HB 875 Debate

HB 875 is “The Gun Bill” this session and it includes options for local school systems to allow certain approved individuals to carry guns in schools, decriminalizes certain actions, removes fingerprinting for license renewals, and a few other things. Debate is live at the moment here. Feel free to watch and comment in the comment section.

Also, here are Charlie’s thoughts on the debate in one tweet.



  1. Jon Lester says:

    I just wish there weren’t so many things mixed together in the same bill. My fingerprints are on file anyway, and I’d really rather not see guns in bars.

      • Michael Silver says:

        Bars will able to ban guns. This bill does not force guns into bars. It restores the property rights of bar owners to make the decision for themselves, either way. Same with churches.

        Lost in the debate is that these limitations only apply to background checked Georgians 21 and older with a LICENSE. Is it right to make criminal out of the most law abiding in Georgia?

        • Dave Bearse says:

          Customers and the public may not be aware that firearms are allowed. They shouldn’t have to enter (applicable in most cases), locate an authority, and then inquire. I’d be less opposed if the law required churches and establishments that serve alcohol to prominently post at each entrance that licensed firearms are permitted inside. It will assist in the public and the market in sorting things out.

  2. Max Power says:

    Once again the Republicans that run the state focus on the most critical issue facing Georgians. Sigh…

  3. Three Jack says:

    Meanwhile in the real world, traffic, education and unemployment suck! Another wasted session spent pandering to the vocal minority within the GOP.

    • Will Durant says:

      It IS an election year. Pandering bills with no teeth in them are to be expected. That being said, I was brought up that guns and likker don’t mix and I still think that way, whether in bars or churches.

  4. The Comma Guy says:

    Ironic that as this debate wages, there is a young person caught on the campus of the Chamblee Charter School with a gun. (Police: teen detained after bringing gun to Chamblee high school. Latest at 4 on #wsbtv pic.twitter.com/gZtDlsLB13)

    Can someone explain to me what the problem is with the fingerprinting requirement in this day and age of identity fraud? Why shouldn’t we require folks who want the ability to carry a firearm concealed to have to show that they are legally allowed to do so?

    • TheEiger says:

      People do have to show that they are legally allowed to carry a concealed handgun. Who says that they don’t?

      The problem with having your fingerprints taken is that those prints will be kept on file and used to search against along with common criminals when the police are looking for a suspect. Having a concealed carry permit does not mean you are a criminal and we should not be treated as criminals.

    • gtmatt says:

      What is ironic about it? 16 year-olds can’t get GWLs.

      People who are applying for GWLs (which allows carrying a pistol openly or concealed) have to be fingerprinted the first time around. Under HB 875, when they are renewing (when their license is expiring 5 years later), they don’t have to get fingerprinted again, which is basically pointless and only adds to the cost of the license every time it is renewed.

      • The Comma Guy says:

        OK, that makes sense of sorts gtmatt re: cost of getting fingerprinted for renewals. There are other means available, like requiring the fingerprint cards to be destroyed once the license is issued. Has there ever been a documented instance that the police used the fingerprint cards of folks who wanted to follow the law and get a license to find a suspect? I just worry that it is becoming very easy to obtain a fake GA DL. And if there is no requirement to verify that the person standing in front of the probate judge asking for a gun license is who they say they are, could we be allowing felons, domestic abusers, and others who are not allowed to have guns to get a license to carry.

        Ironic in that the same day the folks under the gold dome are relaxing gun control laws, there is a gun at school situation in the metro Atlanta area. Odd timing. Kinda like the fact that there was an anti-pit bull rally today and a lady was mauled by her pit bull.

        • Harry says:

          The gun at school today involved a non-licensed and therefore illegal carrier. If the situation had gone bad, a CCW licensee on the premise likely could have prevented greater carnage. But you knew that.

        • TheEiger says:

          “coud we be allowing felons, domestic abusers, and others who are not allowed to have guns to get a license to carry.”

          Those people that you mention are what we call criminals. Criminals are criminals because they do not follow the law. What makes you think they would follow the law to get a license to carry? The answer is they won’t and they don’t. Criminals will always have guns. A sign that says no guns allowed will not keep a criminal out. Another gun held by a law abiding citizen may.

          Again, gun owners are not criminals and should not be treated as such. People who are commit crimes are criminals. It is not a crime to own a gun or to carry a concealed gun if you follow the law.

  5. robertg222 says:

    Good to see that the Georgia is taking care of some important legislation for a change. Of course making the streets safer for the law abiding will freak out the gun paranoid. To bad we can’t get these kind of laws on the federal level.

Comments are closed.