Posted on 03/19/2026 5:42:57 AM PDT by marktwain
In Georgia, Senate Bill 651 has passed the Senate 30 to 23 on March 6, 2026, and has been sent to the House. The bill amends the current statutes about the justification of the use of force and immunity from civil liability. From legiscan.com, here is the summary:
A BILL to be entitled an Act to amend Article 2 of Chapter 3 of Title 16 of the Official Code of Georgia Annotated, relating to justification and excuse in defenses to criminal prosecutions, so as to provide for an additional justification for use of force in defense of self or others; to amend Code Section 51-11-9 of the Official Code of Georgia Annotated, relating to no duty to retreat and immunity in certain instances of threat or use of force, so as to extend immunity from civil liability in justified use of force cases to legal representatives and heirs of the person against whom force was used; to provide for related matters; to provide for an effective date; to repeal conflicting laws; and for other purposes.
The changes occur mostly in Section 2 of 16-3-24.2, which concerns immunity from prosecution and exceptions. Section 2 of Code Section :
16-3-24.2.
(a) A person who uses threats or force in accordance with Code Section 16-3-20, 16-3-21, 16-3-23, 16-3-23.1, 16-3-24, or 17-4-20 shall be immune from criminal prosecution therefor unless in the use of deadly force, such person utilizes a weapon the carrying or possession of which is unlawful by such person under Part 2 of Article 4 of Chapter 11 of this title.
Unlawful weapons are defined in the law and include sawed-off shotguns and rifles, and National Firearms Act weapons, including silencers, if they are not legally possessed under federal law. Georgia is a Constitutional Carry state, but some people are not
(Excerpt) Read more at ammoland.com ...
Dear FRiends,
We need your continuing support to keep FR funded. Your donations are our sole source of funding. No sugar daddies, no advertisers, no paid memberships, no commercial sales, no gimmicks, no tax subsidies. No spam, no pop-ups, no ad trackers.
If you enjoy using FR and agree it's a worthwhile endeavor, please consider making a contribution today:
Click here: to donate by Credit Card
Or here: to donate by PayPal
Or by mail to: Free Republic, LLC - PO Box 9771 - Fresno, CA 93794
Thank you very much and God bless you,
Jim
“The right to bear arms shall not be infringed.” What are gun laws?
I wonder if it will keep someone from going to jail for life if they confront some black thug terrorizing their neighborhood and they shoot him when he attacks them and grabs their gun.
Those laws which were not thought to be infringements before the right to keep and bear arms was codified in the Second Amendment?
Such as: No mass storage of gunpowder in an urban area?
Such as: A gun ban in court room?
Such as: The right to keep and bear does not authorize stealing a gun in order to have one?
The right to keep and bear arms pre-existed the Second Amendment, so we have to know what it was in order to determine what an infringement is.
I did not know that there had been instances where the survivors of someone who had defended themselves with deadly force had been sued.
Well, if it has happened some grubby lawyer is going to try.
Anything for a buck.
If you are a Lib Lawyer, anyone who dares defend themselves must be punished.
The answer is simple. Gun laws are legislation that infringes on the right to bear arms.
Our good hearted representatives are merely doing what’s good for all of us. /s/
Actually, they do it to enhance the power of their party.
IMO there is no greater right than defending your own life.
IMO there is no greater right than defending your own life.
I had to read it through several times, and also read the original source, to get clarification on this. Like most laws, it’s written in legalese.
What this bill does is extend a justified shooter’s civil immunity so they can’t be sued by not just the criminal who they shot, but the criminal’s legal representatives, heirs, or accomplices.
Good bill.
And Colorado has a bill in to get rid of ‘stand your ground’.
I kind thought that was what it meant, but it is so poorly written that I could read it either way.
I hope they clean up the language before it goes to the floor.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.