Georgia Packing banner

261 - 280 of 301 Posts

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
8,460 Posts
I think it is simply a further erosion of the church ban.

Currently churches must decide to allow guns. If I carry before finding out if they allow guns, the church can call the police and say they dont allow them, you are subjected to a $100 fine. This bill would simply require the church or police to give personal notification and the chance to leave before being fined.
 

·
Junior Butt Warmer
Joined
·
46,427 Posts
gunsmoker said:
So is the church ban an opt-out or opt-in scenario???
It is opt-out. The off-limits statute says churches are prohibited unless the church says otherwise. A church must opt-out of the ban.

gunsmoker said:
It seems now that anybody can carry at a church up until the point that the church makes an issue out of it.
I suppose one could say it is similar to the way the criminal trespass mechanisms work. Everything is fine up until the point when the church decides it is not fine, at which point there is more than only the trespass statute at hand in order to help the church.

gunsmoker said:
GWL holders carrying at churches that have not opted-in to private citizen carry is both illegal in one part of the law (churches are still declared off-limits, with a $100 fine for GWL holders who violate the gun ban), but not enforceable under this newest provision of the law.
I'm going to have to disagree with you.

For example, the "right of retreat" does not change the ban for a church. The church remains off limits and the "problem person" is gone even if there is no arrest.

Further, carrying out the procedural requirements -- exactly as with trespassing -- by no means renders the ban unenforceable. On the contrary, instead there is now (or will be) procedures FOR enforcing the ban which weren't in place before.
 

·
Moderator
Joined
·
68,174 Posts
With this bill, you are actually in a better position than if the law did not mention churches at all, in which case the church would resort to criminal trespass law.

Anybody care to challenge that assertion?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,531 Posts
With this bill, you are actually in a better position than if the law did not mention churches at all, in which case the church would resort to criminal trespass law.

Anybody care to challenge that assertion?
I'm not going to challenge it, but I will try to see the logic.

Under current law, you are in violation if the governing authority has not given you permission to carry a gun, which results in no arrest but a fine of $100. As far as I know, this has not happened yet, but presumably they call the police, who issues the ticket. It seems to be up in the air if the violation disqualifies you from having a GWCL for the next 5 years.

If churches were not mentioned at all, but they posted a "no guns" sign, then they could potentially call the police to have you ejected for criminal trespass. Based on the discussions here, the notion that you must be notified first and THEN be trespassed may be false if you knowingly walk past a "no guns" sign. At least based on the information and opinions provided by some of the lawyers and LEOs that I have seen posted on here in the past.

Under 1060, the church would have to notify you specifically, give you a chance to leave, and if you did not, then they call police, who would issue the ticket.

So in other words, there appears to be an extra layer of protection beyond the criminal trespass law, as I understand it. This is assuming that no one in the government ignores legislative intent and declares that a sign or the pastor declaring, "No guns allowed!" to the whole congregation count as personal notification.

I am not a lawyer, but that is how I see it. Now, time for church.
 

·
Man of Myth and Legend
Joined
·
13,739 Posts
OK, so give me the details on the campus carry bill. Both houses passed it and it went to the governor.

1. Now, governor must Veto or it becomes law. Correct?

2. How long does it sit on his desk waiting on his action? If not action it becomes law based on the lack of action, correct?

3. Does the clock start counting on date of passage of last chamber of legislature or close of it or ???

4. We will know final result of this on or before what date?

Thanks

Nemo
 

·
Swollen Member
Joined
·
11,893 Posts
OK, so give me the details on the campus carry bill. Both houses passed it and it went to the governor.

1. Now, governor must Veto or it becomes law. Correct?

2. How long does it sit on his desk waiting on his action? If not action it becomes law based on the lack of action, correct?

3. Does the clock start counting on date of passage of last chamber of legislature or close of it or ???

4. We will know final result of this on or before what date?

Thanks

Nemo
He has 40 days from Sine Die to veto, sign or do nothing, which is May 3rd this year. If he does nothing by the end of May 3rd, it automatically becomes law.
 

·
Deplorable bitter clinger.
Joined
·
5,663 Posts
My understanding is, if Deal does not sign and does not veto by 3 May, it becomes law as Mrs. E said, effective as of 1 July in such a case where no date is specified.
 

·
Swollen Member
Joined
·
11,893 Posts
My understanding is, if Deal does not sign and does not veto by 3 May, it becomes law as Mrs. E said, effective as of 1 July in such a case where no date is specified.
^This. Forgot to mention July 1st. That's the statewide day of enactment.
 

·
Man of Myth and Legend
Joined
·
13,739 Posts
Thanks Gents.

And an active Veto is required to prevent this from becoming law as of 1 July.

Sign it makes it law, no sign it becomes law by actions of the legislature and Only a Veto prevents that.

Correct?

Nemo
 

·
Atlanta Overwatch
Joined
·
13,754 Posts
Thanks Gents.

And an active Veto is required to prevent this from becoming law as of 1 July.

Sign it makes it law, no sign it becomes law by actions of the legislature and Only a Veto prevents that.

Correct?

Nemo
Yes.

At this point only a veto can stop it.
 

·
Moderator
Joined
·
68,174 Posts
Have you asked Gov. Deal to sign it? You can send a paper letter or even stop by his office at the capital and deliver a handwritten note.
 

·
Man of Myth and Legend
Joined
·
13,739 Posts
I have done so. Several times. By email and phone. I would go by his office but its 179 miles from my house to the intersection of 75 and 285 on the south side of Atlanta.

I have to stick with phone and email.

Nemo
 

·
Lawyer and Gun Activist
Joined
·
28,018 Posts
I'm mailing a hard printed letter today, going over the main points of what HB1060 will do and why they are important to me or people I know.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
968 Posts
Anybody have a clue whether we're going to get this signed? I know campus carry has been the big focus, but 1060 would have a much bigger impact on me personally.
 

·
Moderator
Joined
·
68,174 Posts
I am guessing the news will not even pay attention to this one, so unless somebody is going to inquire at the capitol, we will not know until the legislature's web page is updated.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
982 Posts
Hater of Liberty he is. Disgusting.
 

·
Romans 10:13
Joined
·
4,611 Posts
That is hard to believe.
 

·
Just a Man
Joined
·
6,048 Posts
https://gov.georgia.gov/press-releases/2016-05-03/deal-issues-2016-veto-statements

Veto Number 12

House Bill 1060 is a bill that relates to the carrying and possession of firearms and other matters pertaining to firearms in general. It was presented as a housekeeping bill to clarify certain provisions that were contained in HB 60 that passed the General Assembly in 2014 and which became law upon my signature. While I do not have serious concerns about most of the bill, I do have serious concerns about the change of policy contained in Section 4 relating to the carrying of a weapon or long gun into a place of worship.

Prior to the effective date of the provisions contained in HB 60 of 2014, carrying a weapon or long gun into a place of worship was a criminal act. HB 60 added a proviso that said it would remain a criminal act “unless the governing body or authority of the place of worship permits the carrying of weapons or long guns by license holders...â€

At the time HB 60 was being considered, I made it clear that I would not approve the bill if it required every house of worship to post a sign saying that weapons were not permitted. I was assured by the supporters of HB 60 that such would not be required and that only those houses of worship that affirmatively permitted weapons by the actions of its governing body or authority would be affected. In other words, unless a house of worship posted information indicating its permission to allow weapons inside, it would retain its status as an “unauthorized location†for weapons.

Section 4 of HB 1060 breaches the compromise contained in HB 60. If it were to become law, a house of worship would no longer be considered an unauthorized location for weapons, and any license holder could carry a weapon or long gun into a place of worship without penalty unless they refused to leave “upon personal notification by such place of worship that he or she is carrying a weapon or long gun in a place of worship which does not permit the carrying of a weapon or long gun.†This provision also completely reverses the process so that now it will be the places of worship that do not want weapons on their premises that must affirmatively establish such a policy, rather than the other way around.

Section 4 of HB 1060 is an encroachment on the peace and tranquility of those who attend houses of worship because they can no longer have the time-honored assurance that they are in a protected place that is free of weapons and long guns. In fact, quite the opposite would be true. Even the posting of a sign saying “No Weapons Allowed†would do no good. Therefore, only when the carrier of the weapon or long gun is personally notified that he or she is violating the policies of the place of worship will any action be taken. Surely religious leaders and their congregants would be shocked to know that weapons and long guns can be freely and legally brought into their houses of worship and that they can do nothing about it until they personally notify the armed individual that such is not permitted by the governing body of the place of worship.

This provision calls into question basic precepts about the Rule of Law. It would negate the age old principals that “everyone is presumed to know the law†and that “ignorance of the law is no excuse.†If that same approach were used in other settings, the speeding motorist could contend that he should not be guilty of speeding, although signs were posted on the roadway advising him of the limits, because no one personally notified him of those limits.

This section of HB 1060 should be especially objectionable to licensed weapon holders, since it is they who would be protected for not knowing that a place of worship did not permit weapons. It is the reputation of such licensed weapon holders as law abiding citizens who respect and adhere to the rules of society that convinced many to accept the expansive provisions of HB 60 in 2014. With this one section of HB 1060, that reputation will be severely damaged. Surely, such a respected group of citizens who go through the processes of background checks, fingerprinting and other requirements to obtain a license to carry a weapon do not want or need to be tapped on the shoulder in a place or worship and reminded that their pistol or long gun is not allowed. Those who pride themselves on being law abiding citizens do not need ignorance of the law to be an excuse for their actions.

For these reasons, I VETO HB 1060.
 

·
Swollen Member
Joined
·
11,893 Posts
Man, Bloomberg must own Deal.
 
261 - 280 of 301 Posts
Top