Georgia Packing banner

1 - 20 of 37 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,189 Posts
Discussion Starter #1
First Reader Summary
A BILL to be entitled an Act to amend Code Section 16-11-129 of the Official Code of Georgia Annotated, relating to license to carry weapon and temporary renewal permit, so as to provide for training for certain persons licensed to carry a pistol or revolver; to provide an effective date; to repeal conflicting laws; and for other purposes.

Sponsored By
(1) Marin, Pedro "Pete" 96th(2) Abrams, Stacey 89th(3) Waites, Keisha 60th
http://www.legis.ga.gov/Legislation/en-US/display/20152016/HB/778

Assigned to the Public Safety Committee (Alan Powell)
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,189 Posts
Discussion Starter #2
btw - this part is good....

54 SECTION 2.
55 This Act shall become effective on January 1, 2016.

Status History
Jan/15/2016 - House Hopper


It should become effective before it was even introduced... :?
 

·
Man of Myth and Legend
Joined
·
13,739 Posts
How about his one. From way back.

Nemo
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,227 Posts
I might consider training if the carry location restriction were lifted.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,405 Posts
How about a bill to mandate reading comprehension for all elected officials. Shall not be infringed could be lesson one.
 

·
Member Georgia Carry
Joined
·
11,695 Posts
I do not want to tie government mandated training to my carry rights in ANY way, even with the carrot of additional carry places.

We are ALREADY vetted. We ALREADY peacefully carry around innocent men, women, and children. HB 60 opened more places to us without mandated training, and without the sky falling. Our law-makers did good, and can do even more to restore our rights.

Mandated training wasn't needed for HB 60 and I predict it won't be needed for a great gun bill this year.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
306 Posts
At the risk of getting flamed, what is wrong with requiring training to carry a potentially lethal weapon? I understand "....shall not be infringed..." but with rights do responsibilities not follow?
 

·
Atlanta Overwatch
Joined
·
13,754 Posts
At the risk of getting flamed, what is wrong with requiring training to carry a potentially lethal weapon? I understand "....shall not be infringed..." but with rights do responsibilities not follow?
A responsible person will seek out training on their own.

There are no stats showing that states with mandated training have fewer bad shoots or are any safer that states that don't.

People with a low income could be prevented from getting a license due to training costs.

People who work excessive hours could be prevented from getting a license due to time constraints.

Who sets the training requirements? What happens when they are gradually increased to the point of very few people being able to qualify?

Mandated training is more about money than training.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,189 Posts
Discussion Starter #13
At the risk of getting flamed, what is wrong with requiring training to carry a potentially lethal weapon? I understand "....shall not be infringed..." but with rights do responsibilities not follow?
Training is a good thing... State mandated training as a condition of obtaining a license is BAD...

The training mandate allows the legislature (which at some point may NOT be friendly to the carrying of firearms) to regulate who, when and how a firearm may be carried.

By controlling the price, schedule and availability of that training, it is possible to make it nearly impossible to qualify for a license. A low income person may not be able to afford the training AND a license or a working person may not be able to schedule the training in a reasonable timeframe.

In 2012 a bill was submitted to require training. It had a very limited group of acceptable trainers. This could have made it difficult to get into a class in some areas of the state.
2011-2012 Regular Session - HB 735
Weapons; training as a prerequisite for carry license

(E) Has completed a four-hour firearms safety training course from either a weapons
43 training instructor licensed by the Georgia Board of Private Detective and Security
44 Agencies or a peace officer who is currently certified under Chapter 8 of Title 35, the
45 'Georgia Peace Officer Standards and Training Act.' Such course shall include
46 instruction on the features of a firearm and a brief explanation of loading, firing, and
47 unloading the firearm. Proof of completion of such course shall be a notarized affidavit
48 signed by the person providing the instruction with his or her address, position, and
49 training instructor license number or badge number
Tell me I SHOULD get training and I will absolutely agree...
Condition my license on YOUR opinion of appropriate training .... Sorry, let's agree to disagree.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,106 Posts
How about tweaking this to mandate that every public middle and high school shall offer firearms training. They want training, let's give it to them. Of course, we remove the requirement to have training to get a license.
 

·
Moderator
Joined
·
68,174 Posts
I might consider training if the carry location restriction were lifted.
I do not want to tie government mandated training to my carry rights in ANY way, even with the carrot of additional carry places.
This bill does not mention or even hint at additional carry locations. This is Current Bills. Please try to keep discussion relevant to the actual bill.

By controlling the price, schedule and availability of that training, it is possible to make it nearly impossible to qualify for a license. A low income person may not be able to afford the training AND a license or a working person may not be able to schedule the training in a reasonable timeframe.
In fairness to this bill, it does not appear to be restrictive at all in who offers the training, and certainly does not come close to making such training impossible to get. In addition, the training appears to be such a low burden as to be useless for the purpose for which people think of firearms training. It is basically training on how to load and unload a gun, which can be done at the counter of any gun shop. The training does not even appear to relate to carrying a pistol.
 

·
Moderator
Joined
·
68,174 Posts
Such instruction shall include instruction on the features of a handgun and a brief explanation of loading, firing, and unloading of the weapon; provided, however, that live firing shall not be required.

There is the meat of the bill.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
13,513 Posts
Such instruction shall include instruction on the features of a handgun and a brief explanation of loading, firing, and unloading of the weapon; provided, however, that live firing shall not be required.

There is the meat of the bill.
Then why even bother with a bill? This bill is so innocuous that it could potentially pass. The problem is when someone decides to "enhance" the law in the future. Why provide them with an opportunity?
 

·
Senior Mumbler
Joined
·
6,375 Posts
At the risk of getting flamed, what is wrong with requiring training to carry a potentially lethal weapon? I understand "....shall not be infringed..." but with rights do responsibilities not follow?
Should you have mandated training to carry a pocket knife? How about a hammer at work? A screwdriver? Before you can use a gas stove? Heck even a bath can be deadly, should you have mandated training on not drowning people? All these are potentially lethal weapons.
 
1 - 20 of 37 Posts
Top