Ready : FIRE! : Aim

There are some things on which I agree with tea partiers.  There are some things I don’t – because I’m not against everything just to be against it.

This email. This has to stop if anything of note is going to get accomplished.  This email was broadcasted far and wide to South Georgia. The gist of it is “I haven’t read the whole bill, but it looks like it’s going to pass so it must be baadd.”

My favorite lines:

  • H.B. 512 is long, and I haven’t finished analyzing it in detail. And our volunteer legal staff hasn’t had a chance to review it, either.
  • Please call these bill sponsors immediately and insist they reject all of these poison pill provisions or withdraw their bill outright.

Pro tip: I openly admit I have a lot to learn about politics, but I know this – when you demand ALL or NOTHING…you usually end up with nothing.

The whole email (except for the names and phones numbers to call) for your reading pleasure:

“Late yesterday, we received word from our sources at the State Capitol that gun lobby insiders have struck a deal with House leadership and written a gun bill in secrecy that is “likely to pass.”

That statement alone should have pro-gun supporters worried.

Although the bill, H.B. 512, wasn’t publicly posted until just after midnight last night, our sources also tell us that it is likely to go before the committee, and perhaps even for a vote, as early as today (or possibly Monday).

Why would politicians in the House want to ram through something as important as a gun bill without allowing Georgia’s millions of pro-gun citizens any time to read it and provide input?

I am worried that access-based lobbyists have sold out your God-given freedoms as a compromise for modest gains in Georgia’s gun laws.

H.B. 512 is long, and I haven’t finished analyzing it in detail. And our volunteer legal staff hasn’t had a chance to review it, either.

But there are several red flags in this bill that jump out at me on the initial reading:

*** Instead of simply abolishing Georgia’s government building carry ban, lines 103 – 108 create a convoluted scheme where a person with a weapons license can carry in government buildings – but only if there are no security guards posted.

*** Instead of simply abolishing Georgia’s college campus carry ban outright, as H.B. 29 would do, lines 122 – 128 leave the campus ban in place for student housing and any property used for competitive sports. Any student living on campus would be de facto disarmed and left vulnerable by this bill.

*** Lines 279 – 303 force law-abiding citizens to give up their medical privacy in order to apply for a weapons carry license.

Current Georgia law, which is far from perfect, puts this requirement under the discretion of the probate judge. These changes also increase the licensing fee for all applicants.

These types of “mental screening” provisions are exactly the type of back-door gun controls that leftists like President Obama and Senator Feinstein want to use to ban guns from law-abiding citizens and military veterans!

*** Lines 399 – 400 expand the list of “special people” who aren’t required to follow Georgia’s ‘Gun Free Zone’ laws.

We believe that all law-abiding citizens should be exempted from the ‘Gun Free Zone’ laws by abolishing them outright, not by creating exceptions for certain “special” people!

This bill is a classic example of politicians distracting pro-gun supporters with a few “treats” so they can ram through the “tricks” contained elsewhere in the bill.

Please call these bill sponsors immediately and insist they reject all of these poison pill provisions or withdraw their bill outright:

75 comments

  1. James says:

    If these people put a fraction of their effort into something that really matters (education, jobs, the environment), we’d have the greatest nation on Earth. But, alas, we get “whys can’t I carry my gun into court?”

    Bonus point for anyone who can explain how the right to carry is a “God-given freedom.” Guns yes, shellfish no?

    • Nathan_Able says:

      Protection of the 2nd amendment is one of the reasons why America is/was free and prosperous. Unreasonable EPA regulations and the failing public school system are two of several reasons why America is in decline.

    • Daddy Got A Gun says:

      Do the words “endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, …..” sound familiar?

      The second amendment protects a pre-existing right that all human have, the right of self-defense. Self-defense from violent predators and Self-defense from tyrannical governments.

      Since the Government has on numerous occasions denied that they have any responsibility to protect us as individuals, it should NOT restrict the methods Americans use to defend themselves. The most effective tool of self-defense is a firearm.

      Did I earn the Bonus Point?

      • Nathan_Able says:

        If the 2nd amendment is not a God given freedom, then neither is the 1st. Can’t have one without the other. Or if you’re an atheist then it is just a natural right. Either way, people have a right to bear arms, period the end.

      • The Last Democrat in Georgia says:

        Daddy Got A Gun, March 4, 2013 at 9:12 pm-

        “Did I earn the Bonus Point?”

        Well stated…100,000,000 bonus points!

    • Nathan_Able says:

      Wouldn’t it had been better if someone with a concealed carry permit been in the courthouse when Brian Nichols grabbed a police officer’s gun and went on a killing rampage. No, it was better that all the innocent people in the courtroom just remain defenseless.

      • James says:

        Ah, the old “gee, wouldn’t it have been great if a guy with a gun were at [INSERT TRAGEDY].” I sometimes think that you gun guys sit around and fantasize about this stuff.

        • Noway says:

          What’s your issue with protecting yourself and others around you, James? I’m thinking right this second that I wish I were as enlightened and James and had no need to think such awful thoughts!

          • James says:

            I wish you were as well. As it happens, I live in the 21st century and don’t live in fear (or, in your cases, fantasy) that the only thing standing between me and certain excruciating death is a gun.

            The thing that does scare the bejeezus out of me is the fact that most of your gun rhetoric is premised on the belief that your government is out to get you. Yes, we really need more armed tin-foil hat-wearers out there.

            • Noway says:

              I see you didn’t answer my question, James. Typical of anti-gun zealots. Even in the 21st century, we Americans still have the right to defend ourselves. Agree or disagree?

            • Noway says:

              Thanks for the insult, James. Tin foil hats? Wow! I’d never, ever heard that before. Is it ok with you that the gov’t is advocating the limiting of one of the individual rights guaranteed in the Bill of Rights? If so, what other of those first ten can they also chip away at? I’m curious.

              • James says:

                Noway – I never said you don’t have the right to bear arms or to defend yourself. But my right to travel to and enjoy public places without worrying whether someone is carrying a weapon trumps your right to carry weapons in those public places–especially when the justification for your possession of the weapon is some vague and ill-defined fear of harm by the government.

                Am I ok with the government limiting a right guaranteed in the Bill of Rights? Show me where the Bill of Rights says that each American can own multiple AR-15s with extended magazines and carry those weapons wherever they want with no regulation or oversight and you may have a point. And since I know from past posts that you are a constitutional originalist, you will agree with me that we cannot read into the Second Amendment the absolute, unencumbered right to carry semi-automatic, non-hunting death machines that the founding fathers never envisioned, right?

                For the record, I don’t oppose gun ownership. Keep a pistol in the house for protection. Hell, keep an AR-15 for fun at the shooting range (full disclosure — I do this regularly. I come from a long line of gun enthusiasts.) But when people start spending an inordinate amount of time caterwauling about wanting to carry weapons with them wherever they go–and justify those views by arguing that the government is out to get them–I get scared and think that maybe those people aren’t mature enough to own weapons. Sorry.

                • seenbetrdayz says:

                  If you’re paranoid that everyone around you might have a gun, then apparently you do live in fear.

                  you guys like to mock gun owners for being fearful but then again you seem to think you have some “right” not to worry about your surroundings. That’s like saying:

                  I’m scared of car accidents, so I think no one else should be allowed to drive while I’m on the road. I have the “right” not to worry about getting in a wreck with another driver while I’m going about my daily business. There is no such “right” to be free from worry, regardless of whatever ‘great society’ LBJ-era utopian dream-world you personally want to subscribe to.

                • Noway says:

                  “But my right to travel to and enjoy public places without worrying whether someone is carrying a weapon trumps your right to carry weapons in those public places..”

                  Really? Wow, you must be special, James. Who says your right trumps mine?

                  I wonder had you or a loved one been in one of those public places when the crazy folks killed innocent people, would you have liked for a law abiding gun carrier to have been there to maybe lessen the bloodshed and maybe saved you or your relatives?

                  And if you’ve researched my posts like you say you did, you’ll realize I wasn’t the one who said the “gov’t was out to get me.” Although they are attempting, at every turn it seems, to place restrictions on my right to own a firearm and just so you know, the 2nd Amendment wasn’t put in there to protect hunters, no, it was , indeed, put in there to protect the average Joe against a power-hungry central gov’t.

                  You cannot quote one study that says restrictions on guns or magazines lessens the likelihood of a mentally unbalanced person using a gun as a tool for their insane behavior. It just ain’t there. And there is not one stat of a legal carrying person misusing a weapon they are authorized to carry. Once again, the facts don’t back up your paranoia.

                  In fact, stats show that violence is lessened as well as crime when more folks are allowed to legally carry.

                  And I’m sorry you’re “scared” about the maturity of folks around you know nothing about. Maybe the closet or under the bed would be a good hiding place for you.

                  So, to partially quote the famous Sarah Peller, it’s not “where’s the Beef” but what’s your beef?

                • Noway says:

                  Oh, James, I especially liked this that you wrote:
                  “semi-automatic, non-hunting death machines” that the founding fathers never envisioned” Did you wet yourself as you wrote it?
                  Death machines? LOLOLOL! I imagine the founding fathers envisioned the latest and greatest flint-lock back when they were writing, but the message they were sending was still spot-on.

                • ” Show me where the Bill of Rights says that each American can own multiple AR-15s with extended magazines and carry those weapons wherever they want with no regulation or oversight and you may have a point.”

                  Show me where the Bill of Rights includes the Internet as part of free speech.

                    • James says:

                      You are easily impressed, Noway.

                      The Bill of Rights doesn’t reference the Internet. Yet we as a society–through laws, regulations, etc.–have reached a pretty stable consensus that the right to free speech set forth in the First Amendment apply to internet communications.

                      As evidenced by this post, we as a society have not reached a stable consensus that the Second Amendment’s right to “keep and bear arms” means that any yahoo can bring a gun to Court. Far from it. Fact is, society is slowly moving away from a broad interpretation of the Second Amendment, which is why you guys are so scared.

                • “Noway – I never said you don’t have the right to bear arms or to defend yourself. But my right to travel to and enjoy public places without worrying whether someone is carrying a weapon trumps your right to carry weapons in those public places–especially when the justification for your possession of the weapon is some vague and ill-defined fear of harm by the government.”

                  What about harm by criminals? Or have we gotten guns out of the hands of all the criminals already? I bet those “Gun Free Zone” signs must have fixed that problem, right? 😉 When seconds matter, the police are only minutes away. 🙂

                  • James says:

                    Again, the fallacy that “If I have a gun on me in a public place I won’t be a victim of a crime.” Simply not true. I haven’t seen any news stories about crimes at churches but that doesn’t stop you guys from demanding to carry guns to church as a “God-given” right.

                    • Noway says:

                      Great catch with Mrs. King, Harry. I’d forgotten all about that. Maybe an armed member in the congregation could have saved her….

                    • Noway says:

                      Don’t confuse them with facts, Seen. Their agenda is what it is, facts be damned. They’re going to do everything in their ability to get the guns. Period…

                    • James says:

                      This whole post is Exhibit A for why open carry laws should not be broadened. This is insanity. Have fun living in the Wild West. I will live in the 21st century where adults have bigger things to worry about.

                    • The Last Democrat in Georgia says:

                      James, March 6, 2013 at 9:20 am-

                      What “is insanity” is taking away law-abiding citizens’ firearms while letting criminals keep theirs.

                    • James says:

                      Who is talking about taking away firearms, TLDIG? This whole post is about open-carry in churches, courts, and other public places.

                    • Daddy Got A Gun says:

                      The wild west shown in the movies is fiction.

                      Crime was so rare that when it happened, it was big news.

                    • The Last Democrat in Georgia says:

                      James, March 6, 2013 at 9:32 am-

                      “Who is talking about taking away firearms, TLDIG?”

                      “Gun-free zones” like the type around churches, schools, universities, etc, that basically disarm law-abiding citizens and leave them as sitting ducks for armed criminals to exploit.

                    • Noway says:

                      Nice post, James. Take a valium. But, please, please keep posting. We’re getting a good laugh watching you get your backside handed to you.

                    • Noway says:

                      Quick question, James. Do you support the Alabama politician who stated last week that he wanted law enforcement authorities to be able to seize guns in the even of an emergency?

                    • James says:

                      DGAG – You know what else is fiction? The notion that, if you are allowed to carry a gun everywhere, you’ll be a one-man crime stopping machine and Georgia will magically transform into a crime-free utopia (complete with unicorns, hopefully.) I know you’ve had that fantasy on more than one occasion. But like my fantasy of playing QB for the Falcons, it’s just not gonna happen.

                      I think I’ve said enough on this post. I’ll catch you on the next one. But I’ll leave you with one final thought: This country is changing. You know it, and you hate it. The new guard doesn’t care much for old men who want to carry guns everywhere and fantasize about stopping crime. We think it’s weird. And we’re going to pass laws preventing it. So have fun crying about not being able to bring guns to church.

                    • The Last Democrat in Georgia says:

                      At least James is honest in his desire to disarm law-abiding citizens and leave them defenseless for armed criminals.

                    • James says:

                      Noway, in response to your question about the Alabama proposal to seize guns in an emergency — I would not support that proposal. It seems to clearly violate the Second Amendment and doesn’t seem to make much practical sense. I’ve never argued that people don’t have a right to arm themselves and protect their homes–they clearly do–and this proposal would violate that right.

  2. UpHere says:

    I don’t ever see any ideas from any of the tea parties outside of email blasts on things they do not like. I go to meetings in Cobb and Fulton and it is a whole lot criticizing with no skin in the game.

    • Nathan_Able says:

      The Tea Party’s proposed solutions are not complex and convoluted. They just want to repeal. Unlike dems and most republicans who only want to introduce laws to fix some other problematic law to fix some other problematic government program etc…

    • debbie0040 says:

      @UpHere, then you don’t read emails. I have seen tea parties advocate on behalf of bills many times. I have seen tea parties help write bills that have been introduced. We gave solutions during the T-SPLOST debate.

      But then again, UpHere, the truth doesn’t matter to you does it?

      I did not see the email that Bridget is referring to not do I know who the tea party is that sent it.

      • Charlie says:

        “I have seen tea parties advocate on behalf of bills many times. I have seen tea parties help write bills that have been introduced. ”

        And you’re raising money via those same emails.

        Explain to me again how, exactly, based on your own words that you are not a lobbyist.

  3. Bridgett, imagine if you’d ever sought treatment for a disorder or illness which you’d want to keep private. Even if it wouldn’t bar you from carrying, wouldn’t you still not want others to have access to your records? Where’s your compassion? I usually enjoy seeing it in your posts…

    • Daddy Got A Gun says:

      Under current law, any mental health hospitalization could be a disqualifier. So if you seek help for depression, alcohol, etc., you could lose your license to carry. How cruel is that? You take an affirmative and responsible step to get help and the government punishes you.

      HB512 changes that. The standard will be changed to mirror Federal law and only be for INVOLUNTARY hospitalizations.

      The email that Bridget posted is so wrong that either it was written by a false flag operation or by complete maroons.

      Along with the involuntary hospital improvement in 512, HB 512 also permits for the first time in 20 years carrying of guns into university buildings. The only two off limit locations on campus are sporting events and dorms. That is a huge step in the right direction. HUGE!

      HB512 also restricts how long the Probate Judges can wait for the Hospitalization check to come in before they have to issue a license. There are some counties (Dekalb) that are waiting months for the check response and thus delaying the issuance of the license.

      HB512 is really a good bill.

      It passed out of committee tonight with some changes.

    • We’re honing in on different points. WHY is someone trying to convince me to be against something that they haven’t even thoroughly read?

      To the point you bring up, do I want someone who has been INVOLUNTARILY hospitalized get checked a little more thoroughly? Yes – yes, I do. There’s not a family out there that just willy-nilly commits a family member to an institution against their will. It means that person has/had some issues to work through and needs a closer look-see.

          • joe says:

            Since this thread is about the right to bear arms, your Wikipedia link makes me think that we may need to modify the old ‘frigtard’ posts.

            • Overruled. It was a very clever reference to me saying families never willy-nilly commit other family members.

              “Rather than face a lawsuit for Darl’s criminal barn burning, the Bundrens claim that Darl is insane, and they give him to a pair of men who commit him to a Jackson mental institution. Two of the Bundren children, Jewel and Dewey Dell, help the men from the mental institution by leading the attack against Darl. This familial betrayal, combined with Darl’s experience in the Great War and his realization that Jewel is not Anse’s son, leads Darl to legitimate mental instability.”

            • …or make additions to them.

              “The next day, the Bundrens arrive in Jefferson and bury Addie [,fulfilling her dying which]. Rather than face a lawsuit for Darl’s criminal barn burning, the Bundrens claim that Darl is insane, and they give him to a pair of men who commit him to a Jackson mental institution.”

      • Daddy Got A Gun says:

        You want the dirt. 😉

        HB512 is associated with GeorgiaCarry.Org. Its leadership and volunteer attorneys have been working with the Representatives on it. GeorgiaCarry.Org is the group whose members are polite, smiling, and wearing Orange gun save lives buttons. A real group with a proven record going back to the mid-2000’s. I’m a member but don’t blame them for me. 🙂

        There is another group called Georgia Gun Owners. They are tied in with the Campaign for Liberty, which is where that email MAY have come from. Last year, they physically threatened Chairman Ann Purcell over a gun bill that her committee was hearing. The bill died in rules, I think. From the hearing on HB512 yesterday, Chairman Powell suggested Georgia Gun Owners is threatening Legislators once again.

        My personal opinion is that Georgia Gun Owners is a false flag operation (anti-gunners claiming to be pro-gun with the goal of stopping gun bills). The emails I see from them are quite well written but are factually wrong. So blatantly wrong that it has to be intentional.
        I would not be surprised to find out that they are funded by Mayor Bloomberg.

        In the past, there was another anti-gun group, Georgians For Gun Safety. That group is run by Alice Johnson. I didn’t see her testify about HB512 last night so I’m not sure if that group is still active. Maybe Georgia Gun Owners is the replacement for Georgians For Gun Safety.

        The NRA is supporting SB101 which passed the Senate. SB101 is a bill that sounds very good on paper but has the potential to harm licensed gun-toters. Georgia’s law is based on mutual reciprocity of carry licenses. You recognize our license and we’ll recognize yours. This is an incentive and leverage for states to honor our carry license.

        South Carolina does not recognize our license because our law doesn’t mandate training. If SB101 passes, a resident of SC could carry in Georgia but the reverse would not be true. A Georgian would not be allowed to carry in South Carolina. This bill would reduce the pressure on the South Carolina Legislature to honor Georgia’s licenses. We are essentially surrendering a leverage point and harming our long-term chances to have our licenses honored in SC and other states.

        I hope I managed to give you some background on what’s going on.

        • GAgadfly says:

          Yes, the email in question here came from “Georgia Gun Owners.” They send emails regularly about the various gun-related bills being considered under the gold dome. I disagree that they are a false-flag operation- I simply think they are run by passionate yet politically undisciplined and unsophisticated former Ron Paul supporters (redundant, I know). Some of them got together and decided to make a push in the area of gun rights, organized this group, and rallied around Rep. Gregory’s pre-filed bills, likely in collaboration with Mr. Gregory. They view any other gun bill as apostasy, exhibiting the classic tendency to let the perfect get in the way of the good.

      • Nonchalant says:

        Different Wiki article, and the asylum mentioned is not the type mentioned above (see Magdalene Asylum), but it is the example I could remember off the cuff, and is thus submitted, because I thought it important to point out that, for the record, historically, things happen that should not happen. People are angels, and people are swine.

        “As the phenomenon became more widespread, it extended beyond prostitution to unmarried mothers, mentally retarded women and abused girls. Even young girls who were considered too promiscuous and flirtatious, or too beautiful, were sent to an asylum by their families. This paralleled the practice in state-run asylums in Britain and Ireland in the same period, where many people with alleged “social dysfunction” were committed to asylums. Without a family member on the outside who could vouch for them, many incarcerated individuals stayed in the asylums for the rest of their lives, many taking religious vows.”

        Always check six.

        • Good point nonetheless. Moreover, focusing on individuals’ previous crimes and current states of mind seems a more appropriate means of measuring their respective aptitudes for competently wielding firearms. …unless of course you’re always a fan of scarlet letters… (That’s two literary references in one thread; my quota’s now been satisfied.)

  4. Nonchalant says:

    I see nothing wrong with being automatically against any bill on a subject one cares about when that bill is posted near midnight and then quickly voted upon, as seems to be the case here. Trust must be earned, and some legislators are less representatives of the common spirit of a district than the victor of a gladiator contest about whom the average intelligent man of the district knows nothing, besides broad party identification, and that somehow the man won.

    The process for this bill, whatever the merits may be, seems a poor way to do it, and the mere attempt to do it in this manner, if indeed it is a “cram-down”, is sufficient to cause extra scrutiny and outright rejection in and of itself, because, once again, trust must be earned, not demanded, and the trust given should directly correlate to the connection the representative has with the little platoons back home. The greater, the greater trust that should be accorded, and the lesser, the more the powder should be kept dry.

Comments are closed.