Friday, August 31, 2012

Georgia Wants to Loosen its Gun Control Laws

AJC reports

Georgians would be allowed to carry concealed weapons in bars, public schools, most government buildings, college campuses and other locations under a sweeping gun bill filed in the House.

In addition to banishing many current restrictions, House Bill 981 would prevent police or the National Guard from disarming people during states of emergency, and it would allow citizens to sue if that occurred.

Rep. Sean Jerguson, R-Woodstock, one of the bill's co-sponsors, said Thursday that it strikes a balance between the Second Amendment, which guarantees the right to bear arms, and personal property rights. For instance, any church or business, such as a restaurant or bar, would be able to decide whether to allow concealed weapons, he said, and regulations that limit the right to carry, such as when consuming alcohol, are still in place.
I'm sure the Congressman knows that the 2nd Amendment has nothing to do with concealed carry, and surely he remembers that the recent Heller and McDonald decisions spoke about home defense only, yet he's making this push.

The gun-rights crowd is like that.  They pretend that their proposals make sense and align with the Constitution when they don't.  Then they try to tell us how much better off we'll all be, another lie.

What's your opinion?  Please let us know.

19 comments:

  1. "The gun-rights crowd is like that. They pretend that their proposals make sense and align with the Constitution when they don't. Then they try to tell us how much better off we'll all be, another lie."

    That is exactly how we think of you. Just change the word "rights" with "control". It's an illustration on how far apart we actually are on this issue.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Of course, carry is part of the right. The court hasn't ruled on that particular aspect yet, but even if it rules incorrectly, carrying is a right. If this passes, it will also be Georgia law.

    By the way, Jerguson is a state representative, not a member of Congress.

    ReplyDelete
  3. How can it be "bear arms" if you cannot carry them.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. You're right again. The original intent was that you can carry them through the woods as you join up with the militia.

      Delete
    2. The text says nothing about having to belong to a militia to keep and bear arms. That right is identified as belonging to the people.

      Delete
  4. "... the 2nd Amendment has nothing to do with concealed carry ..."

    The 2nd Amendment simply states that citizens have the right to own and carry firearms. It does not limit carrying firearms to open or concealed carry. Either is acceptable.

    "... the recent Heller and McDonald decisions spoke about home defense only ..."

    Those decisions only spoke about home defense because the plaintiffs only asked for a decision about home defense. Nothing in those decisions limits carrying outside of the home -- whether openly or concealed.

    "... they try to tell us how much better off we'll all be, another lie."

    Here is just one example where WE (all citizens) are better off. A man attacked his ex-girlfriend/wife in front of their child's school in San Antonia, Texas, this last Tuesday morning. The attacker had already stabbed her several times and was still stabbing her when an armed citizen stopped the attack and saved her life.
    http://www.woai.com/mostpopular/story/Armed-bystander-stops-stabbing-outside-school/6zTYMpy8pUOeyrbElEBOTQ.cspx

    Attacks happen everywhere -- in front of schools, in school parking lots, in school buildings, in churches, etc. etc. etc. Citizens need to be able to defend themselves in such locations when their attackers have clubs, knives, guns, and any other manner of weapon or advantage. The proposed legislation in Georgia is eliminating the ridiculous concept of state mandated "gun free zones".

    The concept of "gun free zones" are ridiculous for two reasons. First, they are not gun free. Criminals carry firearms wherever they want as well as undercover, off-duty, and retired law enforcement officers since the "gun free zones" do not apply to them. Second, the premise of "gun free zones" as applied to armed citizens is silly: we cannot trust armed citizens in "sensitive places" because they might go berserk and kill a bunch of people, but we can trust armed citizens to honor a no guns sign on a door. So, we do not trust citizens that we trust. That is a logical contradiction and makes no sense at all.

    "Gun free zones" do not protect the public. They are simply a way to make life as difficult as possible for armed citizens and discourage them from being armed in public. It looks like some legislators in Georgia have discovered that and tossing them out.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. When analyzing the 2A you conveniently leave out the "militia" part.

      Heller and McDonald were about home protection for the individual. Why can't you just say, "ok?"

      Delete
    2. Mikeb, we've told you this before. The militia clause is the stated reason for ennumerating the right, but the right is specifically identified as belonging to the people. Both Heller and McDonald were cases testing the ban on handgun ownership. The question of carry will have to await another case.

      Delete
    3. Greg, I've told you this before. The 2A is completely anachronistic and meaningless, it's been bastardized into something that would be unrecognizable to those who wrote it.

      I guess we're not listening to each other, huh?

      Delete
    4. The good news is that most of the country is listening to my side. Yours? Not so much. You can't just decide that some part of the Constitution is an anachronism and ignore it. To change the text, you have to pass an amendment. Until then, like it or not, it says what it says, and that's the law.

      Delete
    5. MikeB, gun rights don't just come from the 2nd amendment. The right to Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happieness also guarantee our access to firearms of all kinds. You see, it goes like this: As long as an individual does not infringe upon another individuals rights then there is no reason to create any laws prohibiting or regulating things. There are already laws on the books that make it illegal for an individual to infringe upon another persons right to Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness in terms of murder, assault, brandishing, etc... My purchasing, owning and using a hand gun, semi-automatic rifle, high capacity magazine does to infringe upon anyone else's rights until I commit an act of violence or aggression towards another individual or multiple individuals. That is where you and many others are flawed in your thinking. You cannot let the majority enact hoards of laws trying to protect everyone from everything because when the day is done, we will not have any freedoms left. That is why there are general rights and specific rights outlined, it is to ensure that the majority cannot infringe upon someone else's rights even if that right isn't popular amongst the majority.

      Punish the individual that committed the crime, don't punish everyone else that hasn't committed a crime.

      Delete
    6. Ugg, I hate that you can't edit after the fact to correct typos... I meant to say:

      "My purchasing, owning and using a hand gun, semi-automatic rifle, high capacity magazine does *NOT* infringe upon anyone else's rights until I commit an act of violence or aggression towards another individual or multiple individuals."

      Delete
    7. But, don't you see, Jolly Roger, that you (gun owners) are infringing on our rights. It's in the news daily. You're reading it on my blog too.

      The rest of us have the right to life liberty and the pursuit of happiness too. You guys are making that impossible.

      Delete
    8. Only a few gun owners are violating that right, and their number is diminishing over time. The vast majority of us cause you no problem and just wish to be left alone. Leaving others alone is never an option for control freaks, though.

      Delete
    9. "Only a few" and "diminishing," now who's making shit up?

      Delete
    10. Oh, I don't know, the FBI, for example. Look at violent crime statistics. Violent crime rates have been falling since the early 90s. There are at least eighty million gun owners in this country, but only a hundred thousand total injuries and deaths--many of the latter are suicides--in a year.

      That's my definition of "few" and "diminishing." We know that yours are different.

      Delete
  5. To be honest, I don't think it has a snowball's chance in hell of passing. It is just too much too fast. The peoples right had been dismantled too long and piece by piece over time. The restoration must happen the same way over time, piece by piece. Otherwise those on the fence, the silent ones, will freak out and stone wall sweeping law changes.

    Its what I mean about being "too pro-gun" that I have said before. I am not against the changes, just take your time.

    ReplyDelete
  6. Mikeb - are you saying it would be against the Constitution for Georgia to pass this law? Does the Constitution forbid the carrying of guns in public?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. No, Jim, it's just that carrying concealed is not the god-given, Constitutionally protected right you guys often try to say it is.

      Delete