Eliminating Georgia's weapons "license" - For God's sake people, do it!

[safebuilder]

I appreciate all the efforts of the gun groups, but you cannot say that one is wrong just b/c you want a different approach. If every member of this forum and other like groups would contact their rep and senator by mail/email this thing would sail thru and be on Gov. desk in a heart beat. thats all LSU has ask for here.

 

[js415]

Wow. And I mean wow! Where was this tripe published? How disgusting. I will stop short of calling this a lie and let the reader decide what GCO's motivation is for opposing this bill. They seem to be REALLY bent that this bill is called 'Constitutional Carry' and doesn't meet their definition of 'carry anywhere anytime' which NO state has and we will never have (unless you think letting people carry into court proceedings for example is a viable option).

This is current law which this bill does nothing to change.

§ 16-11-126 (f) Any person with a valid hunting or fishing license on his or her person, or any person not required by law to have a hunting or fishing license (that means CHILDREN!), who is engaged in legal hunting, fishing, or sport shooting when the person has the permission of the owner of the land on which the activities are being conducted may have or carry on his or her person a handgun or long gun without a valid weapons carry license while hunting, fishing, or engaging in sport shooting.

Draw your own conclusions but for anyone to make that statement is absurd. They are making it EXTREMELY difficult to renew my membership.
Unbelievable (not really, lots of egos in 2A groups. )

GeauxLSU,,

I am just now catching up on this thread and have read your arguments and thoughts on the e-mail from GCO. In order to make sure I understood exactly why we (GCO) would be against this, I asked them.

Based on the comments from our Executive Director, who gets his legal advice from GCO's legal council, GCO is very, very unsure that the language you quoted above would continue to still be valid if HB543 were to pass.

Here is the link for HB543 as it is written right now: http://www.legis.ga.gov/Legislation/en-US/display/20152016/HB/543

Lines 105 through 110 specifically state who may carry a long gun, and there are no exceptions to the rules you posted above, as far as I can tell. I may be wrong, but that is my answer to your question above.

This bill is 17 pages long.

This bill is 566 lines of code.

This bill could accomplish the same thing in about 3 lines.

How about:::

"This bill will allow anyone who is not prohibited from owning a firearm to carry without a GWL. A person who meets the requirements for being issued a GWL may apply for and receive one for purposes of reciprocity with reciprocal states."

Plain and simple, and no reason to take any rights away from anybody. This bill is a mess, and is taking a lot of code sections and scrambling them up, trying to fix a "problem" that is easy to fix, using the method above.

Please don't get me wrong. I agree with your goals, and I know your on our side. Your frustrations are shared by almost everybody, including me.

Those that are promoting a "kick in the ass" method are looking for disappointment. That method was tried in 2012 by GGO, and they got the attention of our legislature. They got the attention so well, in fact, that legislature shut everybody down that had a firearms bill ready to present.

It's not fair, it's not right, and it stinks. We are playing in "their" ball field, and we have to learn to play by "their" rules. And we have to learn how to win playing by "their" rules.

Again, I agree with your goals, but don't discount what GCO (you and I) have been able to accomplish since 2007. Slow and steady. Precise and accurate measures. Doing the exact correct thing at the exact correct time.

We need your support.

As I hear back from my contacts about the "hunting" issue, I will let you know. I have asked the lawyers for a detailed reason about the statement in the GCO Update.

Thanks,

Jerry

 

[GeauxLSU]

GeauxLSU,,

I am just now catching up on this thread and have read your arguments and thoughts on the e-mail from GCO. In order to make sure I understood exactly why we (GCO) would be against this, I asked them.

Based on the comments from our Executive Director, who gets his legal advice from GCO's legal council, GCO is very, very unsure that the language you quoted above would continue to still be valid if HB543 were to pass.

Here is the link for HB543 as it is written right now: http://www.legis.ga.gov/Legislation/en-US/display/20152016/HB/543

Lines 105 through 110 specifically state who may carry a long gun, and there are no exceptions to the rules you posted above, as far as I can tell. I may be wrong, but that is my answer to your question above.

This bill is 17 pages long.

This bill is 566 lines of code.

This bill could accomplish the same thing in about 3 lines.

How about:::

"This bill will allow anyone who is not prohibited from owning a firearm to carry without a GWL. A person who meets the requirements for being issued a GWL may apply for and receive one for purposes of reciprocity with reciprocal states."

Plain and simple, and no reason to take any rights away from anybody. This bill is a mess, and is taking a lot of code sections and scrambling them up, trying to fix a "problem" that is easy to fix, using the method above.

Please don't get me wrong. I agree with your goals, and I know your on our side. Your frustrations are shared by almost everybody, including me.

Those that are promoting a "kick in the ass" method are looking for disappointment. That method was tried in 2012 by GGO, and they got the attention of our legislature. They got the attention so well, in fact, that legislature shut everybody down that had a firearms bill ready to present.

It's not fair, it's not right, and it stinks. We are playing in "their" ball field, and we have to learn to play by "their" rules. And we have to learn how to win playing by "their" rules.

Again, I agree with your goals, but don't discount what GCO (you and I) have been able to accomplish since 2007. Slow and steady. Precise and accurate measures. Doing the exact correct thing at the exact correct time.

We need your support.

As I hear back from my contacts about the "hunting" issue, I will let you know. I have asked the lawyers for a detailed reason about the statement in the GCO Update.

Thanks,

Jerry

Jerry,
There are all sorts of existing code that is seemingly contradictory but that doesn't make it valid. Currently the laws for 18-20 years old are NOT the same for handguns and long guns. It's absurd. We often lament the illogical inconsistencies in gun laws, this eliminates one. Lest anyone be confused, I AGREE 18-20 year old should be able to carry whatever they want, but to stonewall this because now a theoretical 18 year can't open carry his AR down Peachtree Street (but anyone else can) but 750,000 GWL holders (and who knows how many more won't subject themselves to the infringement) are continually infringed upon, is the definition of shooting yourself in the foot (pun intended). I confess I can't get the author to verify that that was his intent but will keep trying. The hunting and sport shooting scare tactic is disgraceful. Is it illegal for a minor to hunt or sport shoot with a handgun (even though 'possession' of one is illegal)? Of course not!
If GCO is so concerned about language they were implicitly involved with HB60 were they not? Even after another round of 'clarifying legislation' people are STILL unsure about carry on school grounds etc. So much for the 'slow methodical approach for the sake of clarity' I guess. So now I'm drug into the gutter. Great.

I absolutely agree your proposed language is the goal but as we both know legislation can't be written that way as it has to address EXISTING code. Sure, I'm all for striking any and all code related to GWL and replacing it with something similarly simple and clear but I'm willing to ride the horse that's actually in the race. I'm also willing to switch horses to the faster/better one mid race. What's that bill number again? It's 2016. I'm closing in on 3 decades in the state. Doubt I'll be vertical in 3 more.

As mentioned EVERY SINGLE state wide office is held by a Republican (not sure how many states can claim that distinction). We have GCO, GGO, Georgia Packing, and the NRA etc. yet we still have to subject ourselves to an absurd background check, pay an exorbitant fee initially and then pay a small fee yearly for our 'permission slip' as a reminder that here the second amendment is not a 'right' it's the definition of a 'privilege'. It's absolutely disgusting.

GCO, GGO, GP, the NRA etc., do not 'own' the second amendment rights of the people. We do! (Despite our willingness to abdicate them.) It would be great if we'd all be in concert on every piece of proposed and existing legislation but we've all been around long enough to know that's not the case and is EXACTLY why we have the indefensible infringements we have today.

I'll continue to work for it's elimination (and all other pro 2A measures) and GCO and whatever members are content to let them do their bidding are free to do nothing or be a roadblock as they see fit.

It would be nice if they'd work to improve the bill if they feel it warranted instead of sending out such transparent alarmist ice water.

How painfully ironic (but not surprising) that a bill to eliminate the most disgusting and indefensible infringement on the 2A in Georgia would turn into a debate.

I'm going to go out on a limb and say all or at the very least part of the reason GCO sent out that email is because people HERE have been contacting their reps. This goes back to my original point about how little effort it takes to get something done.
To those of you that have made calls please continue to do so! Kudos to you. Apparently, it's getting noticed and causing some discomfort that the peasants are displeased. Perish the thought!

 

[js415]

Jerry,
There are all sorts of existing code that is seemingly contradictory but that doesn't make it valid. Currently the laws for 18-20 years old are NOT the same for handguns and long guns. It's absurd. We often lament the illogical inconsistencies in gun laws, this eliminates one. Lest anyone be confused, I AGREE 18-20 year old should be able to carry whatever they want, but to stonewall this because now a theoretical 18 year can't open carry his AR down Peachtree Street (but anyone else can) but 750,000 GWL holders (and who knows how many more won't subject themselves to the infringement) are continually infringed upon, is the definition of shooting yourself in the foot (pun intended). I confess I can't get the author to verify that that was his intent but will keep trying. The hunting and sport shooting scare tactic is disgraceful. Is it illegal for a minor to hunt or sport shoot with a handgun (even though 'possession' of one is illegal)? Of course not!
If GCO is so concerned about language they were implicitly involved with HB60 were they not? Even after another round of 'clarifying legislation' people are STILL unsure about carry on school grounds etc. So much for the 'slow methodical approach for the sake of clarity' I guess. So now I'm drug into the gutter. Great.

I absolutely agree your proposed language is the goal but as we both know legislation can't be written that way as it has to address EXISTING code. Sure, I'm all for striking any and all code related to GWL and replacing it with something similarly simple and clear but I'm willing to ride the horse that's actually in the race. I'm also willing to switch horses to the faster/better one mid race. What's that bill number again? It's 2016. I'm closing in on 3 decades in the state. Doubt I'll be vertical in 3 more.

As mentioned EVERY SINGLE state wide office is held by a Republican (not sure how many states can claim that distinction). We have GCO, GGO, Georgia Packing, and the NRA etc. yet we still have to subject ourselves to an absurd background check, pay an exorbitant fee initially and then pay a small fee yearly for our 'permission slip' as a reminder that here the second amendment is not a 'right' it's the definition of a 'privilege'. It's absolutely disgusting.

GCO, GGO, GP, the NRA etc., do not 'own' the second amendment rights of the people. We do! (Despite our willingness to abdicate them.) It would be great if we'd all be in concert on every piece of proposed and existing legislation but we've all been around long enough to know that's not the case and is EXACTLY why we have the indefensible infringements we have today.

I'll continue to work for it's elimination (and all other pro 2A measures) and GCO and whatever members are content to let them do their bidding are free to do nothing or be a roadblock as they see fit.

It would be nice if they'd work to improve the bill if they feel it warranted instead of sending out such transparent alarmist ice water.

How painfully ironic (but not surprising) that a bill to eliminate the most disgusting and indefensible infringement on the 2A in Georgia would turn into a debate.

I'm going to go out on a limb and say all or at the very least part of the reason GCO sent out that email is because people HERE have been contacting their reps. This goes back to my original point about how little effort it takes to get something done.
To those of you that have made calls please continue to do so! Kudos to you. Apparently, it's getting noticed and causing some discomfort that the peasants are displeased. Perish the thought!

I agree with everything you said, but it just is not that easy.

You make a valid and VERY important point. PEOPLE have to keep contacting their legislators. That is the only way this nonsense is going to end.

Having been involved in the last two bills, and being very close to the people that actually wrote, help write, or helped push it through in the very last 15 minutes of the session, all I can tell you is that bills do not have to be introduced at the very beginning of the session to be valid.

I know that you know this, so I'm not telling you anything big secret. It's a dirty, ugly mess.

There is no reason to believe GCO is not doing something to improve the current bill, or working on a better bill that incorporate what needs to be done, while still having a valid chance of passing through this year.

There is the old joke about seeing sausage being made. If you ever saw that you would not eat sausage again. Same goes with making and passing a bill. It is disgusting what has to be done to pass a bill. I have seen it and heard from the people that were VERY close when the decisions had to be made.

All I can really add is just hang in, and support what works best for you and be ready if you see something come along that works better. That is basically what you just said, so no big surprise, huh??

On a side note, after much discussion, it appears that father/son hunting "PROBABLY" would still be allowed, but it needs to be clarified/codified in the bill, so as to avoid confusion further down the line. You will probably see an update from GCO soon on this matter. That was a good point you brought up, in my opinion.

O.C.G.A. is pretty clear on school carry, by the way. It's the governor and Board of Regents that have refused to acknowledge the law exists. Hence, another court case to prove we have rights and should use them.

I appreciate the discussion, and appreciate the work I know you do to further the issue.

For the others here, if you have not, go see your Representative or Congressman. Buy them lunch. Buy them a Coke or cup of coffee.

They do "things" for friends. Are you their "friend"?

Thanks and keep fighting,

Jerry

 

[GeauxLSU]

I agree with everything you said, but it just is not that easy.

You make a valid and VERY important point. PEOPLE have to keep contacting their legislators. That is the only way this nonsense is going to end.

Having been involved in the last two bills, and being very close to the people that actually wrote, help write, or helped push it through in the very last 15 minutes of the session, all I can tell you is that bills do not have to be introduced at the very beginning of the session to be valid.

I know that you know this, so I'm not telling you anything big secret. It's a dirty, ugly mess.

There is no reason to believe GCO is not doing something to improve the current bill, or working on a better bill that incorporate what needs to be done, while still having a valid chance of passing through this year.

There is the old joke about seeing sausage being made. If you ever saw that you would not eat sausage again. Same goes with making and passing a bill. It is disgusting what has to be done to pass a bill. I have seen it and heard from the people that were VERY close when the decisions had to be made.

All I can really add is just hang in, and support what works best for you and be ready if you see something come along that works better. That is basically what you just said, so no big surprise, huh??

On a side note, after much discussion, it appears that father/son hunting "PROBABLY" would still be allowed, but it needs to be clarified/codified in the bill, so as to avoid confusion further down the line. You will probably see an update from GCO soon on this matter. That was a good point you brought up, in my opinion.

O.C.G.A. is pretty clear on school carry, by the way. It's the governor and Board of Regents that have refused to acknowledge the law exists. Hence, another court case to prove we have rights and should use them.

I appreciate the discussion, and appreciate the work I know you do to further the issue.

For the others here, if you have not, go see your Representative or Congressman. Buy them lunch. Buy them a Coke or cup of coffee.

They do "things" for friends. Are you their "friend"?

Thanks and keep fighting,

Jerry

Jerry,
I can't disagree with any of that either but it's ironic that GCO is worried about 'jumping the gun' and they come out with that email. They can't have it both ways. Honestly, they've kind of exposed themselves. I wish they hadn't.
Again, should a better or new bill come along, great. Right now we should continue to push for the only one that is in committee that is a HUGE improvement over the status quo. If it gets 'better/clearer' along the way, who can complain? Scratch that... someone will, guaranteed...

 

[js415]

If it gets 'better/clearer' along the way, who can complain? Scratch that... someone will, guaranteed...

I agree, this will happen.

Not aimed at you, by the way, but you and I both know that somebody will complain about it!!!

Thanks,

Jerry

 

[GeauxLSU]

I agree, this will happen.

Not aimed at you, by the way, but you and I both know that somebody will complain about it!!!

Thanks,

Jerry

They can complain and enjoy their expanded rights at the same time.

 

[alnen]

They can complain and enjoy their expanded rights at the same time.

 

[dondon48]

For the others here, if you have not, go see your Representative or Congressman. Buy them lunch. Buy them a Coke or cup of coffee.

They do "things" for friends. Are you their "friend"?

Thanks and keep fighting,

Jerry[/QUOTE]

I don't see the point in rewarding them for not doing their jobs...maybe I'm missing something...

 

[alnen]

For the others here, if you have not, go see your Representative or Congressman. Buy them lunch. Buy them a Coke or cup of coffee.

They do "things" for friends. Are you their "friend"?

Thanks and keep fighting,

Jerry

I don't see the point in rewarding them for not doing their jobs...maybe I'm missing something...[/QUOTE]

It's not to reward them. It's so that they know you personally and your words carry more weight. It's politicing.