Georgia Firearm Forums - Georgia Packing banner

1 - 17 of 17 Posts

·
Under Scrutiny
Joined
·
19,384 Posts
Discussion Starter #1

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
5,239 Posts
Re: Prefiled Bills

mountainpass said:
hb5
(4) Evil resides in the heart of the individual, not in material objects; and

(5) Since objects or "instrumentalities" in and of themselves are not dangerous or evil, in a free and just society, the civil government should not ban or restrict their possession or use.
My only problem with HB-5 is that other sections of the OCGA outside of 16-11 depend on a license being available and restrict carry for people without a license. 16-12-123 (public transportation), 12-3-10 (parks and historic sites), 27-3-1.1 (WMA's), and 27-3-6 (possession of firearm while bow hunting) all restrict our right to carry and are not part of 16-11. Also, 16-11-173 is the state pre-emption statute and needs to be kept or local governments could regulate firearms.

I understand that the person who proposed this bill is doing so to make a statement and not because it actually has a realistic shot at getting passed. But, on the off chance that the stars align and we actually have a shot at something like this, put in some effort and do it right. Keep 16-11-173 and strike the offending language in the other sections.
 

·
NRA Certified Instructor
Joined
·
5,006 Posts
Re: Prefiled Bills

ookoshi said:
My only problem with HB-5 is that other sections of the OCGA outside of 16-11 depend on a license being available and restrict carry for people without a license. 16-12-123 (public transportation), 12-3-10 (parks and historic sites), 27-3-1.1 (WMA's), and 27-3-6 (possession of firearm while bow hunting) all restrict our right to carry and are not part of 16-11. Also, 16-11-173 is the state pre-emption statute and needs to be kept or local governments could regulate firearms.

I understand that the person who proposed this bill is doing so to make a statement and not because it actually has a realistic shot at getting passed. But, on the off chance that the stars align and we actually have a shot at something like this, put in some effort and do it right. Keep 16-11-173 and strike the offending language in the other sections.
This is why it's important to get the bill I wrote into the hands of as many reps as possible. Maybe one of them will pick it up and file it. I think Bobby Franklin would be a good choice to get it to if you live in his district. I have sent it to Rich Golick and to Doug Stoner.
 

·
My Name is Inigo Montoya
Joined
·
4,025 Posts
i honestly do NOT like this bill one bit because it effs with reciprocity...
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
7,594 Posts
rabbivj said:
i honestly do NOT like this bill one bit because it effs with reciprocity...
If you mean with South Carolina, they're taking care of that with HB-3292.
viewtopic.php?f=11&t=55246

As for a national bill, I'm betting it comes up again this year.
 

·
My Name is Inigo Montoya
Joined
·
4,025 Posts
CountryGun said:
rabbivj said:
i honestly do NOT like this bill one bit because it effs with reciprocity...
If you mean with South Carolina, they're taking care of that with HB-3292.
viewtopic.php?f=11&t=55246

As for a national bill, I'm betting it comes up again this year.
isnt reciprocity in this part of the law? (article 4 that is) also it removes preemption iirc.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
8,418 Posts
rabbivj said:
CountryGun said:
rabbivj said:
i honestly do NOT like this bill one bit because it effs with reciprocity...
If you mean with South Carolina, they're taking care of that with HB-3292.
viewtopic.php?f=11&t=55246

As for a national bill, I'm betting it comes up again this year.
isnt reciprocity in this part of the law? (article 4 that is) also it removes preemption iirc.
It would mean constitutional carry and no more GWL.

I don't see it passing because other actions would no longer be crimes. Examples such as destroying or injuring police dogs, horses, or harassment of assistance dogs would be flagships there.
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
8,460 Posts
45_Fan said:
rabbivj said:
CountryGun said:
rabbivj said:
i honestly do NOT like this bill one bit because it effs with reciprocity...
If you mean with South Carolina, they're taking care of that with HB-3292.
viewtopic.php?f=11&t=55246

As for a national bill, I'm betting it comes up again this year.
isnt reciprocity in this part of the law? (article 4 that is) also it removes preemption iirc.
It would mean constitutional carry and no more GWL.

I don't see it passing because other actions would no longer be crimes. Examples such as destroying or injuring police dogs, horses, or harassment of assistance dogs would be flagships there.
True, there would be no general STATE law against carry, but it would also mean the end of state preemption... and as the current state of federal caselaw, cities like Atlanta could restrict carry to only while inside your home.

Also the other laws outside of general carry in Article 4 that we got taken care of recently would be a problem again... such as the felony for carrying while walking past a bus stop. Marta carry would be illegal again. Etc.

Yes, all reciprocity with other states would go away. If you wanted to carry in another state you would have to get another state's licnese and hope the state you visit does not have a residency requirment (in the state your license was issued).
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,925 Posts
Don't local laws which control arms specifically come into conflict with the state constitution?

Paragraph VIII. Arms, right to keep and bear. The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed, but the General Assembly shall have power to prescribe the manner in which arms may be borne.
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
5,239 Posts
Montieth said:
Don't local laws which control arms specifically come into conflict with the state constitution?

Paragraph VIII. Arms, right to keep and bear. The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed, but the General Assembly shall have power to prescribe the manner in which arms may be borne.
If the court is OK with the current state restrictions, and the court was OK with all the old restrictions we had a few years ago, what makes you think they wouldn't be OK if local governments made similar restrictions? If HB-5 passes, that doesn't mean the courts will suddenly start reading our constitution is an absolute manner.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,925 Posts
ookoshi said:
Montieth said:
Don't local laws which control arms specifically come into conflict with the state constitution?

Paragraph VIII. Arms, right to keep and bear. The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed, but the General Assembly shall have power to prescribe the manner in which arms may be borne.
If the court is OK with the current state restrictions, and the court was OK with all the old restrictions we had a few years ago, what makes you think they wouldn't be OK if local governments made similar restrictions? If HB-5 passes, that doesn't mean the courts will suddenly start reading our constitution is an absolute manner.
No, but often times it seems like people forget that the State Constitution with it's inherent restrictions is there at all. Sometimes people need to be reminded, if via a court case. And, it would seem, that such a case would nicely sidestep some of the issues with Federal courts and their pernicious judges.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,178 Posts
This bill is like cutting off your nose to spite your face. No pre-emption? I can see it now. Cherokee Co.-legal, cross into Cobb- oops, your illegal now because they chose to pass an ordinance. Or even cities within a county. Woodstock-illegal, Holly Springs-legal. GGO backing this, I assume? What posers.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,178 Posts
To add pre-emption would defeat the very purpose of the bill, would it not? I thought GGO was steadfast about not cowing to ANY legislative or government authority. To invoke pre-emption and say that the Legislature alone determines where you may bear arms kind of pours water on their whols stance, IMO. No, they want all or nothing with this bill and they will get nothing. Its listed as a 'no' on this site, so it must be pretty badly written, short as it is.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,139 Posts
This bill has been discussed several times, as I recall. It is not going anywhere, and has profound problems, as have been mentioned above. Pre-emption alone, IMHO, would be a showstopper.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,849 Posts
(4) Evil resides in the heart of the individual, not in material objects; and

(5) Since objects or "instrumentalities" in and of themselves are not dangerous or evil, in a free and just society, the civil government should not ban or restrict their possession or use.
So, the bill would legalize drugs then too, right?
 
1 - 17 of 17 Posts
Top