From the Georgia Chamber of Commerce

I just received an update on SB 43 from the Georgia Chamber of Commerce. I’d like to add that I’m a strong supporter of the Second Amendment, but this is just a bad bill:

Members of the Georgia Chamber of Commerce and friends:

A number of you have asked for an update on SB 43. Well, I wish I had much of one.

Over the weekend, 4 NEW GROUPS CAME OUT IN OPPOSITION TO SB 43, for varying reasons:

  • the Georgia Municipal Association (GMA), representing 502 municipalities in Georgia,
  • the Georgia Trial Lawyers Association,
  • the State Bar of Georgia, and
  • (GCO), “Georgia’s no-compromise voice for gun owners,” which believes that adding language from or the concept from SB 43 to another bill, HB 89, a bill GCO prefers, would erase the chances of the latter’s passage. joins a number in the leadership of THE OFFICIAL NRA AFFILIATE IN GEORGIA, the Georgia Sports Shooters Association (GSSA) and hundreds if not thousands of individual NRA members IN OPPOSING SB 43.

They join thousands and thousands of Georgia businesses and membership associations, small and large, from Attapulgus to Zebulon, who have previously announced their opposition to SB 43, some including:

  • the Georgia Association of Police Chiefs,
  • the Fraternal Order of Police/Georgia State Lodge,
  • the Georgia Chamber of Commerce,
  • the Georgia Association of REALTORS(R),
  • the Georgia Retail Association,
  • the Georgia Poultry Federation,
  • the Georgia Beverage Association,
  • the American Society of Safety Engineers,
  • the Georgia Chemistry Council,
  • the Georgia Forestry Association,
  • the Georgia Hospital Association,
  • the Georgia Petroleum Council,
  • the Georgia Pulp and Paper Association,
  • the Georgia Traditional Manufacturers Association (GTMA),
  • the Georgia Mining Association,
  • the Georgia Restaurant Association,
  • the Southeastern Legal Foundation,
  • the Building Owners and Managers Association (BOMA)/Atlanta,
  • the Society For Human Resource Management,
  • ASIS International (formerly the American Society for Industrial Security),
  • the Georgia Railroad Association, and
  • local chambers of commerce (too many to list here) from Atlanta to Jesup to Wayne County.

In fact, some days it seems NO ONE SUPPORTS SB 43 other than the NRA lobbyists in Washington, D.C.

Newspapers from across have strongly criticized the bill, questioning the workplace safety ramifications (there have been three workplace deaths since Senate Bill 43 was first scheduled for a vote by the Georgia state Senate), questioning the impact on employer workplace safety programs and the rights of business owners and property owners to control their property.

The latest draft of SB 43 (banning policies and enforcement of policies that prohibit firearms in private parking accommodations provided by property owners or employers) that we saw, and which was distributed Friday at our Government Affairs Council (GAC) meeting, is the last version of which I am aware.

The strong, consensus at the GAC meeting two days ago was the language in the bill remains unacceptable.

  • Still infringes on private property rights,
  • Still infringes on business owners’ rights,
  • Still infringes on employer-employee contract,
  • And now as drafted, would interfere with many corporate loss prevention programs.

As Lt. Gov. Casey Cagle has requested, we will continue to sit down and discuss the bill to see if there is any possibility that language acceptable to all sides can be agreed to. But time is short.

Tomorrow morning (Monday), the Committee on Rules is expected to consider HB 89, and to amend language from SB 43 onto it. What that language that might be, no one seems to know.

Thank you for your help and support on this VERY IMPORTANT private property/employer rights issues.

I expect to have more information to share with you Monday. For Georgia Chamber GAC members at the state Capitol, a meeting Monday or Tuesday on this issue is possible if not likely.


  1. jm says:

    As a homeowner, if I so chose, I want the right to determine what can and cannot be placed on my property. If a contractor comes to my home (technically, his temporary place of business) to work on whatever and he has a full gun rack, shouldn’t I be able to say no, just as I can so no to smoking in my house, drinking, etc? It is easy to ramp that analogy up to a business land owner.

    I also certainly want my employer (a public school district) to have control over guns on that property as well. In trying to protect “lawful gun ownership” we are making some bonehead moves that are just not safe, nor are they constitutional.

  2. Bull Moose says:

    If no one seems to support this bill, who in the legislature is pushing the bill forward?

    That’s a serious question that needs to be answered.

    This bill isn’t moving forward on its own. Someone is pushing it for one reason or the other and I’m not alone in saying, I want to know who.

  3. Tommy_a2b says:

    I just found out that some version of SB 43 was added to HB 89. I will have a draft soon. I will try and post it as soon as I get it. I am a little shocked that Chip is working so hard on such a piece of poo bill.

Comments are closed.