we need a THIRD sentence, in case I want to carry a weapon unloaded in my car, but not cased or "separated" from the ammunition.

    Sheesh. :roll:

    Why not just strike the entire first sentence and the word "loaded" from the second sentence?
     
  7. jrm

    jrm Sledgehammer

    3,458
    1
    36
    I like the direction you suggest, but I would add "or unloaded" instead of deleting "loaded." I would not want to see a prosecutor claim something screwy.
     
  8. Malum Prohibitum

    Malum Prohibitum Moderator Staff Member

    63,041
    231
    63
    Like what?

    The way I am proposing it, it would read like this:

    (d) This Code section shall not forbid any person who is not among those enumerated as ineligible for a license under Code Section 16-11-129 from transporting a firearm in any private passenger motor vehicle.

    What is the prosecutor going to say? "Yeah, I know what that law says, but he should go to jail because it was unloaded?"

    You do have to get a cop to arrest somebody before the overzealous anti-gun rosecutor can do much harm . . .

    Simplicity and clarity is something we should strive for in the law.
     
  9. jrm

    jrm Sledgehammer

    3,458
    1
    36
    No, I was worried about the other direction. A prosecutor (and a cop) could say, "Yes, the statute allows you to transport a gun, but it does not allow you to transport a loaded gun."
     
  10. Malum Prohibitum

    Malum Prohibitum Moderator Staff Member

    63,041
    231
    63
    I think you are grasping at straws for this reason: that law is more restrictive than state law, and thus there is no need to amend our law to meet its requirements.

    In other words, if ours says carry wherever you want and however you want in your car, and the federal law says the state can't prevent you from carrying an unloaded, cased . . . &c. There is no need to meet those restrictive requirements when the state is not banning guns in cars. 18 USC 926 is a way to let people transport firearms in states that do not allow one to transport firearms.
     
  11. jrm

    jrm Sledgehammer

    3,458
    1
    36
    Agreed. I think saying "loaded or unloaded gun" instead of just "gun" still is fairly simple, while making clear that the ammunition is not an issue.
     
  12. Malum Prohibitum

    Malum Prohibitum Moderator Staff Member

    63,041
    231
    63

    And where is the law against that?

    It is more than just a smart aleck question, as they have to indict you with something.
     
  13. jrm

    jrm Sledgehammer

    3,458
    1
    36
    Well, here's my thought. The language we are discussing carves out an exception to a criminal statute. If it were the description of the crime itself, I would agree with you that underinclusion or omission is fine. I don't like the idea of underinclusion or omission in an exception. I want the exception to make crystal clear what the safe harbor is.

    To answer the question, the crime I am worried about is 129(a), which forbids carrying a concealed weapon. If the only exception is going to be guns, then I would want it to be clear that the gun may be loaded or unloaded (which then by implication also permits carrying ammunition). Frankly, if I were starting from scratch, I would change 129(d) to be an exception for carrying any weapon in a car. If is is okay to carry a Desert Eagle or a machine gun in a car, why isn't it okay to carry a knife in the same car?
     
  14. Gunstar1

    Gunstar1 Administrator

    8,460
    5
    38
    I think the committee read this topic. Check out the new version.

     
  15. Gunstar1

    Gunstar1 Administrator

    8,460
    5
    38
    easier to read version:
     
  16. jrm

    jrm Sledgehammer

    3,458
    1
    36
  17. Gunstar1

    Gunstar1 Administrator

    8,460
    5
    38
  18. jrm

    jrm Sledgehammer

    3,458
    1
    36
    SB 302 actually is more powerful than HB1001. HB1001 provides an exception to the concealed carry prohibition if you are in a motor vehicle. SB302 provides an exception to prohibitions against concealed carry, public gathering carry, school zone carry, and unlicensed carry, if you are in a motor vehicle. Although either is an improvement over the status quo, SB302 would be much better.
     
  19. Malum Prohibitum

    Malum Prohibitum Moderator Staff Member

    63,041
    231
    63
    They like you better, jrm . . . sniff . . . :cry:


    Anyway, a very good change. :D