Jump to content
Washington Football Team Logo
Extremeskins

WaPo [blog]: What Georgia’s expansive new pro-gun law does


Larry

Recommended Posts

Link. 

 

Georgia Gov. Nathan Deal ® signed into law Wednesday a pro-gun package that groups on both sides of the gun control debate describe as exceptional. 

 

The National Rifle Association calls it ”the most comprehensive pro-gun bill in state history.” Americans for Responsible Solutions, the gun control group founded by shooting victim and former congresswoman Gabby Giffords (D-Ariz.), calls it ”the most extreme gun bill in America.”

 

 

 

Here’s (some of) what it does, according to an end-of-session analysis by the nonpartisan state Senate Research Office, obtained by the Atlanta Journal Constitution:

  • First, broadly speaking, the new law expands where people with a license can carry a gun, including:
    • Bars and associated parking facilities
    • Government buildings (except where entry is typically screened during business hours by security personnel)
    • Places of worship (only with express approval)
    • School grounds (again, only with approval)
  • The bill expands the state’s “Stand Your Ground” law, a version of which rose to prominence in the legal debate over the shooting death of Trayvon Martin in Florida. Before, you couldn’t invoke that defense — which provides immunity from prosecution — if you used a banned firearm in self-defense. Now, you can: “this bill provides that a person will be immune from prosecution in using deadly force in self-defense or defense of others or property even if the person utilizes a weapon in violation of [the Georgia Firearms and Weapons Act],” the report finds.
  • Firearms dealers no longer need to maintain records of sales and purchases.

 

 

But wait, there's more!  (More things the law does.  At the link.) 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

States are laboratories for Democracy. I can support all kinds of laws at the state level under the right circumstances, defined as actually monitoring and reporting on whether the law results in any changes to the status quo. See marijuana as a good example.

 

While we're at it:

 

I'd like some state to go to a $12 minimum wage while another gets rid of it altogether.

I'd like some state to deport any and all illegal immigrants and put employers in jail, while another does just the opposite.

Healthcare, abortion, taxes, education, environmental rules, etc.

 

It would be nice if we actually used the states for this stuff so we could gauge whether the arguments on the right and left actually work. That way we wouldn't have to all act like we know every answer. We could see the "perfect" solutions implemented and actually judge for ourselves whether they work.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

And as the arms race escalates and gun sales surge right long with funeral rates, the NRA's overlords smile and count their money.

Yay for "freedom".

 

What a joke this country is. In every sense of the word. Clownland.

 

~Bang

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Bars can opt out I believe. But the OP fails to include the single dumbest part of the law

If a cop notices that you're carrying, he can't ask to see your permit.

Uhmmm, why the hell not?

I've been asked to produce a fishing license on the chatahoochee when I wasn't doing anything wrong...

Oh yeah, and you can carry in the airport anywhere up to the security gate. And if you "accidentally" try to sneak a gun through security and get caught, no biggie. Small fine, I think. They give you your gun back and you can be on your way, free to try again tomorrow

Dems pullig their hair out bc Jason carter voted for this thing. Let us not forget, pandering knows no party affiliation

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This bill provides that a person will be immune from prosecution in using deadly force in self-defense or defense of others or property even if the person utilizes a weapon in violation of [the Georgia Firearms and Weapons Act]  

 

 

:blink:

 

Someone explain that one to me. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So...essentially the people who say that responsible and legal gun owners are the only real answer to criminal gun owners are enacting laws to protect criminal gun owners in case they need to kill someone. 

 

Seems legit.


sounds good....but why require a licence?

Why require anything? Just let anyone buy a gun anywhere for any reason and let god sort out the dead.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So...essentially the people who say that responsible and legal gun owners are the only real answer to criminal gun owners are enacting laws to protect criminal gun owners in case they need to kill someone. 

 

Seems legit.

Why require anything? Just let anyone buy a gun anywhere for any reason and let god sort out the dead.

 

If they needed killing why worry much over the legality of the weapon?

 

I'm fine with background checks and losing the right to carry arms for extreme cases.

 

I'm not a fan of fishing/hunting licences either, other than commercial

Link to comment
Share on other sites

:blink:

 

Someone explain that one to me. 

 

If I shoot someone while they are trying to kill you while I'm carrying concealed w/o a permit it prevents me being made a criminal...or say my weapon(that saved your life) was purchased illegally

 

add

 

the protection of property is a nice addition

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If I shoot someone while they are trying to kill you while I'm carrying concealed w/o a permit it prevents me being made a criminal...or say my weapon(that saved your life) was purchased illegally

 

If you are carrying without a permit or purchased a weapon illegally, then you cannot be "made a criminal" - you already are one.

 

Add:

 

I understand the basic concept or intent of that part of the bill - it is so someone living in a house with a firearm that belongs to someone else, or situations similar, can use a firearm to protect themselves and others. My son cannot legally own a pistol due to his age, but if something was to happen in which his life was in danger, he should be able to use one of my firearms to protect himself without facing charges.

 

However, the way the law was written (or, more specifically the way the law is being quoted), it opens up a host of issues beyond those type of circumstances. For example, I can see someone under a restraining order buying a gun illegally, provoking a physical response, then claiming that they felt their life was in danger - and skating on the fact that they were not allowed to have a handgun because they presented a danger to their victim.

 

I am in the same place as you are - background checks and losing the right to carry firearms under specific circumstances. However, from what I have been reading, this bill has aspects that are irresponsible and have the potential to do much more harm that good. Plus, it puts those of us who believe in responsible gun ownership more at risk from backlash.  All so politicians can pander to the NRA and GOA.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If I shoot someone while they are trying to kill you while I'm carrying concealed w/o a permit it prevents me being made a criminal...or say my weapon(that saved your life) was purchased illegally

add

the protection of property is a nice addition

Or, if you're a convicted felon who isn't allowed to own a gun, you should always carry a concealed weapon. Cops can't ask for your permit, and as long as you use it in self defense you're immune from prosecution.

Big windfall for violent criminals, this rule

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If you are carrying without a permit or purchased a weapon illegally, then you cannot be "made a criminal" - you already are one.

 

But not a convicted one, a rather critical distinction  :D

Is there some reason saving someone else should result in charges that would not have occurred if you didn't save them?

 

Bliz, even criminals deserve self defense if it is not a part of their crime......anything less is uncouth 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I like it. I don't want to say I like it because I'll live in Georgia or something I just like it because it sets a precedent for more a little more freedom. 

 

 

Unrelated note

 

I was going to buy a fun gun this summer but I'm not sure what to get. Narrowed it down so far to a Glock 17, Browning BAR mk2 Safari Or a Saiga 12 and throw a drum mag on it. I know a lot of people live in VA on these boards so Im sure we got a lot of fellow shooters here. Any suggestions? I'm not looking for any practical really I have a few bolt actions and pump actions that I go hunting with but you can't really take those out to a range and have fun with them.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

But not a convicted one, a rather critical distinction  :D

Is there some reason saving someone else should result in charges that would not have occurred if you didn't save them?

 

Bliz, even criminals deserve self defense if it is not a part of their crime......anything less is uncouth 

 

I know the last part was to Blizz, but If it is a non-violent crime or unrelated to drug trafficking, then I personally do not have an issue restoring their right to own a firearm.

 

If you care carrying a firearm illegally, you are in in the act of committing a crime. If some guy robs a liquor store and is caught as they are leaving the store, that does not mean he did not commit a crime despite not yet being convicted of it.  :P

 

And, if you look at the added part of my post, I understand the intent, but how written opens way to much chance for abuse.

 

 

I like it. I don't want to say I like it because I'll live in Georgia or something I just like it because it sets a precedent for more a little more freedom. 

 

 

Unrelated note

 

I was going to buy a fun gun this summer but I'm not sure what to get. Narrowed it down so far to a Glock 17, Browning BAR mk2 Safari Or a Saiga 12 and throw a drum mag on it. I know a lot of people live in VA on these boards so Im sure we got a lot of fellow shooters here. Any suggestions? I'm not looking for any practical really I have a few bolt actions and pump actions that I go hunting with but you can't really take those out to a range and have fun with them.

 

Saiga 12's have/had an issue with FTL/FTE's when using large capacity magazines or drums without reversing back to factory spec (they are modified to fit within import rules). Also, this can cause issues unless you stay within the federal guidelines - using a drum or hi-cap magazine on "stock" Saiga will put you into violation, specifically felony violation of 922R. You can get around this by replacing some of the foreign parts with U.S. made ones (which keeps you in compliance), but then the price tag on the weapon starts really heading north.

 

They also have issues with FTF/FTE in "stock" form when using light loads - they were designed as military weapons using military ammo, not target and bird shot. Again, it can be modified to handle these loads (see above). 

 

It is one of the firearms I am looking at purchasing next, so ya...been researching :)

 

If you are just looking for something to reduce paper targets, bottles, and watermelons to small little

pieces, you might consider the newer Hi-Point carbines in 9mm or .40. I am seeing alot of posts and reviews that are positive on them, have an MSRP of under $300.00 (if you can find them), and come with a lifetime "no questions asked" warranty that Hi-point/Beemiller actually honors. The downside is that you will be laughed at when visiting the range - the carbines, like all Hi-Points, are just flat-out ugly firearms and they have a bad (undeserved imo) reputation.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

 

If you care carrying a firearm illegally, you are in in the act of committing a crime. If some guy robs a liquor store and is caught as they are leaving the store, that does not mean he did not commit a crime despite not yet being convicted of it.  :P

 

And, if you look at the added part of my post, I understand the intent, but how written opens way to much chance for abuse.

 

 

The critical difference there is the fact you are not committing a crime  ,but rather preventing one.....doing so should not expose you to charges IF your actions are justified.

 

it's like charging someone for jaywalking when they cross a road to keep a kid from getting run over.

 

 

 

 

 

violating a restraining order is a different matter in that you are breaking the law

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The critical difference there is the fact you are not committing a crime  ,but rather preventing one.....doing so should not expose you to charges IF your actions are justified.

 

it's like charging someone for jaywalking when they cross a road to keep a kid from getting run over.

 

 

If I see someone about to get hit by a car, it can be argued that the jaywalking was part of the act of saving the person, not an intent to commit a crime. Had the individual not been about to get hit by a car, I would not have jaywalked. Now, if you see someone about to be killed...and you ask the killer to hold on while you go out a buy a gun illegally so that you can stop them from killing someone then hey you might have a valid comparison (of course, if the killer is stupid enough to hang out while you go out a buy a gun to shoot them with, chances are the potential victim is going to walk away before you get back).

 

Or, to put it in a situation more akin to what is being discussed - if I am a convicted felon, and someone goes on a shooting rampage at the 7-11, and I pick up a firearm that is sitting there and use it to defend others, then yes I should not face charges for that situation - it was not mine, I did not purchase it, I was not carrying it, and I would not have used it except under those specific conditions. 

 

If I am a convicted felon, carrying a firearm illegally, that I purchased illegally, and walk into hypothetical 7-11 massacre, then while I should not necessarily be charged with it's use in that specific situation, I still committed crimes by purchasing and carrying the firearm and should be charged with those crimes. 

 

If you are purchasing a weapon illegally, you are by definition committing a crime - the clue is in the "illegally" part. And unlike the jaywalking example you used, it shows intent to break the law independent of a specific situation that might or might not occur at some point in the future. So, no, the fact is that you HAVE committed a crime prior to the situation in which you used the weapon, and should face the consequences of that crime. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Compromise, guns can be carried anywhere but those carrying a firearm must wear a caution orange vest or shirt while doing so. That way they can be safe and secure with their firearms and everyone else can know who to ask for help when the bad guys start shooting.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Compromise, guns can be carried anywhere but those carrying a firearm must wear a caution orange vest or shirt while doing so. That way they can be safe and secure with their firearms and everyone else can know who to ask for help when the bad guys start shooting.

 

Actually, that is not that bad of an idea. If nothing else, those seeking to committing violent acts might have second thoughts if they walk into a restaurant or store with people walking around in orange safety vests. Of course, they are probably not all there upstairs anyways so they might just start shooting.

 

The downside would be that the folks with the vests would be the first targets and it might end being like the security company signs outside homes - many of them are fakes, and criminals start to ignore them.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

 

If you are just looking for something to reduce paper targets, bottles, and watermelons to small little

pieces, you might consider the newer Hi-Point carbines in 9mm or .40. I am seeing alot of posts and reviews that are positive on them, have an MSRP of under $300.00 (if you can find them), and come with a lifetime "no questions asked" warranty that Hi-point/Beemiller actually honors. The downside is that you will be laughed at when visiting the range - the carbines, like all Hi-Points, are just flat-out ugly firearms and they have a bad (undeserved imo) reputation.

 

What do you think about the BAR? I was looking at that one and it looks like I can get it for about $800-900. I can get it in a 30 06 which my go to for hunting. It's a semi auto. The "civ" one holds 4 rounds which is good for me because you can't use a semi auto in NY that holds more than 4 rounds. (which is where I hunt). It's big enough to take take a black bear. And I think I'm not sure about this but I think I could buy a 10 or 15 round mag for it if I wanted to take it to a range.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

If you are purchasing a weapon illegally, you are by definition committing a crime - the clue is in the "illegally" part. And unlike the jaywalking example you used, it shows intent to break the law independent of a specific situation that might or might not occur at some point in the future. So, no, the fact is that you HAVE committed a crime prior to the situation in which you used the weapon, and should face the consequences of that crime. 

 

I look at it as along the lines of a search warrant, the illegality of the gun should not be introduced in a matter unrelated to that if your use of it is justifiable.

 

if not justified then by all means nail em.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

States are laboratories for Democracy. I can support all kinds of laws at the state level under the right circumstances, defined as actually monitoring and reporting on whether the law results in any changes to the status quo. See marijuana as a good example.

 

While we're at it:

 

Where is this state that we can all smoke weed, own guns, no taxes, free healthcare, etc ? That sounds intriguing.

 

Why require anything? Just let anyone buy a gun anywhere for any reason and let god sort out the dead.

 

I don't agree with having to have a license for owning a handgun, at the same time what road would that lead down. I would move to London even though it not my favorite city.

 

Compromise, guns can be carried anywhere but those carrying a firearm must wear a caution orange vest or shirt while doing so. That way they can be safe and secure with their firearms and everyone else can know who to ask for help when the bad guys start shooting.

 

The fashion aspect of this makes the whole thing hilarious to me. I can promise you it will never happen. No crime would ever be solved. What has law done to stop any crime really ? People break rules. Wearing something will not stop the criminals, nor will they wear them even if they are legal to carry. Think about this...you are a criminal walking down the street looking for someone to rob...the targets are already selected for you.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What do you think about the BAR? I was looking at that one and it looks like I can get it for about $800-900. I can get it in a 30 06 which my go to for hunting. It's a semi auto. The "civ" one holds 4 rounds which is good for me because you can't use a semi auto in NY that holds more than 4 rounds. (which is where I hunt). It's big enough to take take a black bear. And I think I'm not sure about this but I think I could buy a 10 or 15 round mag for it if I wanted to take it to a range.

 

I do not know anything about them, so cannot really give an opinion. I am not a hunter, so most of my gun purchases are geared more to tinkering or with an eye towards CAS or Wild Bunch shooting (eventually...expensive hobby to get into). The only reason I am looking at the Saiga is a fascination with shotguns and the possibility of a Taurus 92 because I love the Beretta it is basically a copy of (same production lines in Brazil, just different owner) and 9mm is much cheaper to shoot than .45 unless I start reloading. 

 

I look at it as along the lines of a search warrant, the illegality of the gun should not be introduced in a matter unrelated to that if your use of it is justifiable.

 

if not justified then by all means nail em.

 

 

Ok, it sounded like you were arguing that an illegal purchase was somehow not illegal, not that the illegality of the firearm should not be considered in specific circumstances.

 

Like I said, I do think there are circumstances in which someone who legally cannot own a firearm should be given leeway in it's use, like the felon in my 7-11 example or my son (under 18) using one of mine to protect himself in the home. Where I have issue is the fact that someone illegally purchased or carried the firearm in the first place independent of what it may or may not be used for in some potential future.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If a police officer asks for ID, you're required to provide it, right?
But they're not allowed to check on your legal status to carry a firearm.

Totally stupid.

Definitely makes impulsive dining obsolete, now I've gotta make a phone call to ask the management about their policy. :huh:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...