HB 998 and SB 396

Discussion in 'Previous Bills' started by b8fish, Jan 13, 2006.

  1. b8fish

    b8fish New Member

    360
    0
    0
    One of our GPSL clubmembers brings these bills to our attention.

    http://www.macon.com/mld/macon/13614374.htm

    "ATLANTA - Some state lawmakers are looking to extend Georgia's already robust laws protecting citizens who own guns or act in self-defense.

    House Bill 998 would allow gun owners to keep a gun in their car when parked, even if a business bans guns from their parking lot.

    Senate Bill 396 would mirror a law passed in Florida last year, ensuring that anyone who is attacked while behaving lawfully would have the right to "stand their ground" and defend himself or herself. The law would authorize deadly force if the attack could reasonably be considered life-threatening."
     
  2. Gunstar1

    Gunstar1 Administrator

    8,460
    5
    38
    Thanks,

    Those 2 sound like NRA pushed bills. I think the parking lot one was in Ohio or Illinois. Can't remember exactly.

    I will update the bills page this weekend.
     

  3. b8fish

    b8fish New Member

    360
    0
    0
    The parking lot bill hits close to home as my company's new handbook prohibits "firearms, explosives and illegal substances" from parking lots.

    I gave up trying to convince HR that infringing a constitutionally protected right in the same breath as illegal items was rather inappropriate. The answer was essentially "the lawyers make us do it".
     
  4. Malum Prohibitum

    Malum Prohibitum Moderator Staff Member

    63,041
    231
    63
    I wonder why this is inserted after section 16-3-23 (defense of habitation) instead of 16-3-21 (self defense generally)?
     
  5. Malum Prohibitum

    Malum Prohibitum Moderator Staff Member

    63,041
    231
    63
    Off the cuff remark: I am not sure section 1 adds anything to Georgia law that is not alredy contained in 16-3-21 . . . I will have to study it more carefully.

    I guess it cannot be harmful to have something helpful stated twice. In reality 16-3-21 contains no duty to retreat, but does not affirmatively state that there is no duty to retreat. I guess it is helpful to have it affirmatively stated as a safeguard against a future court, citing the evolving standards of decency that mark the civilized society of France, holding that a reasonable belief that one is in imminent danger does not exist if one failed to retreat.
     
  6. Malum Prohibitum

    Malum Prohibitum Moderator Staff Member

    63,041
    231
    63
    Section 2 is awesome. It extends the immunity from prosecution from the use of force in one's home to the use of force anywhere one has a right to be.

    That's cool. 8)

    I think I like SB 396 :D
     
  7. Malum Prohibitum

    Malum Prohibitum Moderator Staff Member

    63,041
    231
    63
    I wonder if SB 396 will change the jury instructions in criminal trials? Currently, a defendant claiming self defense is not entitled to an instruction on "no duty to retreat" unless the prosecutor somehow raises it during trial.

    "Isn't it true, sir, that you could have just run away? I mean, there was a big empty parking lot, and . . ."

    Like that.

    I wonder if self defense defenses might entitle one to an instruction on no duty to retreat if this passes.

    Also, this applies to non-deadly force as well. Just don't be the one initiating the force. All of those rules still apply.
     
  8. Malum Prohibitum

    Malum Prohibitum Moderator Staff Member

    63,041
    231
    63
    Vehicle includes "motorcycle" and "motorscooter."

    "This subsection shall be liberally construed in favor of the lawful use, ownership, and possession of firearms and other weapons, including lawful self-defense."

    And there are absolutely no liability concerns for private property owners in connection with this bill. "No person or business entity shall be liable in any civil action for any occurrence which results from, is connected with, or is incidental to the use of a firearm . . ."

    The bill also creates a private right of action for aggrieved parties, including the award of attorney fees (which helps get attorneys involved since they know they can get paid even if you cannot afford it).

    There are rather strong provisions for employees, but you are overlooking the full significance of this bill. It does away with the worry about carrying to a public gathering just by virtue of having the firearm in your car when you park at a nice restaurant.

    I think it also does huge damage to Stone Mountain Park's unconstitutional ordinance (that already conflicts with the general laws of the State, contrary to their authorizing legislation). I have been informed by several Stone Mountain Park police officers and the Chief of Police that if they find a firearm in your car, they will charge you and seize the firearm.
     
  9. Malum Prohibitum

    Malum Prohibitum Moderator Staff Member

    63,041
    231
    63
  10. Malum Prohibitum

    Malum Prohibitum Moderator Staff Member

    63,041
    231
    63
    You can expect large corporations to fight the second one. They almost all have their parking lots off limits to employees, even when they allow customers to carry at their retail locations (Wal-mart and Home Depot are but two examples that come to mind).
     
  11. Malum Prohibitum

    Malum Prohibitum Moderator Staff Member

    63,041
    231
    63
    Oklahoma. :wink:
     
  12. ICP_Juggalo

    ICP_Juggalo Active Member

    1,923
    0
    36
    I really really like HB998. :lol: I support private property rights, but when it comes to my vehicle, it is my private property as well and no business or employer has any business telling me what I can and cannot have in MY car.
     
  13. Gunstar1

    Gunstar1 Administrator

    8,460
    5
    38
    I was close, Ohio starts with an O. :lol:
     
  14. Malum Prohibitum

    Malum Prohibitum Moderator Staff Member

    63,041
    231
    63
    SB 396 got a cover page write up in the AJC.