JerBla wrote:Section 2: This one is alittle odd, the public gathering I never understood and just about all the cops that I talk to could never explain it to me either. But only limiting it to courtrooms, jails and prisons? What about hospitals? I have 2 kids and I dont want some pissed off dad to lose his mind because his wife and kid died at the hospital going on shooting spree BECAUSE hes allowed to have a gun in there. I think they need to work on this part alittle more.
Section 3: No way. I think you need a license to carry open or concealed. Hell you need that license now to do both so I dont think its going to really matter too much if it never changed. And it should be harder to get the license. Its way too easy.
Section 4: 5 year or lifetime license, good for me. Secretary of State issue liecense? Not sure what that would do but whatever. This part gets me, removes the disqualifier for misdemeanor marijuana convictions and concealed weapons carry offenses. Ok someones dad is pissed that his son or daughter cant carry now because they got busted with weed. Umm, no, IMO you broke the law now you get to pay for it. Im not perfect either, but I never went to jail or court with any type of charge brought against me. Carry offenses, it depends on how bad they are. I carry in places where Im not suppose to but I have never seen a sign that said No guns allowed, but on the web it has them listed as a NO GUN ALLOWED building. The only place I saw a sign that said no guns was at a hospital. So I left it in my car.
Section 7: Peronal info is safe with the Secretary of State. Ok still not sure what they have to do with the deal.
Section 9: This section repeals all conflicting laws. What about the private property laws, does that not matter anymore? Maybe.
Thats just what I think about it somewhat. It sounds good but it still has some flaws and kinks to work out. I know that all of the above will only affect law abiding people, but thats why they need to fix the law better or make it harder to get a gun or license in GA. I know that sounds "leftish" to you guys. But to be honest, Ga is very lax on gun control laws. Make it harder to get a gun and a harder punsihment when you break the law with gun. Why not offer a "Carry Class" where you have to qualify to get a carry permit? That would be good for me. Like I said though, some of the sections Im ok with but some need to be fixed before i can support it more.
Bad guys will always break the law, good people will do right by the law and get the harsher punishment. Ga needs to fix the criminal side of the law more that the law abiding side of it. Even the VT shooting, the guy bought those guns leagally. Like I said thats just what I think about it.
Sorry for the late reply, it's been a while since I've been on the forum. I'll address the points you had issues with to the best of my ability.
Section 2: We both know the reasons why you don't carry into courtrooms, jails and prisons. You don't want angry/bad people to be able to carry into a courtroom and shoot one of the defense, prosecution or witness. In a jail/prison, you don't want someone coming in and 1) shooting a prisoner before they have their day in court or 2) giving prisoners a weapon for a jailbreak. However, I will point out that these places can be very well secured by trained officers. The jail/prison is always in a law enforcement building and locked down by several sections. The courthouse is less secure, but you can have a couple of officers outside and a couple inside. Personally, I think they should be armed with more than just duty pistols, but that's just me. If I wanted to get into a courtroom to shoot someone, I would COUNT on having to take out the officers first. Therefore, IMO better weapons and some body armor is needed. All that being said, let's talk about the hospital. What is to stop someone from doing that today? For one, GA law doesn't prevent someone from entering a hospital. It says that you cannot enter a public building and you also must leave private property if requested by the owner or a representative of the owner. If the hospital is private property and I'm carrying concealed, it doesn't matter how many signs there are saying "No Guns". I can legally carry until I am told to take my firearm off the property. Now, let's just say that hospitals are, like you want, off limits totally for carry. What's to stop me from going out to my car if I'm pissed off, getting my pistol, concealing it and then shooting the people I'm angry at? Nothing. Hospitals are in no way secure and their "security" is often not armed with firearms. They are also not well-trained. What you're saying is that you don't want to carry inside to protect yourself and your family from a madman, but you'll trust the rent-a-cops to do it for you. For one, they have to respond, and you know how long it can take to get from one side of the hospital to another, I'm sure. Do you really want to deny yourself, me, and others the right to defend your family at (literally) a moment's notice, or wait minutes for a semi-trained guard or even longer for a police officer to arrive? I don't. The fear is legitimate, but so is the fear of walking in a park and having someone start shooting. It can happen whether there is a law against it or not. If the possibility of people "snapping" in a hospital is so much more likely than at other places (funerals, anyone?) then we would have seen many instances of shootings already. People have more decency and control than you give them credit for, and the ones who don't you are obligated to deal with personally for your family's sake. In my opinion, to depend on someone else to protect your family is to say that you don't value their lives enough to do it yourself.
Section 3: Your fears are not justified. The only reason to have laws is so that society can function better. The only reason there are laws for getting a firearms license is so that criminals cannot carry. However, that is complete bullcrap, since criminals use firearms to commit crimes all the time, including criminals who have already been convicted of a felony and can neither legally own nor carry a firearm. HB 615 doesn't even eliminate the concealed carry license, just the requirement for a license to open carry. Making the license harder to get is even worse, since the only people who get firearms licenses are law-abiding citizens and to make the license harder to get would only inconvenience them. Like it or not, a firearms license is only really good at the illusion of security. Criminals will use and carry firearms as long as they're the weapon of choice regardless what laws you pass. Licenses only make it more complicated for the people who only want the option to legally defend themselves and their families.
Section 4: A 5-year license will let you skip the Federal background check whenever you purchase a firearm because it is renewed. A lifetime license does not comply with Federal law, so you will have to wait for the background check to go through, however many hours/days it takes. Regarding the marijuana issue, I don't consider marijuana to be very dangerous to society. Extremely abused? Certainly, but most people don't. Also, I happen to know a few people who tried it just because they were going through a phase. If they had been discovered, they would have been arrested and would have a misdemeanor. If you had sex with a girl who was 16 and you were 18, just two years apart in high school, would you like getting charged with having sexual (but consensual) relations with a minor? That would follow you all your life also. I think that what the lawmakers are trying to do is let people who made a couple of minor mistakes in life and just happened to be the one person out of a hundred who actually got caught the chance to protect their family for the next 50 years. Regarding your carrying to certain buildings, let's just say that the buildings on sites like georgiapacking.com really are off limits, and you can be charged with either a misdemeanor or felony if you are found out, while the "no guns" signs buildings that are privately owned mean nothing by themselves. If you carry inside and no one says anything to you, you are not breaking the law because they did not ask you to leave.
Section 7: The SecState comes into this because of supposed complications with the local authorities in getting licenses to people who can have them. Section 7 just says that they won't give out your personal info. There is a debate about whether the transfer of authority to issue licenses from local to state govt is a smart idea or even if it's effective or not. Many say that their local govts do just fine and they don't trust the state govt not to botch it up.
Section 8: If this bill is passed and signed by the Governor in March or April, it will be effective the minute he signs it instead of having to wait until July 1.
Section 9: The bill does not repeal any private property laws. I don't remember the reason, but Rep. Timothy Bearden, the sponsor of the bill, stated in the meeting that it would not be affected. You will still be able to completely control what happens on your private property. This includes your home and places of business. This bill is only designed to deal with the public gathering laws, not being able to carry into churches or schools (or at least doing away with the 1,000 foot "gun-free" zone), and not being able to carry in public buildings.
This bill I completely support because it eliminates idiotic laws that ultimately only hinder the law-abiding citizens because criminals can easily ignore or get around them. This bill is designed to let you be better able to protect yourself and your family without the govt gunning for you in addition to any bad guys.
Stay safe and best regards,
rah45
