[Phil1979]

1. First the Air Show (public property)

2. Then Atlanta Botanical Garden (public property)

3. Then the Macon Cherry Blossom Festival at a public park (by the way Macon-Bibb Atty. Crystal Jones cited my Atlanta Botanical Garden case as their cover)

4. Infinite Energy Center (banning firearms and knives with metal detectors from buildings that are NOT government buildings)

Do you folks realize that ANY local government can now (at least in their own minds, and with the force of law if they get judges to agree with them) create a management agreement with private entities for ANY public property, such as parks, libraries, museums, theaters, etc, and BAN lawfully carried firearms?

Not just in buildings, but the entire property?

Is state preemption dead already here in Georgia, or is the writing just on the wall?

Please post here your confirmation that you have emailed and/or called your legislators detailing all the examples above, and have asked what they are going to do about it?

 

[Phil1979]

If our lawmakers don't listen, do we need to flood the court system with lawsuit after lawsuit by defying unlawful weapons bans and possibly getting arrested in the process?

The Georgia General Assembly needs to come to our rescue NOW!!!

 

[Phil1979]

Poll - Is State Preemption of Weapons Dead?

Is State Preemption of Weapons Dead?

 

[Phil1979]

Sorry, forgot to include the poll here. If a moderator can move it here, that would be great. Thanks

 

[reb1981]

I don't think it's dead but lawmakers and enforcement need to get on board.

 

[a_springfield]

No, but it needs to get it in front of a non activist judge.

 

[gunsmoker]

As I've said before, it takes extra effort to write a law so clearly and free of flaws or loopholes that an anti- gun (or just anti-carry) person can't find some way to misinterpret it.

I suggest a legislative fix through a single bill that amends several laws.
A couple of gun laws,
AND the criminal trespass law,
AND one or more the real property laws,

AND the preemption law.

 

[gungeek]

Not dead, but eroding. I think some cleanup is needed, including accountability for violating it.

 

[psrumors]

As I've said before, it takes extra effort to write a law so clearly and free of flaws or loopholes that an anti- gun (or just anti-carry) person can't find some way to misinterpret it.
.....

I don't believe it does, laws are written to be convoluted for a reason....

 

[moe mensale]

No, but it needs to get it in front of a non activist judge.

I agree, no, preemption is not dead but the judiciary isn't the entity to fix this. Activist or not, judges do not create law, the legislature does and they need to step up and correct this.

 

[AtlPhilip]

Back when Falls was Pirkled I said that public-private partnerships would be utilized by municipalities as a tool to skirt preemption. Unless we stop it, expect more private management companies (with a heavily controlled leadership) to form and be assigned control of public property.

This needs a legislative fix clearly defining public buildings/property.

 

[gunsmoker]

As others have brought up before, another facet of blurring the line between public property and private property is when all the streets and sidewalks of a mixed-use development are privately owned.
Atlantic Station, for example.
If the City wants to eject homeless from the streets, or ban panhandling, they have limits on how much they can move on that, because people have rights.
For visitors to private property, you have no rights. The City can suggest that the property owners ban homeless people, and the cops can enforce it, or private security guards. Ether way works.
You think you have a 4th Amendment expectation of privacy when you walk to work carrying a briefcase?
Well, not when you work at a privately owned facility and that "street" you parked on is really a private road. And you're carrying your briefcase down a private sidewalk.
The property owners can strip you of all your privacy rights, and have you ejected from the property (which means you're fired from your job, too) without any 4th Amendment issues. (And of course you have no recourse about losing your job, either. Right to Work, Employment At Will....)

 

[Clark]

Which is why we need to formally recognize a third class of property rights. We already partially do with public accommodation laws, but those should be expanded to better protect people.

 

[AtlPhilip]

Which is why we need to formally recognize a third class of property rights. We already partially do with public accommodation laws, but those should be expanded to better protect people.

Absolutely not. Property is either public or it is private. I have no obligation to tolerate you on my private property, let alone serve you against my will.

Forcing another man to serve you against his will isn't how you protect people, it's how you subjugate them.

You think you have a 4th Amendment expectation of privacy when you walk to work carrying a briefcase?

Absolutely. My presence on private property does not grant the landowner a license to seize my property and search it. Attempts to do so would constitute theft and assault, at a minimum.

 

[Nemo]

Absolutely. My presence on private property does not grant the landowner a license to seize my property and search it. Attempts to do so would constitute theft and assault, at a minimum.

His private property rights give him the right to demand you let him search it or you are not permitted to enter.

Provided he demands that of everyone entering. Owner cannot demand you submit to search because you are a white guy wearing a NRA or GCO or 2A foundation hat and not make similar demands of others.

Should he make that demand on that basis it is an arbitrary and discriminatory demand. But your agreeing to his policy, as long as that policy is reasonable, as condition of entry outweighs your demand to privacy.

You get your privacy but not on his private property. Just like he cannot demand entry to your private property without agreeing to your requirements.

Nemo

 

[AtlPhilip]

His private property rights give him the right to demand you let him search it or you are not permitted to enter.

The last 7 words are key. He can demand anything he wants, but compliance is 100% voluntary. I can refuse the search, even if I am already on his property. My right to privacy hasn't been violated, my "right" to be on his property (which doesn't exist) has.

 

[phantoms]

For visitors to private property, you have no rights. The City can suggest that the property owners ban homeless people, and the cops can enforce it, or private security guards. Ether way works.

Should a city or any representative of government be able to suggest anything regarding carrying that does not align with current law though?

 

[68908]

If it isn't addressed, I do see it getting worse.