GA: Second Amendment Protection Act of 2008
Thanks to reader Ben Garner for the pointer to this pending Georgia legislation expanding civil rights. This is nothing short of a nearly complete overhaul of the state’s gun laws. It lessens the number of areas forbidden to conceal carry. It also speeds up the license application process and prohibits confiscations such as we saw in New Orleans.
Best of all, the second article of the bill says this:
(a) Any person who attempts to solicit, persuade, encourage, or entice any dealer to transfer or otherwise convey a firearm other than to the actual buyer or who willfully and intentionally aids or abets any such person shall be guilty of a felony and, upon conviction thereof, shall be punished by imprisonment for a period of not less than one nor more than ten years or by a fine not to exceed $25,000.00, or both.
Gee, you think they had NYC Mayor Michael Bloomberg in mind?
More info at Georgia Carry and Georgia Packing.
17 Responses to “GA: Second Amendment Protection Act of 2008”
on 09 Jan 2008 at 12:45 pm # Ben G.
Thanks for posting about HB915 Jeff.
This is a good bill that needs all the help it can get.
on 09 Jan 2008 at 1:04 pm # Del Simmons
Everyone in Georgia who can should try to attend the rally on Thursday in support of this bill! The details can be found in this PDF file on the Georgia Carry website:
http://www.georgiacarry.org/rally2008-10jan-b.pdf
on 09 Jan 2008 at 1:15 pm # Eric Blair
They may have had Bloomberg in mind, but I think that’s also the same thing that Bloomberg had in mind.
on 09 Jan 2008 at 1:25 pm # Scott R
Eric, I thought Bloomberg was targeting the dealer and this Georgia law targets the straw buyer, i.e. Bloomberg.
on 09 Jan 2008 at 2:04 pm # H J S
Wayne Lapierre came to the Georgia capitol Monday to oppose that bill in person.
http://forums.delphiforums.com/GaHighpower/messages?msg=3498.4
on 09 Jan 2008 at 2:13 pm # GySgtDad
Up here in Washington, our Supreme Court has already held that it is permissable for the police to violate the law in furtherance of an investigation. Sigh, …
on 09 Jan 2008 at 4:03 pm # J'hn1
GySgtDad, The Police might (although out-of-jurisdiction is problematical), but private investigators cannot.
on 09 Jan 2008 at 5:47 pm # Sebastian
If folks wanted NRA to get behind HB915, they should have removed the provision that scuttles HB89. I don’t agree with HB89, but that legislation appears designed to purposely put NRA in a pickle where they are forced into either abandoning the parking lot carry issue (which they can’t do politically at this point), or making it appear they don’t support overhauling Georgia’s gun laws.
I’ve seen this kind of dirty tactic before, and I don’t like it.
on 09 Jan 2008 at 8:11 pm # Michael
Hopefully, the GCO members will send a message to the Governor, the State Assembly, and the rest of Georgia’s elected officials that we want our carry and gun rights, and we want them now.
Thanks for the mention by the way.
on 09 Jan 2008 at 8:52 pm # Ben G.
Sebastian,
The provision that “scuttles” HB89 was taken word-for-word from a Colorado law that passed with full NRA support back in 2003.
Just FYI.
on 09 Jan 2008 at 11:17 pm # ED
Sebastion,
This is the second accusation I have seen using the word “scuttle.” Where did you hear that you should say every other gun organization tried to “scuttle” the NRA? If you ever bother to actually read HB 915, I think it will be clear that there is nothing in the bill that does anything to the NRA’s parking lots bill. Section 4 of HB 915 is almost word for word what the NRA pushed into law in Colorado in 2003, and we were quite surprised and disappointed when the NRA failed to sign on. I still hold out a naive hope that they will endorse HB 915 as is.
The following groups have: GCO, GSSA (the NRA’s state affiliate), SCCC, and GOA.
Please read the bill rather than repost something you read somewhere about “scuttling.” It simply is not true. The author of the bill is an NRA member, as are most of the supporters. The only group “playin politics” is the NRA.
on 10 Jan 2008 at 12:03 am # Tim
As the author of the bill, we (I and GCO) tried to use as much language as possible that has already been enacted across the naton. As ED pointed out, the “scuttle” language is almost identical to the NRA Colorado language. Just as the straw purchase section of the bill which was giving to me by a board member of the NRA which they pushed in Va. Just as the Katrina portion of the bill which NRA has pushed into law in approximately 20 other states. As a member of the NRA, and GCO, I would like nothing more than the NRA to support this bill, so a Firearms license holder could not go to jail for 20 years for being a “reasonable distance” from a bus stop. That is just one small example of the type of outdated laws we are dealing with here in Georgia. HB 915 gives law abiding citizens greater protection than the amended HB 89 (I was also the author of the original HB89 that passed the house), while using a lot of NRA language.
on 10 Jan 2008 at 2:19 am # Sebastian
Yes, I have read the bill, and detailed my case on it here.
(c) Nothing in this Code section shall be construed to limit, restrict, or prohibit in any manner the existing rights of a private property owner, unless such private property has been leased to a government entity, and nothing in this Code section shall be construed to limit, restrict, or prohibit in any manner the existing rights of a private tenant, private employer, or private business entity
That’s the problem there, when combined with section 11:
All laws and parts of laws in conflict with this Act are repealed.
Which I’m fairly certain is why you’re not seeing NRA get behind this. It might be identical to an NRA supported bill in another state, but in this state, given HB 89, this clause is going to cause a problem for them.
on 10 Jan 2008 at 3:27 am # Sebastian
BTW, I think the bill is great other than this provision, which is why I suspect NRA isn’t getting behind it
on 10 Jan 2008 at 8:20 am # ED
Sebastion,
Go back and read the bill again. We have literally been working on this bill for years, and we last worked through this portion some time ago (before the NRA ever dreamed up a parking lots bill for Georgia). Removing that section would change the bill. Here is why. Section 4 of HB 915 is an express authorization for license holders to carry “in all areas of this State, except as specifically limited in this Code Section.” While this language was also stolen directly from the senate bill that the NRA pushed into law in Colorado, it was good language for Georgia because of the odd case law here pertaining to criminal trespass and government property. This authority to carry “in all areas of the State” language will ensure that local government officials cannot simply use criminal trespass law to eject lawful firearm carriers or arrest them.
BUT IF SUBSECTION C IS REMOVED, then Section 4 would mean that a person with a firearms license would be authorized to carry in all areas of the state, including any and all private property. That means your private property, Sebastion. Do you think that is a good idea? Would such a bill be likely to pass? If not, then why do you suggest the language be removed?
In other words, the language to which you point is integral to HB 915 and has NOTHING to do with the NRA’s parking lots bill. You need to be more careful in looking at the effects of your suggestions.
GCO’s Secretary informed me that he went through the time stamped drafts of the bill, and that provision appears in every version, INCLUDING THE VERSIONS THAT PREDATE THE NRA’S PARKING LOTS BILL. In light of this evidence, please QUIT claiming that anybody had any designs to “scuttle” anything the NRA is doing. You are simply wrong, and I wish you would take affirmative steps to correct the misinformation you have been publishing and distributing.
Please correct your statements on your blog and here.
on 10 Jan 2008 at 9:42 am # H J S
“The man who trades freedom for security does not deserve nor will he ever receive either.”
Benjamin Franklin
I value my property rights at least as much as my RKBA and resent the NRA tryin’ to trade one for the other. My membership has lapsed and probably won’t be renewed.
on 10 Jan 2008 at 10:04 am # Sebastian
I’ve updated with your statement, and I do apologize for insinuating it was deliberate if that was not the case.