Gun Bill Advances to Subcommittee

From the AJC:

A controversial bill to allow licensed gun owners in Georgia to carry concealed weapons most places other than the courthouse and the jailhouse is headed to a House subcommittee for closer scrutiny after a lengthy hearing Thursday.

Rep. Rich Golick (R-Smyrna), chairman of the House Judiciary Committee on noncivil matters, said a subcommittee will be able to “hash out” some of the concerns about the bill, mostly centering on an expansion of the rights of licensed gun owners to carry their weapons to churches, bars and college campuses(emphasis added)

The bill’s sponsor, Rep. Tim Bearden (R-Villa Rica), told committee members the existing law is “extremely confusing” to gun owners and law enforcement.

“It’s time we finally clarify what is allowable and what is off-limits,” Bearden said.

In 2008, legislators passed a bill Bearden proposed that allows guns at state parks, on mass transit and in restaurants where alcohol is served.

Tom Daniel, senior vice chancellor with the University System of Georgia, asked legislators to “keep the law as it is.” Currently, guns are outlawed within 1,000 feet of college campuses.

This bill seeks to expand the areas in which licensed gun owners can carry concealed weapons including churches, bars, and college campuses. This is an issue that has been debated for some time here in Georgia. Keep an eye on this bill; it’s one to watch.

66 comments

  1. Jeff says:

    The bill goes MUCH further than just churches, bars, and college campuses.

    The version of the bill that is currently on LEGIS says that guns will be allowed anywhere other than in areas of buildings housing courtrooms, jails, or prisons. Even in areas of buildings housing courtrooms, jails, and prisons, you must be allowed to enter the building with a weapon, and while you must follow building security’s directives on how to store your weapon, if secure storage for your weapon is not available, you cannot be denied entry into the building.

    I’ve been told that the bill was heavily modified before and after Thursday’s committee hearing, but I haven’t yet seen those revisions.

    • Life and Liberty says:

      the 2nd amendment, with ONE sentence, goes MUCH further than this 22- section, 20-page, 698-line bill. Someone should shut James Madison up before he makes Bearden look like a tyrant!

      • Jeff says:

        Yeah, I haven’t seen the 22 section version. The one currently available on LEGIS is 9 sections, and 2 of those are boilerplate.

  2. Rick Day says:

    I approve this bill 100% (and I have a ‘bar’).

    Frankly, I’m tired of the Tech kids being victimized by thugs taking advantage of unarmed youth.

    A couple of messily removed kneecaps by a round squeezed out of a Glock by a Sophomore Asian Engineering Student will do wonders to curtail crime in my neighborhood.

    DISCLOSURE: I am a multi-year member of Georgia Carry.

  3. Dave says:

    Damn right. Glad to see the expansion of our already guaranteed constitutional rights! Watch the criminals get more nervous with the increase in our ability to carry!

    • Life and Liberty says:

      the right to be free is granted by God. It is acknowledged in the constitution. and ignored in Georgia legislative committees.

  4. C.G. says:

    I can only support something like this if the process for becoming registered is very strict. I don’t believe people with a registered license are non-dangerous. They simply haven’t had a felony yet and took whatever class GA requires. I don’t know the exact requirements in GA, but I have seen them before and they basically only screen out criminals (which is fine). Just saying that I don’t feel comfortable having to stand next to someone or be in establishment with someone who is allowed to pack heat just because they haven’t been convicted of a felony yet.

    For all the second amendment peeps, there’s a difference between gun ownership and being able to take a gun where ever you want. I don’t think the second amendment gives people carte blanche to takes guns anywhere. I think it only applies to your personal property and laws like the one in the Committee determine whether these weapons can lawfully be brought onto public state lands.

    Lastly, if they do go forward with this bill I hope they don’t allow it to extend to mass transit and the airport. I feel like that would just cause more problems than good for us here in GA.

    • acoalson says:

      Your right. The 2nd amendment says “…the right of the People to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed, at their house.”

      Oh wait it doesn’t say that it says ..”SHALL NOT BE
      INFRINGED.”

      “Bear” means to have on one’s person.

      And if we are going to raise the standard to guard against POTENTIAL criminals, then you need to give up driving, because there is a chance you might kill someone with your vehicle, and we can’t be too careful.

      BTW the current law already extends to mass transit, and all through 2009 there wasn’t a massive increase of violence on MARTA. Guess we just got lucky, huh?

    • Tinkerhell says:

      @C.G.

      Really?!
      Anyone that carries a gun is a potential felon. That’s an interesting perspective. As pointed out, anyone with a car is too.
      Or a baseball bat, or a rock, or a fist for that matter.

      Why in the heck would someone suddenly, magically, be inclined to become a felon because they are now allowed to carry a firearm to a “public gathering” or to church? If someone is soooo predisposed to committing a felony offense do you REALLY think the existing law has ANY impact on them?? Try applying just a little logic to your argument.

  5. MSBassSinger says:

    I respect the folks who are against this bill, and believe limiting who can have guns, where and when they can be carried, and want more government oversight and control. I believe, for most of them, they mean well.

    I would respect them more if they would simply be honest about their intentions, and get a US Constitutional amendment passed overriding or repealing the 2nd amendment. Of course, too many Americans would oppose that, and it would never pass in enough states to be ratified.

    Until the US Constitution is changed, why not go by it?

    • ByteMe says:

      It’s not that the 2nd Amendment needs to be repealed, but…

      But 2nd Amendment proponents conveniently ignore the opening clause “A well regulated Militia…”. What we ended up with is nothing close to a well-regulated militia.

      I’d be all for letting everyone own and carry if I thought it would help. But….

      Compared to EVERY other industrialized country, we have:

      – The highest rates of violent crime and homicide per capita
      – The highest percentage of our population in prison or on parole
      – The highest number of handguns (well over 200 million in circulation)

      Making guns more available won’t make us any safer, it’s just doubling down on “stupid”.

      Turning our churches and bars into the dusty streets of the wild west (with better firearm accuracy) is ridiculous and a total pander to the gun lobby at the expense of the rest of the population.

      • Life and Liberty says:

        The mere potential to deprive someone of life, liberty, or property should never be considered a crime in a free and just society.

      • tocallaghan says:

        ByteMe, under your grammatical interpretation of the 2nd amendment, the rest of the entire Constitution’s interpretation would have to change. There are two distinctive clauses in the amendment.

        “A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State……..shall not be infringed.”

        “the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.”

        • ByteMe says:

          Are there two distinct clauses operating separately or is it one clause, the first one indicating the “intention” of the amendment? Hard to know, since they’re not here to freak out at how a country with about 1,000,000 people turned out after you added another 299,000,000.

      • Tinkerhell says:

        @ByteMe

        “Making guns more available won’t make us any safer, it’s just doubling down on “stupid”.”

        This has nothing to do with gun availability. It doesn’t change how or who can acquire what type of firearm.

        “Turning our churches and bars into the dusty streets of the wild west (with better firearm accuracy) is ridiculous and a total pander to the gun lobby at the expense of the rest of the population.”

        Yep, just like so many of the anti’s said about HB89 last year… and we have had sooo many shoot em ups in places that serve booze, and on public transportation, and in parks in the last year. I don’t suppose you can give us a list of all of those “wild west” happenings can you?…. yeah I thought not.

        Also pretty funny how places like Chicago & DC have such horrible crime rates and it is basically impossible for the average citizen to have a gun on those places.

        These kinds of comments are what KILLS me about people who otherwise seem intelligent. At what point do you guys not get that the only people these laws affect are the already law abiding???? ANYONE that is going to be committing a crime with a firearm could care less about what the law is regarding carrying that weapon. Only people who respect the law leave their gun at home (thereby becoming potential helpless victims). Why do you folks want to remove the option to defend ourselves from people that have a mind to do so? You want to be a sheep, go for it, I don’t care, but don’t force me to be one.

    • Tinkerhell says:

      @MS-B.S.

      I completly disagree with your side of the matter but I totally appreciate you as being one of the few “anti’s” that are honest about what you’d like to see happen and you’re willingness to abide by the US CON. until it is changed (which, as you state, ain’t gonna happen)

      “I would respect them more if they would simply be honest about their intentions, and get a US Constitutional amendment passed overriding or repealing the 2nd amendment.”

  6. Guns + alcohol is a terrible idea. Whiskey is a hell of a drug, and I’ve seen far too many rage induced fights on the streets of St. Simons and Athens to be on board with this. A firearm adds a very immediate and possibly very final element to a situation where low inhibitions, high emotions and irrational decisions already exist.

    And while many, many gun owners I know take their right to bear arms very seriously – behaving in a responsible and vigilant manner most all the time – I simply know too many clowns. And when armed, it only takes one.

    • Tinkerhell says:

      You’re right drinking & firearms is not a good mix. Just like drinking & driving. But you post is sort of moot. It has been legal for a GFL holder to carry into a place which serves drinks for the last year.

      You’ve have noticed all those news stories about drunken shoot outs that have been happening since that law was changed. Right?……

      • I don’t think this point is moot at all. I don’t expect drunken, Wild West (movie) type shootouts to occur the night a law passes, if ever. Like I said, the vast majority of gun owners I know are responsible and vigilant with their rights. That responsibility and vigilance usually carries over into their drinking habits. They are not the folks I’m worried about.

        As I said, it only takes one clown. And everyone knows at least one. Guns are a force multiplier, that was what they are designed to do. Armed, one drunk clown can become very dangerous. I’m not worried about the wild west shootout, I’m worried about the one drunk clown perpetuating a tragedy or accident, and the backlash that tragedy will bring to responsible gun owners everywhere.

        Now, I don’t like legislation that restricts the majority because of the theoretical future abuses of lone clowns, but the majority of clowns I know hang around in churches, colleges and -especially- bars. Allowing firearms into close(r) proximity with clowns increases the liklihood of the tragedy or accident of which I speak.

        And I really think people need to understand that when talking about this bill.

          • ByteMe says:

            Yep, just what we need: a bunch of armed, frightened teenagers in a small classroom. Uh huh.

            The “brains” here in Georgia are frightening.

          • Yes, and I’ll have nightmares imagining being a police officer responding to a college campus shooting where there are a lot of panicky, armed students running around. Or being a panicky, armed college student on campus when a shooting takes place, and I see other panicky students I am not familiar with running around with guns drawn.

            The only thing more tragic in such a situation is to later find out that your family member or friend had been killed by friendly fire.

        • Tinkerhell says:

          @ Cousin Pat

          I’ll see your one clown with another one that carries a gun despite the laws. Or that keeps a gun in the car right outside. Or with a clown that is a terrorist or is insane and decided that his pet rock has told him to go into the local church on Sunday morning & kill everyone he can.

          I say that any of the above is going to happen despite any laws on the books. And that is really the point. Call them clowns or terrorists or folks that are just too stupid to live, call them anything you like but as soon as they pull a gun in anything other than self defense they are criminals. And as long as there are laws preventing firearms to be carried everywhere then us non-criminals are fish in a barrel. The police can not protect you most of the time, nor would I personally want them to. I’d have to have a cop chained to my hip to be protected everywhere I went. Just isn’t possible.

          And by the way if most of the clowns you know hang around at churches… I’ve gotta wonder what churches you know about. :/

          One thing I’ll point out since you are talking about drunks, about the current law and this Bill, that I would like to see changed is for carrying under the influence. Should be just like driving IMHO. Right now I can’t drink a glass of port after stuffing myself at Fogo De Chao. That’s a crime. What I can do though is drink a 12 pack of PBR and then catch a ride over to Outback for some wings drunk off my arse with my glock on my side. That’s legal because I didn’t buy/consume the drink at Outback.

          • “I’ll see your one clown with another one that carries a gun despite the laws.”

            As a former resident of Coastal Georgia and a current resident of New Orleans, I absolutely understand this point. I fully understand that most laws have the realistic enforcability of a speed limit.

            But the first five or six targets are fish in a barrell either way, since they did not have the prior knowledge of a surprise attack.

            One of the advantages of not allowing guns in a place like a church or on campus or in a bar is that, when a vigilant witness sees one, authorities can be alerted immediately because the gun itself is out of place.

            That is the trade off, as I see it (and as I made the point earlier). I fully understand the desire to defend oneself and one’s family. But you have to explore more than just the usual worst case scenarios.

            If armed civilians respond in kind to a campus or church shooting, you increase both the situational confusion and possible suspects by an order of magnitude. And I’m not just talking about police being confused, but the licensed gun owners as well.

            I like your idea about carrying under the influence. If this law is passed, that will be a very necessary addition. Losing the license to carry concealed (or carry in public at all) would go a long way towards addressing my concerns with this bill. Again, the majority of folks I know who are gun owners are responsible and vigilant, and would not want to risk losing their license by having one too many.

            And yes, I have run into some craazy people in houses of worship. Maybe not as many “clowns” as I’ve met while at college or sitting at the bar, but enough so it bears mentioning.

          • Tinkerhell says:

            For Pat (I ran out of “tiers” to reply to. hehehe)

            “One of the advantages of not allowing guns in a place like a church or on campus or in a bar is that, when a vigilant witness sees one, authorities can be alerted immediately because the gun itself is out of place.”

            You must not carry very often. I do daily. Sometimes concealed (very poorly usually) and sometimes openly. 90% of folks never notice. I can’t subscribe to the notion that anyone with nefarious plans is going to be caught because they got “spotted” with a gun by someone else. I believe the odds of this are VERY low.

            “If armed civilians respond in kind to a campus or church shooting, you increase both the situational confusion and possible suspects by an order of magnitude. And I’m not just talking about police being confused, but the licensed gun owners as well.”

            As far as this. I won’t deny it is a possibility. However we have seen time and again what happens when only the police are relied upon, and what one person with the desire to cause mayhem can accomplish. Campus carry is already legal in some states. As is carry in all the other places that HB615 is asking for. I’m willing to bet that I can give more examples of this NOT being a problem (and having been a solution to bad thing happening) than you can give examples where that ability in a state has caused problems.

            I think it is more than worth it to have the potential for a guard dog to be among the heard when the wolf shows up.

          • @ Tinkerhell. Hope this reply shows up in the right place. I’m enjoying the conversation.

            I guess I shouldn’t be surprised that 90% of folks don’t even notice you’re carrying even when you’re carrying openly. Hell, most folks these days might not notice until you took a picture of it and sent it to their iPhone.

            Maybe I just grew up in a nosier-than-usual town, or maybe it is because I can’t go a month in New Orleans without reading about a police chase that began when neighbors phoned in a complaint about someone walking or driving around with guns.

            As for the low probability of notice heading off nefarious behavior, it depends on what kind of nefarious behavior. A coordinated, premeditated attack is nearly unstoppable until after the attack begins. But those are also low probability events.

            The more likely scenario is the emotionally charged or distraught individual where their behavior or their “out of place” look is the primary cause of notice and brings attention to the firearm. I don’t have the numbers for it, but I know that does happen with some frequency.

            Somewhere in the middle exist those crimes of opportunity – like street crimes taking place near college campuses – but the victims in those instances are usually surprised by their attackers rendering their carried weapons (if any) almost useless unless their attacker makes a mistake.

            I absolutely agree with you that we can’t depend on the police to be everywhere at all times, and even when they are close by, they cannot stop every maniac bent on mayhem (Virginia Tech). But again, those are low probability events.

            I am far less concerned with the trained or competent “guard dog” minding the herd, to use your analogy. One thing heavily in favor of your line of thinking is that most gun owners, especially those with carry conceal licenses, are usually a self selecting population of vigilant and responsible individuals who take their rights seriously, and who treat firearms with the respect they demand. Another favorable element is the fact that this group probably constitutes the majority of gun owners.

            To continue the analogy, my main concern could be attributed to those sheep who fancy themselves guard dogs, but who are clumsy, overly emotional, movies-as-reality types who end up causing the vast majority of gun accidents and heat-of-the-moment tragedies. And that is before they are allowed to carry onto campuses, churches and bars.

          • benevolus says:

            It’s a highly suspect statement to say “90% never notice”. Unknowable, unprovable, and therefore irrelevant.

          • Tinkerhell says:

            “Benevolus
            It’s a highly suspect statement to say “90% never notice”. Unknowable, unprovable, and therefore irrelevant.”

            You’re right. It’s my opinion. Feel free to send me an email & whenever you want to follow me around for day & take a poll of the people in the wake of my day to day activities let me know. Then I can have a nice scientific

            You are being intentionally obtuse & you know it.
            90% of the population don’t have a freakin clue what is going on around them most of the time period unless, as Pat pointed out, it’s texted to them on their iPhone…

          • Tinkerhell says:

            Pat – yep enjoy the back & forth as well. Sorry I skipped out on it for a day or two.

            “To continue the analogy, my main concern could be attributed to those sheep who fancy themselves guard dogs, but who are clumsy, overly emotional, movies-as-reality types who end up causing the vast majority of gun accidents and heat-of-the-moment tragedies. ”

            Again, granted.
            But I put forth that these are few & far between & the good of the as you put it (with my emphasis) “that MOST gun owners, ESPECIALLY those with carry conceal licenses” is going to out weight what the Dawin candidates might cause to happen.

  7. barstool69 says:

    If I go to class one day and see someone sitting next me packing heat, I’m getting up leaving. Period.

    • Tinkerhell says:

      Cool. No one says you can’t. If you suffer from Hoplophobia that badly then you should be sure to avoid guys in uniform as well. Good chance they are carrying a firearm…

      • barstool69 says:

        I’m not scared of guns, in fact I’m a gun owner. My point is that you’re going to put them into a place where the vast majority of people in that place don’t want them. It WILL disrupt the class.

        • Tinkerhell says:

          Majority?
          Maybe, but I bet if you took a poll around the Ga Tech campus the results might surprise you. I also didn’t see very many ( that is, I saw none) people in the hallways of the Capital last Thurs with buttons saying “Guns in school scare me”. But I did see several students with “Guns Save Lives” buttons. :)
          Thank goodness we don’t live by majority rules. Thank goodness we had a set of Founders that knew that every man and woman have the God given Right to protect themselves and they tried to prevent the governments from trampling those rights. Too damn bad so many people, politicians and judges don’t understand all of that.

          My prediction about this is that it will be a non-event. Just like public transport and restaurant carry has been. Few people will have the desire to carry to classes and most of those will do so concealed because of worry about being harassed. The few that don’t conceal might startle a couple of classmates the first day or two of class. Then it becomes a non-issue.

          Why would it bother you so much to sit next to someone in a classroom that was wearing a pistol on their side? You say you are not hoplophic so it’s not the gun itself. Then it’s can only be the person wearing it that you are scared of.
          Why?
          Obviously you must be afraid that for some reason something is wrong with them & they will shoot you or someone else. Yes? Otherwise there is zero reason to be afraid/concerned about them.
          So why aren’t you afraid of them period? Why wouldn’t you leave class anyway? If you view this person as dangerous what would them being able to legally carry have to do to increase that fear? If they are so dangerous that they might decide to commit a felony against you then they certainly may already be carrying a pistol concealed unbeknownst to anyone. I do hope they don’t decide to shoot the class up because as things are now none of the law abiding students can do much about it except get shot…

          • Kellie says:

            If I saw someone with a gun I’d sit next to them unless they looked crazy; then me and my gun would sit behind them. 😉

            BTW – I was “with gun” at the last PP gathering. That was a bad area of town for a woman traveling alone. 😉

          • benevolus says:

            I can’t believe you honestly don’t know why that would upset someone. I’ll tell you: It’s because people have tempers and sometimes do things they regret, and creating an environment where guns are welcome (and even encouraged) increases the chance that someone having a bad day will do something they later regret with it. Not only that, is there any training associated with this bill? No? Then not only do you have tempers to worry about, you are encouraging untrained amateurs to carry deadly weapons on their person essentially at all times. That’s why it makes people nervous.

            And stop with the Ga. Tech references. My understanding is that this bill does not allow students to keep guns in their dorms. So where are they supposed to keep them? And if having guns around is such a good idea, why wouldn’t Bearden want them in the dorm? For that matter, why would they be allowed in the Capitol but not in the chamber? That sounds pretty chickensh*t to me. “You can carry guns anywhere except where I work.” Man up and allow them in the chamber too, or stop pretending they’re so safe for everyone else.

  8. Ida Claire says:

    “A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.”

    What a perfect formula for true Homeland Security! The founding fathers included this very important amendment because they understood the absolute necessity for self-defense and to protect against usurpation and tyranny. They understood that it was a citizen’s duty and responsibility as an American to arm themselves and provide all the necessary accoutrements in order to provide for a ‘free state.’

    For those who believe in highly restrictive gun laws because some person may not have ‘already’ committed a felony or a criminal act I must ask how do you know that a person receiving a driver’s license is not going to commit an act of road rage and kill someone? Should the possibility that they might get angry while driving sometime in the future prevent them from driving? Should that be an excuse to deprive others from driving because there is evidence that road rage does occur frequently? That argument opens vast possibilities for removing all kinds of rights to the people.

    ‘Unknowns’ should never be an excuse to deprive the people of their inherent and Constitutional right to defend themselves and their country. Evil people will always walk amongst us. They simply adore ‘gun free’ zones where their victims are knowingly defenseless. Virginia Tech is the perfect example of that. The ordained ‘gun-free zone’ didn’t stop that killer.

    The disparity and bias in the media against guns is hard core and people need to wake up to the real statistics on how many crimes are prevented by law-abiding gun owning citizens who exercise their God-given right to self protect. http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,107274,00.html

    As far as bars and restaurants, shouldn’t that be left up to the discretion of the owner on his property? And those that do not like the policy can choose against patronage of such an establishment.

    Guns save lives.

    • ByteMe says:

      If more “guns save[d] lives”, then we wouldn’t have the highest rate of homicide and violent crimes per-capita, because we sure as hell have the highest level of gun ownership anywhere… except but maybe Somalia and look at how well it’s working there, too.

      People really need to start questioning their beliefs, because they’re not based in current existing reality.

      • Ida Claire says:

        The homicide and violent crimes per capita rate wasn’t caused by guns. It is due to the criminal nature of our current society. Restricting the defense of someone’s life and property is not the solution.

        • ByteMe says:

          Sure. We Americans are just a buncha thugs. Uh huh. Why do you hate Americans? Why do you think we’re less civilized than, say, people in Italy?

  9. gasteelmagnolia says:

    Ida Claire,
    According to the legislation, property owners do not have have discretion over allowing guns on their property, if it is considered a public establishment (i.e a restaurant, etc.)

    bar stool 69,
    I say if you allow students to carry guns on campus, that all professors then be required to have one on their person at all times and especially in the classroom.

    I am all for protecting gun rights and ownership. But in all seriousness, the ones who carry a gun on their person at all times (other than public safety officers on duty) have a tendancy to be over paranoid about the threat to their person. There are a number of really bad people in the world, but not so many that we have to armed at all times.

    And really, look at the author of the legislation. He is still just mad that he isn’t a police officer anymore, stripped of his position for what reason? Oh yeah, he decided to become a state representative and expected to be able to stay on as a member of the police department. And I didn’t realize the airport parking lot is so dangerous on a Tuesday afternoon. The big city must be a frightful place during session.

    Schools and universities should be off limits. Too dangerous.

    Places of worship – give each church, synagogue, mosque, etc. the opportunity to choose their own policy about concealed weapons on the premises. Let the members and leadership of the worship centers decide.

    State Capitol, hmmmmm, now that is a brilliant idea! Maybe some citizens packing heat in the halls will encourage our illustrious elected officials to behave.

    As for other public locations, I would prefer not to attend a Hawks, Falcons or Braves game with all the drunkards around and watch a bar brawl turn into a gun fight, which will likely result in collateral damage. Alcohol and guns do not mix.

    • Tinkerhell says:

      @GASteelMagnolia

      – Private property is still private property. Even now if I carry into a place of business that doesn’t like me being there I can be asked to leave. If I don’t then I am trespassing & will suffer the consequences. The same would apply after when this bill passes. The difference is simply that having the gun on my person is not a chargeable offense.

      – Why make proffs carry? They aren’t made to carry now but things like Va Tech certainly happen? How is allowing a GLF holder to carry to class if they choose something which warrants forcing a proff to carry? If a Proff wants to carry then more power to him/her, though I imagine that the schools won’t allow this & since that is more or less an employee/employer relationship then other issue come into play.

      “I am all for protecting gun rights and ownership. But in all seriousness, the ones who carry a gun on their person at all times (other than public safety officers on duty) have a tendency to be over paranoid about the threat to their person. There are a number of really bad people in the world, but not so many that we have to armed at all times.”

      – For some reason I kind of doubt that first sentence…
      Yep, those who carry daily are paranoid. Just like those who put on a seat belt every time they get in their car, or those that carry health insurance. I mean on come what’s the odds of getting in a car wreck or getting sick. Pretty slim huh? But ya know what it happens & when you are 3 feet from impact by the guy that ran the red light it’s a little late to buckle up or sign up for insurance.

      How many people do you know that carry everyday???

      I know a lot. We are not paranoid. We don’t live our lives in fear. The gun is a tool, just like an iphone, a pocket knife, or a netbook. I put my pistol on my hip & go about my daily business & don’t think much more about it than I do the phone on my other hip. Neither I nor anyone else I know quiver in fear or glance around nervously everywhere I go.

      – I’m not even going to bother defending Rep Bearden. He doesn’t need it and your attack is silly.

      “And I didn’t realize the airport parking lot is so dangerous on a Tuesday afternoon.”

      – See the seat belt comment, but the point here also shows you’re lack of knowledge regarding the bill & the realities of life. Currently Hartsfield ignores the law created by HB89 (which says & was intended by the legislators who passed the bill that it is legal to carry on public transport where not federally prohibited) & claims they will prosecute anyone that comes on the property with a firearm. That means in their car. So if I’m going to the airport to pick up or drop off then I have to make sure that I’ve left my firearm at home. That can be a major PITA for some folks. How about someone that goes to pick up their loved one who’s coming in at 3am on a flight around a major holiday…. yeah I want walk through the parking decks when they are full that late at night.

      • gasteelmagnolia says:

        Tinkerhell,
        I have a carry permit and personally own three guns (my dad decided I needed to learn how to quail hunt a very young age). I have no need to strap on a gun or rather carry it in my purse at all times.

        I do not disagree that there are parking lots late at night I am more comfortable with my gun, but I have never felt unsafe at the Atlanta airport. Even when traveling alone and returning at 2 or 3 in the morning. But if you fel it necessary to have extra protection, then ask for an escort. How difficult is that?

        As to the professors, you allow a group of people to carry concealed weapons into a classroom and there should be a stop gap in place to ensure those who do not (and choose not to) carry to be protected. It’s not about the law abiding citizens. The one thing in this world you canot predict is how a person will react to a situation. You can, based on previous behaivor and possibly training, estimate or guess, but you cannot be sure. You tell me with the amount of road rage, youth sporting event incidents by angry parents and other such situations, how you can justify allowing some to carry but not provide safety to those who do not? And how do address the commen thread of theft on college campuses…backpacks, dorm theft. I am not saying the sky is falling. Just be rational and objective.

        Professors are not required now because BY LAW if they walk or drive onto a campus with a firearm it is a felony. Against the law. NO ONE except for on duty public safety officers are allowed firearms on campus. Therefore, you see someone with a gun, they are probably up to no good.

        The law is not perfect…I do feel badly for those students who inadvertently drive on to campus with their shotgun in the car after an early morning hunting excursion and face criminal charges and expulsion from school. That to me seems unfair. But the law is there to protect all not just some.

        I know it is a hardship for people who cut across college campuses or are making a quick trip for a meeting or speaking engagement to remove their firearm from their vehicle before entering the boundaries. I do feel for you. It has to be a huge burden.

        And as for the seatbelts, well there is a law for that too in the state of Georgia except for trucks. And I do believe in natural selection, so those who choose to drive trucks and not wear their seatbelts, more power to them. One less gray-matter challenged person to have to encounter in this short life.

        I may not be fully versed in the law..and do accept corrections without animosity….but I do believe if you carry a concealed weapon, by law, you are not permitted to drink alcoholic beverages. I know many who carry and are very respectful and law-abiding, but I also know others who choose to disregard this part. Those are the scary ones.

        • Tinkerhell says:

          GaSteelM.,

          “But if you feel it necessary to have extra protection, then ask for an escort. How difficult is that?”

          At 2 or 3 am? Much more difficult than already having a pistol on my side… Not to mention I’d bet I’m a better shot & better trained than most of their security. It is AHJA we are talking about here. :)

          “As to the professors, you allow a group of people to carry concealed weapons into a classroom and there should be a stop gap in place to ensure those who do not (and choose not to) carry to be protected. It’s not about the law abiding citizens. The one thing in this world you cannot predict is how a person will react to a situation. You can, based on previous behavior and possibly training, estimate or guess, but you cannot be sure. You tell me with the amount of road rage, youth sporting event incidents by angry parents and other such situations, how you can justify allowing some to carry but not provide safety to those who do not?”

          Did you actually read that? So you think it more necessary to have mandated firearms in a classroom because someone might be allowed to legally carry in that same place. But you don’t worry about having a mandated gun in the room when no one else can legally have one, ergo when everyone is totally defenseless against someone coming in completely illegally then no mandatory protection is needed, but when someone can legally carry then protection from those legal carriers must be in place. That is completely illogical.

          For re-iteration here:
          “…how you can justify allowing some to carry but not provide safety to those who do not?”

          I don’t know, how can you justify that because that is exactly how the state is now. If someone brings a gun into a classroom now, no one else can have a weapon in that classroom. So how do you justify that? Do you just want to make sure the criminals don’t get injured/killed while they are in the process of slaughtering the sheep?!!!

          “And I do believe in natural selection, so those who choose to drive trucks and not wear their seatbelts, more power to them. One less gray-matter challenged person to have to encounter in this short life.”

          I do too. If you chose not to carry & be a helpless victim. Cool. Just don’t force me to be that person. I want to be able to take care of myself since no one else is responsible for doing so.

          “I do believe if you carry a concealed weapon, by law, you are not permitted to drink alcoholic beverages.”

          No, you just can’t buy & drink it in a restaurant. See one of my above posts. This is something I don’t like about current law. I can get wasted at home, then walk into Outback with my gun & eat some wings & sweet tea. As long as I don’t buy & drink there I’m legal. I think we should have a “carrying under the influence” just like for drinking and leave it at that.

          • GOPGeorgia says:

            I tend to lean more toward to allow carrying than not allow carrying in almost all cases. However, bars are currently off limits. I like the idea of if you are going to carry, you can drink absolutely zero. Carrying under the influence could have about the same punishments as DUI, but instead of pulling your drivers license, they pull your carry permit and an automatic 24 in jail for first offence.

        • Harry says:

          @gasteelmagnolia

          “Professors are not required now because BY LAW if they walk or drive onto a campus with a firearm it is a felony. Against the law. NO ONE except for on duty public safety officers are allowed firearms on campus. Therefore, you see someone with a gun, they are probably up to no good.”

          This is not the case in Georgia. Professors and employees of a university are allowed to keep their weapon in the locked glovebox of their car. Additionally a non-student with a permit can carry on any Elementary/Middle/High School/College as long as they are picking up or dropping off a student.
          (posted by Harry’s son)

    • Ida Claire says:

      The person carrying the gun on their person is not the paranoid one. They actually feel quite confident.

  10. Republican Lady says:

    I personally believe the police can’t be everywhere so if a person feels safer armed, then why not carry a gun after learning how to use one, the laws regarding the carrying of guns, how to prevent someone from taking it from you, how to secure it around children, and learning basic firearm safety and responsibility.

    In searching the Internet for firearms safety classes, there are several. The two that seem to be most popular can be found at [email protected] or [email protected]. He seems to have taken every NRA course offered with reasonable prices.

    Whether you contact him or one of the others who teach classes, maybe firearm education will make this issue more palatable to those afraid of guns.

  11. AubieTurtle says:

    This seems to be a bad year to push gun rights. Yes because of the bad economy people feel uncertain and there is more crime (though I don’t think it is as great as the media would have you believe). But with the budget, water woes, continued transportation gridlock, etc. I just don’t see the average voter getting behind the legislature spending their time on this issue. For those who feel this is a matter of liberty, of course they are likely to feel that this is always the most important issue until there are no restrictions on guns in the hands of law abiding citizens. Most people however are a bit more pragmatic and have a hundred or so other issues that are currently more important.

    When times are better, issues such as this one can gain ground but I wouldn’t want to face the voters who are unemployed or are stuck in traffic for hours for yet another year and tell them “well can’t do anything about those things but now you can bring a gun to a bar”.

    • GOPGeorgia says:

      With times being tough, crime is on the rise, and people are more likely to be robbed or mugged. Now is the time for us to be able to protect ourselves. This shouldn’t not be the number one issue in Georgia, but I’m OK with it being in the top twenty.

    • Icarus says:

      It’s a great time to bring up gun rights. And tax cuts. And hating gays. Maybe we can put the stars and bars back on the flag. Anything to distract from “the base” that our guys have been trading sex for votes.

      • Ken in Eastman says:

        Maybe a special bill to allow female lobbyists and staffers to pack heat at the capitol? Consensual acts or not, it might give some legislators second thoughts before following their baser instincts.

        Of course some of them might enjoy it more . . .

Comments are closed.