Georgia: Governor Perdue Signs Monumental Right-to-Carry Reform Bill!

NRA - ILA ^ | May 14, 2008 | NA

[dcwusmc]

Which, I suppose, is a step in the right direction.

[neverdem]

The NRA fought us on this for two years because they wanted their stupid guns-in-parking-lots deal instead and were willing to burn bridges in a futile attempt to get it.

The main thrust of the bill was to be the protection of employees with concealed carry permits in company parking lots. IIRC, the Weyerhauser Corp. burned six employees who had long guns in their vehicles on the opening day of deer season a few years ago. They were fired. The NRA quickly realized that all of their work for shall issue concealed carry privileges would be for almost naught if employers could extend their private property privilege into their employees vehicles, negating what Second Amendment rights and privileges the employees had. The rest was a secondary gain.

[Turbopilot]

That “secondary gain”, as you call it, was what the people of Georgia actually wanted, and what will actually make the biggest difference in the most people’s lives. The NRA, in their arrogance, refused to listen to what we wanted in Georgia for close to two years, instead demanding that the legislature pass the same bill that they wanted every state to pass and refusing to support pro-carry legislation that was created in Georgia by Georgians. Their threats put off a lot of legislators and prevented any gun bills from being passed last year, not to mention severely damaging their effectiveness as a lobby in Georgia.

This year, after the legislature had basically told the NRA that private property rights were going to win out, the NRA finally accepted a compromise that let employees have their guns in public parking lots while still letting employers control their own property. This bill let the NRA claim victory while still leaving alone the property rights of employers. Once that happened, the NRA finally supported our gun bill at the 11th hour, and because of how our legislature works, the parts of our pro-carry bill that were likely to survive a veto this year were grafted onto the NRA bill so the legislature could vote on a single bill.

Contrary to what the NRA is pushing, the improved carry provisions were the important part of this bill and the part that was wanted the most and took the most work by Georgians. The fact that the NRA got a watered-down version of what they wanted is a reflection of the fact that they finally decided to play ball and not that their parking-lot bill was a particular priority to those of us who actually live here and work for gun rights on a state level.

[GOP_Raider]

And this is why I hang out here at FR. The answers to all of America’s questions are right here! :)

(FWIW, I am curious how Perdue handled the water/drought problem in GA...well, other than praying.)

[Clinging Bitterly]

Yeah. We have shall issue in Oregon (perhaps the least restrictive such law in the nation), and while it's less bad than may issue or no issue, at the end of the day it's still a requirement to apply and pay a fee for a permit.

I don't believe in carry permits and I'm not interested in signing a contract with the state pledging my acceptance of it's alleged power to require one.

[traviskicks]

thanks for the replies.

usually with these kind of bills, it is also okay for the owner of an establishment to ask that person to leave. I think it just makes it legal for the gun owner to carry. In other words, the owner of the establishment cannot sick the cops on the gun owner and have them arrested.

The above, if true, is what I am hoping is the case. I think it is important that the owner of a private establishment can have a sign outside saying no guns allowed and if someone brings a gun in he/she can tell them to leave the premises. The owner of a private establishment should feel free to 'discriminate' against anyone who they see fit, even if it is based on creed, color, profession, or even gun ownership. I know this doesn't jive with current law where every special interest group has its own protections, but freedom to discriminate is one of our most precious and precarious freedoms. This includes discrimination against gun carrier. Any bill that forces private establishments to accept guns is just as tyrannical as those banning them, IMHO.

[traviskicks]

It would be nice to have a state where there were no gun laws at all, no ‘permits’ needed, no ‘waiting times’, no courses neccesary or carry laws...

[from occupied ga]

I believe Alaska and Vermont fit that description.

[mvpel]

The owner of a private establishment should feel free to 'discriminate' against anyone who they see fit, even if it is based on creed, color, profession, or even gun ownership. I know this doesn't jive with current law where every special interest group has its own protections, but freedom to discriminate is one of our most precious and precarious freedoms. This includes discrimination against gun carrier. Any bill that forces private establishments to accept guns is just as tyrannical as those banning them, IMHO.

For most people, that sign should be shocking and offensive, and a shameful reminder of the mind-bogglingly vast injustice this nation visited upon its people in the past.

When you are a business which invites the public into your establishment in order to do business with you, you cede some of your autonomy. As the Constitution of the State of New Hampshire put it, in 1784:

When men enter into a state of society, they surrender up some of their natural rights to that society, in order to ensure the protection of others; and, without such an equivalent, the surrender is void.

We have a much larger tyranny to worry about as gun owners than the fear that we might be "tyrannizing" bigoted business owners who wish to discriminate against us, and punish us, and sic the police on us for exercising our natural right to defense of ourselves and our families.

I carry a sidearm for the same reason that a business has a fire extinguisher - to manage a very bad situation as well as possible until help arrives. Businesses are required by law to have working fire extinguishers at hand in their premises. Add that up.

[traviskicks]

well we will have to disagree on this issue, IMO if an establishment doesn’t want to cater to a race of people from whatever which way, it is no business, IMO, of governments. It is also my right not to give that establishment any business as a customer. Nor is it any business of government to ensure a fire extinguisher is in every building. I think this kind of central planning has unintended effects and may even accomplish the opposite of their intentions.

But i do agree that ‘tyranny of gun owners’ is pretty much non existant and not even worth mentioning considering what we are objected to. I was addressing it more as an intellectual exercise.

[mvpel]

I was addressing it more as an intellectual exercise.

It's possible to be so open minded that one's brains fall out.

The term "place of public accommodation" is a term of legal art, and there's a long line of legal scholarship on the subject.

A bigot is a bigot, regardless of how politically correct their bigotry may be.

[traviskicks]

It's possible to be so open minded that one's brains fall out.

LOL, ain't that the truth! But, I do think freedom to be bigoted is an self evident inherent god given right, blasphemous as it may sound, and government attempts to squash bigotry by central planning will always fail.

[mvpel]

But, I do think freedom to be bigoted is an self evident inherent god given right, blasphemous as it may sound, and government attempts to squash bigotry by central planning will always fail.

Yes, but the free-market approach of throwing rocks at the Klan as they stage a rally from the roof of city hall is illegal.

(Ann Arbor, what a place... Thinking back, I can still smell the tear gas.)