The bill has passed, but we’re not out of the woods yet. We can likely expect litigation against the “parking lot” provisions of HB 89, something Governor Perdue alluded to when he singed the bill.
Workers at MARTA have gathered 1000 signatures on a petition demanding “bulletproof shields” on buses, and I expect the Georgia Restaurant Association to do some serious kicking and screaming on the issue.
The editorial board at the AJC has been contributing to the furor, and Mayor Shirley Franklin has made her opinion known:
“The presumption needs to be, in order to have a safe city, that there are no concealed weapons. And only those who are acting criminally might have them.”
Yeah, go ahead and read that again.
It bears mention that Franklin is a member of the Mayors against Illegal Guns coalition (everything’s a “coalition” with the Left), and of course, their funding comes from a $175,000 Joyce Foundation grant. New Orleans Mayor Ray Nagin (who knows all about disarming the populace and leaving them at the mercy of criminals) is also a member of the organization.
Perhaps all that time and money would be better spent fixing the Atlanta’s $140 million deficit. But hey, what do I know? I’m just a lowly taxpayer.
So, what happens in the 2008-2009 session? I’d like to see a bill resurrecting the provisions from HB 915 that didn’t make it this year.
HB 89 was a tough haul, and honestly, I didn’t see it having much of a chance. This year was a busy legislative session, and lawmakers had a full agenda. Bringing in a gun bill, much less such a sweeping one, seemed somewhat futile. It could have easily gotten lost in the noise considering we had tax reforms and a water shortage to worry about.
Fortunately, it didn’t, and the hardest provisions (allowing carry in restaurants and on MARTA) are out of the way. So, what’s left?
The “public gathering” clause in Code 16 (1) needs to be stricken, or at least clarified. The “shall not be limited to” clause leaves the issue wide open. I’ve heard police officers claim that three people on a street corner can be called a “public gathering.” By that logic, law enforcement can effectively define the law on the spot as they choose.
I’d like to see churches stricken from the list as well, but with our current Governor, that’s extremely unlikely.
The second missing provision is the Katrina clause (2). Essentially, it states that the government shall not participate in or authorize the confiscation of civilian firearms in times of crisis. Should anyone acting as a representative of the government do so, 16-11-135 provides affected citizens legal remedies.
Third, from 16-11-127:
(2) Nothing in this Code section shall be construed to authorize a law enforcement officer to inspect any firearm or other weapon without probable cause that a crime has been committed.
This will stop officers from pulling arbitrary Terry pat-downs on people carrying arms simply because they are armed.
None of these items are nearly as controversial as the changes HB 89 brought, and a simple bill clarifying these points wouldn’t garner nearly the opposition we saw this year. After all, it’s not nearly as sexy getting on the podium on Fox 5 to scream, “these militants want to make sure we can’t seize their property during a state of emergency!”
I propose a simple bill, entitled something droll like, “Georgia Code 16-11 Clarification.” Given that the hardest stuff is already out of the way, it should stand a good chance next year.
I predict that we’ll see a rash of armed citizens not shooting each other on public transportation and an utter collapse in the number of GFL holders shooting each other in Applebee’s. By this time next year, the climate will have turned a bit, and hopefully our legislators will have realized that loosening our gun laws only leads to safer streets and neighborhoods for the law-abiding.
//
(1) Currently, section 11 reads:
For the purpose of this Code section, ‘public gathering’ shall include, but shall not be limited to, athletic or sporting events, churches or church functions, political rallies or functions, publicly owned or operated buildings, or 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 carry such firearm by this part
SECTION 9.
Said article is further amended by adding a new Code Section to read as follows:
“16-11-135.
(a) No officer or employee of the state or any political subdivision thereof, member of the National Guard in the service of the state, or any person operating pursuant to or under color of state law, receiving state funds, under control of any official of the state or political subdivision thereof, or providing services to such officer, employee, or other person, while acting during a declared official state of emergency, shall:
(1) Temporarily or permanently seize, or authorize seizure of, any firearm the possession of which is not prohibited under Article 4 of Chapter 11 of this title, other than as evidence in a criminal investigation;
(2) Require registration of any firearm for which registration is not required by Article 4 of Chapter 11 of this title;
(3) Prohibit possession of any firearm, or promulgate any rule, regulation, or order prohibiting possession of any firearm, in any place or by any person where such possession is not otherwise prohibited by Article 4 of Chapter 11 of this title; or
(4) Prohibit the carrying of firearms by any person otherwise authorized to carry firearms under Article 4 of Chapter 11 of this title, solely because such person is operating under the direction, control, or supervision of an agency of the state or political subdivision thereof during a declared official state of emergency.
(b) Any individual aggrieved by a violation of this Code section may seek in the courts of this state relief in an action at law or in equity or other proper proceeding for redress against any person who subjects such individual, or causes such individual to be subjected, to the deprivation of any of the rights, privileges, or immunities provided by this Code section.
(c) In addition to any other remedy at law or in equity, an individual aggrieved by the seizure or confiscation of a firearm in violation of this Code section may bring an action for return of such firearm in the superior court of the county in which that individual resides or in which such firearm is located. In any action or proceeding to enforce this Code section, the court shall award the prevailing party, other than the state or political subdivision thereof, reasonable attorney fees.”