This year's gun bill...

[RamRoddoc]

Rep Keisha Waits (dingbat) had two proposed amendments, one requiring mandated training for all carry holders has failed by unanimous voice vote as did the other.

Despite Keisha's best efforts she failed in eroding and perverting this good bill.

The committee has passed the bill, onward to the next level.


Keisha appears to be an rabid anti-second amendment representative. Interesting personal history, doesn't appear to like men either.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Keisha_Waites

ANTI-GUN TROLL

 

[Tech Jacket]

I agree with almost all of what you said with the exception of these two
1. Mandatory training; i would support mandatory safety training way to many folks are not up to speed on this.
2. Bar carry; nope guns have no place around the consumption of alcohol.

Nope on number 1 and who gets to define a "bar" on number 2? Nope and nope.

 

[FrogMan]

Nope on number 1 and who gets to define a "bar" on number 2? Nope and nope.

In regards to your question they are already define and licensed

 

[brad sweet]

i agree training is important, the stupids will take care of themselves,my second amendment rights start with me not what my gov tells be they can be.

 

[alnen]

Good job guys, we got it passed the first hurdle with minimal damage. The issue that people are having is the amendment to the government building/courtroom portion. It seems to remove a piece of language in the courtroom verbage and thereby opening up interpretation to possibly include many more buildings then actual courtrooms. Ill be sure and post up the bill as amended, but all in all it's looking good. Plus we can still get this fixed.

 

[alnen]

In regards to your question they are already define and licensed

You are correct about bars being defined, but the wording is vague. You can look up their classification on the ga dor website, but even that isn't specified in our law and hence your results may vary in court.

Secondly, generalizing that guns should be no where near alcohol is extreme. Guns have been around alcohol here in ga since the signing of sb308, and license-holding armed citizens have been doing just fine.

Additionally you can look at states that already allow bar carry, such as Utah. Utah's violent crime rate is half of ours and their laws are some of the least restrictive in our nation.

Private property rights are private property rights. Government should not be involved, period. If a bar owner wants to allow or not allow guns in their establishment, that is their call.

I'm not going to get into mandatory training. I just wanted to bring up some points that you may not have considered. Some of these issues are more private property issues than second amendment issues.

 

[FrogMan]

You are correct about bars being defined, but the wording is vague. You can look up their classification on the ga dor website, but even that isn't specified in our law and hence your results may vary in court.

Secondly, generalizing that guns should be no where near alcohol is extreme. Guns have been around alcohol here in ga since the signing of sb308, and license-holding armed citizens have been doing just fine.

Additionally you can look at states that already allow bar carry, such as Utah. Utah's violent crime rate is half of ours and their laws are some of the least restrictive in our nation.

Private property rights are private property rights. Government should not be involved, period. If a bar owner wants to allow or not allow guns in their establishment, that is their call.

I'm not going to get into mandatory training. I just wanted to bring up some points that you may not have considered. Some of these issues are more private property issues than second amendment issues.

Those are all good points, I still dont think guns should be carried in bars or at least not under the influence, It is my opinion It may be wrong and as with many other opinions I may adjust it later down the road.

 

[dunkel]

Those are all good points, I still dont think guns should be carried in bars or at least not under the influence, It is my opinion It may be wrong and as with many other opinions I may adjust it later down the road.

While we can all agree in principle that guns and alcohol don't mix, the fact of the matter is that the law prohibiting carrying while drinking or just carrying into a place that serves alcohol went away several years ago and there hasn't been any problem that I'm aware of.

If you want to limit freedom, you should have a very, very good reason for doing so, one that is, at the very least, rooted firmly in the real world and not in a hypothetical world where anything can happen.

 

[Springfield 1911]

Rep Keisha Waits (dingbat) had two proposed amendments, one requiring mandated training for all carry holders has failed by unanimous voice vote as did the other.

Despite Keisha's best efforts she failed in eroding and perverting this good bill.

The committee has passed the bill, onward to the next level.


Keisha appears to be an rabid anti-second amendment representative. Interesting personal history, doesn't appear to like men either.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Keisha_Waites

ANTI-GUN TROLL

It seems Miss Keisha has never really had a job outside of government. Sounds a lot like someone else I know....

 

[RamRoddoc]

You are correct about bars being defined, but the wording is vague. You can look up their classification on the ga dor website, but even that isn't specified in our law and hence your results may vary in court.

Secondly, generalizing that guns should be no where near alcohol is extreme. Guns have been around alcohol here in ga since the signing of sb308, and license-holding armed citizens have been doing just fine.

Additionally you can look at states that already allow bar carry, such as Utah. Utah's violent crime rate is half of ours and their laws are some of the least restrictive in our nation.

Private property rights are private property rights. Government should not be involved, period. If a bar owner wants to allow or not allow guns in their establishment, that is their call.

I'm not going to get into mandatory training. I just wanted to bring up some points that you may not have considered. Some of these issues are more private property issues than second amendment issues.

Thank you for clarifying as well as your efforts on putting the word out.

Vague wording does not serve the citizen well and is open to interpretation which is unwise. The fear pandering utilized by Keisha is the same rhetoric that was employed in an unsuccessfully attempt to prevent legal carry as well as stand your ground laws. We have good data on legal carry and drinking establishments as do other states. No one mentioned designated drivers. We don't deny a citizen who has consumed alcohol and driving unless they are impaired. Impaired driving is pretty well defined but is reportedly less a public risk than texting and driving. I'm comfortable with carry holders having a drink or two and NOT being denied the right to defend themselves. Deny them that right and bars become an attractive area of opportunity to criminally operate. Much akin to "gun free zones" that are not.

A property owner has rights and they can naïvely dictate disarming, post signs to the effect and I can ignore their false sense of security and carry. If asked to leave, I will leave or avoid their business altogether. It seems fair that the Government allow the property owner the right, rather than the state dictating and criminalizing what should not be such an enormous legal issue for a legal carry holder.

It's simple, we don't set a precedent of regulation in the exercising of any right, none, period, not ever. For when we do, it ceases to be a right and will be abused and utilized to hinder the exercising of the right.

What was disheartening is to see the lack of response to Keisha's grilling, especially Caroline Meadows the NRA spokesperson. Keisha was incessant with her aggressive and what I would describe as moderately hostile approach when "asking questions" or more accurately to discuss her talking points.

No one mentioned the numbers in Georgia. The issue is vast majority citizens who legal carry are model citizens. They are not a threat and in fact are a force multiplier. This is consistently ignored by folks like Keisha. If it compares to the states that have provided the data, I'm sure it would reflect that less than 1% of permits are revoked, a very small number and refute the rare examples that I'm sure Keisha would produce to justify further infringing upon honest citizens. Why don't we have this? It seems to be a critical talking point. A Georgia 1 year, 3-5 or 10 year data legal carry review is in order and overdue if not accomplished yet.

That Pediatric journal article that Keisha utilized dumbfounded me. The frontal lobe development and the correlation to deny rights to who now? I think she quoted the frontal lobe doesn't fully develop until 25? I'm suspect of anything from the American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP). They have become an anti-gun spokes group. They embraced flawed data the 43x more likely to be injured lie by Dr. A. Kellerman (Emory, ATL) that ignored violent attacks that were thwarted by home owners with a gun and counted the guns brought by criminals into the home as "guns in the home" to draw the misleading conclusion that home owners with guns are at more risk. The AAP has a strong anti-gun agenda, expect more from that arena.

The AAP's "gun violence" agenda (assault weapons ban, high magazine ban, gunshow loop hole closure, etc,: http://www.aap.org/en-us/advocacy-and-policy/federal-advocacy/Documents/AAPGunViolencePreventionPolicyRecommendations_Jan2013.pdf

The only thing that study might prove is that if you have a gun in the home you more likely to commit suicide with a gun. However, attempting to support that guns cause suicide is an over reaching stretch and explains why Japan has historically had the highest suicide rates in the world. Depression and mental illness cause suicide not guns. A person will use the means available if so inclined.