More on the Resurrection of SB 43

So, when last the GOP met, the Democrats were threatening to attack them over SB 43 by highlighting an employee who went on to him employer’s property and shot a co-worker. The GOP decided to back down on SB 43 and the genius NRA lobbyists then decided to try to co-opt the very Democrats who were threatening to brow beat the GOP.

Fast forward to today and we get word that the NRA is trying to attach SB 43 as an amendment to other legislation — not that its germane or anything to anything it’d be attached to. They are trying to scare the legislators with stories of employees fired for bringing guns to work, using a 9th Circuit Court of Appeals decision that (A) will probably get reversed by the SCOTUS and (B) does not apply to any states outside the 9th Circuit.

Of course, that brings us to this sad story. A man brought a gun to the CNN Center and killed a lady earlier today. Apparently it was a “domestic situation.” Will the Democrats use this to club the GOP, or will the NRA be able to bribe enough of them to get an amendment through?

Gun rights vs. property right. The NRA sure knows how to pick a fight between friends.

28 comments

  1. Chris says:

    More rumor has it that it will get attached to Tim Bearden’s HB89 which changes the places where you may keep a gun in your car.

    Unfortunately, HB89 is a good bill, and I’d hate to see it go down so that the NRA can wave theirs around in an effort to appear relevant.

  2. Icarus says:

    I believe the term we’re looking for here is “Frigtards”. Can anyone get it a Wikipedia entry?

  3. Icarus says:

    Pretty impressive Joe.

    Bonus points if you go back and edit with a reference to Wayne Lapierre.

  4. joe says:

    I hate to say this, but it appears that Steve Jobs coined the term. There are many PP posters who can create a Wikipedia account (takes less than 1 minute, have Outlook running), and edit the basic post. I think we can make this stay with a concerted efort.

  5. Icarus says:

    O.K., I added a small supplement. How long does it take for someone to trace an IP address? I.e., how long before I should expect a drive by?

  6. Bull Moose says:

    “loose the moose”? What does that mean?

    Personally, I don’t know that SB 43 is an urban, suburban, or xurb issue, but rather an issue that affects folks in the rural communities where some people go from hunting to work.

    There are several other issues though where this could be an issue still. What about business parking lots that are located near schools? As far as I’m aware, most schools are a “gun free area”. As well, some parks and other common areas are “gun free”. We don’t want to have state laws trump local laws do we?

    There’s got to be a way where all sides can come together and have an honest conversation and come to some kind of agreement on the matter.

    However, I think this is still much to do about nothing (meaning SB 43 was not needed and our legislators have been things to do HOPEFULLY).

  7. joe says:

    Bull Moose,

    I agree that this was much ado about nothing. I used to work as a contractor at Ft Stewart. I had one set of rules to bring a firearm onto the post. I had an additional set of rules (primarily prior approval) by my employer. If I wanted to go to the firing rage, I had to plan ahead and jump through hoops, but it was doable. If I could do it under very restrictive rules, I don’t see this as an issue under current laws.

  8. Icarus says:

    “loose the moose”? What does that mean?

    It depends on whether we’re talking about you or Vernon Jones.

  9. Tommy_a2b says:

    I usually do not post at night but this is a subjest that I am seriously conserned about. SB 43 is the slippy slope to heL7. I also am a life member of the NRA and I have been calling like crazy to the NRA ILA phone number. Of course no one is returning my call. In the previous post on this subject Bull Moose asked who the sponser was on this bill who was trying to resurect this from the dead. It is the Good Senator from the 21st district Chip Rogers. I think everyone should give him a call and tell him what you think. His capitol number is (404) 463-1378
    and his office number is (770)516-0543. I will hold off in posting other numbers for now. I hope we can make a difference.

  10. bowersville says:

    The wiki’s too funny!!

    Maybe someone can add SB 155(Sunday sales) to SB 43 and attach both to HB 89.

    I can see it now, Jim Beck, CC of G, vs. Wayne LaPierre, NRA, with the loser shaving his head.

    This won’t happen, but I view this move by the NRA as equally absurd.

  11. Tommy_a2b says:

    Friends of mine at the Capitol are telling me that Rep Bearden is not real happy that his bill (I hear that the NRA refused to endorse) is being used by Senator Rogers.

    Note to Senator Rogers- I am the NRA and I am not happy about this bill. I challenge you to come on Peach Pundit and explain why we need this Legislation in GA.

  12. Erick says:

    Oh, that modification to the Frigtard entry was great, but I don’t really think it is fair to put Chip Rogers in the category. He’s a great guy who just happens to support a bill a lot of us don’t.

  13. shep1975 says:

    I agree with Erick on that. I wish all of our legislators only put out one bad bill in their careers.

    And I agree, this is a VERY bad piece of legislation mucking up a very good piece of legislation.

  14. ChipRogers says:

    I am aware that SB 43 has caused concern for those who value an individual’s right to property and those who believe the 2nd Amendment speaks to a right “that shall not be infringed”. I count myself as a member of each group.

    The language in SB 43 is not intended to violate a person’s right to property. The bill strictly pertains to the policy established between an “employer” and an “employee”.

    Additionally, this measure does not speak to “property” but rather “premises”.

    It is my intention that this bill not interfere with the right of a property owner to prohibit firearms on his or her property.

    The “employer” may or may not be the property owner. This is why the bill refers only to the employment “policy” or “rule”.

    It is also important to remember this bill only prohibits such an employment policy for a “public access” parking area.

    The measure intends to prohibit “employers” from establishing an employment policy, which would effectively allow firearms in a public access parking lot for everyone except the “employee” who has it locked in a private vehicle.

    Again, SB 43 would not infringe on the right of a property owner (even if that person were the employer) to ban all firearms from his or her property.

    I will also address this issue of using a House Bill for Senate legislation.

    Recent budget issues between the two bodies have resulted in a lockdown against Senate bills moving through the House. Consequently, almost every House bill currently being considered by the Senate will have a Senate bill attached to it if it is in the same Code section.

    HB 89 has been mentioned as a vehicle for SB 43 only because of the Code section. This is not a unique situation. Previously my legislation seeking to outlaw dog fighting was attached to Representative Bearden’s bill regarding companion dogs. I asked Representative Bearden whether he approved of the language and committed to removing it if he objects.

    I have great respect for Representative Bearden and would not agree to any changes he believes may jeopardize HB 89. I have personally given him this assurance.

    I have never asked any of my colleagues to support SB 43. I fully trust their judgment and realize that people with whom I agree on almost every issue may disagree on this issue.

  15. Icarus says:

    For the record of credit and blame, that’s four separate Wiki edits, by my count.

    Sen Rogers, you’re usually a thoughtful and level headed kind of guy. I’d suggest you look strongly at the posts of several known, life members of the NRA, as well as the public comments of the V.P. of the Georgia Shooter’s Association, and then decide if attaching this to a passed HB is the right thing to do.

  16. SugarHillDad says:

    Senator Rogers, I apologize for my lack of understanding but how do budget issues with the house effect the fact that your bill did not pass out of the Senate?

  17. ChipRogers says:

    I apologize if my post suggested SB 43 was being held “Hostage” in the House. The bill did not pass the Senate, as it was never brought to the floor for a vote. I support the Lt. Governor on the decision not to bring this to the floor on crossover day.

    Furthermore, I support the Lt. Governor’s decision on whether to move forward with the language contained in SB 43 at any point in the future. If he believes it is inappropriate, I will steadfastly stand by that decision.

    The suggestion to add SB 43 language to HB 89 was brought to my attention along with a corresponding list of House bills and Code sections for almost every Senate measure I introduced. It is my understanding every GOP Senator was given access to a similar list.

    Finally, the characterization of any bill being held “Hostage” by the House is not necessarily accurate. My colleagues in the House operate in good faith and in the best interests of Georgia. I am confident we will soon see an end to this budget negotiation along with any slow down in legislative action.

  18. bowersville says:

    There doesn’t seem to be any problems regarding policy & rules, employee, employer relations or pre-employment conditions in Georgia regarding SB 43.

    I’m with Senator Rogers, if Lt. Governor Cagle sees a need for SB 43 in the future, we need to seriously consider it.

  19. dogface says:

    Sen. Rogers, I don’t get it. You say your bill protects property owners, but it’s okay for government to trample on the rights of employers? What problem is this bill addressing? My personal feeling is that the NRA has created a royal mess. Over nothing. I hope they are very good to you in the future for the putting you and the rest of the Senate in this place.

  20. Tommy_a2b says:

    Senator Rogers, as I stated previously and dogface mentioned too. What problem does SB 43 fix. Also if you attach SB 43 to HB 89 are you not indangering the HB know that your bill is much more controversial? If Rep Bearden’s bill dies or never sees the floor (this year) due to you adding SB 43, will you at least feel regret for being the road block on that bill?

    Senator you are know to be a supporter of the 2nd amendment. Were you aware that the NRA is trying to pull the charter of the GSSA (GA Sports Shooting Association) for coming out against this bill. Do you have anything to tell all their members, who will not be able to do the competitve sport shooting in GA now. I ask you one more time please pull this bill off the table unless you can tell me what problem SB 43 fixes.

  21. joe says:

    I have no idea how this works, but look what happens today if you go to Wikipeia and search for frigtard.

    I am still not convinced that this bill would fix a problem.

  22. Icarus says:

    OMG! Amazing. Better than we had hoped.

    I was thinking about adding a few lines in there about the house leadership, and was about to search it before I read you’re entry.

    If you search Frigtard, it now re-directs you to a description of the NRA!

    In the words of GWB, Mission Accomplished.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Frigtard

Comments are closed.