There are currently two bills pending in the Georgia legislature regarding gun ownership in this state. One stands to expand our rights, and the other is a misguided, untenable piece of legislation that stands no chance of passing and has angered people on both political poles.

Guess which one the NRA is backing. It's not the good one.

House Bill 915 (also known as the Second Amendment Protection Act) seeks to prevent out-of-state nuisance lawsuits against local gun dealers, to forbid the government from confiscating civilian weapons in a time of crisis (as happened during the Hurricane Katrina debacle), and to clarify and expand the areas in which Georgia Firearms License holders may carry guns.

The third clause rectifies a particular sticking-point in State Code 16, which prohibits even those licensed from carrying in certain, ill-defined areas. As with most states, schools, churches and government buildings are off limits (since we all know that nothing violent ever happens there). However, so are nebulously defined "public gatherings."

What's a "public gathering?" According to the Code:

[A public gathering] is defined and includes, but is not limited to, athletic or sporting events, churches or church functions, political rallies and/or functions, publicly owned or operated buildings, and establishments at which alcoholic beverages are sold for consumption on the premises. Nothing in this code section shall otherwise prohibit the carrying of a firearm in any other public place by a person licensed or permitted to do so.

That doesn't leave much room, does it? I can go to jail for carrying within 100 feet of a bus station. In fact, I stopped by a local pizzeria a few weeks back to pick up a take-out order. I'd gotten out of my car and nearly walked inside until I realized something: the restaurant serves beer on the premises.

Had I carried my sidearm inside, intentionally or not, I could have been arrested and jailed. What's more, since that qualifies as a weapons violation, I would have lost my right to own guns in the state of Georgia for the rest of my life. Never mind that I had no intention of drinking, or even of staying any longer than it took to pay and take my order–it would have been a "man with a gun" call, and I'd likely have been subject to a vigorous demonstration of taser operation on my way to the car.

Notice the "is not limited to" clause. This has been a huge subject of debate, and nobody has been able to establish what that limit might be. A zealous police officer may decide that three people gathered in a parking lot constitutes a "public gathering." I once saw two Woodstock police officers harass a man for carrying in a convenience store, claiming that it was a public gathering.

The current wording is too vague and too restricting, and what's more, it places law-abiding people in potential legal jeopardy at every turn. The police, or any other authority, can arbitrarily call almost any situation a "public gathering" to suit their whims. In essence, our carry laws are more restrictive than even California.

HB915 takes great strides towards correcting this. It forces clarification of the "public gathering" clause, it prevents a repeat of the disastrous Bloomberg lawsuits, and it reintroduces a prohibition on the wholesale confiscation of civilian firearms.

This should be something the NRA jumps behind. Instead, they're choosing to focus their energy on House Bill 89, commonly known as the "parking lot" bill. HB89 would make it illegal for private property owners to ban guns from their premises.

That means that businesses cannot have policies preventing employees from keeping guns in their car while at work, which seems like a great idea until you realize that the whole concept tramples over private property rights. I detest institutional bans, and I will not do business with any company I know to have one, but that doesn't mean they don't have a right to form such policies.

The owner of said property can ban smoking, enforce goofy dress codes or demand that employees sing the Bulgarian National Anthem before lunch. It may not be good for business, but they have a right (unless it's discriminatory) to determine how people conduct themselves on their property.

I am, of course, under absolutely no obligation to work for such a company, nor do I have to conduct business with them. That's how a free market works.

Not for the NRA, apparently. Their primary focus is on HB89, and thus far, they've utterly ignored HB915. Why? Because HB89 is their baby. They've poured money into it, and HB915 is something they didn't come up with, dammit.

The NRA's actions are just as much about pride and cronyism as they are about preserving our rights. They claim to fight for the American citizenry, but they've been making atrocious political compromises since 1934.

This year, Heller vs. District of Columbia (commentary here) will be heard in the United States Supreme Court. This may be the most important gun-related case in American history, as it may cement the exact meaning of the Second Amendment in legal precedent. This would seem to be the NRA's first priority, right?

Wrong. They have offered nothing further than an amicus curiae brief in support of Gura's case. Why? Because the Heller case conflicts with another lawsuit the NRA had been drafting. Again, it has to be their case, and therefore their exclusive victory. They can't have anyone else stealing their thunder.

I guess that would throw a wrench into their relentless fundraising. I've already received three emails and two phone solicitations since Christmas from them. In every case, they make vague allusions to "protecting [my] rights as a gun owner."  Really? To look at their statements and actions, that's a bit hard to swallow.

I did fire off an email, and I got a canned response:

Thank you for contacting us regarding HB 915. Please know that we are currently reviewing the bill, as there are some good provisions in it. Currently, our top legislative priority remains passage of HB 89, legislation that preserves the self-defense rights of law-abiding men and women as they travel to and from work.

Lovely rhetoric, but it doesn't address the fact that they're pushing a terrible bill with little chance of success while ignoring an important one with real potential.  Nor does it answer the direct question asked: are you interested in protecting us, or are you simply pursuing your own agenda?  Their reply omitted any response to this question; all I got was a form letter.

Fine.  There are other organizations who will fight for us.  Georgia Carry has been carrying the torch locally, and the Gun Owners of America and Jews for the Preservation of Firearms Ownership (no, you don't have to be Jewish) do so on a national level, and with far more commitment and fire than the NRA has shown in my lifetime.

My membership with the National Rifle Association expires in June, and I will not be renewing it when such money can be donated to groups far more committed to the mission the NRA has abandoned.