Well, we’ve got a preview of the Legislature’s agenda for 2009, and I have to admit to some confusion. The early draft of SB9 reads in part:
To amend Code Section 16-11-126 of the Official Code of Georgia Annotated, relating to carrying a concealed weapon, so as to repeal the requirement that such a weapon must be kept in a holster; to repeal conflicting laws; and for other purposes.
Whiskey Tango Foxtrot…huh?
First off, that’s one of the few things in Code 16 I’d actually consider keeping. This is a real and valid safety issue. The actual code reads:
(…) the pistol, revolver, or firearm may only be carried in a shoulder holster, waist belt holster, any other holster, hipgrip, or any other similar device, in which event the weapon may be concealed by the person´s clothing, or a handbag, purse, attache case, briefcase, or other closed container. Carrying on the person in a concealed manner other than as provided in this subsection shall not be permitted and shall be a violation of this Code section.
Mode of carry is not restricted to a particular type of holster, or even to a holster at all. The whole idea is that it’s not floating around with the keys and spare change, or that it’s not stuffed down the front of the pants.
An expansion or clarification would be welcome, especially considering that many folks believe ankle carry to be illegal, but striking the whole thing?
This is a negligent discharge waiting to happen. I can’t think of a single knowledgeable person, instructor or not, who’d think that unsecured carry is a good idea.
My second problem with this is that it misses a number of more pressing issues. We need to be chipping away at the all-too-vague and restrictive “public gathering” clause, and I’d really like to see our Georgia Firearms License valid for ten or more years, rather than the current five. In light of the recent rash of shootings, we need to seriously reconsider Georgia’s total prohibition of firearms on college campuses.
How about getting this mess cleared up that we’ve got at Hartsfield/Jackson airport? After all, one of the agitators from that whole situation is on the committee. As it stands now, nobody’s even sure if it’s 100% legal to check guns for transport in baggage at Hartsfield.
SB9 is a distraction at best. At worst, it will give those who oppose 2nd Amendment rights a wonderful example when they claim that those carrying firearms cannot be trusted to do so responsibly and safely.
Really, how long before we hear one of them mentioning Plaxico Burress? It’s a cheap and easy pot-shot they won’t be able to resist.
If last year’s last-minute rush with HB89 taught us anything procedural, it’s that we need to have a concise, organized package put together to present to the legislature, and we need to do so as early as possible. We don’t need to present our agenda piecemeal, and we need to be sure that we can defend what we present.
Justifying Mexican carry just isn’t something I see falling under that aegis.