Story on Channel 9 News re:Use of Deadly Force Laws & Mandatory Training Laws

[protective measures]

I'm a bit concerned about that sentence involving "In most cases, you cannot use lethal force to protect property".





http://law.onecle.com/georgia/16/16-11-131.html

It would, IMO, have been much more informational to the public to state verbatim the actual law instead of giving an opinion open to ambiguous interpretation, but that's my opinion. And I don't agree with your viewpoint on training (people aren't encouraged or required to take a civics course to vote) but I respect your position.

One "snippet" of conversation as you alluded to does not convey the entire breadth or content of what was discussed. I believe they cut out some of my specific references to O.C.G.A. codes.
They do not let the person being interviewed select how & what they actually use.

I stand by the statement that while I don't support mandatory training as the 2nd Amendment is very clear on "shall not infringe" I do strongly believe that responsible gunowners should take the individual responsibility to seek out & obtain professional firearms training (somewhere) as well as education on the laws.
I did not "plug" my school one time but did plug gacarry.org as a resource that anyone who owned a firearm intended for possible use in self-defense should take the time to become very familiar wit.

 

[boxer90]

One "snippet" of conversation as you alluded to does not convey the entire breadth or content of what was discussed. I believe they cut out some of my specific references to O.C.G.A. codes.
They do not let the person being interviewed select how & what they actually use.

I stand by the statement that while I don't support mandatory training as the 3nd Amendment is very clear on "shall not infringe" I do strongly believe that responsible gunowners should take the individual responsibility to seek out & obtain professional firearms training as well as education on the laws.
I did not "plug" my school one time but did plug gacarry.org as a resource that anyone who owned a firearm intended for possible use in self-defense should take the time to become very familiar wit.

That makes more sense, and I'm not all too surprised they would cut that out considering it's a Tennessee station and exact GA code isn't that irrelevant, but sadly I believe a GA station doing an interview with you would have done the same thing.

 

[boxer90]

But if you could lock in every WCL applicant as a student for your class?

Both quotes are poorly worded and and imply a conflict of interest. I guess that is journalism...

This is an issue in South Carolina where many of my family members live. When removing the training requirements were discussed earlier this year, the most vocal opposition was coming from two groups: SLED/Sheriff's Association and training course providers. But up there classes can go upwards of $150-200 (cheapest I've seen are $50-60), and that's a large chunk of change to lose out on when gun sales aren't exactly through the roof right now.

I think after a bunch of complaining, they ended up with a watered down law the LEO and training groups weren't very happy with but "tolerated it". Just reduced the hour requirement or something IIRC, but still required training. Not as bad as NC with their pistol purchase permits (an old Jim Crow law their Sheriff's Association clings to), but still of concern and one of the many reasons why I don't have any real plans to ever move back to my home state while Georgia and Alabama are still on the map.

 

[protective measures]

But if you could lock in every WCL applicant as a student for your class?

Both quotes are poorly worded and and imply a conflict of interest. I guess that is journalism...

I specifically stated that I DID NOT support mandatory training.... so exactly how is that a conflict?

I'm looking to do LESS classes, not more.

I do have to say I always enjoy P protective measures input, spot on and a lot of great info. But in the news clip it almost seems like they are pushing for mandatory firearms class's for carry permits.

Which is what I was afraid my statements would be twisted into supporting.
I was VERY clear in that regard.

 

[protective measures]

I'm a bit concerned about that sentence involving "In most cases, you cannot use lethal force to protect property".





http://law.onecle.com/georgia/16/16-11-131.html

It would, IMO, have been much more informational to the public to state verbatim the actual law instead of giving an opinion open to ambiguous interpretation, but that's my opinion. And I don't agree with your viewpoint on training (people aren't encouraged or required to take a civics course to vote) but I respect your position.

Notice the caveat preceding that statement, "In most cases...."

 

[GAgunLAWbooklet]

It's a good summary of the law.
In most cases, you can only use lethal force to protect people, not property.
A "forcible felony" means one that has the bad guy using, or threatening to use, violence against a person.
The only possible exception is for defense of habitation(home, business, vehicle) but I've NEVER seen a case or any appellate caselaw involving a citizen using lethal force to protect an unoccupied home, empty parked car, or a business with nobody in it. So I'm not 100% confident the courts would approve of shooting in such a case where the "habitation" was unoccupied but you shot the bad guy in the back from some distance away, firing from your yard, the surrounding woods, or the road in front of the building.

 

[protective measures]

[

But if you could lock in every WCL applicant as a student for your class?

Both quotes are poorly worded and and imply a conflict of interest. I guess that is journalism...

Funny... like I could "lock in" every prospective candidate in Ga. when I'm located up in N. Ga. & only teaching part-time.

I can just see it now... busloads of wide-eyed applicants being driven up I-75 to assemble in groups of 50 or more at the range waiting for me to impart instruction on Basic Fundamentals that only I, in my infinite wisdom, have exclusive knowledge to impart despite the other qualified Instructors in this state.

The news reporter called me, I didn't call them.... and I did not plug my school nor advocate mandatory training.

It's a shame that the news reporter got the facts straighter than you did.

 

[hikingthehills]

Which is what I was afraid my statements would be twisted into supporting.
I was VERY clear in that regard.

I wasn't saying anything bad about you at all, just commenting on the way the media shapes thing to fit into the story their trying to report. I have nothing but respect for you and you are heck of an asset to the ODT. God bless you sir.

 

[protective measures]

I wasn't saying anything bad about you at all, just commenting on the way the media shapes thing to fit into the story their trying to report. I have nothing but respect for you and you are heck of an asset to the ODT. God bless you sir.

That wasn't intended to be a confrontational response... just explanatory

 

[geezer]

WOW. I grew up with handguns and rifles...I was taught safety from the first time I ever touched one. But I still believe a quality firearms safety course is a good idea for any gun owner. As a refresher if nothing else. I could ask five cops a firearm related question, and I just might get 5 different answers...I prefer to stick with the guys that KNOW the correct answer like qualified instructors who will show you the actual law/bill to back up their knowledge. I don't think this reporter did you any justice PM, It's like you have to ask them and their editor what their agenda is before you speak...