HB 292 Firearms; laws relating to the carrying of weapons and safety; revise and clar

This whole paragraph is added to Code Section 16-11-126, relating to having or carrying handguns, long guns, or other
29 weapons, license requirement, exceptions for homes, motor vehicles, private property, and
30 other locations and conditions

 

So, the other day I got a GCO e-mail about this bill coming up for a vote soon.
That same e-mail indicated that two other pro-gun bills were "tabled" or dead in the water for now.

This what the e-mail said about HB 292:

HB 292, the omnibus bill by Rick Jasperse were voted out of the subcommittee and are on their way to be voted on by the full House Public Safety & Homeland Security Committee, possibly on Monday afternoon

 

a quick summary

There's a lot of good things in this bill.
Nothing, by itself, is a huge win for gun rights. No "campus carry" or "constitutional carry" here. But a bunch of good reforms and clean-ups of language and wording.

MY SUMMARY, all in paraphrase:

SECTION 1 of HB 292.​

16-11-126 amended to allow new residents of GA to carry on their out-of-state permit, but only if they’re from states that have reciprocity with GA anyway, for up to 90 days AFTER they become GA residents.

(the prior law would have invalidated their out-of-state permit the day they became GA residents, meaning they’d have no legal carry rights until such time as they actually got their GWL’s, which could take some time, especially as to gathering the necessary documents to “prove†one’s residency here.)

16-11-126 is amended to include any knife, not just knives with blades over 5†long and handguns, as the types of things that a person who is lawfully hunting or fishing can carry without having a GWL (or reciprocity). (the prior law only said “weapons†which would exclude 5†or shorter-bladed knives).

SECTION 2 of HB 292.​

The school zone law, 16-11-127.1, is modified to clarify that no matter what restrictions are found here about certain government agents having a right to carry “on dutyâ€, the blanket exception found in Code section 16-11-130 applies and controls at schools, too.

(Note that 16-11-130 applies to those special people regardless of whether they are on duty or off, doing official business or conducting personal business. As long as they have those jobs or positions in the government, they get the exception.)

SECTION 3 of HB 292.​

Modifies the GWL issuance law, 16-11-129, by allowing Probate Courts to distribute printed literature coming from groups or organizations that provide “practical advice for gun safety.†This is no mandatory; it’s up to the judge whether to participate in sharing the news about gun safety, and the judge CANNOT condition getting a license on taking any safety training.

(Question: So does this mean that the “printed information†itself has to be THE instruction on gun safety, or merely an advertisement for classes or private lessons on gun safety, for which the student would have to pay? I assume this IS what it means..)

Modifies 16-11-129 by SHORTENTING the deadline for Georgia law enforcement agencies from 30 days down to just 10 days for them to make a report to the Probate Judge on an applicant’s criminal history report.

Modifies 16-11-129 by saying that it takes a conviction or another form of “adjudication†to begin the process of revoking your GFL for cause.
(The old law said it could happen if you were convicted OR just “otherwise involved†in some disqualifying crime or incident. .)

Modifies 16-11-129 by allowing for early renewal of a GWL, even prior to 90 days of its expiration date, IF the person is doing a legal name change.

SECTION 4 of HB 292.​

Code Section 16-11-130, what we gun rights people call the “Only Ones professional enough†provision in our law, to ALLOW RETIRED COPS, even retired from agencies outside of Georgia, to carry without a GWL, and to use their retirement credentials as a substitute for a carry permit.
These officers must have served a total of 10 years as officers with powers of arrest, AND they must have left under honorable conditions, either retired or just resigned, but not fired or forced to quit in disgrace.

The former cops must not carry in courthouses, but then the law goes on to create a new subsection (c.1) that says ALL PERSONS with the 16-11-130 exemption status are authorized to make use of any weapons lock-boxes that the Sheriff in charge of security at any COURTHOUSE may (but is not required to) make available for use.
See Code 15-16-10 about comprehensive courthouse security plans.

The bottom line is if such weapons storage boxes or facilities are available for active-duty LEO to use when they visit courts, HB 292 now authorizes the Sheriff to accept guns from any other of the classes of people who enjoy 16-11-130 special status.

SECTION 5 of HB 292.​

Code Section 16-11-130.2, gets a new definitions section, to specify what is a “commercial airport) (one that has scheduled flights from any major airline), and what is a “major airline†(more than $1 billion in revenue in a fiscal year.)

(Note: This law already requires signage to clearly indicate what the secure areas of such airports are, and that weapons are prohibited there. And there’s a right to retreat for GWL holders who are notified that their weapons are not welcome in the safe zone. So it’s not like we private citizens have to run a Dun & Bradstreet report on the name of every company that sends planes to or from the airport.)

SECTION 6 of HB 292.​

O.C.G.A. 35-3-34 , relating to the GCIC (Ga. Crime Info. Ctr.) maintaining criminal records and mental health records for persons declared insane or being involuntarily hospitalized:
-- There is now an explicit right for people who had been committed to a mental hospital to petition for relief of disabilities, at least 1 year after they’re released, and when their doctors will testify that they are not any danger to themselves or others.
(NOTE: 35-3-34 must be read together with 16-11-172, which is the law through which Georgia participates (since 1995) in the Brady Background Check system mandated by federal law for retail gun sales.)

SECTION 7 of HB 292.​

O.C.G.A 51-1-55 is a new Code section created by HB 292. It says that instructors and training centers who teach people the “safe, proper, or technical use†of weapons shall be immune from civil liability, IF the suit is based on the students or former students using weapons improperly.

SECTION 8 of HB 292.​

All laws and parts of laws in conflict with this Act are repealed.

 

Maybe this is how the legislature reminds Sheriffs of their authority to do this, and encouraging them to do it.
And when those Sheriffs ask for more money to fund more lockboxes or staff the weapons check and secure storage desk, the Sheriffs can point to this new law and say "Hey, I'm just carrying out what the Legislature obviously wants us to do, to respect the carry rights of our classes of public servants."

 

This bill seems like a good carrier for a section clarifying public/private leases.
It would also be nice to see lockboxes made available to all carriers, not just the special ones. Perhaps this could be a compromise on government buildings? If you have screening you must provide lockboxes.

 

I had to go look at a site showing Ga Gen Assembly legislators to see if it was the same Vernon Jones.

I'm confused. What happened? I'd always thought Jones was 100% anti-gun...

Any idea how I can persuade Michelle Henson?

 

Yes, thank you. I kept having to read it over and over to make sure I was comprehending what was written.

 

What is driving the commercial airport definitions?

Also, does the training center immunity also insulate trainers who give poor advice? (Thinking of some of those really bad video ads for tacticool special operating operators training.)

 

I was wondering about the airport definition myself. Would that solve the problem of smaller regional airports banning lawfully carried weapons at airshows?

 

Wording to fix this was in HB 1060 last year, but it was stripped out before getting a full vote.

One line of thinking is that laws must change something, so if they change the definitions to favor us, it must mean therefore that they don't favor us now, and based on that I should lose my pending appeal.

They don't want to risk that, and that's a good thing.

Remember, this was already fixed by HB 60, supposedly, when "persons in control of property" was changed to "persons in control of private property".

However, this could be fixed without monkeying with property definitions.

Simply state that all public/private partnerships are political subdivisions, such as what Alabama has done.

 

Lockboxes, better than not having them I suppose, are a barely satisfactory compromise. I'm not a criminal. Why should I have to disarm and handle my loaded firearm, under the watchful eye of an LEO? And besides, is that a safe thing to do, regularly handling loaded guns in a room full of people? Seems like a bad and stupid idea to me.

I should be able to show my GWCL, demonstrating that I'm a vetted legal carrier, and be allowed to move on through their security theater checkpoint. That is about as far as I wish to compromise.

 

Remember the guy in Orlando that had a FL CCW permit that shot up a gay nightclub with a horrible AR? He was checked. And checked 3 other times by the feds in deeper checks. Should he get on an airplane with a gun?

Think of the children!!

Nemo

 

Good point, someone will raise that argument for their security theater plan. But of course, I would have to point out that mass murderers are often and historically cowards or suiciders who want to increase the body count, and who want to ensure there is no one armed at their target location. The Orlando killer knew that the club was a guns free zone. That is an argument in favor of allowing lawful carriers to carry in government buildings and other locations. And if the mass murderer is bent on dying in the attempt, like the Orlando killer, he will target any uniforms at a government checkpoint first, and citizens clustered at the checkpoint second. Win win for bad guy.

Nemo, good devil's advocate post!

 

Rep. Jasperse withdrew HB 292 to make some changes. I called his office today to ask for the addition of some specific wording.

 

HB 292 is back in play, and today's the deadline. It's crossover day.
All the House Bills that made it through the subcommitte and committee processes STILL have to be sent out by the Rules Committee for a full House vote.
So call the Rules Committee members!

There are about 30 members-- see if your Representative is one of them. Calls from constituents mean more than calls from other Georgians.

John Meadows is the chairman of that rules committee. (404) 656-5141.
Brett Harrell is the Vice chair of it. (404) 463-3793