search
top

More on Georgia Issues

The Rome News-Tribune is covering the HB89, HB 915 controversy, and stumbles across the reason NRA is probably not backing HB 915:

Now for the meat in the coconut. Bearden’s bill – prefiled last week as HB 915 – contains this language: “Nothing in this Code section shall be construed to limit, restrict, or prohibit in any manner the existing rights of a private property owner, unless such private property has been leased to a government entity, and nothing in this Code section shall be construed to limit, restrict, or prohibit in any manner the existing rights of a private tenant, private employer, or private business entity.”

I didn’t see this section of HB 915 upon my first reading of the bill, or rather, what it did exactly didn’t quite sink in:

(c) This Nothing in this Code section shall not apply to competitors participating in organized sport shooting events. Law enforcement officers, peace officers retired from state or federal law enforcement agencies, judges, magistrates, solicitors-general, and district attorneys may carry pistols in publicly owned or operated buildings be construed to limit, restrict, or prohibit in any manner the existing rights of a private property owner, unless such private property has been leased to a government entity, and nothing in this Code section shall be construed to limit, restrict, or prohibit in any manner the existing rights of a private tenant, private employer, or private business entity

So basically HB 915, GeorgiaCarry’s preferred bill, scuttles HB 89, the NRA bill, by design, and you folks are wondering why NRA isn’t getting behind HB 915? Listen, I like the rest of the provisions in HB 915, but this isn’t a way to get things done.

I don’t agree with the NRA bill, but smearing them for not supporting your preferred bill when it undermines their preferred bill strikes me as not only unfair, but underhanded. If we spent half as much time going after the anti-gunners as we spend going after each other, we might get somewhere.

UPDATE:  GeorgiaCarry.org has responded that HB 915 has nothing to do with HB 89, and that they have been working on this bill long before NRA introduced the parking lot bill.  I do apologize for the insinuation that this was deliberate, but I’m still not sure I agree that this section doesn’t interfere with the main purpose of HB 89.  I will have more on this, but be sure to follow the link to hear their side of this issue.

3 Responses to “More on Georgia Issues”

  1. straightarrow says:

    ” If we spent half as much time going after the anti-gunners as we spend going after each other, we might get somewhere.”-Sebastian

    uh huh! but it helps if we can trust each other. And some of us are not trustworthy. Some of us write gun control legislation and then lobby for it.

    So, how are we supposed to take it on faith when they actually get it right? How do we know they really mean it?

  2. I guess I don’t see how HB 915 sinks HB 89–the way I read it, if they were both passed, HR 89 would still do just what the NRA wants it to. It looks to me as if the offending language in HB 915 simply expressly states that it doesn’t do what HB 89 does.

  3. Sebastian says:

    It creates a conflict that would create a lot of legal trouble for HB 89 if it passed. Notice the clause at the very end of the bill.

Trackbacks/Pingbacks

  1. Snowflakes in Hell » Blog Archive » More on HB 915 - [...] over at the comments on Jeff’s site responds to my comments on HB 915: Go back and read the…
  2. Snowflakes in Hell » Blog Archive » I’m The Responsible Party - [...] am probably the person that originated this with my post.  I also hope that NRA will endorse HB 915,…
  3. Snowflakes in Hell » Blog Archive » The Heart of the Matter - [...] still stand by my analysis that the “private property” clause in HB 915 jeopardizes HB 89.  I had made…
top