Posted: 10:58 am Tuesday, February 11th, 2014

ACCG: Gun bill encroaches on local control 

By Jim Galloway

The Association County Commissioners of Georgia on Monday approved a set of objections to H.B. 875, the concealed-carry measure sponsored by state Rep. Rick Jasperse, R-Jasper.

Overall, the organization objects to the provision in the bill that requires local governments to allow concealed carry of permitted weapons in most government buildings – courthouses are an exception — unless those buildings have armed, business-day security.

“That decision should be made by each respective county, based on the community’s preference as expressed through their elected, and accountable, county commissioners,” according to the ACCG.

But here are the objections in particular:

Allowing Weapons in Government Buildings:

•   The legislation allows for weapons to be carried by a licensed holder in any government building where there are no restrictions or screening by security at the entrance. Since many county government buildings are not restricted and do not have security, this means that weapons would be allowed to be carried into most county buildings during regular business hours including libraries, offices of the tax assessor,  meeting rooms for zoning and tax hearings, and other facilities unless security is provided.

•   Providing security in all county government buildings is a costly expense that would have to be shouldered by the taxpayers of the county for the benefit of a few.

•   Absent providing security, allowing weapons in government buildings exposes the county to greater liability and may increase insurance premiums for those counties with the additional cost being shouldered again by the taxpayer.

Inability to Detain Persons Carrying a Weapon:

•  The legislation prohibits the person carrying a weapon from being subject to detention to ensure they are licensed to carry the weapon.

•  Not every person who carries a weapon is licensed to do so. This bill effectively prohibits law enforcement or security officers from checking whether a person carrying a weapon is properly licensed. Preventing a law enforcement officer from confirming that the person is properly licensed could result in the commission of crime that might otherwise have prevented.

Private Right of Action/Attorney Fees:

•   The legislation allows any individual or organization, whether or not aggrieved, to sue a county alleging that the county is regulating, or attempting to regulate, firearms or weapons dealers, gun shows, or possession, licensing or registration of weapons via zoning or other local ordinances.

•   The bill not only allows for a suit to be brought against a county or its policymaking body, but also an individual elected official or employee of the county.

•   Normally, parties to a legal dispute pay their own litigation expenses and attorney fees.  This bill, by contrast, places the burden of bringing, trying and defending a lawsuit on county taxpayers–whether or not the county has actually violated the law. Since a plaintiff under this law has “no skin in the game”, it opens the door to unnecessary (or perhaps harassing) litigation. 

63 comments
RoryRed
RoryRed

I see it is storytelling time for Jim Galloway

It is actually the opposite. HB875 allows local control. Do something basic to prevent criminals from bringing guns into your government building (have one guard), and nobody is allowed to bring a gun. Or, do nothing to prevent criminals from bringing a gun, and also allow law-abiding, licensed citizens to do the same. The alternative is current law, law-abiding licensed citizens cannot be armed but criminals can. And, this is what makes sense to Jim?

Detention for carrying.... Note, not all weapon carry even requires a permit. So, detaining to check for a permit is like detaining to check for a drivers license if you are near a car. The bill does not state that you cannot be detained if you are carrying, it simply states that carrying cannot be the only reason you are detained. If there is reasonable articulable suspicion (with or without a gun) police may detain you. I agree with house bill 875, simply possessing a gun is not reason enough to detains on someone any more than having a car is reason enough to detain a driver and check for a license.

Right of action and attorney's fees

This is simply a misunderstanding of HB875. Only aggrieved parties are eligible for the costs, much like any other lawsuit. I'm not sure why our government should get special protection when they are not complying with the law. On this point I wholeheartedly disagree with Jim. The aspect of having to pay your legal fees if you are not aggrieved is hardly the free ride the government officials get.... Since they are normally defended by on-staff attorneys paid through public funds.

Gunluvr
Gunluvr

FROM OUR COLD DEAD HANDS!!!! Remember that it was anti-gunners in Congress who tried to take our guns in 1994 and paid the ultimate career price. We haven't forgotten and we're training the next generation of pro gun activists to counter the anti-gun propagandists and prohibitionists from NYC, Chicago, California and DC. Molon Labe!!

BigHat
BigHat

I respectfully reserve the right to shoot any raping, robbing, rampaging, drugged out, out of control urban-type who illegally comes onto my property.  

BK37
BK37

It always amuses me when I hear conservatives talking about liberals "drinking the Kool-Aid."  We all know that Kool-Aid is the main drink of choice for today's batch of neo-cons.  Why else would they believe that Obama is not only coming for their guns, but trying to repeal the 2nd Amendment as well?

rightwingextreme
rightwingextreme

gee...I thought the second amendment already covered all of this.   guess I was wrong.

RoadScholar
RoadScholar

but but but...I wanted to be a hero and save my state legislator or Governor when someone threatens him...maybe with loud rap music...They are taking away my rights to do so because they are already protected by security officers... but but but ...what happens when that security is on break, in church (with their guns) or in the can???? Or even worse....dancin' to that rap music!?


Can someone cite me the number of people shot in church over the past 5 years? Is it the same number of alleged "illegals" that have actually been caught voting in Georgia?


The repubs need to rename their party the Paranoia Party or the Tea and Paranoia Party! They are for freedom as long as it isn't yours!

Sam_Hill
Sam_Hill

Gotta love the cons.  They are all for local govt control except where the local govt wants to make decisions on guns, women's reproductive organs or transportation that don't conform to the cons statewide platform.

Bernie31
Bernie31

Why are White Males still so fearful of their Lives, when they are the ones with LOADED GUNS at their side? can someone explain this mndset.....

Starik
Starik

It's pretty bad when you are s small part of a larger government that ignores your local interests and desires.  Now if North Fulton could solve the problem...of course, it seems that our Republican state government doesn't care...

DS
DS

Wow, what a lousy piece of legislation. Wonder how much the NRA paid Jasperse to bring this forward?

honested
honested

I sure am glad I was instilled with enough self-confidence in my youth to be able to go outside without a popgun strapped to my waist.

If only common sense was a reliable controller for the actions of the General Assembly, we could be sure this hare-brained measure would quickly evaporate.

However, this is Georgia.

BK37
BK37

Seriously, what is it with some of you pro-gun nuts and your insistence on being able to carry a gun every single place you go?  The amount of butthurt coming from folks is insane.  I have no problems with guns, but they don't need to be carried everywhere.

MANGLER
MANGLER

What is the point of having carry permits if you can't check to see if the people who are carrying have a permit?  May as well say 'forget it, everyone can carry all they want anywhere anytime have at it' - since the Old West was such a peaceful period in our history.

NWGAL
NWGAL

Politics, religion and alcohol all induce rabid conversations. So of course sane people think mixing them with guns is not wise.

findog
findog

Does the Georgia GOP know the difference between “small government,” and “small minded government”

Bernie31
Bernie31

MUH GUNS...MUH KUNTRY...muh local control by the Goober politicians...muh bullets!................  Dem LIEYERS, I mean Lawyers, muh money....I do not have any! But I can shoot when I git Skerred!

AM1
AM1

The takeaway- "hey, local governments, don't detain and harass law-abiding people who are just going about their business and you won't get sued." Sounds simple enough to me. I find it extremely hard to believe that the ACCG is clawing to keep control that they never possessed in the first place. Local governments are forbidden by the 2A of the state constitution to regulate, restrict or decide the location where a firearm may be carried. The Legislature has that sole responsibility. Some local governments have already learned that lesson, the expensive way. It won't cost local governments a single dime to comply with this bill, well those who actually respect the rights of their constituents. For those who do not, it could become very expensive and justly so.

DontTread
DontTread

There are so many illustrations of why outlawing self-defense is bad for society and violates individual rights as outlined in the Constitution.


Of course liberals will side with the criminals as they represent the same side of this debate.

AuntieChrist
AuntieChrist

@BK37 It always amuses me when I hear conservatives talking about liberals "drinking the Kool-Aid." 

It's a popular phrase one hears on pox news quite often. The fact it is repeated so often by cons is a testament to their lack of creativity, and their slavish devotion to their masters at pox.

Kamchak
Kamchak

@BK37  

Why else would they believe that Obama is not only coming for their guns, but trying to repeal the 2nd Amendment as well?

Not to mention that whole birther thingie.

Bernie31
Bernie31

@RoadScholar - WOW! its been ages..... since I have been able to agree with you! SNOWSTORM a comming. :) Well said.

rightwingextreme
rightwingextreme

@Sam_Hill


gotta love liberal logic.


Second Amendment already addresses this issue of keeping and bearing arms.


Women can do whatever they want with their reproductive organs....right up to the point of murdering someone.

rightwingextreme
rightwingextreme

@Bernie31


maybe there's also a concern amongst black males/females, white males/females, etc....libs always see people in terms of color.


you would do well to research why blacks wanted to be able to carry weapons after the Civil War....part of the right to keep and bear arms thing.

rightwingextreme
rightwingextreme

@DS


I agree....it should be Constitutional Carry instead.   enough of the restrictions.

Gunluvr
Gunluvr

@BK37 In your opinion. Don't presume to speak for me.

rightwingextreme
rightwingextreme

@BK37


Because it's a right guaranteed in the Constitution.


Apparently you do have  a problem with guns or else you wouldn't call folks pro-gun nuts....or do you not consider yourself one of those?

DontTread
DontTread

@MANGLER  Right, because there are mass shootouts every day in places like Alaska, Arizona, Arkansas, Vermont and Wyoming, where no permit is required.  It's really unsafe in these places, and better for people like you to travel to LA, New York, Boston, DC, or Chicago instead.

AuntieChrist
AuntieChrist

@DontTreadOf course liberals will side with the criminals as they represent the same side of this debate.

Yeah, the libs are always pandering to criminals, like oliver north, robert mcfarlane, duke cunningham, david vitter, larry craig, scooter libby..... 

There are so many illustrations of why outlawing self-defense is bad for society...

Who outlawed self defense? Do tell us more about this, dontread.

BK37
BK37

@DontTread  please stop with that absolutely ridiculous statement you just made about liberals siding with criminals. 

AuntieChrist
AuntieChrist

@rightwingextreme @Sam_Hill Women can do whatever they want with their reproductive organs....right up to the point of murdering someone.

Newsflash Clarence Darrow, Roe v Wade carries the same weight as your right to bear arms. Your right to bear arms, inviolate!  A woman's right to privacy in her reproductive system, meh. Not so inviolate.

Gotta love con logic (now there's an oxymoron, con logic, HA!)

BK37
BK37

@rightwingextreme I know plenty of firearm owners that are very reasonable sane people.  The pro-gun nuts are the ones who take things to the extreme.  Exhibit A:  The people who said they would boycott Toby Keith's new restaurant in Virginia because of the no-gun policy.  If you choose where you eat based on whether or not you can bring your gun, then you need to re-evaulate your priorities.


Exhibit B was the situation in Texas a few months ago.  This group of 4 women met at a restaurant to discuss gun control measures.  A pro-gun group called Open Carry Texas got wind of this meeting and they showed up outside the restaurant, 40 deep, all of them armed.  Tell me, what was the purpose of that, other than to show off their ignorance.  

AuntieChrist
AuntieChrist

@rightwingextreme @BK37   " I have no problems with guns, but they don't need to be carried everywhere." 

"Because it's a right guaranteed in the Constitution."  I guess your law degree trumps anton scalia's:


Like most rights, the right secured by the Second Amendment is not unlimited. From Blackstone through the 19th-century cases, commentators and courts routinely explained that the right was not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose. ... Although we do not undertake an exhaustive historical analysis today of the full scope of the Second Amendment, nothing in our opinion should be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms. (Written by the flaming librul anton scalia, Heller v D.C. citing United States v. Miller (1939) ).

AuntieChrist
AuntieChrist

@DontTread @MANGLER  Your ignorance is astonishing. Arizona? ask Gabby Giffords, Arkansas? See Jonesboro, Ark. You didn't mention the well armed populace of Aurora, Co., or Denver (Columbine), where it is 'safer' than NY, LA, ATL, etc because of lax permitting.


Arizona, Arkansas, and Jawja have gun deaths per capita higher than Cali or NY and the same as Illinois.

Kamchak
Kamchak

@rightwingextreme

The 2A is pretty clear....the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.   

Actually, what the second amendment states is:

"A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed."

Odd that you left out the first part.


Just sayin'.

AuntieChrist
AuntieChrist

@rightwingextreme @AuntieChrist@CherokeeCounty  

I'm sure you probably agree with their decisions on the Kelso case as well.  hope nobody wants to build a condo on your property!    

Does the term Non sequitor have any meaning for you? What does that have to do with the current topic. Or are you just dazzling us with more of your legal scholarly brilliance?


the "long standing" prohibitions the scalia cites have only been around since 1968....not exactly long standing in my opinion.   So laws have to be more than 40 years old before you have to abide by them, is that more of your scholarly legal brilliance?

rightwingextreme
rightwingextreme

@AuntieChrist @rightwingextreme@CherokeeCounty


I'm sure you probably agree with their decisions on the Kelso case as well.  hope nobody wants to build a condo on your property!


the "long standing" prohibitions the scalia cites have only been around since 1968....not exactly long standing in my opinion.


A summary of the Miller case as cited by the Supremes in Heller.


Miller stands only for the proposition that the Second Amendment right, whatever its nature, extends only to certain types of weapons. It is particularly wrongheaded to read Miller for more than what it said, because the case did not even purport to be a thorough examination of the Second Amendment."

AuntieChrist
AuntieChrist

@rightwingextreme @CherokeeCounty the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.   Except when they can be infringed:  

nothing in our opinion should be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms. (Written by the flaming librul anton scalia, Heller v D.C. citing United States v. Miller (1939) ).

Seems crystal clear to me, Clarence.

rightwingextreme
rightwingextreme

@CherokeeCounty


And the learned justices got it wrong.   The 2A is pretty clear....the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.  


crystal clear to me.

CherokeeCounty
CherokeeCounty

You need to go read the recent Supreme Court decision that clarified second amendment rights.

AuntieChrist
AuntieChrist

@rightwingextreme @AuntieChrist@Sam_Hill   I've gotta run

No doubt you have a pending case before the SCOTUS. Go dazzle em with your scholarly legal brilliance Clarence. Be sure to tell the justices where they have erred the last 30-40 years.

(or is it just that mommie wants her computer back?)

AuntieChrist
AuntieChrist

@rightwingextreme @AuntieChrist@Sam_Hill  
yeah, the justices read something into the Constitution that wasn't there in the case of RvW, which btw, was built upon a lie

And your law degree is from where, exactly. With all this lecturing on the Constitution, surely you're a member of a silk stocking law firm, or a law professor, or are you like the typical con, what is referred to as a sh###t house lawyer.

rightwingextreme
rightwingextreme

@AuntieChrist @rightwingextreme@Sam_Hill


yeah, the justices read something into the Constitution that wasn't there in the case of RvW, which btw, was built upon a lie.   And you compare that to a right specifically guaranteed in the Constitution.   


I think you best look up the word logic and figure out what it means and then go to the store and buy you some.

rightwingextreme
rightwingextreme

@AuntieChrist @rightwingextreme@BK37


guess they overlooked that part about "shall not be infringed."  


the case you cite is one fraught with problems and was a reaction to the problems with criminals in Chicago.   so instead of addressing the real issue, the government moved to restrict the 2A with about as much impact  on events as gun control legislation has today.