Georgia Firearm Forums - Georgia Packing banner
1 - 20 of 159 Posts

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
8,460 Posts
Discussion Starter · #1 ·
Rogers and Graves said their new proposal does not include employee parking that is restricted from the general public. Both Senate Bill 43 and House Bill 143 also exclude vehicles owned by an employer and used by a worker for business purposes. In addition, the bill excludes employees who are already restricted from carrying firearms on their employer's premises because of disciplinary action, and does not apply to penal and correctional institutions.
link to AJC
 

·
Moderator
Joined
·
69,738 Posts
Does not apply:

"To an employer providing applicable employees with a secure parking area which restricts general public access through the use of a gate, security station, or other similar means of limiting public access into the parking area;"


Well, why not? Those are the only ones that are not likely to get stolen! :D
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
787 Posts
Don't forget the homeless guy with the flag.

The gate restriction is not likely meant to apply to standard reserved parking lots, rather it would apply to a special area that is restricted from the general public .... for example, the parking area behind the security gates at the Doraville Fuel storage areas.
 

·
Moderator
Joined
·
69,738 Posts
Several lawmakers expressed reservations about the new proposal.

State Rep. Stephanie Stuckey Benfield (D-Atlanta) said that she is concerned that the bill could lead to workplace violence or lead to domestic violence.

"I can see somebody who's mentally ill or disgruntled taking advantage of this law. I don't know if there is a fix to that legislatively, other than to not pass the bill," said Benfield.

_____________________________________________________________

:roll:

Yeah. Right. Maybe a good fix would be to outlaw disgruntled or mentally ill people from committing murder.

"[T]he bill could lead to . . . domestic violence" because we all know that if a woman works for an employer with a personnel policy that completely disarms its employees, her enraged psycho husband will not come there and shoot her.

Enraged psycho husbands have just been waiting for a bill like this to pass.

How does one get elected with thought processes that demonstrate such a lack of logic?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
5,215 Posts
Malum Prohibitum said:
"[T]he bill could lead to . . . domestic violence" because we all know that if a woman works for an employer with a personnel policy that completely disarms its employees, her enraged psycho husband will not come there and shoot her.
No, I just had her quit that job so she would be home when I felt the urge... :lol:
 

·
Moderator
Joined
·
69,738 Posts
http://www.ajc.com/metro/content/metro/ ... gguns.html

Our main objective is to put employees on the same level playing field as any other individual who would park in a public parking lot," Rogers said.
These folks probably need some education about the parking lots of public gatherings, restaurants that serve alcohol, auto auctions, publicly owned and operated buildings, sporting events, churches, airports, Marta stations, and the like.

:wink:
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
787 Posts
Remember last year with the No Duty to Retreat bill and Rep. Stuckley Benfield's hysteria. We should find that tape and post her predictions of blood in the streets.

I predict there will be a big market for gates after this passes. I think I understand what Sen. Rogers is trying to do but the language doesn't work. He should probably change the language to:

(1) To an employer providing applicable employees with vehicle parking within a secure work area which restricts public access through the use of a security fence, gate, security station, and other similar means of preventing public access into the secure area;
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
260 Posts
I'm in support but some of the language needs work

The bill looks good for people like me that work in retail but people that have employer's that has security gates they would have a big problem they are not protected by the bill which is not fair.I see some language that restricts employee's from have a legal right to carry a firearm in there car if they have had disciplinary action take on them in the past.This language need to be take out of the bill because your employer may try to use this language to keep the no firearm policy on the books. This is what I'm talk about(a) of this Code section shall not apply (3) To an employee who is restricted from carrying or possessing a firearm on the employer´s premises due to a pending or completed disciplinary action So this language is so sick that I need to :puke: So if you broke a company policy and they gave disciplinary action to you plus have a firearm in the car they could fire you. I hate this crap about Georgia being a right to work state and your employer can do what they want when they want.This is just coming from a member of a labor union.
 

·
Moderator
Joined
·
69,738 Posts
"(a) Except as provided in this Code section, no private or public employer . . ."

As I understand this, the ladies that work at city hall could keep a gun in their glovebox of their locked car (like they all have been doing anyway), but if I park near city hall to pay a water bill with a gun in the glovebox, I could go to jail for violating the law that was passed after the Camilla Massacre (how dare those blacks defend themselves from the Sheriff's white posse!)

While I am sure this is not the intended result, I do not see any way around it.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
787 Posts
I'm interested in this bill and am planning to "testify" like Ed of GCO about it. I have a couple of questions for the group:

1) Does Georgia consider your car an extension of your home for other criminal offenses and for executing search warrants?

2) Have property owners been held liable for the contents of vehicles on their property?

3) If you were the Governor, how would you want the bill to read?

So you know, I don't like the form of it. Basically, its worse than the situation we have now.
 

·
Moderator
Joined
·
69,738 Posts
Mike from Philly said:
I'm interested in this bill and am planning to "testify" like Ed of GCO about it. I have a couple of questions for the group:
You mean like Mike of GCO? :D

Mike from Philly said:
1) Does Georgia consider your car an extension of your home for other criminal offenses and for executing search warrants?
Nope. In fact, no search warrant is needed. If some cop feeds you that line, "If you say no I will just get a search warrant," just laugh and ask if you can go. There is no search warrant needed to search your car, just probable cause. Of course, the officer can't get a warrant without probable cause, either, so, if he had probable cause he would just go ahead and search. If he is asking, he does not have probable cause and wants your consent.

Mike from Philly said:
2) Have property owners been held liable for the contents of vehicles on their property?
Like, for a possession of cocaine offense? I am not sure what you are asking.

Mike from Philly said:
3) If you were the Governor, how would you want the bill to read?
"The right of the people to keep and bear . . ." :lol:

Mike from Philly said:
So you know, I don't like the form of it. Basically, its worse than the situation we have now.
How so?
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
8,460 Posts
Discussion Starter · #18 ·
I don't understand why you think it would be worse than it is now. If you are thinking this is about criminal law, that is incorrect. This bill has absolutly nothing to do with criminal law.

... no private or public employer shall establish, maintain, or enforce any policy or rule that has the effect of prohibiting an employee from transporting or storing a firearm in a locked motor vehicle in any parking lot, parking garage, or other employee parking area.
Right now you can be fired for having a gun in your own car in your employers parking lot. SB 43 would prevent that. (with the execptions in subsection b)

I am guessing the your reason for asking question 2 about property holders being held liable for contents of vehicles is because of subsection (c)
No employer shall be held liable in any civil action for damages resulting from or arising out of an occurrence involving the transportation, storage, possession, or use of a firearm pursuant to this Code section
Why wait for the lawsuits to happen before you do something about it? (you know if a shooting ever happened between employees at a large corporation, the family of the victim would try to sue the corp) Besides it isn't as much about how many lawsuits there are or if anyone is even held liable in a civil case, subsection (c) is there to remove an excuse from employers as to why this bill should not be passed.

The nearly universal answer as to why employers ban firearms from employee carry is for "insurance" reasons. If that is true then the addition of immunity from liability negates that as an excuse.

I am ok with allowing private employers restricting employees from bringing a firearm into the building. However, I see my car as my own property and what is inside it is my business and not my employer.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
787 Posts
I should have figured it would be tommorrow. The day of back to back conference calls. Since I hadn't thought through what I wanted to say, maybe its good I can't attend.

Some of my intital thoughts about topics to cover are:

My Company's Weapons Policy From HR

Weapon-Free Workplace
To ensure we maintain a workplace safe and free of violence for all employees, the Company prohibits the possession or use of weapons on Company property. A license to carry the weapon does not supersede Company policy. Any employee in violation of this policy will be subject to immediate disciplinary action, up to and including termination.

"Dangerous Weapons" include, but are not limited to, firearms, explosives, knives and other items that might be considered dangerous or that could cause harm.

The Sign On Our Door That Keeps Us Safe

The security guard told me that the sign keeps us safe. Honest. I asked if the all-powerful sign will help me after work on my way home.



An Example of An Employee Who Needs To Carry

A woman in my office has a psycho ex boyfriend who has been stalking her. One time, he ran her car off the road. She shouldn't be disarmed and left unprotected just because my company wants to impose its anti-gun beliefs on us.

I'd love for her to testify but she can't. She's not unprotected, if you know what I mean.

Not to sound paranoid but whistleblowers do occasionally get attacked on the the way to work. Here is an article about a whistleblower being assualted. He worked at Los Alamos and the attack happened last year just before he was to testify in front of congress. Los Alamos had a weapons ban when I did work there in the late 1980's.

http://www.defensetech.org/archives/001590.html

Gates

As I mentioned in the posts above, the language is too broad. An employer can install a gate just at the curb cut and then claim their employees aren't covered by the law.

Why does a gate mean that we have to commute to work unprotected? The hurdle to disarm your employees should be a little higher than a $200 gate.

Why Just Employees?

As MP asks, why just employees? If the law is good for employees, shouldn't it apply to customers, residents, visitors, etc. See my sign above, the company prohibition applies to everyone.

Disciplinary Action
Excuse me but that is also broad. In my company, a disciplinary action includes ..... being late for an important meeting .... cursing .... sexual harrassment .... not making sales plan ..... not performing to standards .. and sometimes challenging authority. I've been placed on a plan at a prior employer because I refused to do a task which was illegal.

What about due process? An HR department is going to determine in a fair manner if you can protect yourself while commuting to work. That doesn't sound fair. My HR department is 100% anti-gun.

Penal and Jail

Does this language mean the parking lot in front of the jail or inside the jail? Probably should this law doesn't over-ride the jail line prohibitions.

State and Federal law

Basically, this section means if you work at a public gathering .... you are not protected by this law. That includes a restruant, bar, school, church, etc.

My Recommendation

I think I stole the following language from OK. I think it works better:

(a) No property owner, tenant, employer, business entity, county, municipal corporation, state created authority, agency, department, or public corporation shall be permitted to establish any policy or rule that has the effect of prohibiting any person, except those enumerated as ineligible for a license under Code Section 16-11-129, from transporting and storing firearms and weapons in a locked vehicle on any property set aside for any vehicle.

As long as the gun is secured in a locked car, its ok.

This language would solve some of the public gathering violation issues as hinted at by MP and would be clear.

These are just some thoughts.
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
8,460 Posts
Discussion Starter · #20 ·
I gotcha... Though I see how it could be better, I still don't see how as is it is worse than what we have currently, since we have nothing currently.
 
1 - 20 of 159 Posts
Top