Georgia Firearm Forums - Georgia Packing banner
1 - 20 of 72 Posts

·
Moderator
Joined
·
69,743 Posts
Discussion Starter · #1 ·
HB 1044 adds people to the list of exempt persons for the the restrictions in 126 through 128 (public gathering, et al.) and from the licensing requirements altogether.

It strikes the word "full time" from the judge entry so that part time judges can take advantage of it. I have no problem with this portion of it.

It also adds to the list in 16-11-130, though, a line 16, which is for "All elected active state officers and former elected state officers."

Yes, I am sure they will have all the motivation in the world to undo the public gathering clause once they have excepted themselves from it.

Argh!

Anyway, here is the text of the bill: http://www.legis.state.ga.us/legis/2005 ... S_hs_4.htm
 

·
Moderator
Joined
·
69,743 Posts
Discussion Starter · #2 ·
How about adding a line 17: "All holders of firearms licenses issued pursuant to 16-11-129."

:wink:
 

·
Moderator
Joined
·
69,743 Posts
Discussion Starter · #3 ·
01/13/2006 House First Readers
01/23/2006 House Second Readers
02/08/2006 House Committee Favorably Reported
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
8,460 Posts
I did not add 1044 to the bills page because it was just judges, however now that it has changed I have updated the bills page with 1044.

Including this:
CONTACT YOUR REPRESENTATIVE AND TELL THEM TO EITHER ADD THE FIREARM LICENSE TO THE LIST OR DO NOT SUPPORT THIS BILL!
 

·
Moderator
Joined
·
69,743 Posts
Discussion Starter · #5 ·
And you can ask them this: How am I supposed to convince the General Assembly to repeal the public gathering restrictions for the citizens of Georgia once the legislators are themselves exempt from the public gathering restrictions?

By the way, that exemption would be for life, even after they leave office.

Talk about creating an elite class that would then care nothing about the rights of the little people.

The most effective way to address a problem is to make sure that the people coming up with a solution are themselves subject to the consequences of their decision. That way, it matters more to them personally.
 

·
Sledgehammer
Joined
·
4,812 Posts
Re: HB 1044 Part timers and legislators excepted

Malum Prohibitum said:
It strikes the word "full time" from the judge entry so that part time judges can take advantage of it. I have no problem with this portion of it.
Isn't this just a (perhaps less worrisome) variation on the theme of not excepting public officials for fear of generating their complacency? While you might make out a case for excepting judges in courthouses, is there really a rationale for excepting them at bus stops, on MARTA trains, in bars, and at the airport?

It strikes me that the only justification for that is a claim that judges are significantly more likely to be targets of physical attack than the public at large is. I don't know that there is any evidence to back that up. While there have been some high profile (and tragic) attacks on judges, they are not very common (especially outside the courthouse).

It seems to me that the more public officials there are that are exempt from the public gathering law, the less likely there is to be any move to change it. I agree that exempting all elected officials is a bad idea. But I also question whether some of the officials that currently have an exemption ought to have one.
 

·
Moderator
Joined
·
69,743 Posts
Discussion Starter · #7 ·
MARTA trains are not included in 126-128.

Also, part time judges are not the ones voting on legislation or sponsoring bills related to doing away with restrictions on where I can carry.

My view of the part time judge portion was neutral - like this :|
 

·
Moderator
Joined
·
69,743 Posts
Discussion Starter · #8 ·
What we really need is to add a line to (a):

"A person that has on his or her person a valid license issued under Code Section 16-11-129."

That language is just snatched from another portion of the code (exception to 126) so it should work just fine.

This could be done as an amendment to HB 1044 (the bill in this thread), by the way. Legislators are line 15, we could be line 16. That would really let us know where legislators stand on the issue.
 

·
Sledgehammer
Joined
·
4,812 Posts
Yes, the fact that judges are not voting on bills is why I described their exemption as perhaps less worrisome. Nonetheless, they play a role in government. Their concern for criminal laws that don't affect them is bound to be different from their concern for criminal laws that do affect them. The same logic applies to judges and legislators. It's just that legislators obviously are more likely to have a direct impact on new legislation.
 

·
Sledgehammer
Joined
·
4,812 Posts
MP, I like the suggestion, but I would make one change. Why not put holders of a license in instead of elected state officers? In fact, the list could be shortened to just LEO (and other investigators for government agencies authorized to carry weapons by virtue of their jobs) and GFL holders. All the others on the list could just apply for a GFL if they want to be exempt. If the clerk of courts wants to carry, can't he or she just get a license?
 

·
Moderator
Joined
·
69,743 Posts
Discussion Starter · #12 ·
But if this amendment were made to this bill, it would definitely be put up or shut up time for the General Assembly.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
160 Posts
If anyone else is planning to watch this be aware that according to the site the meetings are running behind by over 1 hour. They just started the previous meeting (Health and Human Services) at 3:30.
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
8,460 Posts
well maybe they did talk about it before the link started working.

I didn't hear anything about 1044!!!
 
1 - 20 of 72 Posts
Top