HB 286 Firearms; persons eligible for GWCL to lawfully carry without license; allow

Discussion in 'Current Bills' started by BG_Atl, Feb 9, 2017.

  1. BG_Atl

    BG_Atl Active Member

    2,161
    18
    38
    2017-2018 Regular Session - HB 286
    Firearms; persons eligible for weapons carry license to lawfully carry weapon without license; allow

    http://www.legis.ga.gov/Legislation/en-US/display/20172018/HB/286


    Sponsored By
    (1) Clark, Heath 147th(2) Powell, Alan 32nd(3) Lumsden, Eddie 12th
    (4) Jasperse, Rick 11th(5) Williamson, Bruce 115th(6) Gravley, Micah 67th

    Committees
    HC: PS & HS (02/09/2017)
    SC:

    First Reader Summary
    A BILL to be entitled an Act to amend Part 1 of Article 1 of Chapter 3 of Title 12, Title 16, and Title 27 of the O.C.G.A., relating to general provisions regarding parks, historic areas, memorials, and recreation, crimes and offenses, and game and fish, respectively, so as to allow persons who are eligible for a weapons carry license to lawfully carry a weapon without such license; to provide that a weapons carry license shall serve as an administrative confirmation of a person's right to carry a weapon; to provide for related matters; to repeal conflicting laws; and for other purposes.

    Status History
    Feb/08/2017 - House Hopper
     
    Last edited: Feb 9, 2017
  2. Feral

    Feral Active Member

    1,455
    7
    38
    I see Rick Jasperse a lot, either on these pro bills or amongst your conversations. I think I would like this guy.
     

  3. Adam5

    Adam5 Atlanta Overwatch

    13,613
    158
    63
    HB 286 Firearms; persons eligible for GWCL to lawfully carry without license;...

    Like the other permit less carry bill, I don't see where this bill allows for carry anywhere that we can't carry now.
     
  4. tmoore912

    tmoore912 Just a Man

    6,031
    160
    63
    This is the definition of someone 'Eligible for a weapons carry license' means a person who meets the qualifications
    30 described in subparagraphs (b)(2)(A) through (b)(2)(F) and subparagraphs (b)(2)(H)
    31 through (b)(2)(L) of Code Section 16-11-129


    Reading, but so far it seems that this will allow anyone eligible to own a firearm to be able to carry on their property, vehicle or place of business. Mainly persons 18 to 20 year olds.


     
    Last edited: Feb 9, 2017
  5. Malum Prohibitum

    Malum Prohibitum Moderator Staff Member

    67,050
    1,428
    113
    Well, you should. He is quite a friend to GCO and has put a lot of effort into the cause.
     
  6. Malum Prohibitum

    Malum Prohibitum Moderator Staff Member

    67,050
    1,428
    113
    Alan Powell is also a cosponsor, so Heath Clark may have done a little homework on this one before filing.
     
    POPATOP67 likes this.
  7. 45_Fan

    45_Fan Well-Known Member

    7,958
    42
    48
    This one is going to be interesting to watch. Somebody has put a bunch of thought and effort into the transition to permitless carry.

    Also, there is decent chance this one will be the lightning rod and pull the anti-debate away from campus carry.
     
  8. 00Dan

    00Dan Member

    175
    1
    18
    As far as I can tell this bill still institutes a 21 YO age requirement to be eligible to carry. That is disappointing, although I'm not sure how lowering that will go politically.
     
  9. Coffee Kid

    Coffee Kid Active Member

    1,660
    0
    36

    I don't see how this changes current age restrictions.
     
  10. Malum Prohibitum

    Malum Prohibitum Moderator Staff Member

    67,050
    1,428
    113
    It does not institute it. Institute means to establish or originate. To inaugurate. To set into law.

    This is already the law.

    This bill is aimed at one change, not two.
     
  11. 00Dan

    00Dan Member

    175
    1
    18
    Alright, I'll revise my wording. This bill maintains the age requirement.

    For a permitless carry bill I believe that is wrong. It is the endorsement of age-based discrimination under the law. You are either an adult or you are not.
     
  12. 45_Fan

    45_Fan Well-Known Member

    7,958
    42
    48
    I would suggest shaking hands with the sponsor in the next few weeks and asking specifically why that wasn't included in the bill. The answer could be enlightening.
     
  13. Feral

    Feral Active Member

    1,455
    7
    38
    HB 286 Firearms; persons eligible for GWCL to lawfully carry without license;...

    I imagine it has something to do with campus carry.

    If they removed the age restriction then the antis would say, "Look! All these children can carry at 18 on campus!"

    Things of that sort.

    You don't want to give the opposition ammunition so to speak.
     
  14. Malum Prohibitum

    Malum Prohibitum Moderator Staff Member

    67,050
    1,428
    113
    As HB 280 is currently drafted, the provisions of HB 286 would not apply. That is, while HB 286 would remove the need to have a license to have the gun in your car on campus, it would not remove the need to have a license to carry on campus.

    Note also that HB 286 does not change the need for a license when carrying or picking up a student (c)(7). See line 174, this is (c)(8). So (c)(7) is not touched.

    In other words, if both bills passed as-is, a license would still be required to carry on campus, and the weapon would need to be concealed.
     
  15. Feral

    Feral Active Member

    1,455
    7
    38
    This was well thought out.
     
  16. mountainpass

    mountainpass Under Scrutiny

    19,368
    29
    48
  17. budone1967

    budone1967 Die Hard GCO Recruiter

    6,763
    3
    38
    Any chance we can define picking up and dropping of students. To many DA's interpret this to mean in a car only.
     
  18. GACop

    GACop Member

    461
    2
    18
    This is very poorly written IMO. They need to clean this up and resubmit it.
     
    POPATOP67 likes this.
  19. Malum Prohibitum

    Malum Prohibitum Moderator Staff Member

    67,050
    1,428
    113
    Please elaborate. Which lines are poorly written? What suggestions do you have for cleaning those lines up?
     
  20. GACop

    GACop Member

    461
    2
    18
    Just a few that I quickly see:

    Line 99: The way it is worded allows for the arrest of someone without a weapon's carry license OR someone not eligible for a weapon's carry license.

    I'm pretty sure the author intended to say that someone eligible for a license was ok to carry there. Yet, it certainly isn't what is written. The authors should remove anything about without a weapon's carry license and simply say "not eligible for a weapon's carry license."

    Line 155: The same deal as above. The authors intended to decriminalize carry for people eligible for weapon's licenses. Unfortunately, that's not how they wrote the code section. It again says that someone without a weapon's license or someone not eligible for a license may be arrested. Same correction suggested.

    Line 42: The section of code is saying that an unlicensed person may carry in their home, vehicle or place of business. The addition of "being eligible for a carry license" is superfluous.

    Line 45: Also superfluous.

    Just a few of the glaring errors that I noticed on first read.
     
    Last edited: Feb 14, 2017
    POPATOP67 likes this.