Gun Bills Pass Georgia State Senate

Forums: Guns
Email this Topic • Print this Page

Gun Bills Pass Georgia State Senate
9:29 pm March 24, 2010, by Ernie Suggs

Sermons, happy hour and curbside loading might never be the same again in Georgia.

Two bills allowing licensed guns to be carried in churches, bars and parts of airports
on Wednesday were passed by the Senate, closing out a marathon day of legislation.

SB 308, sponsored by Sen. Mitch Seabaugh of Sharpsburg and clarifying language
regarding where guns can be carried in the state, withstood strong objections
from the Board of Regents and at least 10 amendments that were either rejected
or withdrawn. It passed with bipartisan support, 41-12.

The other bill, SB 291, which permits concealed weapons in vehicles
that pick up and drop off passengers at Hartsfield-Jackson International Airport,
was sponsored by Sen. David Shafer (R-Duluth). It passed 43-10.

However, protests did not die down when the voting was complete.

“A gun to be carried in a bar or sanctuary is ludicrous,” Sen. Steve Thompson [D-Marietta] said.

Said Nan Orrock [D-Atlanta], “We had snakes on a plane; now we have guns at the airport.”

Seabaugh’s bill, which he called the “Common Sense Lawful Carry Act,” cleared up confusing language
in the current law that affects the state’s 400,000 licensed gun owners.

“The majority of lawfully carrying citizens want to obey the laws,” Seabaugh said.
“They asked for a cleaner law that doesn’t put them in a ‘gotcha’ situation
and the Senate delivered. Georgia laws should be simple to read.”

In the bill’s final version, it is a crime to carry a gun onto private property
unless the property owner grants permission.

That means if a bar owner or a church pastor approves gun possession
on his or her property, it is legal for patrons or parishioners to carry one.
Still, not everyone was placated by these decisions.

“It is idiotic to allow firearms in churches and bars, [the latter] where inebriated
people can get into an argument,” Sen. Vincent Fort of Atlanta argued.

“The extreme right wing is in control of the politics of the Republican Party.
Extremism dominated the floor of the state Senate today.”

The bill also grants public colleges and universities the right to determine
if guns are allowed on their campuses. An early version of the bill
allowed guns on campus, which university officials fought.
The current version of the bill allows schools to make their own rules,
but it is remains possible for someone to carry a gun just outside of campus.
The existing law bans guns within 1,000 feet of a campus.

Having passed the Senate, the bills now go to the House of Representatives,
where Seabaugh is hopeful it will become law.

[All emfasis has been added by David.]

Topic Stats
Top Replies
Link to this Topic

Type: Discussion • Score: 0 • Views: 1,003 • Replies: 10

No top replies

I 've been mildly surprized at the absence of complaints that I anticipated
qua the number of gun-related threads that I 've been posting lately,
perhaps a little more than b4. I thought that some of these issues
were interesting, e.g. carrying guns in Churches, in contemplation
of some massacres of unarmed congregants there.
It pays to be armed, in case u need it, wherever u r, whoever u r.

I thought that some of those points might be of interest
for purposes of debate. Obviously, those of u who dislike
the subject r free to scroll on by.

Clash of rights between defensive-minded citizens
and anti-defense commercial property owners ?

Debate, pro & con is invited.

David

0 Replies

It brings me such unmitigated HAPPINESS
to see gun control collapsing and dying, right in front of me,
like when communism died in 1990 & 1991.

It feels SOOOOOO GOOOOOOOOOD!!!!

David

1 Reply

@OmSigDAVID,

OmSigDAVID wrote:

Gun Bills Pass Georgia State Senate
9:29 pm March 24, 2010, by Ernie Suggs

“They asked for a cleaner law that doesn’t put them in a ‘gotcha’ situation
and the Senate delivered. Georgia laws should be simple to read.”

In the bill’s final version, it is a crime to carry a gun onto private property
unless the property owner grants permission.

The two contiguous sentences seem to be going off in different directions. Should I assume if one is carrying in Georgia, one would be subject to arrest for entering any place of business that does not specifically grant such permission? Definately sounds kind of 'gotcha' to my understanding.

1 Reply

@roger,

roger wrote:

OmSigDAVID wrote:

Gun Bills Pass Georgia State Senate
9:29 pm March 24, 2010, by Ernie Suggs

“They asked for a cleaner law that doesn’t put them in a ‘gotcha’ situation
and the Senate delivered. Georgia laws should be simple to read.”

In the bill’s final version, it is a crime to carry a gun onto private property
unless the property owner grants permission.

The two contiguous sentences seem to be going off in different directions.
Should I assume if one is carrying in Georgia, one would be
subject to arrest for entering any place of business that does not
specifically grant such permission?
Definately sounds kind of 'gotcha' to my understanding.

Agreed. That thawt arose in my mind as well.

I have a hunch that thay probably mean
that it will be assumed that permission is granted
in all commercial establishments that don 't post prohibition signs at their entrances.

This gives rise to another (as yet unlitigated) question, to wit:
inasmuch as the USSC has acknowledged the natural right of self defense (HELLER),
will an armed customer who wishes not to relinquish that right
be in the same situation as e.g., the members of a religion
that a commercial proprietor wishes to exclude from his premises,
e.g., Moslems against Jews ?

I believe that thru the early part of the 1900s,
it remained unquestioned that an owner of private property,
including stores n restaurants coud and did exclude members
of the public for any reason, or for no reason, if so he chose.
Later in time, incursions were made against that formerly
unlimited right, such that he was legally prohibited
from excluding customers based on designated criteria: race,
religion and several others.

Will this principle apply to those customers who insist on
exercising their constitutional right to self defense ?

The answer is whatever the judiciary decides it to be,
including all subsequent incremental evolution thereof.
In my opinion, since the principle has been established
and is now accepted that private property owners
no longer can freely exclude customers from their
"places of public accomodation" this will come to
apply to those customers who demand to use their
2nd Amendment rights.

(In my mind's ear, I can hear cries of: "O, yeah? WHERE
in the Constitution does it say that u can take guns onto
private property??" Maybe the same place that it says
that people of various religions cannot legally be excluded.)

Presumably, since no incursions have been made
against the private property HOMES, of any citizen,
that principle will not be brought to bear upon homes.
Homeowners have always been free to exclude any person
from their homes for any reason, or for no reason,
and are not answerable in any public forum for any such choice,
so far as I have ever heard.

Thawts, anyone ?

David

1 Reply

@OmSigDAVID,

Implied permission is what I also assume. Still, if they're taking the time to make law, it wouldn't hurt to do it clearly.

1 Reply

@roger,

roger wrote:

Implied permission is what I also assume.
Still, if they're taking the time to make law,
it wouldn't hurt to do it clearly.

Yes; commonly, there is statutory evolution,
as future sessions of legislatures clean up
ambiguities of earlier statutes; I see that a lot.

This is also true of common-law evolution,
as the cases present nuances with the passing decades
and earlier rights r expanded, witness the history
of First Amendment jurisprudence.

David

0 Replies

@OmSigDAVID,

OmSigDAVID wrote:

It brings me such unmitigated HAPPINESS
to see gun control collapsing and dying, right in front of me,
like when communism died in 1990 & 1991.

It feels SOOOOOO GOOOOOOOOOD!!!!

Me, too

Here's another...

Quote:

Jury Acquits Honor Student Of Gun Charge

An Army veteran and Dean's List student who was prosecuted over a legally-registered, unloaded gun was found not guilty by a San Francisco jury Wednesday.

Jury members deliberated just 45 minutes before acquitting San Francisco resident Wayne Lee Banks Jr., 26, of carrying a concealed firearm in a vehicle. The misdemeanor charge carries up to a year in jail.

Banks, who has no criminal convictions, was arrested Oct. 9, 2009 following a contested traffic stop at Kearny and Clay streets. Officers stated in the police report that they immediately saw a handgun in a belt holster propped up against the center console.

"Despite officers describing the gun as immediately visible to justify the detention, Mr. Banks was arrested for carrying a concealed weapon. You can't have it both ways. It's not a magic gun," said his attorney, Deputy Public Defender Maria Lopez.

During the two day trial, Banks testified that he felt comfortable carrying a handgun for protection because of his Army training and understanding of gun laws. Even though firearms carried openly in belt holsters are not considered concealed according to California Penal Code, Banks testified that he took the already visible belt holster off his hip and placed it further up on the driver's seat against the armrest to ensure his unloaded gun was completely visible as he drove.

A sergeant and two officers from the San Francisco Police Department testified at the trial. Police also submitted photographs of Banks' gun partially wedged into the corner of his seat. During cross examination by Lopez, however, the sergeant admitted that the photographs were taken after he had handled the gun and placed it in that position.

"The testimony and photographs were not consistent with the initial police report and there was tampering with the evidence," Lopez said. "The jury couldn't understand why this went to trial. Either a gun is concealed or it is not, and this gun clearly was not."

Banks, a 4.0 student and track team member at San Francisco City College, plans to transfer to Morehouse College and feared a conviction could ruin his chances for financial aid and scholarships, Lopez said.

San Francisco Public Defender Jeff Adachi called the trial a waste of resources.

"Mr. Banks was extremely conscientious about following the laws surrounding gun ownership," Adachi said. "Considering all the cases involving illegal weapons and gun violence, it's difficult to understand why time and money was spent prosecuting Mr. Banks."

1 Reply

@Irishk,

Wow, K,
those police did no one any good by arresting that fellow!

I hope that he has a cause of action for false arrest in California.
(I don 't know California law.)

David

1 Reply

@OmSigDAVID,

OmSigDAVID wrote:

Wow, K,
those police did no one any good by arresting that fellow!

No, but they got their message out to gun owners, which was their intention, no?

Quote:

I hope that he has a cause of action for false arrest in California.
(I don 't know California law.)

That probably has the same odds of that police sergeant being disciplined for submitting tampered evidence. Slim to none.

1 Reply

@Irishk,

Irishk wrote:

OmSigDAVID wrote:

Wow, K,
those police did no one any good by arresting that fellow!

No, but they got their message out to gun owners, which was their intention, no?

Quote:
I hope that he has a cause of action for false arrest in California.
(I don 't know California law.)

That probably has the same odds of that police sergeant being disciplined
for submitting tampered evidence. Slim to none.

Well, if there is a jurisprudential foundation in the law of California
for a cause of action in false arrest or malicious prosecution,
and if the trial court screwed plaintiff out of his rights,
then it is subject to appeal. Then either he wins,
or
the law of false arrest in California is changed.

David

0 Replies

Gun Bills Pass Georgia State Senate

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know