SB 175 - Brady Law; regulations; comprehensive revision

Discussion in 'Previous Bills' started by wwwilljr, Feb 22, 2005.

  1. wwwilljr

    wwwilljr New Member

    20
    0
    1
  2. seajay

    seajay NRA Certified Instructor

    4,996
    0
    36
    The reforms this bill establishes are not gun owner friendly. The reforms include gun registration right down to and including even black powder muzzle loaders. Everyone is being encouraged to call their reps and help stop this bill as written. Tell them you want the Georgia brady abolished completely or leave it alone.
     

  3. Gunstar1

    Gunstar1 Administrator

    8,460
    5
    38
    02/24/05 Senate Committee Favorably Reported
     
  4. gkbikers

    gkbikers Guest

    18
    0
    0
    I am no fan of the Brady Bunch and I absolutely am against gun registration in ANY form.

    Having said that, I have read this bill and I cannot find anywhere the language that requires gun registration. What I do find is a shift in responsibility from the GBI to the FBI which relieves the state of an unfunded mandate and puts the cost back on the federal government.

    Furthermore, the main thrust of this bill is to include mentally ill patient records for the NCIS background check, thus fulfilling one of the big complaints that the Brady Bunch has used to hammer concealed carry laws. For Georgians, this bill could be used to hammer home the right for citizens to carry concealed ANYWHERE, since they would've been background checked by the FBI for both criminal and mental illness history.

    The bill also limits the ability of local municipalities to inhibit gun manufacturers and many gun activities, such as gun shows; this right is reserved to the state. Is this good or bad?

    The NRA has backed this bill and testified in comittee favorably for it (so sayeth the Senate website).

    At the risk of incurring the ire of members here, if this bill does us no harm, I would suggest we could use it to make some friends in the Senate.

    Please read it carefully and cite specific sections that are offensive. That will help pinpoint the areas of contention and give us the ability to formulate a specific list of its undesirable points - to present to our officials, if desired.

    Thanks.
     
  5. seajay

    seajay NRA Certified Instructor

    4,996
    0
    36
    The bill does not "require" gun registration. It removes the restriction that say no way no how will there be gun registration. Without this then any local community could require it if they so chose. The section of Georgia code below is being repealed by this bill.

    .16-11-176.
    The bureau shall not create any list, electronic, magnetic, or otherwise, containing any of the information set forth in paragraph (1) of Code Section 16-11-172 pertaining to a potential buyer or transferee unless the potential buyer or transferee is prohibited from receipt or possession of a handgun pursuant to state or federal law.


    The bureau being the GBI.

    This bill also gives right to the General Assembly to regulate firearms. something they do not currently really have. Even though they do it anyway.

    (a)(1) It is declared by the General Assembly that the regulation of firearms is properly an issue of general, state-wide concern.

    There are othre things that are not good for gun owners.
     
  6. gkbikers

    gkbikers Guest

    18
    0
    0
    16-11-173(b)(1) No county or municipal corporation, by zoning or by ordinance, resolution, or other enactment, shall regulate in any manner gun shows; the possession, ownership, transport, carrying, transfer, sale, purchase, licensing, or registration of firearms or components of firearms; firearms dealers; or dealers in firearms components.

    I think the local registration issue is handled in the code section shown above.

    Insofar as the statement that it is "declared by the General Assembly that the regulation of firearms is properly an issue of general, state-wide concern," this is sort of a prima-facia statement, since obviously the legislature has the right to enact laws dealing with firearms. I personally believe they put that statement in the law to show that THEY are the pre-imminent law or rule making body of the state on this issue (guns) NOT local municipalities. I haven't decided how I like that, though. I mean, the more local the representation, the more each citizen has a say in "the rules."

    I understand the concern about ANY law being brought that deals with inhibiting the free ownership and use of firearms by freedom-loving citizens. However, people who are afraid of guns number LARGE in this country now and that is a fact we gun owners must recognize and deal with. We have to find a way to make the gun-fearful NOT FEAR the good guys. If we can help them overcome their fear, then they will not be so apt to support more restrictive gun laws inhibiting the rights of the Good Guys.

    Sorry for being so verbose, it's one of my many vices. :oops:
     
  7. wwwilljr

    wwwilljr New Member

    20
    0
    1
    It appears that the committee made these changes:

    16-11-172
    (c) Any government official who willfully or intentionally compromises the identity, confidentiality, and security of any records and data pursuant to this part shall be guilty of a felony and fined no less than $5,000.00 and shall be subject to automatic dismissal from his or her employment.
    (d) The provisions of this part shall not apply to:
    (1) Any firearm, including any handgun with a matchlock, flintlock, percussion cap, or similar type of ignition system, manufactured in or before 1898;
    (2) Any replica of any firearm described in paragraph (1) of this subsection if such replica is not designed or redesigned to use rimfire or conventional center-fire fixed ammunition or uses rimfire or conventional center-fire fixed ammunition which is no longer manufactured in the United States and which is not readily available in the ordinary channels of commercial trade; and
    (3) Any firearm which is a curio or relic as defined by 27 C.F.R. 178.11.


    end of Section 2:
    (f) The council is empowered to adopt rules, regulations, and forms necessary to implement this Code section. The council shall promulgate regulations to ensure the identity, confidentiality, and security of all records and data provided in accordance with this Code section.
     
  8. gkbikers

    gkbikers Guest

    18
    0
    0
    http://www.legis.state.ga.us/legis/2005 ... eek06a.htm



     
  9. Gunstar1

    Gunstar1 Administrator

    8,460
    5
    38
    Ok, with the changes the committee made that wwwilljr posted, I think it is a sound bill.

    The biggest problem I had with it was the removal of the penalty for giving out info and appeals.

    I don't believe they will create a registry of guns. My fear is that the information that is gathered will be used for purposes other than a firearms puchase background check.

    "No county or municipal corporation" does not include the GBI/GCIC. They are state controlled, not county or city. They would still hold the data that NICS pulls from. It would not take much for them to give that data out for other reasons.

    With the changes made in committee, if someone in the GCIC gives out your data they will be fined and fired. Many forms of blackpowder rifles are exempt.

    To make sure of what I was thinking I went to the BATFE NICS FAQ. I checked closer at the NICS system, appeals will simply be handled by NICS/FBI instead of GCIC/GBI.

    Registration would be rather difficult since GCIC will no longer "see" the transaction. It goes straight to NICS, an accepted gets deleted after 24 hours.

    "Long guns" are currently being ran through NICS and handguns through GCIC. With what the bill has and committee added, we are not adding more registration, but moving handgun checks to the Feds and removing the $5 fee.

    I did not like it before the committee changes.
    Now it looks like a good bill. :)
     
  10. coyy2k1

    coyy2k1 Guest

    21
    0
    0
    The end of 16-11-173 states also this: (e) Nothing contained in this Code section shall prohibit municipalities or counties, by ordinance, resolution, or other enactment, from reasonably limiting or prohibiting the discharge of firearms within the boundaries of the municipal corporation or county :(
    This makes it possible for the county or locals to put restrictions on when outdoor ranges or for that matter anyone who may want to shoot on there own property, limits set by the local municipalities which if one person complains may ten be regulated by the county. I don't like some of this. :cry:
     
  11. Gunstar1

    Gunstar1 Administrator

    8,460
    5
    38
    I missed that about counties. However the only outdoor range I know (Advanced Bullets) near Carrollton closes at 5pm.

    However 2 things I think out weight the county addition:
    If you are an urban county you probably need to stop people from shooting and go to a range. Rural areas where hunting is popular will have too strong a resistance to get something like that passed. Remeber, this charge 99% of the time is exempt if the shot is in self defense.
    and
    GCIC will have the resourses to investigate GFL applications faster.
     
  12. Malum Prohibitum

    Malum Prohibitum Moderator Staff Member

    67,050
    1,427
    113
    Is it my imagination, or are they doing away with the exception to the background check for license holders? Does anyone see it in the new legislation (look in 172)? It is deleted from the old (181(a)(4)) in this bill.
     
  13. Malum Prohibitum

    Malum Prohibitum Moderator Staff Member

    67,050
    1,427
    113
    On counties and municipalities regulating the discharge of firearms, guys, this is already the law. See section 184(e).
     
  14. Malum Prohibitum

    Malum Prohibitum Moderator Staff Member

    67,050
    1,427
    113
    On the regulation of firearms being an issue of statewide concern - folks, this is a good thing. It is called preemption, and it is already the law, too. See section 184(a)(1).
     
  15. Malum Prohibitum

    Malum Prohibitum Moderator Staff Member

    67,050
    1,427
    113
    OK, one more concern - can anybody find me the provision that mandates that a dealer can go ahead and make the sale if the background check does not return with a certain amount of time?
     
  16. Gunstar1

    Gunstar1 Administrator

    8,460
    5
    38
    post 1: Exemption for handguns goes to the Federal level, since you can use the permit to exempt a long-gun, you can still use the permit for handguns. http://www.atf.gov/firearms/bradylaw/permit_chart.htm

    Post 2: No, it is municipalities only. It currently says nothing here prohibits counties or cities from creating a ban on discharging inside city limits.
    Currently: within the boundaries of the municipal corporation.
    Poposed: within the boundaries of the municipal corporation or county.

    Post 3: Not really concerned about registration as much as them giving out data stored to anything or anyone other than NICS when I puchase a firearm. However they put the penalty back.
    The worry was that GBI is not a county or municipality and could create a registration scheme. However, the GBI will not "see" the NICS info and so could not create any registration.

    Post 4: Will this do? http://www.atf.treas.gov/firearms/faq/faq2.htm#p
     
  17. Malum Prohibitum

    Malum Prohibitum Moderator Staff Member

    67,050
    1,427
    113
  18. Malum Prohibitum

    Malum Prohibitum Moderator Staff Member

    67,050
    1,427
    113
    Post 3 - Your response does not relate to my post.
     
  19. Malum Prohibitum

    Malum Prohibitum Moderator Staff Member

    67,050
    1,427
    113
    Post 2.

    No. It includes counties even now as we are typing.

    Here is the text of 184(e) as it currently exists.

    "Nothing contained in this Code section shall prohibit municipalities or counties, by ordinance, resolution, or other enactment, from reasonably limiting or prohibiting the discharge of firearms within the boundaries of the municipal corporation."

    That doesn't make sense, and they added the language or county to the end. All in all, though, I would have to say that this change is not good.
     
  20. Gunstar1

    Gunstar1 Administrator

    8,460
    5
    38
    Oops, I read "registration" not "regulation".

    As for Regulation, I would agree.