[mountainpass]

http://www.legis.ga.gov/legislation/en-US/Display/20152016/HB/1060

A BILL to be entitled an Act to amend Part 3 of Article 4 of Chapter 11 of Title 16 of the O.C.G.A., relating to carrying and possession of firearms; to amend Article 3 of Chapter 5 of Title 17 of the O.C.G.A., relating to disposition of property seized; to amend Code Section 35-3-34 of the O.C.G.A., relating to disclosure and dissemination of criminal records to private persons and businesses, resulting responsibility and liability of issuing center, and provision of certain information to the FBI in conjunction with the National Instant Criminal Background Check System; to amend Chapter 1 of Title 51 of the O.C.G.A., relating to general provisions regarding torts; to provide for related matters; to repeal conflicting laws; and for other purposes.

 

[Circuits]

Some good provisions here! I noticed, though, that it does not address the "courthouse" problem.

 

[Phil1979]

This is a great bill!

It has a lot of good things in it:

1. It gives a grace period for those who are moving here to carry with their current license until they get their GWL within 90 days.

2. It strengthens property rights of churches and no longer forces them to opt into HB 60 if they want to allow certain citizens to carry but not others.

3. It will allow us to carry at Piedmont Park, for example, even if there is an event there hosted by a private entity, if the public is invited.

4. Disseminating of gun safety info to license applicants.

5. Auctions of unclaimed firearms.

6. Clarification of the process to petition for your rights.

7. Peace officer provisions to carry after retired or having served at least ten years.

8. Airport definition clarification.

9. Legal liability protection for firearms instructors.

They need to get busy to get this to the Senate fast. Cross-over day is approaching soon!

 

[Phil1979]

It is exciting to see such a comprehensive bill that is so cleanly written! There is nothing really here that is "controversial", so perhaps even some Democrats will vote for it besides our friend Rep. Mike Glanton.

 

[Savannah Dan]

I would like to see retired US Customs Investigations Special Agents added to Section 6.

 

[Dawgdoc]

The churches are going to complain that the part about requiring "personal notification" to the weapons carrier will mean that they will need to post signs. Even though to us, "personal notification" implies a person personally telling you, an individual, to your face, that you cannot carry a weapon in that particular church. Then, if the bill becomes law, they will reverse course and post signs and claim that is all the "personal notification" needed, and it might end up in the court. Or the churches that are part of larger governing bodies will issue decrees (again) and claim that is legal notification.

That is just my take on how such a simple, straightforward phrase could be twisted around by the anti-gun zealots. I like the idea that it almost entirely removes churches from the prohibited places list (or at least gives you an opportunity to avoid a charge), but you just know the Catholic Archbishops and Episcopalian Bishops are going to fight it.

 

[Clark]

This is a great bill!

*SNIP*

3. It will allow us to carry at Piedmont Park, for example, even if there is an event there hosted by a private entity, if the public is invited.

*SNIP*

Does this actually add that, or does this just strengthen what we already had?

 

[00Dan]

Does this actually add that, or does this just strengthen what we already had?

The way I read it, it clarifies that public property leased to a private entity is still public for the purposes of preemption.

 

[Phil1979]

We already did of a sort. In what I'd call an "organic" change to the law with HB 60, "property" was changed to "private property", but there were no defining parameters, so even that was wide open to interpretation. It was, however, an honest, good faith effort.

HB 1060 seems to nail down every single shingle that might even appear to be loose.

Does this actually add that, or does this just strengthen what we already had?

 

[rmodel65]

This is a great bill!

It has a lot of good things in it:

1. It gives a grace period for those who are moving here to carry with their current license until they get their GWL within 90 days.

2. It strengthens property rights of churches and no longer forces them to opt into HB 60 if they want to allow certain citizens to carry but not others.

3. It will allow us to carry at Piedmont Park, for example, even if there is an event there hosted by a private entity, if the public is invited.

4. Disseminating of gun safety info to license applicants.

5. Auctions of unclaimed firearms.

6. Clarification of the process to petition for your rights.

7. Peace officer provisions to carry after retired or having served at least ten years.

8. Airport definition clarification.

9. Legal liability protection for firearms instructors.

They need to get busy to get this to the Senate fast. Cross-over day is approaching soon!

Doesn't leosa already cover those who served at least 10 years?

 

[DonT]

I also support this bill, lots of good progress here. However, I'm disappointed that we have not seen any measure that would define "screening" when it comes to government buildings that "restrict and screen" for firearms carry. That is still needed, in my view.

 

[Circuits]

I also support this bill, lots of good progress here. However, I'm disappointed that we have not seen any measure that would define "screening" when it comes to government buildings that "restrict and screen" for firearms carry. That is still needed, in my view.

On the other hand, there are situations where the current law would be an advantage for concealed carriers. For example, in places using the "eyeball" method.

 

[DonT]

On the other hand, there are situations where the current law would be an advantage for concealed carriers. For example, in places using the "eyeball" method.

I can see your reasoning. But the problem with that logic is, local governments would be deciding for themselves what is against the law and what isn't. You would have Fulton County doing one thing, and Cobb doing something else. I would much prefer* a state mandated high standard for screening, that is uniform for the entire state. If a county or city wants to impose screening, and the law requires electronic device screening, or a physical search, for firearms for every person entering, each local government would have to evaluate the costs and trouble and inconvenience to the public that they would incur with such a policy.

[* Naturally, I would MORE prefer, just dropping the entire prohibition of legally carried arms completely, for government buildings, courthouses, the State Capitol, etc.]

 

[Phil1979]

Until screening is clearly defined, we will have to make it a moot point at each publicly owned place we want to carry at, by getting a clear answer in writing from the venue's authorities as to whether or not they qualify as a "government building". If not, then you can carry openly without fear, regardless of their signs or screening.

Now, you may have to conceal going in just to keep them from physically blocking you, but once in discreetly switch to open carry and put the ball in their court as to whether or not they want to throw you out and risk a lawsuit for violating state preemption. By remaining concealed, they continue to get away with their shenanigans.

The venue buildings at Infinite Energy Center (owned by Gwinnett County) is one such place that sometimes uses metal detectors (eye-ball method most of the time) to keep out weapons in violation of state preemption. I have it in writing three separate times that these buildings do not qualify as "government buildings".

 

[Circuits]

I can see your reasoning. But the problem with that logic is, local governments would be deciding for themselves what is against the law and what isn't. You would have Fulton County doing one thing, and Cobb doing something else. I would much prefer* a state mandated high standard for screening, that is uniform for the entire state. If a county or city wants to impose screening, and the law requires electronic device screening, or a physical search, for firearms for every person entering, each local government would have to evaluate the costs and trouble and inconvenience to the public that they would incur with such a policy.

[* Naturally, I would MORE prefer, just dropping the entire prohibition of legally carried arms completely, for government buildings, courthouses, the State Capitol, etc.]

I agree. The only real solution is to allow GWL holders to bypass screening in government buildings.

 

[Phil1979]

I've emailed House Speaker Ralston to ask for his help in getting this bill fast-tracked before cross-over day the 29th.

Anyone else do any writing or calling?

 

[A. McClure]

I have told my representative and others several times that I could not get behind a bill that touched on church carry but left churches on the off-limits list and just danced around the punitive consequences. I'm going to have to be a man of my word, I will be sitting this one out and will not actively support it unless the change I want is amended. Otherwise, this will be my one and only public comment on the matter.

 

[Phil1979]

It does far more than dance around it. It removes the automatic weapons penalty, and give a gun carrier the option to leave and not face any charges at all. To me, that is great progress. If a carrier does not leave, he gets a trespass charge and a weapons charge. I know I would not have a problem with obeying an order to leave, so this bill is golden to me. You should support it.

And it actually strengthens the private property rights of churches and no longer forces them to opt into HB 60 in order to allow certain favored members to carry.

 

[bubbageek]

I have told my representative and others several times that I could not get behind a bill that touched on church carry but left churches on the off-limits list and just danced around the punitive consequences. I'm going to have to be a man of my word, I will be sitting this one out and will not actively support it unless the change I want is amended. Otherwise, this will be my one and only public comment on the matter.

Andy,

If you haven't moved, I know who your rep is. (I remember you telling me this once ). I am fairly sure he has pushed to make the church carry thing just a private property thing.

I am also very much behind the bill that defines a knife as having a 12" blade and the current campus carry legislation.

HB1060 was dropped in the hopper on Friday. With luck it gets read today and assigned to the Public Safety and Homeland Security committee. While it is there, Rep. Keisha Waites can add her capitol carry amendment.

Folks we are getting down to crunch time. HB 859 (Campus Carry) needs to be scheduled for a floor vote in the house and this bill, HB 1060 has a lot of ground to travel between now and Feb 29, which is next Monday.

 

[mountainpass]

John there will be a floor vote on 859 today in the house.