[wwwilljr]

HB 193 - Deadly weapons; carrying to public gathering; exception to prohibition

http://www.legis.state.ga.us/legis/2005_06/fulltext/hb193.htm

Just updating new forum.

 

[seajay]

This is a sit down and shut up for the next 10 years bill. It does almost nothing to make the carry laws better. While it does lift one small restriction we are not supporting this bill.

 

[gunsmoker]

I disagree

Sit down and shut up bill? No, I think that HB 193 would make things significantly better for GA gunowners and gun-packers. The restaurant restrictions are the most burdensome to armed civilians right now, I think. Lifting those restrictions would be a huge benefit for us. I'll support it, although I'll support lifting the other restrictions, too. I just don't see it as an all-or-nothing situation.

 

[Malum Prohibitum]

What are you doing up at 1:52 a.m.? You have a day job!

 

[seajay]

I am not opposed to the bill other than it being a sit down and shut up for 10 years. I would just rather go for all we can get rather than just take a bite of what they are willing to offer.

 

[Malum Prohibitum]

I have the same view as Seajay. I am for removing restrictions, including the restriction removed by HB 193. I would just much prefer a more comprehensive approach.

This leaves me ambivalent on HB 193. While I would be happy for the increased carry opportunities presented by its passage, I would be worried that more comprehensive reforms in favor of liberty would be forestalled for, as Seajay says, ten years (probably more). So I am in favor (individually, not speaking for the group), I just also want more (individually and, I think, speaking for the group).

 

[Molon Labe]

While speaking to one of our reps I asked him point blank, if 193 passes, what's the chance that other restrictions could be lifted another time. He said good questions and explained that with incrementalism that next year the legislature would probably not even look at another gun bill because they will feel that they already dealt with the issue. So when Seajay says this is a 10year bill he is probably right. We need to overhall the whole code and not try to attack pieces of it. The thing that I find intersting, and I could be wrong, but it appears that incrementalism works well for taking away our liberties but does not seem to work so well when we are trying to get them back.

 

[Malum Prohibitum]

:shock:

 

[gkbikers]

I thought members might need to read this information,

so I've re-joined GFODL, at least for a time. 8)

I've talked with Chairman Day about HB193. He told me he supported the bill, but that Rep. Franklin had withdrawn his support for it. Chairman Day assured me that he is very friendly towards the concealed carry issues, but that HB193 is not going anywhere because of Franklin's withdrawal. The bill still shows as active, but I thought Chairman Day said Rep. Franklin had withdrawn it.

(Don't worry, I have never mentioned GFODL in any meeting or conversation with General Assembly members - and the GFODL organization was never mentioned by them, either).

 

[Gunstar1]

Curious isn't it

Welcome back, Sorry for what happened before.

It has been said that the Governor asked Franklin to pull it. Scuttlebut being he wants an issue to run on for re-election. Since he pissed off so many rural voters with the flag issue (frankly I like the new one that is in the upper left) he needs a issue backed by rural areas to run on. Many are hinting that issue is CCW reform probably among some others.

We are still working to get as many reps to sponsor our bill as we can. If scuttlebut is wrong, we will still be in a good position.

 

[gkbikers]

Re: Curious isn't it

Welcome back, Sorry for what happened before.

Okay, it's history.

I am supposed to meet with my senator after the session to begin working on a bill to be introduced in 2006. She says she is pro-gun/pro-carry and asked me to work with her on this issue. We'll see.

Not to get too off-track, but one of the things I brought to her attention is the different "class status" enjoyed by judges, prosecutors, court clerks, etc. regarding the ability to carry ANYWHERE without any license, just because of their job. Title 16, chapter 11 allows a whole plethora of folks to carry anytime, anywhere - yet these same people do not use a firearm in the course of their job duties. They just need it for protection, evidently! :? Like the average Georgia "Good Guys" don't? :roll:

 

[Malum Prohibitum]

Welcome

I second that welcome. Perhaps we can meet you in person at a subsequent meeting?

What about active duty military? While I know they do not need a license, are they also exempt from the restrictions on place of carry?

:?:

 

[coyy2k1]

Welcome back gkbiker, glad to have you back on board :lol: and I hope that being we are all gun owners, that we are also a POLITE society as well

 

[gkbikers]

See OCGA 16-11-130 for list of exempted

Thanks for the welcome.

The following link should take you to the code section on the Georgia Legislature's site: http://www.legis.state.ga.us/cgi-bin/gl ... =16-11-130

I do not know if active military are exempt from ALL restrictions, but 16-11-130(a)3 says:

"16-11-130.
(a) Code Sections 16-11-126 through 16-11-128 shall not apply to or affect any of the following persons if such persons are employed in the offices listed below or when authorized by federal or state law, regulations, or order:
(1) . . . ;
(2) . . . ;
(3) Persons in the military service of the state or of the United States;"

 

[Malum Prohibitum]

Well, that is the same exemption section that LEOs use. 127 and 127.1 are included in the exemption. Interesting.

We really only want to be able to carry in the same places as off duty military guys. You don't oppose that do you?

A simple addition of firearms license holders to 16-11-130 would really simplify things and would be "comprehensive" reform.

I think Seajay put that suggestion up once on the old forum, but he put a smiley face after it!

 

[seajay]

Actually I posted it twice. The second time was after we add the other sections to the bill. What we now have is the same exact thing adding it to 16-11-130 as another line item. There are provisions in some of the other places like public transportation, airport, bus and rail terminals. Yes even schools are exempt to military. However it leaves open for a judge to interpet 16-11-129 as only being exempt from going throughthe process set up buy this code section. They are still required to meet the requirements and restrictions on who can or can not have a license. If they would be denied a license for any reason they are considered carrying without a license even though they are active duty military.

 

[gkbikers]

Well, that is the same exemption section that LEOs use. 127 and 127.1 are included in the exemption. Interesting.

We really only want to be able to carry in the same places as off duty military guys. You don't oppose that do you?
A simple addition of firearms license holders to 16-11-130 would really simplify things and would be "comprehensive" reform.

I think Seajay put that suggestion up once on the old forum, but he put a smiley face after it!

I absolutely do not oppose it! :shock: Rather, when I met with my senator, I suggested she read 16-11-130 (I had a four page presentation for her and this was part of it) and compare those exempt to private citizens. I asked her why we have two classes of citizens in our state (I was VERY gentle in my approach to this subject). I suggested the easiest way to rectify much of the mess in Georgia law would be to add holders of Georgia Firearms Licenses to that list in *130.

The point I made to her was that not only do most of those listed NOT use a firearm in the course of their duties, they do not even submit to a background check or any other licensure requirements, yet they carry carte' blanche! No training, no license, no nothing. They are, INDEED and IN FACT, privledged citizens.

 

[wwwilljr]

A simple addition of firearms license holders to 16-11-130 would really simplify things and would be "comprehensive" reform.

Not really comprehensive since it doesn't exempt areas where DNR has control. The changes in the GFODL to 12-3-10 and 12-3-101 would need to be considered. The reason that I am so interested in this is that I spend a LOT of time on lakes in Georgia.

 

[wwwilljr]

All of the parts of 16-11-130 state are written as "16-11-126 through 16-11-128" except part (d) which does not include 16-11-127.1.

(d) A prosecution based upon a violation of Code Section 16-11-126, 16-11-127, or 16-11-128 need not negative any exemptions.

Exactly what does this translate to in english anyway?

 

[seajay]

I am not aware of any lakes in Georgia that are not under the control of the Core of Engineers. They have their own rules about firearms and they are very restrictive about them. This would be where the NRA and the GOA could come in.