search
top

More on HB 915

Ed over at the comments on Jeff’s site responds to my comments on HB 915:

Go back and read the bill again. We have literally been working on this bill for years, and we last worked through this portion some time ago (before the NRA ever dreamed up a parking lots bill for Georgia). Removing that section would change the bill. Here is why. Section 4 of HB 915 is an express authorization for license holders to carry “in all areas of this State, except as specifically limited in this Code Section.” While this language was also stolen directly from the senate bill that the NRA pushed into law in Colorado, it was good language for Georgia because of the odd case law here pertaining to criminal trespass and government property. This authority to carry “in all areas of the State” language will ensure that local government officials cannot simply use criminal trespass law to eject lawful firearm carriers or arrest them.

BUT IF SUBSECTION C IS REMOVED, then Section 4 would mean that a person with a firearms license would be authorized to carry in all areas of the state, including any and all private property. That means your private property, Sebastion. Do you think that is a good idea? Would such a bill be likely to pass? If not, then why do you suggest the language be removed?

In other words, the language to which you point is integral to HB 915 and has NOTHING to do with the NRA’s parking lots bill. You need to be more careful in looking at the effects of your suggestions.

GCO’s Secretary informed me that he went through the time stamped drafts of the bill, and that provision appears in every version, INCLUDING THE VERSIONS THAT PREDATE THE NRA’S PARKING LOTS BILL. In light of this evidence, please QUIT claiming that anybody had any designs to “scuttle” anything the NRA is doing. You are simply wrong, and I wish you would take affirmative steps to correct the misinformation you have been publishing and distributing.

Please correct your statements on your blog and here.

I do apologize if this was not deliberately intended, and have put this here in its entirety in the interest of fairness on that issue, and I will update the original post with a link here.

But I still don’t see how this section doesn’t interfere with the parking lot bill NRA is pushing.   I am not, however, an expert on Georgia firearms law, but based on my reading of both bills, HB 915 could interfere with HB 89.  Can some of our attorney types on the blogosphere weigh in with what they think?

8 Responses to “More on HB 915”

  1. Sailorcurt says:

    You may be right but whether HB 915 would interfere with HB89 or not is irrelevant. The point is that the NRA is (again) interfering with an initiative supported by the LOCAL gun owners in preference to their own (arguably inferior) bill. If Georgia Carry has been working on this bill as long as they say, and if the NRA introduced their bill KNOWING that Georgia Carry has been working on this bill…then it is the NRA crapping on the local group, not the other way around.

    I know I always come across as an NRA basher because I always chime in on these types of issues…I’m not. I’m a life member and I acknowledge that the NRA does many, many good things and are very effective. But I also think that they tend to step on the smaller, state level groups for their own purposes and I will not defend them when they do so.

    Not only that, but they seemingly refuse to even acknowledge the contributions of the smaller groups and, even worse, occasionally jump on the bandwagon after all the hard work is already done and then graciously accept credit for accomplishing the goal.

    As a State level activist myself, I feel Georgia Carry’s pain and I won’t support the NRA’s actions blindly. Cooperation is not synonymous with supplication. If the NRA expects the support of the State level groups, the state level groups need to be assured of reciprocal support when needed. All too often, that support is in short supply.

  2. I still don’t see how HB 915 could have any effect on HB 89. Sure, the portion of HB 915 to which you refer says that that bill doesn’t limit a property owner’s ability to restrict firearms on the premises, but how would it affect another bill’s (HB 89’s) ability to do so?

  3. Ed Stone says:

    Sailorcurt, I just WISH the NRA would “jump on the bandwagon after all the hard work is already done and then graciously accept credit for accomplishing the goal.” GeorgiaCarry.Org would be fine with that. We are not doing this for credit. We are doing this to restore the right to bear arms in Georgia, which has more places off limits than any state in the nation that permits firearms carry at all. Gun Owners of America, Students for Concealed Carry on Campus, and the Georgia Sports Shooters Association have all jumped in to help remove these government criminal restrictions on law abiding firearms license holders. If the NRA did, too, we could easily take Georgia out of the top spot for “most places off limits by law to a carrying firearm with a license.”

    The constitution restrains government, and therefore repealing government criminal restrictions on that right must take priority if you are interested in enforcing a constituional right.

    Sebastian,

    The only “interference” or similarity between the two bills is that one section of one bill (HB 915) states that the particular section is not to be construed to restrict existing private property rights (in other words, possession of a firearms license, which under the section in question is an authorization to carry a firearm into “all areas of the state,” does not mean I am now authorized by law to carry all over your property). The other bill does not even deal with firearms licenses at all, but permits some people to lock a gun in their glove box in some private propery parking lots. The two really are not related. I hope that clears it up a little.

  4. Sebastian says:

    Yeah, I get the purpose of that clause now, and I’m not asserting that HB419 and HB89 are related in terms of intent, but that the clause in 419 creates a plausible case for nullifying the parking lot provision of HB 89 I think is still an issue. Whether that’s really NRA’s problem or not, I don’t know. But I suspect that could be a concern for them. I still haven’t seen any kind of statement from them in regards to HB 419.

  5. . . . in regards to HB 419.

    I assume you mean HB 915?

  6. Sebastian says:

    I do. Where’d I get 419 from?

  7. Alcibiades McZombie says:

    419 advance-fee fraud scams?

  8. jack says:

    I would like to see someone come up with one good common sence reason why HB-915 should not be passed. I have the GOD given right to protect my family when I leave my home and this bill will allow me legally to do so. Our law enforcement officals do a great job even with their hands tied behind their back but they can’t provide instant help if it is needed. If the young lady hiking the Blood mountain trail had carried agun she might be alive today.

Trackbacks/Pingbacks

  1. Snowflakes in Hell » Blog Archive » More on Georgia Issues - [...] GeorgiaCarry.org has responded that HB 915 has nothing to do with HB 89, and that they have been working…
top