Senator Rogers on SB 43

Senator Chip Rogers has been kind enough to stop by and respond to some of the criticisms (and hate) directed at him and SB 43. I certainly appreciate his willingness to do so. He writes:

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.

Here, Senator Rogers added:
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.

Thanks Senator. While I am not in favor of S.B. 43, I appreciate your willingness to keep this debate civil and I’d encourage those who want to respond to Senator Rogers to do the same.

16 comments

  1. Tommy_a2b says:

    Let me be the first to say I appreciate the Senator coming on PP and defending himself, but

    HE STILL HAS NOT SAID WHAT PROBLEM SB 43 IS FIXING AND WHY WE NEED IT IN GA!

    Tommy Sandoval
    Proud Life Member of the NRA
    More Proud Life Member of the GSSA

  2. Tommy_a2b says:

    For those of you who joined the NRA because you thought they were there to protect your rights, I commend you.

    I would also recommend everyone go show your support for the group who is really fighting for your rights here in GA. See more information at http://www.gssa.com/ .

  3. Bill Simon says:

    Tommy,

    Were YOU screaming as loudly 2 years ago when the “gay marriage” amendment was placed on the ballot?

    There was no problem on the horizon for that bill either.

  4. Decaturguy says:

    So, it is an employee-employer relations bill as I remember being castigated for even suggesting a few weeks ago.

    Again, I ask, why should the State of Georgia, who has had a long history of having a hands off approach to employee-employer relations, require that employers allow employees to bring guns onto their property? Why, in Georgia, should it be legal for an employer to fire someone for being pregnant, but not legal to fire someone for bringing a gun onto thier property?

  5. Tommy_a2b says:

    Bill I believe “Marriage” is a religious ceremony that Government should stay out of. I think getting a marriage license is terrible and crosses the line in Government shall make no law in regards to Religion. I disagree religously with gay marriage. I disagree with government involvement in gay marriage. I do not believe that this issue corresponds with my fight on SB 43 but I do have a history of yelling loud on government intervention into property rights. I raised all kind of cain on the smoking ban. Ask Stacey Reece

  6. LoyaltyIsMyHonor says:

    Tommy, I guess this is the “problem,” although I wouldn’t characterize it as one:

    “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.”

  7. Federalist says:

    The “right to bear arms” was a selling point, and only really applicable to the time when the Nation was still vulnerable to foreign invasion. That is obviously not the case anymore, you NRA whack-jobs need to stop claiming that you are fighting for your rights and start telling people the truth. You like to play with guns, that is all. Why do you need a pistol, or any firearm for that matter, in your car while at work? In case we are invaded? come on. and don’t even get me started on the Castle Doctrine.

  8. Bull Moose says:

    While I appreciate the Senator coming here and offering his defense of the bill, I still don’t think that he clearly stated why the bill is needed in the first place.

    If the NRA is putting pressure on the Senators to push this bill through, then be honest about that fact.

    This is the type of government intrusion into private business that is not needed and that conservatives derided for years. Why is it any different now that the backer of the issue happens to be of the conservative mindset? I would submit that it’s not any different.

    This is simply an issue of a special interest group creating an issue in which to justify their existence.

  9. Tommy_a2b says:

    Federalist, I thought idiot was simpler so here we go. You said, “The “right to bear arms” was a selling point, and only really applicable to the time when the Nation was still vulnerable to foreign invasion.” Were you born after 9-11? Do you think we are so invincible that we could never be attacked again? If that is the world you live in then I hope you are not procreating. Our founders thought enough of the right to bear arms to put it 2nd on the list of our directly listed freedoms. I will now go on. You said, “You like to play with guns, that is all. Why do you need a pistol, or any firearm for that matter, in your car while at work? In case we are invaded? come on.” What part of the state or country do you live in, Alaska? Have you never been witness to a crime? I went to college in down town Atlanta. Having a pistol in my car is a prerequisite because of the things I have seen with my own eyes. If you have not lived to see these same things you should thank God. Lastly you said, “and don’t even get me started on the Castle Doctrine.” Being able to stand ones ground when their life is threatened should be a God given right and it was long past time for this to have come. Again you must have lived a very sheltered life.

    Did I justify my position for you?

  10. Bill Simon says:

    I’m going to 2nd Tommy’s explanation for why “Federalist” is an idiot….and, 180 degrees away from the logic of the people who actually WROTE the Federalist Papers from which he stole his name.

    Damn…what an IDIOT you are, Federalist!

  11. bowersville says:

    Federalist = Marlowe supporter/advocate for the 10th Congressional. Or maybe Federalist is Marlowe. Or maybe Federalist is just an idiot, it’s hard for me to decide.

    Why doesn’t the NRA press Marlowe for a position statement on “the right to bear arms.” See if Marlowe believes we are “NRA whack jobs” and “we like to play with guns.”

    Will Marlowe agree with you Federalist?

Comments are closed.