Just when you think gun legislation in southern states couldn’t possibly make less sense, the state of Georgia rises to answer the call. Image courtesy of http://www.truthdig.com
Last year I wrote a piece for Blogcritics magazine, “State Gun Laws: An Analysis”, focusing on common themes in state permit/licensing requirements for firearms and their laws on assault weapons. It came as no surprise that some of the most relaxed policies in the nation came out of “Bible Belt” states as Alabama, Mississippi, Georgia, or Louisiana hand out weapons permits blindfolded, don’t care much for assault weapon bans, and pretty much let you take a gun anywhere. Earlier today Georgia’s governor, Nathan Deal, took it one step further and signed the Safe Carry Protection Act into law. House Bill 60, as it’s also known, makes several unnerving changes to Georgia’s ‘southern-style’ firearms legislation.
- The new law allows gun owners to sport firearms in bars unless the owner specifically asks that they leave. Before bars could prohibit firearms on their premises outright.
- Guns can enter churches and other houses of worship provided the leader allows his or her congregation to bring firearms into the building. This provision has different penalties for those with or without permits, but if the congregation’s leader allows firearms then guns can enter regardless of one’s permit status.
- School Boards must to vote as to whether teachers and other staff members can bring firearms onto school grounds. “Staff Members” includes the school board itself. Anyone who chooses to carry a firearm on school grounds has to take marksmanship training courses and a review on Georgia laws concerning firearms and self-defense.
- SCPA allows a person to bring their firearm into “airport common areas” and should a gun “accidentally” arrive at t security checkpoint it’s owner can pick up the weapon and leave without legal penalties
- Licensed gun owners can bring firearms into “unsecured government buildings”, which is any government building that doesn’t maintain security checkpoints or metal detectors of some kind. The Atlanta City Hall and Georgia State Capitol buildings remain off limits.
- Lastly, the law prevents the state from maintaining a database of licensed gun owners and fingerprinting isn’t required to renew a weapons permit.
Now you might say, well doesn’t most of this apply to licensed firearm owners who would already have legal permission to own, operate, and carry their guns? It does, but consider a few facts about Georgia’s gun policies prior to SCPA. Georgia is one of 24 states that allows open-carry of long barrel rifles and shotguns without a license or permit. The state does not require a new owner to register themselves or their firearm upon purchase of their weapon, nor does it require a permit to buy a gun in the first place. Prior to SCPA, Georgians could obtain both open-carry and concealed carry permits for both long guns and handguns, and these weapons could be taken into bars and school areas with the right permission.
The Safe Carry Protection Act creates a host of new problems thanks to its ill-advised provisions. Atlanta is home to Hartsfield-Jackson International Airport, one of the largest, busiest airports in the United States and SPCA allows Georgians to carry concealed firearms into dozens of areas outside of federally protected terminals. TSA officials have yet to comment on this issue, but with the number of people who travel through the airport on a daily basis it seems unlikely that agents will be able to effectively police thousands of people to ensure that guns are in permitted zones. Concerns mount in the case of school boards and church leaders now forces to choose whether firearms will enter places once prohibited by law. There’s a small silver lining in that leadership in both areas have to vote yes or no, but the consideration alone for these places is disturbing.
Such a law sets a dangerous precedent for other states like Florida to follow where “stand your ground” policies enable civilians to use firearms in situations where “fearing for one’s own life” justifies deadly force against another. Generally the southeastern United States follows notoriously lax regulations, and laws like SCPA only weaken what little regulation exists for handguns, rifles, and shotguns. Also keep in mind that these states don’t exercise restrictions on federally defined “assault weapons” and in cases like Georgia do no enforce restrictions on attachments or modifications to firearms. The Safe Carry act is seven steps back into the 19th century for Georgia and her citizens who’ll be looking over their shoulders at PTA meetings and alter calls from here on out.
The Klenbort Project 
And this is bad how now?
1)Drinking and carrying is still illegal
2)Churches should be allowed to make their own choices
3)School boards still get a choice in the matter. Put a local cop or two near/in the elementary schools.
4)The erosion of the “mens rea” requirement in criminal law is a serious issue.
5)If the building is not secured, what is the point of such a rule?
6)Registration leads to confiscation
LikeLike
1) On paper yes, but in actuality the law not only impairs the rights of bar/restaurant owners to manage their clientele, it enables carrying while drinking which isn’t substantially different. Combine that with a lacking enforcement structure, doesn’t much matter.
2) No substantive or rational basis for allowing firearms in places of worship.
3) I granted that school boards are allowed to choose, but given past events they shouldn’t be in a position to have to make that choice. Also what’s the rational basis for allowing even licensed firearms owners to increase school children’s proximity to guns?
4) Creating circumstances that enable the use of deadly force by non-military or law enforcement personnel using their own personal discretion outside of their home is a serious issue
5) If a building doesn’t have a necessary security to prevent such weapons from being brought in, why allow average citizens to import them? In addition, the sole issue isn’t that particular provision, it’s the combination of lacking state regulations and available armaments.
6) Not per se. Registration allows for smoother regulations, easier to target weapons/personages that are being used irresponsibly if I have detailed lists of licensed owners who, under GA law, are presumed responsible users.
LikeLike
1)If the bar really wants to enforce it, then have the doorman ask the customer if they are carrying a gun and ask them to stow it or leave if they say “yes”. Simple as that.
2)Churches do get targeted by psychos/terrorists like any other place. It is up to the Church Elders/Leaders to decide how they want to handle their church’s security. It is also not the government’s job to micromanage church operations (could be stepping into 1st amendment territory as well)
3)So then assign local cops to guard the schools (beats having them chase after pot smokers)
4)Then get more training for a CCW. If some billionaire is allowed to hire guys to carry guns to protect him, why should some guy who works late in a crappy neighborhood be forced to rely on the cops (who thanks to Warren v. DC and Castle Rock v. Gonzales aren’t even legally obligated to show up)
5)Government buildings should upgrade their security then, law or no law someone with evil intentions will commit evil acts.
6)Retroactive bans and onerous license fees meant to deny a means of self-defense to all but the wealthiest 1%? No thanks.
LikeLike
1) So an owner should increase his/her labor expense because the law enables customers to carry firearms into a public space where they’re largely unnecessary and increase the likelihood of lethal conflict? Two problems that could be easily circumvented by disallowing open/concealed arms in such spaces.
2) I agree that Churches should be able to decide how their particular establishment is secured, but “security” and firearms among your congregation are not the same thing. If a house of worship has a reasonable basis of suspicion to justify additional security measures (“mega-churches” are good examples), then additional security personnel should be afforded to them. The state could allocate officers for that type of job as opposed to enabling private citizens to enter with firearms.
3) The point with the churches also applies here. Security guards at schools makes sense, especially in a state where high-powered, automatic, and assault weapons are widely available. If a school has guards, like local policemen, then there’s no need for teachers/staff to have guns themselves even if they’ve trained to use them. Again, the state should enable school boards to decide if they want the additional security measure and provide the personnel.
4) Self-defense in one’s home, or near one’s property isn’t the issue. The primary concern is the ease citizens in certain states can buy firearms of various types and carry them even without a CCW or OC permit. Additionally, increased training only ensures efficiency not responsible use. Law enforcement and military personnel have an additional burden of responsibility while operating in hostile environments that private citizens, largely, do not have a sense of. A person should take care of their homes, property, and family, but in the area of public spaces, professional operators should be relied on. Perhaps the state should endeavor to improve that.
5) Another place where the State can direct it’s attention as opposed to allowing private citizens to bring their own weapons.
6) Thanks for the straw-man but no one mentioned bans. Registration has little to do with economics and everything to do with keeping adequate records of how firearms are purchased, the demographics of purchasers, and allows so-called responsible owners to be readily identified and ruled out as law enforcement pursues those who misuse firearms.
LikeLike
2)Security is a team effort. If I were running a church, I would want to know which of my congregants has a CCW permit and coordinate them with the security team.
3)Full autos are heavily restricted everywhere in the USA. You’d think someone tooting their own horn as a scholar would research their topics first.
4)Cops have no legal obligation to protect individual citizens (Warren v. DC) and no matter what police cannot be everywhere at once. Heinous crimes like this are a perfect example as to why trained citizens should be allowed to carry. http://gunsafetyblog.com/tag/murders-of-channon-christian-and-christopher-newsom/
6)And NYC’s $500 in registration costs has nothing to do with classism?
LikeLike
2) Houses of worship are one of several public areas that have continually identified as locations where firearms cannot go. Suddenly it’s determined that Church security should be tied to a private citizens ability to defend themselves in said space? Again, the question is where is the rational basis for that decision?
3) See Printz v. United States. There’s a working, though lacking, regulatory framework employed by the Federal Government but SCOTUS ruled that individual states cannot e compelled to comply with an individual federal program which would include registration requirements nd/or bans from laws like the NFA or Gun Control Act. Only 19 states choose to follow the governemnt’s restrictions on NFA-classified, non-handguns and the same number comply with the NFA regulations on hangduns. You also may have been referencing FOPA, which restricts the manufacture and transfer of machine guns. First FOPA does allow the transfer or sale of a machine gun, with the appropriate paperwork, provided the seller conducts the transaction under the auspices of a federal authority like the ATF with a person in the same state. Furthermore such a sale can be conducted even if the person who would receive the weapon is unlicensed. Lastly, the definition of “machine gun” stems from the NFA which a state isn’t required to comply with, so the restriction on the sale of such a weapon, as defined by Federal law, depends on whether the state chooses to comply with the definition.
4) That would apply in your previous example of an individual walking down a “dangerous” street on his/her way home. The state’s rationale for increasing the presence of private, non-professional operators is the primary concern because there doesn’t seem to be one. Police can’t be everywhere, but can the state reasonably afford officers to churches or schools that have reason to be concerned over their security? Sure it could, but in this case it chooses not to do that and instead empowers private citizens to carry firearms into places traditionally thought as ill-advised for guns.
6) Municipalities with established gun-related violence issues charge higher fees and/or taxes as a method of deterring gun-ownership in the interest of public safety. Links to “guns for the 1%” are dubious at best.
LikeLike
What people like you don’t get is that some people are specifically hunted. Usually it’s an ex in a bitter breakup or divorce but there’s others too. One abortion doctor in Kansas was hunted down and specifically killed in the one place he wasn’t allowed to carry, by state law: a church.
http://www.foxnews.com/story/2009/05/31/abortion-doctor-gunned-down-at-kansas-church-suspect-in-custody/
My wife was subject to attempted murder twice for revealing inside details on the political prosecution of Gov. Don Siegelman of AL – neither attempt involved a gun BTW:
http://donsiegelman.org/Pages/topics/Players/Heros/heros_simpson.html
A law against carry in church for example means that people who are specifically at risk are now forced to go to a place where they are legally designated as targets, and that place is rendered a safe hunting ground for murderers.
Does that sound like a good idea? Really?
Because it isn’t. It violates the basic human right to self defense. If somebody is going to be disarmed, there needs to be a full set of security measures with metal detectors as found at courthouses, airport security zones and the like. And that is what this law is actually about.
LikeLiked by 1 person
I don’t argue against a natural right to self-defense, but the manner in which we defend ourselves matters especially in a public space like a church or a school. In the case of specific targeting of individuals, should a state recognize such a problem exists then the full set of security measures in such places should be the thrust of a new law. A state shouldn’t force the option on schools or churches, but it has the means to provide them with that solution and should do so as opposed to increasing the proliferation of arms among private, non-professional operators. Keep in mind that while SCOTUS upholds an individuals natural right to self defense, the court grants that the Second Amendment, as with every other right, is not an unlimited privilege and can be subject to review where appropriate. Georgia, alongside other southeastern states, lack meaningful guards against proliferation of weapons intended for offensive purposes and as such a law that expands where non-professionals can these arms is inappropriate and irresponsible.
LikeLike