Sounds like the makings of a fun Halloween Party

My friend Bill Self testified before the Senate Firearms Law Study Committee.

Pimps, prostitutes, brawlers and others convicted of select misdemeanor crimes can still qualify for a license to carry a concealed weapon under state law, a probate judge warned a panel of senators reviewing state firearms laws.

The caution came Tuesday as the Senate Firearms Law Study Committee sought input on ways to streamline the state’s application process for firearms licenses, which varies among the state’s 159 counties.

Bibb County Probate Judge William Self said relaxing requirements of the current process could put a license in the hands of someone who shouldn’t have one.

6 comments

  1. Tinkerhell says:

    The committee isn’t looking at “laxing requirements”.

    The main items of discussion at the meeting which Judge Self attended were:
    1) Discuss who would do the licensing (leave it in the hand of the 159 county probate judges or centralize it to a state level service)
    2) Discuss whether training should be a requirement to get a GFL.
    3) Discuss what convictions (in particular old, minor drug offenses) should bar licensing.

    additional issues were discussed but these are the main ones from my understanding.

    Here is my question to the Judge.
    Why do you want to maintain this duty?

    If running background checks and investigating everyone’s eligibility is such an onerous task then why do you want to keep it?

    If it’s centralized then there is one set of rules for payment and disqualifying issues. It stops being up to the discretion and variance of 159 different men & women (too many of whom already think they are their to make the law instead of rule by it…) It would also streamline the process as the state agency can use COGENT to handle the background check as is already done for other types of licenses) and these can be turned around in just a couple of days.

    Hmmm might it be because then the probate court would get the $ for licenses as they currently do? No, I’m sure that doesn’t have anything to do with it.

    Also from Judge Self back in Jan 08: http://www.macon.com/209/story/241131.html

    Problems with legislative gun proposals

    Two points: One personal, one professional.

    The personal: As columnist Phil Dodson points out, one does not have to have any training to own or carry a firearm, only a clean record. Law enforcement officers must have POST training, which includes firearms safety and proficiency; citizens do not.

    We cannot drive cars without passing a test and (now) taking a driver-training course; to drive commercial vehicles, one must pass an additional test; we cannot own fireworks (except the sparkler type) because they are so dangerous; to carry on any profession which might cause harm, including manicuring nails, one must be licensed with training.

    Law-abiding citizens are not presumed to be qualified otherwise, but proponents of pending legislation suggest that any law-abiding citizen should strap on a gun and take it anywhere, whether or not that person has any idea how to use it proficiently, much less how to use it around innocent bystanders.

    The last time I looked Judge, there wasn’t an Amendment that confirming my right to drive a car. or shoot off fireworks. I believe the term is “Shall not be infringed”.

    Get this out of the hands of probate Judges and into a state level, centralized service with uniform rules & regulations.

Comments are closed.