Georgia lawmakers pass controversial 'guns everywhere' bill | MSNBC

Georgia lawmakers pass controversial 'guns everywhere' bill | MSNBC:
(March 21, 2014 .. revised March 23, 2014)

The Georgia House passed a sweeping gun bill late Thursday night that allows firearms in bars, nightclubs, school classrooms and certain government buildings that lack security personnel or devices. Lawmakers moved the bill through the House during the last hour of the night on Thursday, meeting their midnight deadline before the end of the current legislative session. If signed by the state’s governor, the law will give religious leaders the option to “opt-in” to allow guns on their worship premises, where violators cannot be arrested or fined more than $100 each. Additionally, it could grant citizens the right to carry firearms in bars, nightclubs, libraries, sports facilities, senior citizen and youth centers, and on K-12 premises by authorized administrators and teachers.

Not surprisingly, this MSNBC article presents a rather biased interpretation of the new Georgia laws, in order to present a view which accords with the author's anti-gun prejudices.


I intend to present a different interpretation, based on my own personal PRO-gun prejudices.

Now you know the "Full Disclosure", which is more than the MSNBC author allowed you; hopefully, you will evaluate both interpretations and find your own understanding to fall somewhere in the middle ground.



--- CHURCHES (etc)

In the previous statement, the MSNBC author (hereafter:  "HE")  talks about legal permission to carry guns in bars, libraries, arenas and churches.  Also retirement centers, schools and youth centers.

Let's look at that part right now.

HE is right; the law ALLOWS firearms in these areas, where they had previously been outlawed.  But it does not impose firearms there; rather, the law ALLOWS these various semi-public venues to choose whether they will allow licensed Concealed Carriers to bring their (concealed) firearms on the premises.  In essence, it disposes of "Gun Free Zones" at the option and the conscious CHOICE of the administrators.

Which is to say, if a pastor chooses to allow concealed carry in his church, the STATE will not/may not gain-say him.

It's not an imposition; the law merely allows the administrator of an establishment (church or bar, etc) to decide for himself or herself if she allows weapons .. legally.   The law does not give the individual the choice, but rather the person who is running the establishment can say whether firearms are permitted .. on a general, or on an individual ("trusted patron") basis.

HE makes it sound as if a pastor or a youth-center adviser is compelled to permit weapons-carrying people to come into the premises; that's not true.  The State is relinquishing control on what may be more-or-less private establishments.


Gee ... how simple can it be to acknowledge Free Will of The People?

--- AIRPORTS:

The law would also allow permit-holders to carry guns into Transportation Security Administration (TSA) checkpoints in airports with no penalty, which is a reduction from the maximum felony punishment currently in place. Individuals who claim ownership of a permit would be allowed to leave the security area without consequence, and officials could not detain them or ask to see firearms documentation.

Okay, let us suppose that you are licensed to carry and you carry daily, and have formed the habit of carrying.  You go to the airport and when passing through a Security Checkpoint, you are embarrassed to discover that you have forgotten to dump your pistol in the trunk of your car, as is your usual practice.  Airport Security finds it in your coat pocket.  What will you do?

Last month: go to jail .. Zero Tolerance at its best, and imposed due to an oversight on your part.
This month: go back to your car and lock your gun in the trunk.  No harm, no foul.

HE would prefer that you be arrested, confined, and prosecuted .. even though you have a license to carry and had no intent to do harm on the flight.  (Honestly, knowing that everyone goes through a metal detector before entering the boarding area in an airport, how many terrorists are going to bring a gun?)

--- ANYWHERE ELSE

Among other provisions, the law also changes Georgia’s self-defense measures by removing the penalty for possessing a firearm in an unauthorized location. If passed, the legislation will provide security to individuals carrying guns in unauthorized locations, under the influence of drugs or alcohol, and without a license in locations currently prohibited.

Okay, again: you're licensed to carry, but you forget to lock up your gun before you go into a bar.  And just to make it worse, you left your wallet at home!  (It's not surprising that you left your wallet at home, but you're still carrying your pistol: priorities are what we make of them.)

HE would have you locked up.  The new laws have the cops moving you out of the restricted area, and sent home.  Because it is, the assumption goes, and oversight on your part.   They don't believe that you entered a restricted area with the conscious intent of mayhem.  Of course, if that becomes a habit, you may lose your Concealed Carry license ... which seems reasonable if you are THAT casual about your responsibilities.

But you don't go to jail .. or if you do, you may be released after suffering nothing more than chagrin and discomfort.  The County Sheriff's office knows who has a Concealed Carry license, and when they check your records you will be released (eventually) by the cops that the bartender called because he doesn't know you.

And yes, the Bartender may have posted the premises as a "no carry" zone, and you are a dork.

Not a felon, but just a dork.

-- "Stand Your Ground"

Opponents of the bill refer to the measure as an expansion of Stand Your Ground because it has the potential to give felons and other individuals currently banned from owning a gun permission to carry in unauthorized areas. George Zimmerman’s acquittal last summer in the shooting death of Florida teenager Trayvon Martin brought renewed national attention to the Stand Your Ground defense.

 What "Felons"?  Nothing in this bill suggests that Felons have been newly permitted to possess, carry or even touch a firearm.  If you (for example) rob a gas station, you are a felon and you lose a LOT of your Civil Rights.  That's over and above serving time in prison.  We stand for the Good Guys, not for the Bad Guys.  You break the law, you go to jail.  Hey, you know us; we're "The Conservatives".   It's you Liberals who seem to think that Felons just need a group hug.

That entire paragraph is from the Liberal View; "HE" is just making it up as he goes along; it definately does not pass the Sniff Test!

--- NOT vetted by MSNBC .. so it must be Bad!

The bill is part of the “Safe Carry Protection Act,” which, until earlier this week, contained both a bill from the House and a revised bill from the Senate, as msnbc previously reported. Americans for Responsible Solutions deemed the original House bill “the most extreme gun bill in America.” The Senate version, however, offered fewer allowances for guns in certain places, including the opt-in provision not only to church leaders, but also to bar owners and municipal officials.

 Uh huh.  Okay, and yeah but ... you're just a wonkette with an attitude, and nobody elected you to make decisions for them.  Suck it up, Bro!


--- "Lack of Transparency ..."

State senators passed the bill earlier this week before it went to the House. But a lack of transparency left many residents and organizations puzzled about which measures were included and which were removed from the legislation. Ultimately, House lawmakers took out language that would reduce the penalty for a permit-holder caught carrying a gun on a college campus from a misdemeanor to a fine.

 What "transparency"?  You voted for Obama, right?  And you expect "transparency"?  Give me a break!

The fact is, this is a "Republic".  Which means that we-the-people (actually, the electorate in Georgia) voted for their representatives in both houses of the state congress, and trusted their elected officials to represent them faithfully in the legislature (you know, the branch of government charged with making laws?)

Still, it all comes down to one man .. also an elected official:  the governor of Georgia.  If he declines the bill, it will not become law.  Patience, please.  If the Guv is influenced by your wussy charges, he won't sign it into law.  And you will have won.

And the citizens of Georgia will have lost.

--- The Electorate

“We were pleased that the final bill did not include the guns on college campuses and guns in churches provisions. But the fact remains this bill moves Georgia out of the mainstream,” Pia Carusone, executive director of Americans for Responsible Solutions, said in a comment. “Thousands of Georgians and tens of thousands of Americans will continue to show they are tired of the gun lobby advancing its extreme agenda at the expense of their families’ safety.”

 "Americans for Responsible Solutions", eh?  If that isn't a liberal shell game, I'm Yvette Mimeux with a bad wig.  Personally, I'm disappointed that college students remain forbidden to provide their own protection on campus.  Remember Virginia Tech? 2007?  It's only 2 weeks until the seventh "anniversary" of the massacre there.  If only one of the students, or one of the college staff, had been armed, dozens of people may have survived. Thirty two dead, 17 wounded ... that's a helluva high price to pay for Political Correctness.  IS that what you want?  It was Illegal to carry a gun there .. and how did that work out for them?

Remember the professor who blocked the door to his classroom with his body?  He was the hero, there.  You wouldn't do that, would you? The thing is .. he was a college professor, he was probably a Liberal, too.  But when he walked, his balls clanged like iron.  You never saw any articles that HE wrote for MSNBC.   Ya Wuss.

--- Hoist on your own Petard!

House legislators passed a similar bill last year, but it failed in the state Senate. Until this week, legislators had not passed a gun bill since 2010, when they repealed the state’s public-gathering law and replaced it with a more defined list of places off-limits for carrying firearms. Georgia had the highest number of gun deaths per capita among the 50 states that same year, according to the Law Center to Prevent Gun Violence.

Opponents view the the current bill as a disturbance for places of worship, establishments that serve alcohol and school campuses where parents expect their children to remain safe.

 Oh, that speaks well for your gun-grabbing wussiness!  Your precious legislature made laws in 2010 which restricted the possession of firearms in public places, and it resulted in a slaughter.  Thank you for the Full Disclosure, and I admire your candor.  It makes me wonder, though, how you can admit the failure of restrictive firearm laws and in the same breath just ... freaking IGNORE it.  Don't you even think about the things you write?

"... parents expect their children to remain safe".    How thoughtful of them.  Have they made any provisions to insure their safety? Have the parents trained their children to protect themselves?  Surely, they don't expect their schools to protect them.  Do they think the schools provide armed guards?

Forgive me, I miss-spoke; I didn't think it through.   Of COURSE they would never think of allowing an armed person to be in the vicinity of their offspring.  That would  be just wrong, in so many ways!

Did I mention that "places of worship" and "establishments where they serve drink" now have the option to allow armed persons to habituate their premises?  Does that suggest "armed guards" to you?
No, of course not; they're just more gun nuts and not to be trusted.  Move On!

--- Support from Other Quarters

Some institutions, including the Roman Catholic Bishops of Georgia, declined to comment on Friday until they analyzed and determined the effects of the possible changes. 

Well, they wouldn't, would they?  Unlike you, they know the adage:  "It's better to remain silent, and be thought a fool, than to speak out and prove it".  They've been oppressed (off and on) for centuries, and they have learned the wisdom of non-controversy.  You could learn from them.  But you won't.

--- "Mandatory Background Checks"

Ninety-one percent of Georgians supported mandatory background checks for all gun buyers, according to a poll published in March 2013 in the wake of the massacre in Newtown, Conn.

 I admit to a bias against MBC, because ... well, it becomes tantamount to Registration.  Which puts too much control into the hands of idiots like you, and undermines the independence of me and those to whom I choose to give my personal arms.  Such as my children.  But I question the implied community of agreement, which you suggest, because the whole subject of "MDC" has not been defined.

As far as polls conducted in the wake of mass shootings ... I question them even more.  They reflect emotion, not reasoned thought.  Take a new poll, and see if the results compare favorably when measured against the entire nation.
---  "Who Are They For?"

Colin Goddard, senior policy advocate for Mayors Against Illegal Guns and a former Georgia resident, told msnbc: “You get to the point where you want to ask: ‘Who exactly are they doing this for?’”

 I only respond to this comment in order to point out it's inanity.  The article ends on on this jarring off-key note which is of interest only because it is impossible to understand the question.

Well, and I also wanted to point out that you are quoting a "senior policy advocate for Mayors Against Illegal Guns".

You do realize, I hope, the Mayors Against Illegal Guns is a wholly owned branch of Michael Bloomberg, who uses his billions of dollars of personal fortune to advance his own political views?  Anyone who defines himself as a member of that political clique makes statements which are a reflection of Michael Bloomberg .. or they are no longer in the clique.  So, you are quoting a man who has no private thoughts, but merely parrots the bias of his master.  And in so quoting, you reveal yourself as another without personal opinion, and only an un-noticed agent of your own master.

Come talk to me when you have a thought of your own.   I don't expect that to happen soon.





x


 x
x


====


x




zx
WHY do these MSNBC people persist in their efforts to make felons of well-intentioned, honest citizens?





x
x