Jay Peterson
  • Home
  • Acting
    • Headshots
    • Resume
    • Press
    • History
    • Reels
  • The Gruntverse
    • Three briefings before a crisis
    • The Preliminary Report of Marshal Bennett
    • So your kid turned out to be a mage
  • Jay at Play
    • Nonfiction
    • Other videos >
      • Just Blanks
      • Tommy That
      • Machine Gun Shakespeare
      • Igor
  • Blog

Safe Carry Protection Act: The Annotated Edition

4/23/2014

1 Comment

 
Today in my home state of GA, Gov. Deal signed into law what's officially known as HB 60, or the Safe Carry Protection Act, and what the Brady crew have been referring to as the "Guns Everywhere Act."

Since no news outlet I've seen has actually detailed what the provisions are, I just went through the entire bill, translated the changes into simpler language, and added my own commentary.

If you'd like to check my work, here's the Bill Itself.

And for cross-referencing, you'll find the GA title code here and here.


My comments will be in Italics.



Section 1-2
- An exception in housing law. It prohibits landlords from banning or restricting lawful gun ownership from their tenants, unless federal law says otherwise.

No, you don't get to discriminate against the law-abiding because you don't like guns.


Section 1-2A
- Makes using suppressors while hunting illegal, unless on private property with the owner's permission.

I'm not a hunter, but at first glance, this looks like an enforcement on hunting season restrictions (by keeping people from hunting out of season in a way that won't be easily noticed).



Section 1-3
- revises a code on justified use of force.

More or less just clarifies which article of GA code to get your definitions from.


Section 1-4

- Private property owners can decree who carries and who can't. If they don't want you to do so, they're within their rights to not let you enter or kick you out.

Essentially, this clarifies that being armed on private property where the owner doesn't want you armed is trespassing, and treated as such.


Section 1-5

- Allows carrying in Bars, unless the owner specifically prohibits doing so.
- Allows carrying in churches if the church authorities allow it.

Bars=can opt out. Churches=have to opt in.


Carrying is still prohibited in jails, courthouses, mental health facilities, and nuclear power facilities.

Carry is allowed in government buildings that are open for business and do not have security screening. Although if there is screening, a CCW holder just has to leave the area upon being discovered to be armed. (for non-CCW holders, it's a misdemeanor)

Yes, kids, drinking and carrying is still illegal. That said, why disarm your Designated Driver?

Section 1-6 (Guns on campus section)

- Allows "A duly authorized official of a school... local boards of education" to allow someone to possess a weapon on school property they would otherwise not be permitted to. "Such authorization shall specify the weapon or weapons which have been authorized and the time period during which the authorization is valid."

I'm not sure what exactly was the impetus behind this one, but as a fight choreographer who occasionally works on campus, having a framework in state law to provision the need for me to legally have weapons  and weapon-style props on campus will make my job a lot easier in the future. 


- Allows a CCW holder to have a weapon in their vehicle parked on campus.
(Elementary, middle, and High school students with hunting liscences are specifically an exception. No going straight from class to hunting)

I hated having to park off-campus when I carried as a college student and left my pistol locked in the glovebox. Picking up a kid from school shouldn't mean that you have to be disarmed the entire day when you're out of the house.

I think this was the section that was watered down the most from the original proposal. Senator Carter (Jimmy's grandson) was bragging in one article that he'd kept it from being "worse," by which I assume he meant that he got campus carry out of it. Ass.


Section 1-7

- Focuses on eligibility requirements for CCW
- requires a guilty verdict for conviction (previous version included nolo contendere and such)
- Allows an 18 y/o servicemember who has finished basic to apply for a CCW (for all others, the age is 21)
- Institutes a time limit on applying after a license has been revoked (3 years, in this case)
- Prohibits applications by those found incompetent to stand trial or not guilty by reason of insanity.
- Allows petitions of relief of various prohibitions. (looks like a "jump through enough hoops to damn well prove you've paid your debt to society" kind of thing)
- Allows private GBI approved fingerprinters to fingerprint applicants for the background check. Does not require fingerprinting for renewals.
- No multijurisdictional database of CCW holders may be created or maintained.
- A judge has to confirm whether or not a CCW was issued, but cannot give out further information on the license holders.

A lot of this is administrative cleanup, but allowing for 18 y/o servicemembers to carry is a very positive step in my eyes. If they can carry to defend us, they can carry amongst us.

Section 1-8

- Expands eligibility of CCW for various types of judges and retired judges.

Section 1-9 (The "arming teachers" section and the airport part)

- Gives local school boards and administrators the option to form a policy that allows certain school employees to possess and/or carry weapons.
The policy must include:
- mandated training (which can include prior military or LE service training)
- lists of Approved weapon types, ammunition types, and authorized quantities
- exclusion of personnel with a history of mental or emotional instability.
- mandated method of securing the weapons used.
- such personnel are required to be licensed, and the local board of education is responsible for background checking them
- Being an armed school employee is strictly voluntary.
- The local board of education is responsible for the costs. That said, the approved-to-be-armed school employees can pay themselves if they so choose, or apply for sponsorships, grants and suchlike to do so instead.
- Records of which school employees are armed are considered exempt-from-disclosure.

Another part that caused a flood of bitching from the left. Oh me, oh my, without the blue island of Atlanta in the midst of this backwater red state, who knows what these crazy local school boards will do with such terrible POWER?

I dunno, maybe be the adults entrusted with our children that we've empowered them to be?



Airports
- Can carry outside restricted areas.
- If they do carry inside a restricted area and are discovered, they have to leave immediately, otherwise it's a misdemeanor charge.
- Doing this sort of thing while intending to commit another felony, makes it a felony in and of itself.
- renders null and void any county, city, or local law that contradicts this one.

I don't think this is an expansion of weapons carry more than a way to get Hartsfield running smoother. As it stood before this law, if Jimbo from the gun show packed the wrong carry-on that still had a pistol inside from a range trip, there was a hue and cry, fines, jail time, TSA applauding themselves on actually finding something, DHS filling out forms,  and more important: delays out the ass.
With this law, he just has to grab his stuff and walk away. Yeah, he'll lose his flight for his lapse in judgement, but everyone else will get to go about their business as usual. I don't see much to not like here.



Section 1-10
- If you're a CCW holder, have it on you at all times when carrying a weapon.
- A weapon carrier will not be detained for the sole purpose of finding out whether or not they're licensed.
- Not having your license on your is a $10 fine.

Some police officials have spoken out against this one. I can see their point, but at the same time, I'm all for seeing weapons carry not being a crime, while misuse of weapons still being crimes. And if it's denial of a profile tool, so much the better. I have no idea if something along the lines of "Carrying while Black," is a thing, but if it is, good on this provision for acting against it.

- Self defense is an absolute defense to any Chapter 11 offense.

Self defense even with a weapon you're not supposed to have is still self defense.
Even felons have the right to defend themselves
.


Section 1-11

- The GA General assembly is the only one who regulates firearm commerce in GA.
- Allows Sheriffs and D.A.'s to regulate issue firearms to deputies in their jurisdictions.

Not sure about this one. Eliminating the firearms equivalent of "dry counties," maybe?



Section 1-12

- Self defense is an absolute defense to a violation of a public transport safety law.

This one, like section 1-10 above, has been lambasted as an extension of GA's Stand Your Ground laws. Without going into a whole 'nother post about how SYG is mislabeled, I will say that these provisions look more like a prevention on selective sentencing.

No, a felon isn't legally supposed to possess a handgun. But if one is attacked and defends themselves with one, there's something a tad fucked up about dropping charges of murder/manslaughter on self-defense grounds, then turning around and charging the same person with possession of the weapon that saved their lives.

I can also see this provision aiding in some of our lousier sentencing habits (AKA putting women who kill their abusive S.O.'s in self-defense behind bars, which happens way too damn often).



Section 1-13

- Amending and adding what mental health records will be submitted to the National Instant Criminal Background check system.

Admin cleanup. Moving on.


Section 1-14

Repeals chapter 16 of title 43 of the Georgia code, relating to firearm dealers.

Wait, what?

If I'm reading this right, and I think I am, GA's book of law on firearms dealers has been struck down in its entirety. Either that Chapter is being rewritten for whole cloth, or ordinary GA business and Federal Firearms Dealer laws are currently what regulate GA dealers.


I THINK it's the former, but I can't find evidence of that.



Section 2-2

- Prohibits confiscation, registration, or prohibition of possession or carry of privately owned weapons during a state of emergency.

Apparently this sort of confiscation happened all over the place during Hurricane Katrina. Don't see a downside to this one being in place.



Section 2-3

- Denies the Governor the emergency power to prohibit firearm or ammunition sales.

See my commentary on section 2-2

The rest of the sections are just minor corrections, updating where reference points are now in the current edition versus where they are now.


*********************************

So, Guns Everywhere?

Not really.

Yeah, it's opened up somewhat. For the most part, it's still respecting private property owners while loosening some of the dumber location-based carry restrictions. The biggest potential change is the wiping the slate clean of dealer laws, which was pretty much ignored by the press.

As for the school parts, it offers reasonable guidelines for a local school board to decide on their own if they want to take those steps. It's not a mandate by any means, but it keeps the option on the table, which beats the no-way-no-how alternative that hasn't worked.

The self-defense expansions may seem wide-reaching, but they highlight something that has plagued self-defense for generations: costly and often vicious court battles that often do more damage than the initial conflict the defender survived in the first place. They honestly look like perhaps overly broad but honest attempts to alleviate some of that.


So, what do you think?

~J.




1 Comment
Joe Shelby
4/23/2014 03:02:35 pm

On the whole, I like your commentary on this.
My "waitaminutes" or "yeahthat'srights"

"- Allows carrying in Bars, unless the owner specifically prohibits doing so.
- Allows carrying in churches if the church authorities allow it."

I agree with you that the noted exceptions should have immediately had the "OMGs" shut up and the "you can carry in a bar" headlines stop. If the bar owner doesn't like guns, he doesn't have to see them; meanwhile others certainly won't mind. Free Market forces at work.

"- Can carry outside restricted areas."

On the one hand, why encourage a repeat of 2 situations that have already happened, including LAX. On the other, why make a scene of someone who is actually not trying to make a scene? If they're hiding the gun for violent intent, a CCW license changes nothing; if they're not hiding it, well, more people are going to see it, including airport security. If they make a move, someone will know soon enough and hopefully before an innocent is hurt.

"- Self defense is an absolute defense to any Chapter 11 offense."

Georgia police have a history of swat-team raids for minor drug offenses (or worse still, cases where an informant named a person/house that actually had no drugs at all). In some of those cases, the perp was then arrested for pulling out a gun in self defense and still went to jail even though no drugs were found. Does this finally limit this abuse of power on the part of the state police?

Re: the campus thing, it also means there is a formal procedure for historical reenactment groups that demo bladed weapons or black powder, which right now is a big batch of "well, who knows" in most states.

2-2 "confiscation" - I'm with you on that, too. arbitrary confiscation without evidence of a crime is a violation of the 4th amendment (nevermind the 2nd - it would be true for anything like a cell phone or a camera).

2-3 parallels the US Constitution in a way vis-a-vie habeus corpus: the governor alone does not have the power to override this law (incl 2-2) in any way. It is a bit of CYA around the idea that the gov may end up from the 'other' party, but laws shouldn't be easily swayed by a single person in a reactive whim (similarly, I don't believe state Constitutions should be so easily changed by a simple majority of who happens to show up that day - the US Constitution is hard to change for a reason).

2-2 and 2-3 do seem oriented around what does it mean for ownership during a state of emergency, and the examples probably related to bad relations or incidents with national guard troops. With some people in several states recently reacting to FEMA's help with threats of violence, I can see the Governor's and federal governments position. In addition to possible armed robbery/assault in the chaos, there were also situations of armed resistance to the FEMA help teams when they arrived - the natural inclination of the state is to disarm the resistance so that the rest who did want the help could get it. While I agree that confiscation is not the answer, at the same time I wish that more sensible voices would come forward and tell the nut-cases that they can go away, people really do need the help that is offered.

there's always that concern in the 'town meeting' (like many of the debates on the ACA) - can you openly challenge someone verbally and reasonably when they happen to have a gun and you don't? At what point is it right to fear, and at what point should we as a society say that we shouldn't have to live in fear of someone with a gun just because we don't want to have one ourselves?

but that's a different conversation, and while it needs to be had in our society someday, the Constitution still stands as it is written, and I don't see anything in your summary that would be Constitutionally suspect.

Reply



Leave a Reply.

    Picture

    Jay Peterson

    Musings on violence, storytelling, and humanity in general.

    Archives

    December 2022
    October 2022
    September 2022
    July 2022
    June 2022
    May 2022
    April 2022
    March 2022
    February 2022
    December 2021
    November 2021
    October 2021
    September 2021
    August 2021
    July 2021
    June 2021
    May 2021
    April 2021
    January 2021
    December 2020
    November 2020
    October 2020
    September 2020
    August 2020
    July 2020
    June 2020
    May 2020
    April 2020
    March 2020
    January 2020
    December 2019
    November 2019
    October 2019
    September 2019
    August 2019
    July 2019
    June 2019
    May 2019
    April 2019
    March 2019
    February 2019
    January 2019
    December 2018
    November 2018
    October 2018
    September 2018
    August 2018
    June 2018
    May 2018
    April 2018
    March 2018
    February 2018
    January 2018
    December 2017
    November 2017
    October 2017
    September 2017
    August 2017
    July 2017
    June 2017
    May 2017
    April 2017
    March 2017
    February 2017
    January 2017
    December 2016
    November 2016
    October 2016
    September 2016
    August 2016
    July 2016
    June 2016
    May 2016
    April 2016
    March 2016
    February 2016
    January 2016
    December 2015
    November 2015
    October 2015
    September 2015
    August 2015
    July 2015
    June 2015
    May 2015
    March 2015
    February 2015
    January 2015
    December 2014
    November 2014
    October 2014
    September 2014
    August 2014
    July 2014
    June 2014
    May 2014
    April 2014
    March 2014
    January 2014
    December 2013
    November 2013
    October 2013
    September 2013
    June 2013
    April 2013
    December 2012
    November 2012
    October 2012
    September 2012
    April 2012
    February 2012
    February 2011
    December 2010
    November 2010
    August 2010
    June 2010
    August 2008

    Categories

    All
    2nd Amendment
    Archer
    Armor
    Barbarism
    Blades
    Blanks
    Boobplate
    Book Review
    Chainmail Bikini
    Fight Scene
    Film
    Firearms
    History
    Killology
    Military
    Reality
    Safety
    Set Life
    Shakespeare
    Teacupping
    Theater
    Tucker Thayer
    USMC
    Viking
    War Stories
    Weapon Of The Week
    Workshops
    Wounds

    RSS Feed

Certa Bonum Certamen

Picture