Amid Wave of Pro-Gun Legislation, Georgia Proposes Sweeping Law (NYT)

Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you:

No adverts like this in the forums anymore.
Times and dates in your local timezone.
Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance.
Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely.
Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net.

If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

**Co'tor Shas**

source

ATLANTA — Pro- and anti-gun forces do not agree on much, but they do agree on the breathtaking sweep of the Georgia legislation allowing guns in bars, schools, restaurants, churches and airports that is now awaiting the signature of Gov. Nathan Deal.

Americans for Responsible Solutions, founded by Gabrielle Giffords, the former Arizona congresswoman who was critically wounded in a mass shooting in 2011, calls it “the most extreme gun bill in America” and the “guns everywhere” legislation. The National Rifle Association, which lobbied for the bill, calls it “the most comprehensive pro-gun” bill in recent state history, and described the vote at the Capitol on Thursday as “a historic victory for the Second Amendment.”

More than a year after the massacre at Sandy Hook Elementary School in Connecticut elicited a burst of gun-control legislation, the Georgia bill shows just how far the counterreaction has spread as lawmakers, mainly in Republican-controlled states in the South and West, pass laws allowing weapons in all corners of society while strengthening so-called Stand Your Ground laws.

Critics say the victories may come at a price as pro-gun legislation pushes up against the limits of public opinion.

“I do think they’ve overreached,” said Laura Cutilletta, senior staff attorney at the San Francisco-based Law Center to Prevent Gun Violence. The Georgia bill, she said, is “so extreme and people do have such a strong reaction to it. I don’t think over all it’s a victory for them.”

The bill was opposed not only by gun-control groups, but also by the state’s police chiefs association and restaurant association, Episcopal and Catholic churches, and the federal Transportation Security Administration. A majority of Georgians also opposed it, according to several polls.

Mr. Deal, a Republican, who is expected to sign the bill, is up for re-election this year, but there is no sign of a political backlash against him or anyone who voted for the legislation. The governor’s Democratic opponent, State Senator Jason Carter, President Jimmy Carter’s grandson, also voted for the bill.

“I don’t think it will backfire,” said Jerry Henry, director of Georgia Carry, one of the main local groups that promoted the bill. “You can bet those politicians who voted for it knew what their constituents wanted.”

What they wanted, in this case, would be a veritable gun-lobby shopping list.

The bill allows people with a weapons permit to carry loaded guns into bars, as long as they do not consume alcohol — although the bill does not say how that caveat would be enforced.

It allows guns in public areas of airports and eliminates criminal charges for permit holders caught with guns at airport security. It authorizes school districts to appoint staff members to carry guns at schools, ostensibly to defend students in case of an attack.

It allows felons to claim the Stand Your Ground defense — in which someone who “reasonably believes” his life is in danger has no duty to walk away and may instead shoot to kill. And that is just the beginning.

Georgia lawmakers backed off a provision allowing guns on college campuses and weakened the section allowing guns in churches, permitting them only if a church expressly decides to do so. An Atlanta Journal-Constitution poll in January found that more than 70 percent of voters opposed both measures. The poll did not ask about guns in bars, but polls in other states have found 70 percent or more of the public opposed the idea.

Many bar owners said they were taken by surprise.

“I don’t have any problems with people owning guns, but I do have a problem with guns and alcohol,” said Melissa Swanson, owner of the Rail Pub in downtown Savannah. “Everybody could be in here having a good time, but all you need is one bad drunk with a gun and it could be a bad situation.”

Backers of the bill say the aim is not to flood bars with guns.

“This is a private property issue,” said State Representative Rick Jasperse, the bill’s original sponsor. “We’re not going to decide what goes on inside a bar. Let the bar owner decide.”

While the Georgia legislation is notable for its breadth, many of its provisions have been promoted by the National Rifle Association for several years and have cropped up separately in other states.

In the past year alone, 21 states have passed laws expanding the rights of gun owners, according to the Law Center to Prevent Gun Violence. Three allow guns in churches, two allow them on college campuses, four in bars and eight in schools.

Some states have become so eager to be seen as gun-friendly that there are few limits on matters deemed worthy of legislative attention.

The so-called Pop-Tart Bill, which the Florida House passed last week and is under consideration in Oklahoma, would shield schoolchildren from being punished for making a gun out of a breakfast pastry. The Second Amendment threat the bill seeks to remedy was that of a Maryland second grader who was sent home from school last year after biting a Pop-Tart into the shape of a gun.

If the new frontiers prove unpopular, the gun lobby may be a victim of its success. Every state now allows people to carry guns in some public places, 42 allow assault rifles and no major federal gun control laws have been passed since 1994. So gun-rights groups have focused on carving out niches to expand where one can legally carry a gun.

There was a flurry of gun-control legislation after 26 children and educators were shot to death in Newtown, Conn., by a well-armed, mentally disturbed 20-year-old. But in the 12 months immediately afterward, states passed 39 laws to tighten gun restrictions and 70 to loosen them.

On Thursday, the day the Georgia bill was passed, a fight broke out in a gray, windowless shack called Milo’s Bar in Marietta, an Atlanta suburb. As the brawl spilled into the parking lot, at least three guns were drawn. Shots were fired, and a bystander was wounded.

It is not clear whether the new law would have changed anything. Milo’s already had “No Weapons” signs posted. Anyone there with a gun was already violating existing law as well as the bar’s policy.

Correction: March 26, 2014
An article on Tuesday about passage of legislation in Georgia that would ease restrictions on guns misstated in some editions the name of a federal agency opposed to the measure. It is the Transportation Security Administration, not the Transportation Safety Authority.

Pro-gun, I get. But this is just silly.

**Hordini**

It's not that silly. Other states allow things that the Georgia bill allows. Ohio allows guns in bars and restaurants that serve alcohol as long as the business isn't posted with a no gun sign and the person doesn't consume alcohol. People protested before the law was past. Unsurprisingly, their predictions were wrong and it didn't turn into the wild west.

Basically every time a state expands the locations were licensed concealed-carry holders are allowed to carry, every anti-gun person comes out of the woodwork to proclaim how their state is going to turn into the wild west because of it, and every time they've been wrong.

**Co'tor Shas**

It's mostly the government building and airport parts. I heard this one mayor saying that it would cost the town an extra $60,000 to get security guard(s?) so they could prohibit guns in the buildings. And guns are not allowed in airports and government buildings for a pretty big reason.

**LordofHats**

But in the 12 months immediately afterward, states passed 39 laws to tighten gun restrictions and 70 to loosen them.

Maybe now we can drop pretending that the government wants to steal all the guns?

I imagine like most things, it'll all be fine till someone does something stupid. What exactly is the relationship between the TSA and local laws at airports? I thought it was what the TSA said goes. The article says it blocks the filing of charges for violations, but can't the TSA still throw you out of the airport?

Also lol at silliness mixing up NHTSA with TSA. Talk about a proof reading failure.

**easysauce**

It makes sense because now you CAN legally walk into a dennys and have bacon and eggs + CCW, despite them technically serving beer.

actual pubs/bars will already have a weapons ban (no knives, clubs, guns) and are still allowed to ban anything they dont want on their private property.

The net effect being that now owners of resteraunts that just happen to serve beer dont HAVE to refuse service to people with CCW or OC, due to it being illegal for them to basically be in the same building as a beer.

they are also welcome to have a no weapons sign as most bars do.

**Frazzled**

Hordini wrote:
It's not that silly. Other states allow things that the Georgia bill allows. Ohio allows guns in bars and restaurants that serve alcohol as long as the business isn't posted with a no gun sign and the person doesn't consume alcohol. People protested before the law was past. Unsurprisingly, their predictions were wrong and it didn't turn into the wild west.

Basically every time a state expands the locations were licensed concealed-carry holders are allowed to carry, every anti-gun person comes out of the woodwork to proclaim how their state is going to turn into the wild west because of it, and every time they've been wrong.

Light weights. In Texas not only do we allow guns, but we pass out bullets at communion.

How else are we going to maintain the Austin Quarantine Zone against the Walkers er Californians?
Every day, thousands of them try to breach the wall, a mindless horde. The slow ones, the "romeros" are no big thing. but the fast ones, when they break out, they can make it clear to Giddings or San Antonio, threatening to infect hundreds before they are rounded up.

The horror.

The horror.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

easysauce wrote:
It makes sense because now you CAN legally walk into a dennys and have bacon and eggs

Now I'm hungry.

Oh wait I just realized this is from the NYT. Its a twofer for them. Push their pet cause and slam Southerners at the same time.

**Gentleman_Jellyfish**

LordofHats wrote:
Maybe now we can drop pretending that the government wants to steal all the guns?

Only if you believe that Democrats wouldn't have turned it the other way.

**LordofHats**

Gentleman_Jellyfish wrote:

Only if you believe that Democrats wouldn't have turned it the other way.

A democrat voted for the legislation in the OP.

This happens every time there's a gun scare; some people say we should tigthen gun controls. Everyone gets crazy and buys up all the bullets in town. When the dust settles it turns out that gun laws have actually gotten loser not stricter. This is the third time in a row this has happened. The only time it went the other way in the last 30 years was when a Republican president got shot.

**Barksdale**

easysauce wrote:
It makes sense because now you CAN legally walk into a dennys and have bacon and eggs + CCW, despite them technically serving beer.

Oh my feth I miss Denny's. You bastard.

**Jihadin**

It States not Federal

So say an airport one with a weapon cannot go beyond the "Search, Frisk, Xray" point with a weapon into the Gate area. Atlanta International Airport for the past ten or twelve years had a serious flow of Assault weapons, crew serve weapons and side arms go through with no incident

Alcohol and weapons are a bad combo but now pretty much Owner enforced

Teacher now can stop an active shooter if LEO do not mistake him/her as the shooter when they roll up

Just have to wait an

**NuggzTheNinja**

This is excellent news.

PA allows carry in bars and restaurants that serve alcohol. Even if you have a problem with people drinking while carrying, it's hard to make a case against someone who is DD'ing (and not drinking) carrying to, from, and in those locations.

On the subject of alcohol and guns...stupid people will do stupid things with or without alcohol. I've carried my gun in bars, while drinking, literally hundreds of times and never had a problem. Idiots are the problem, not drinking and not guns.

**Hordini**

Are you allowed to consume alcohol while carrying in PA?

**SilverMK2**

Why do churches get special protection from people carrying guns? Is their god not strong enough to protect the people there if someone decides a voice suddenly answers their prayers and tells them to gun down everyone at the pews?

**Frazzled**

SilverMK2 wrote:
Why do churches get special protection from people carrying guns? Is their god not strong enough to protect the people there if someone decides a voice suddenly answers their prayers and tells them to gun down everyone at the pews?

What?

You do know there've been quite a few shootings at churches right, which kind of makes you look like a "poopeyhead" for your statement above.

**daedalus**

SilverMK2 wrote:
Why do churches get special protection from people carrying guns? Is their god not strong enough to protect the people there if someone decides a voice suddenly answers their prayers and tells them to gun down everyone at the pews?

Churches are usually too busy defending themselves from God's wrath most of the time. They get struck by lightning amusingly often.

**NuggzTheNinja**

Hordini wrote:
Are you allowed to consume alcohol while carrying in PA?

Yep!

**Frazzled**

daedalus wrote:
SilverMK2 wrote:
Why do churches get special protection from people carrying guns? Is their god not strong enough to protect the people there if someone decides a voice suddenly answers their prayers and tells them to gun down everyone at the pews?

Churches are usually too busy defending themselves from God's wrath most of the time. They get struck by lightning amusingly often.

Occupational hazard, same for Irish bars. In order to converse with their equals an Irishman is forced to talk to God. Sometimes God's a little crotchety.

**SilverMK2**

Frazzled wrote:
SilverMK2 wrote:
Why do churches get special protection from people carrying guns? Is their god not strong enough to protect the people there if someone decides a voice suddenly answers their prayers and tells them to gun down everyone at the pews?

What?

You do know there've been quite a few shootings at churches right, which kind of makes you look like a "poopeyhead" for your statement above.

There have been quite a few shootings at schools as well, however the proposed laws above have guns being put into schools, and special protections for churches which don't want guns... so... what makes churches so special they are protected under law from allowing armed people onto the premises but schools are a free fire zone?

**daedalus**

Frazzled wrote:
daedalus wrote:
SilverMK2 wrote:
Why do churches get special protection from people carrying guns? Is their god not strong enough to protect the people there if someone decides a voice suddenly answers their prayers and tells them to gun down everyone at the pews?

Churches are usually too busy defending themselves from God's wrath most of the time. They get struck by lightning amusingly often.

Occupational hazard, same for Irish bars. In order to converse with their equals an Irishman is forced to talk to God. Sometimes God's a little crotchety.

Well, old people get crotchety. People were created in God's image. God is older than all people.

THE LOGIC IS SOUND

**SilverMK2**

daedalus wrote:
SilverMK2 wrote:
Why do churches get special protection from people carrying guns? Is their god not strong enough to protect the people there if someone decides a voice suddenly answers their prayers and tells them to gun down everyone at the pews?

Churches are usually too busy defending themselves from God's wrath most of the time. They get struck by lightning amusingly often.

The joys of generally being the tallest building combined with lightning rods to conduct the charge

**Frazzled**

SilverMK2 wrote:
Frazzled wrote:
SilverMK2 wrote:
Why do churches get special protection from people carrying guns? Is their god not strong enough to protect the people there if someone decides a voice suddenly answers their prayers and tells them to gun down everyone at the pews?

What?

You do know there've been quite a few shootings at churches right, which kind of makes you look like a "poopeyhead" for your statement above.

There have been quite a few shootings at schools as well, however the proposed laws above have guns being put into schools, and special protections for churches which don't want guns... so... what makes churches so special they are protected under law from allowing armed people onto the premises but schools are a free fire zone?

You're not being especially coherent but I'll try to respond.
The logic is probably this:
*Public schools are government buildings. They have the same limits as other state govnerment buildings.
*Lots of shooting have occurred in schools.

Churches are private.

In Texas historically it was the opposite. Schools did not have CHl permission. Churches were private and could post but it was permitted otherwise. The school part may have changed slightly. I'm a bit behind the times on that aspect. Now the wife and I obey all laws, but she's from Chicago so that concept is more flexible for some people then others.

**Hordini**

NuggzTheNinja wrote:
Hordini wrote:
Are you allowed to consume alcohol while carrying in PA?

Yep!

Very well!

SilverMK2 wrote:
Frazzled wrote:
SilverMK2 wrote:
Why do churches get special protection from people carrying guns? Is their god not strong enough to protect the people there if someone decides a voice suddenly answers their prayers and tells them to gun down everyone at the pews?

What?

You do know there've been quite a few shootings at churches right, which kind of makes you look like a "poopeyhead" for your statement above.

There have been quite a few shootings at schools as well, however the proposed laws above have guns being put into schools, and special protections for churches which don't want guns... so... what makes churches so special they are protected under law from allowing armed people onto the premises but schools are a free fire zone?

Schools are free fire zones because they are "gun free zones." An active shooter is almost guaranteed to face no initial armed opposition, because law-abiding citizens aren't currently allowed to carry there, in most states.

In some states, churches can choose to allow concealed carry or not (and in a few states schools have the option as well).

**easysauce**

SilverMK2 wrote:
Why do churches get special protection from people carrying guns? Is their god not strong enough to protect the people there if someone decides a voice suddenly answers their prayers and tells them to gun down everyone at the pews?

ummm, one, thats insulting to religious people, most dont think about it like that, but I am noticing a religion bashing trend with you.

second, the "mythical god" protecting people in churches sounds a lot like how gun laws or gun free zones are supposed to protect people after the lead starts flying.

three: seriously, tone it down a bit, Im as much an aetheist as the next guy, and you wouldnt bash other groups such as gays or the handi capped as you do the religious, so dont do it.

If you have nothing positive to say, dont say anything at all.

And schools are not "free fire zones" they were traditionally "gun free zones", equating them to "sitting duck targets here, no one will even try to stop you for 10-15+minutes."

also

schools = public

churches = private

**Seaward**

LordofHats wrote:
A democrat voted for the legislation in the OP.

This happens every time there's a gun scare; some people say we should tigthen gun controls. Everyone gets crazy and buys up all the bullets in town. When the dust settles it turns out that gun laws have actually gotten loser not stricter. This is the third time in a row this has happened. The only time it went the other way in the last 30 years was when a Republican president got shot.

At the state level, that's at least somewhat true. I don't think anyone's claiming that all state governments want to get rid of guns. The guy running the federal government certainly does, however, and some states have in fact passed much stricter legislation - the idiocy in New York and Connecticut spring easily to mind.

I can pass 30 laws tightening gun control in some states and 70 laws loosening it in others. Telling the people in the states where I tightened the laws that they're just imagining things would not be accurate.

I could also, for what it's worth, pass one law tightening gun control in 30 states, and 35 laws loosening it in two, and still get the, "You're being hysterical!" statistics.

**Relapse**

Barksdale wrote:
easysauce wrote:
It makes sense because now you CAN legally walk into a dennys and have bacon and eggs + CCW, despite them technically serving beer.

Oh my feth I miss Denny's. You bastard.

Village Inn is where it's at, baby!

**Kovnik Obama**

SilverMK2 wrote:
Why do churches get special protection from people carrying guns? Is their god not strong enough to protect the people there if someone decides a voice suddenly answers their prayers and tells them to gun down everyone at the pews?

Traditionally, crimes against churches and clergy were more heavily sentenced for, and in many parts of the modern world, still are. We still have specific laws against theft and destruction of clergical property here in Canada.

But you are being silly.

**Ouze**

In Iowa, at least, you are allowed to carry concealed in places that serve alcohol and even drink, but your CCW is invalid if and while you are intoxicated. I myself have never drunk a drop of liquor while armed, it seems like a pretty stupid idea. Nonetheless I like this because I sometimes go to a bar nearby to get pretzels with hot cheese, they're really good. I am not a real big drinker anyway.

SilverMK2 wrote:
Why do churches get special protection from people carrying guns? Is their god not strong enough to protect the people there if someone decides a voice suddenly answers their prayers and tells them to gun down everyone at the pews?

Look, you got a hard time over this comment, but I like the cut of your jib.

**d-usa**

Our church has people carrying, off-duty and on-duty cops present in various areas of the building, we have a panic button system that locks down the entire area where our day care is located to prevent an active shooter from entering the area and there are always two cops present in that area as well.

We must be horrible Christians...

**LordofHats**

Seaward wrote:
The guy running the federal government certainly does

I'm talking about the 'goverment's gonna ban guns' hysteria which has never made any sense*. That the Federal government has allowed it's own gun controls have overall loosened in the last ten years is just a fact that people seem happy to ignore to maintain their fiction. The Supreme Court especially has made big expansions to 2nd Amendment rights. The executive actions by Obama are like drops in a bucket of water that achieve next to nothing to tighten controls in comparison.

As to the democrat bit, I'm speaking to the irony that people always hold Republicans up as the champions of gun rights. Sure, Bill Clinton signed the Brady Bill and the Assault Weapons Ban, but the Brady Bill was a reaction to the shooting of a Republican and was passed by a Republican controlled congress. The Assault Weapons Ban started as an executive order by Bush Senior and was pushed by the same congress as the Brady Bill (ironically further the same Congress that is today famous for deregulating certain other things). Both bills further received written support from Ronald Regan and Gerald Ford. had Bush senior been reelected you can bet he'd have signed them into law since both were pushed by him while he was in office.

The Republicans have a larger footprint in pushing gun control legislation than the Democrats at the Federal level of government.

*And we can blame our favorite federal agency, the ATF, for starting that hysteria. Thanks ATF.

**Ouze**

Well, we have an industry to support. People won't panic buy AR-15s just for no reason.