[Gunstar1]

http://www.legis.state.ga.us/legis/2005 ... /hb998.htm

Committee offered a substitute bill that I think employers will like.

added by ICP_Juggalo: This bill prohibits private parking lot owners from prohibitng the lawful storage of weapons in an individual's vehicle and creates tort immunity for such owner of the property if a weapon is used on the property by an individual in a lawful manner.

No longer exempts the Parking lot of public gatherings.

 

[ICP_Juggalo]

But I don't think I will like. It looks as if my employer would still have their big nose in my business when it comes to what is in MY car.

 

[Malum Prohibitum]

. . . that a property owner may prohibit persons from possessing or storing firearms in motor vehicles on such owneŕs property if such owner provides and maintains a system for the checking, storing, and securing of such firearms during the time such persons are present on the owneŕs property and such owner gives notice of such prohibition . . .

What happens if I don't want their shady looking guy at Wal-mart to take my firearm, and I elect to quietly leave it in my glovebox while I shop without disclosing it to anybody? Have I committed a crime?

This is more than just employers, people. Read it from the viewpoint of any private parking lot, and then see what you think of it.

 

[jrm]

MP,

This bill does not create or define any crimes. It only declares what is not a crime. Behavior that falls outside of what is not a crime is not changed by this bill. In your example, if Walmart chooses to post signs saying no guns in the parking lot, and Walmart further undertakes to provide a means of securing your firearm at the store, and you choose to violate Walmart's wishes by keeping your gun locked in your glove compartment, you merely are an invitee who is violating the wishes of a private property owner. That private property owner can ask you to leave, regardless of whether the owner knows about your gun or not. The law of trespass is not modified by this bill. I see this as a nice step forward (albeit perhaps a baby step). Do you disagree?

Wouldn't this bill now permit guns in parking lots of courthouses, MARTA, airports, police stations, bars, restaurants that serve alcohol, sports arenas, and schools (assuming it doesn't run afoul of the federal Gun Free School Zone)?

 

[jrm]

Oh, and I do agree with MP on one point: this is not about employers. Sure the bill makes clear that it is not a crime to have a gun in your car in your employer's parking lot (unless you work at a power plant :?), but most people are more concerned about adverse job actions (i.e., getting fired) for having a a gun in the car, not about getting charged with a crime. If the bill were about employers, it would have to prohibit employers from taking any job actions against employees for having guns in the car, and it clearly does not do that.

 

[Gunstar1]

Though I would like to see that, the big businesses in Georgia will fight tooth and nail against it. The Georgia Chamber of Commerce and it's members love the fact Georgia is a right to hire state and will fight hard against any restrictions on who or why they can fire anyone.

Similar bills in other states have failed to pass becasue of that one additional restriction on businesses.

This bill does remove the biggest reason for no firearm rules, the business' insurance agency fearing civil action. Giving civil liability immunity solves that. So any company in the future that has anti gun rules will be lying if they say they only do it because of insurance.


BTW, anybody know about that North Carolina study about being more likely to be shot at a place that allows firearm carry? My first thought is that if you are allowed to carry (not that they look the other way but say yes you can carry) by your employer, you are probably in a dangerous profession anyway. I want to find the study and read it for my self, not just the press release (the only part the media reads) that often mis-states what the study actually says.

 

[jrm]

While employer restrictions might be the excuse used not to have such a law, it is just that: an excuse. Other states have laws like that in one form or another, and their economies are not going down the toilet because of it. Georgia does not have it, but we're swimming in plant closings and other forms of pull-outs. Georgia's unemployment rate is above the national average. Virtually every (if not every) state is an employment at will state, but states commonly have laws modifying an employer's complete discretion in firing employees (e.g., prohibiting employment discrimination on the basis of race, gender, and religion). Are there employers out there that are so rabidly anti-gun that they would refuse to locate a facility in a state that forbade job actions on the basis of guns stored in an employee's car? I don't know, maybe so. Are there enough of them out there that they are a driving force in the economy? I really doubt it.

 

[Malum Prohibitum]

Heard on the radio:

Oklahoma's Chamber of Commerce withdrew its opposition to the bill in a matter of days after getting a lot of flak . . .

Oklahoma's bill passed.

I do not know of a lot of other states that have this law.

 

[Malum Prohibitum]

BTW, anybody know about that North Carolina study about being more likely to be shot at a place that allows firearm carry? My first thought is that if you are allowed to carry (not that they look the other way but say yes you can carry) by your employer, you are probably in a dangerous profession anyway. I want to find the study and read it for my self, not just the press release (the only part the media reads) that often mis-states what the study actually says.

It is probably all cops skewing the numbers . . . :roll:

 

[Gunstar1]

It is probably all cops skewing the numbers . . . :roll:

Yeah, the first few businesses to pop into my head were Security, Repo-men, pawn shop, gun shop, gas station, jewlery store, and liquor store.

Can anyone figure out why they might want to carry a firearm or why they might have a high homicide rate? :roll:

Without finding the study you don't know if they count the death of a criminal as part of the high office homicide rate. (like the brady bunch would lump together)

Or it could prove that firearms are effectivly used for protection in high crime businesses all the time. (which is the case in real life)

 

[Malum Prohibitum]

Look here: http://www.nraila.org/Issues/FactSheets ... spx?ID=180

 

[Malum Prohibitum]

A copy of the article is here :
AJPH

and it costs $10.00.

It is only 3 pages long, so I imagine some methodology is missing.

Edited by Gunstar1, changed link code

 

[Malum Prohibitum]

Cite, in case the link does not work for you, go to the American Journal of Public Health, and the article is:

Employer Policies Toward Guns and the Risk of Homicide in the Workplace
Loomis et al. Am J Public Health.2005; 95: 830-832.


Use caution. I think the article uses data from the mid 90s.

 

[ICP_Juggalo]

I really don't like the new version of this bill.

It is watered down from the original. Granted private property owners would not be able to prohibit people from carrying firearms in their car while parked on their property. It does nothing to protect an employee from being terminated at their job by having a firearm legally in their car.

And the parking lot of public gatherings, airports, and transprotation terminals are still off limits :x

The original version of this bill is so much better. That version had balls, this one is merely castrated.

 

[Malum Prohibitum]

The original one created a private right of action and protected employees.

As for the issue of public gatherings and such, I assume you are talking about this?

"It is not the intent of this Code section to repeal any existing Code section or federal law, rule, or regulation which, by law, prohibits the possession or transportation of weapons or firearms on public or private property."

Since the public gathering clause is an existing Code section, well, what exactly is it that this bill now does? It is already not illegal to have a gun in my glovebox at Wallyworld.

 

[Gunstar1]

They watered it down enough to where it doesn't do much of anything.

If I owned a business and hated firearms. I could say anyone who brings a firearm to work (including the parking lot) is fired.
The bill currently says I must provide a place to store the firearm if I have such a rule.
So anybody who asks to use that storage is fired for violating my rule.

(e) and (f) are ok, the rest is garbage.

 

[jrm]

It's kind of vague what the meaning is of the property owner security storage section. I don't think it really would require an owner to provide anything. At most, the refusal of a property owner to provide the secure storage would be a defense against some criminal charge that this section appears to provide protection from.

 

[Malum Prohibitum]

It's kind of vague what the meaning is of the property owner security storage section. I don't think it really would require an owner to provide anything.

It's not vague at all. There is no such requirement; you are reading it correctly. :shakehead:

I don't think this bill deserved the name of a "Self Defense Act" anymore, since it does nothing about self defense. Maybe we can get them to change it to "Mealy Mouthed Declaration that Does Not Mean Much But Mentions Parking Lots in An Ambiguous Manner." Can you change the name of a bill through amendment?

To the Georgia Admin: How does one go about getting a post moved to "News" over at the other site? Is it just plucked out by Mark if he thinks it newsworthy? :?:

http://www.packing.org/community/laws_p ... view/10153

The new version of HB 998 makes me do this! ---> uke:

 

[Malum Prohibitum]

And why does my text go way off the screen to the right, now, causing me to have to scroll back and forth to read each line ?!?

 

[tony218]

i have to scrol side to side also.
the way i keep this from happening
to my post is to stack my sentences.
just use fewer words per line.