Georgia Firearm Forums - Georgia Packing banner

HB 26 GA Constitutional Carry Act of 2013

7K views 74 replies 29 participants last post by  45_Fan 
#1 ·
#2 ·
Reminder - Current Bills is for ON TOPIC discussion about specific provisions in the bill or the status of the bill. Do not drag these threads off topic. Read the previous posts before making yours.

Let's keep this section as a useful reference for pending bills.
 
#3 ·
73 (4) 'Long gun' means a firearm with a barrel length of at least [s:3sel1c45]18[/s:3sel1c45] 16 inches and overall
74 length of at least 26 inches designed or made and intended to be fired from the shoulder
75 and designed or made to use the energy of the explosive in a fixed:
See the change in barrel length above. Many rifles that have barrel lengths of 16'' would be excluded. This includes most .22s and a lot of AR 15s.

Also define "Bar" as a Bar.

142 (1) 'Bar' means an establishment that is devoted to the serving of alcoholic beverages for
143 consumption by guests on the premises and in which the serving of food is [s:3sel1c45]only
144 incidental to the consumption of those beverages], including, but not limited to, taverns,
145 nightclubs, cocktail lounges, and cabarets[/s:3sel1c45]less than 50% of sales.
Many places covered by the current definition actually are more of a food service than beverage service. However because they are licensed as taverns or bars such as "Sports Bar" speciffic permission has to be obtained to enter with a firearm. Most places licensed as "Taverns" actually derrive 60% to 70% of sales from food and were open on Sundays and legally allowed to serve alcohol. Almost all states use the 50% rule as the guide. Georgia should as well.
 
#5 ·
seajay said:
Also define "Bar" as a Bar.

142 (1) 'Bar' means an establishment that is devoted to the serving of alcoholic beverages for
143 consumption by guests on the premises and in which the serving of food is [s:2j72p95z]only
144 incidental to the consumption of those beverages], including, but not limited to, taverns,
145 nightclubs, cocktail lounges, and cabarets[/s:2j72p95z]less than 50% of sales.
Many places covered by the current definition actually are more of a food service than beverage service. However because they are licensed as taverns or bars such as "Sports Bar" speciffic permission has to be obtained to enter with a firearm. Most places licensed as "Taverns" actually derrive 60% to 70% of sales from food and were open on Sundays and legally allowed to serve alcohol. Almost all states use the 50% rule as the guide. Georgia should as well.
If they're doing that much food business then are they really "devoted to the serving of alcoholic beverages"?

If the intent is to distinguish "actual bars" (whatever that means) from other places with pour licenses, then why focus on food? Aren't there plenty of places that pour which don't necessarily do a lot of food business in terms of revenue but are nevertheless not really a bar? (A bowling alley comes to mind) If we have to have a percentage of revenue test then why not focus on the alcohol sales? Maybe something like this:

142 (1) 'Bar' means an establishment that is devoted to the serving of alcoholic beverages for
143 consumption by guests on the premises [s:2j72p95z]and in which the serving of food is only
144 incidental to the consumption of those beverages,[/s:2j72p95z] as characterized by at least 70% of gross annual revenue comprised of on premises alcohol sales [s:2j72p95z]including, but not limited to, taverns,
145 nightclubs, cocktail lounges, and cabarets[/s:2j72p95z].
 
#6 ·
CoffeeMate said:
seajay said:
See the change in barrel length above. Many rifles that have barrel lengths of 16'' would be excluded. This includes most .22s and a lot of AR 15s.
Wouldn't it be better to keep them unregulated?
They should all be unregulated but I don't see that happening. The definition doesn't change the regulations currently in place unless you remove some of the long guns from the list of unregulated by excluding them in the definition. Which is exactly what the 18'' barrel rule does. My Marlin 70PSS, Henry US Survival and Ruger 10/22 would no longer be covered as long guns.
 
#8 ·
CoffeeMate said:
seajay said:
Also define "Bar" as a Bar.

142 (1) 'Bar' means an establishment that is devoted to the serving of alcoholic beverages for
143 consumption by guests on the premises and in which the serving of food is [s:3vs3yc78]only
144 incidental to the consumption of those beverages], including, but not limited to, taverns,
145 nightclubs, cocktail lounges, and cabarets[/s:3vs3yc78]less than 50% of sales.
Many places covered by the current definition actually are more of a food service than beverage service. However because they are licensed as taverns or bars such as "Sports Bar" speciffic permission has to be obtained to enter with a firearm. Most places licensed as "Taverns" actually derrive 60% to 70% of sales from food and were open on Sundays and legally allowed to serve alcohol. Almost all states use the 50% rule as the guide. Georgia should as well.
If they're doing that much food business then are they really "devoted to the serving of alcoholic beverages"?

If the intent is to distinguish "actual bars" (whatever that means) from other places with pour licenses, then why focus on food? Aren't there plenty of places that pour which don't necessarily do a lot of food business in terms of revenue but are nevertheless not really a bar? (A bowling alley comes to mind) If we have to have a percentage of revenue test then why not focus on the alcohol sales? Maybe something like this:

[quote:3vs3yc78]142 (1) 'Bar' means an establishment that is devoted to the serving of alcoholic beverages for
143 consumption by guests on the premises [s:3vs3yc78]and in which the serving of food is only
144 incidental to the consumption of those beverages,[/s:3vs3yc78] as characterized by at least 70% of gross annual revenue comprised of on premises alcohol sales [s:3vs3yc78]including, but not limited to, taverns,
145 nightclubs, cocktail lounges, and cabarets[/s:3vs3yc78].
[/quote:3vs3yc78]
I didn't focus on food. I focused on "SALES". A bowling ally would not fail the "50% sales" test. But I see where I made my mistake.
Correction....
142 (1) 'Bar' means an establishment that is devoted to the serving of alcoholic beverages for
143 consumption by guests on the premises and in which the serving of alcohol is [s:3vs3yc78]food is only
144 incidental to the consumption of those beverages], including, but not limited to, taverns,
145 nightclubs, cocktail lounges, and cabarets[/s:3vs3yc78] more than 50% of sales.
 
#11 ·
mb90535im said:
Regarding the definition of a "bar", would patrons be responsible for somehow magically knowing the establishment's revenue percentages or how would that work exactly?
I think most people would know if they are walking into an actual bar. The problem is under the current definition many establishments licensed as taverns or sports bars are more restaurants than they are bars. Actual bars are usually licensed as a bar. Sometimes as a pub but in most cases the license is "BAR". The difficulty would come in with regards to noght clubs and dance halls. While they do serve food most of their sales would be alcohol. You would just have to know they place you are going to.
 
#12 ·
Is there not some way to define "bar" so the average carrier doesn't have to look up financial records before visiting? I thought the law used to have a 51% definition or something like that. This seems like we're going back to that.

Why not tie it to the designation on the business license?
 
#13 ·
seajay said:
73 (4) 'Long gun' means a firearm with a barrel length of at least [s:1a152jnb]18[/s:1a152jnb] 16 inches and overall
74 length of at least 26 inches designed or made and intended to be fired from the shoulder
75 and designed or made to use the energy of the explosive in a fixed:
See the change in barrel length above. Many rifles that have barrel lengths of 16'' would be excluded. This includes most .22s and a lot of AR 15s.
This change does not help. 18"+ currently requires a permit to carry, 16-18" currently does not. Your change would require 16"+ to have a permit to carry = not a good change.
 
#14 ·
Rugerer said:
Is there not some way to define "bar" so the average carrier doesn't have to look up financial records before visiting? I thought the law used to have a 51% definition or something like that. This seems like we're going back to that.

Why not tie it to the designation on the business license?
I agree. Leaving it up to the carrier to "know the place" is as vague of not more so than what we have currently, particularly if it is a percentage. How would I know if an establishment does 45 vs 55 % of their revenue from alcohol?
 
#17 ·
WoodandSteel said:
How 'bout we just take bars off the off limits places list?
That would be the ultimate. However this bill is not written to remove them altogether. Are extablishments that receive more than 50% of revenue from alcohol now allowed to open and serve on Sunday? That was the wy we used to be able to tell. Now with this new definition a lot of places that were ok prior to 2010 are now speciffic permission only.
 
#18 ·
Seems like that currently just because an establishment has the word "bar" in its name, it wouldn't necessarily be off limits if their food service was more than "incidental" or whatever the test is so I'm not sure I agree with your assessment that those places once legal became illegal requiring permission. Did they? Wouldn't they first have to meet the definition of "bar" depending on their food presence?
 
#19 ·
mb90535im said:
Seems like that currently just because an establishment has the word "bar" in its name, it wouldn't necessarily be off limits if their food service was more than "incidental" or whatever the test is so I'm not sure I agree with your assessment that those places once legal became illegal requiring permission. Did they? Wouldn't they first have to meet the definition of "bar" depending on their food presence?
Places like sports bars and taverns were always open and serving on Sunday. They were not classified as a "BAR" under the old definition. Look at the current definition. They are under the new one passed in SB 308. So wither or not you agree with my assessment the fact remains they used to actually have to be a bar to be off limits. Now the definition has been expanded to also include other places by title that are actually restaurants but because of some license class places like Taco Mac are defined as a "BAR" and thus require permission to carry.
 
#20 ·
Malum Prohibitum said:
Reminder - Current Bills is for ON TOPIC discussion about specific provisions in the bill or the status of the bill. Do not drag these threads off topic. Read the previous posts before making yours.

Let's keep this section as a useful reference for pending bills
.
Guys, this is not a bill about places off limits at all. It is Georgia Gun Owner's repeat attempt to remove the license for carrying openly and concealed, when even removing it for carrying openly has failed. Please try not to let this thread drift all over the place to the point that it is useless as a reference point for HB 26.

Current Bills is not like the rest of the forum.
 
#21 ·
BTW, I want to point out that HB 26-29 are all proposed by the same guy, who asked for GCO's endorsement and didn't get it.

Just sayin', maybe next time we can show him some love.

Personally, HB-26 has no chance in hell, the others might make it, depending on who is Speaker.
 
#22 ·
ookoshi said:
BTW, I want to point out that HB 26-29 are all proposed by the same guy, who asked for GCO's endorsement and didn't get it.

Just sayin', maybe next time we can show him some love.

Personally, HB-26 has no chance in hell, the others might make it, depending on who is Speaker.
He ran against an incumbent that had voted in favor of our bills.
 
#23 ·
mountainpass said:
ookoshi said:
BTW, I want to point out that HB 26-29 are all proposed by the same guy, who asked for GCO's endorsement and didn't get it.

Just sayin', maybe next time we can show him some love.

Personally, HB-26 has no chance in hell, the others might make it, depending on who is Speaker.
He ran against an incumbent that had voted in favor of our bills.
Bummer. So the enemy of our friend is now our....friend? This could get interesting. Btw, there will be no change in the Speaker's chair. But lets go into this session with maximum optimism.
 
#25 ·
ookoshi said:
BTW, I want to point out that HB 26-29 are all proposed by the same guy, who asked for GCO's endorsement and didn't get it.

Just sayin', maybe next time we can show him some love.

Personally, HB-26 has no chance in hell, the others might make it, depending on who is Speaker.
PM me details. I have no idea whats going on. Why is he not getting GCOs endorsement?
 
#26 ·
A. McClure said:
mountainpass said:
ookoshi said:
BTW, I want to point out that HB 26-29 are all proposed by the same guy, who asked for GCO's endorsement and didn't get it.

Just sayin', maybe next time we can show him some love.

Personally, HB-26 has no chance in hell, the others might make it, depending on who is Speaker.
He ran against an incumbent that had voted in favor of our bills.
Bummer. So the enemy of our friend is now our....friend? This could get interesting. Btw, there will be no change in the Speaker's chair. But lets go into this session with maximum optimism.
Hmmmm...why was I not informed about this at the GCO dinner in Tifton when I mentioned Charles Gregory's name as being pro gun? I was told they (GCO staff) knew his name and that he was also a GCO member. I thought this was a positive thing and now I am getting bad vibs? Speak up folks.

I don't care who gets these good gun bills passed....go political on me and I'm outta here.
 
This is an older thread, you may not receive a response, and could be reviving an old thread. Please consider creating a new thread.
Top