What Georgia's 'Extreme' New Gun Law Allows

[The Legion]

The title is from a NBC Lib reporter. 

 

Georgia Gov. Nathan Deal signed a new gun law Wednesday that greatly expands the number of public places where licensed owners are allowed to carry their weapons. Critics have called the law “extreme,” while the National Rifle Association lauded it as an “historic victory for the Second Amendment. What does the Safe Carry Protection Act really do? Here’s a brief list of the major changes ahead for Georgians when the law takes effect July 1:

 

Link to full story:  http://www.nbcnews.com/news/investigations/what-georgias-extreme-new-gun-law-allows-n87491

[UncleJak]

I like this. It makes responsible gun owners not look like criminals. It seems it designed to help law abiding citizens. Other states should take note. Sent barefoot from the hills of Tennessee

[Oh Shoot]

Good Lord, ABC national news just featured it as "groundbreaking" or some such.

 

edit: looks like will of course be featured rave on MSNBC prime time lineup tonight too, Rev. Al just kicked it off.

 

It's no different than many other states, 'bout same as here too. Guess I keep getting surprised that I keep getting surprised about the absurd coverage on gun issues by MSM.

 

- OS

Edited April 23, 2014 by Oh Shoot

[daddyo]

OMG! Blood in the streets!! Shootouts in bars!! Just like what happened here when they passed similar legislation!!!! OMG!!!!

 

 

Oh, wait.....

[dawgdoc]

Unlike some of the national media coverage, this got the changes mostly right.  They neglected to point out that carrying in the non-secure areas of the airport is already allowed.  What the law changes is the penalty if someone steps through the invisible barrier into the secure area.  The new law gives you a chance to rectify the mistake.

[Joe357]

Now we need our Governor and elected officials to follow suit.

[gearyr]

Won't never happen here in Tenn. Gov. Haslied and the rest of those no good politicians will never vote this in! I am still waiting on them to change the parking lot bill. Can't have my handgun in my truck on company property! They search my truck, I am fired! Company policy. And yes I have my HCP. gearyr

[RobertNashville]

Good changes and as I'm currently residing in Savannah GA for a while I'll get to take advantage of the new laws! ;)

[Erik88]

In a year I expect to read a story very similar to this.

 

http://www.wate.com/story/14573451/guns-in-bars

[Sam1]

OMG!!! It will be the wild west all over again!!!  </sarcasm>

[TMF]

Funny how these libs scream so loudly while legislation like this is going through, then you hear nothing but crickets after such pro-gun legislation is passed. Folks are about as likely to be shot by a permit holder as they are to get shot by police, yet no one freaks out when cops stop into a restaurant for lunch. Makes no sense. Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

[JayC]

You know there is a simple solution to this problem?  Go get a job with a company that cares about your safety to and from work.  It's not the governments job to make your life easier, you choose to continue to work for a company that requires that you be unarmed to and from work, nobody is forcing you to stay.

 

Won't never happen here in Tenn. Gov. Haslied and the rest of those no good politicians will never vote this in! I am still waiting on them to change the parking lot bill. Can't have my handgun in my truck on company property! They search my truck, I am fired! Company policy. And yes I have my HCP. gearyr

 

[Guest PapaB]

Oh great! Now when I go visit my in-laws in FL I'll have to rent an armor-plated vehicle to get through GA safely. Flying there won't help, they'll be shooting down the planes as they pass overhead. You Chattanoogans better watch out, the carnage could spill across the border, protect the women and children.  :panic:

Edited April 24, 2014 by PapaB

[94user]

You know there is a simple solution to this problem?  Go get a job with a company that cares about your safety to and from work.  It's not the governments job to make your life easier, you choose to continue to work for a company that requires that you be unarmed to and from work, nobody is forcing you to stay.

I doubt it's that simple. Getting a new job ain't all that easy right now. Getting a new job that I'm skilled at (plumbing) that would offer me comparable pay and benefits is quite hard to do for me.

[JayC]

So, you've made you choice...  live with it.  If better money and benefits are more important to you than your safety and security, you're an adult and can make that decision for yourself...  I seriously doubt you can't find a high paying job as a plumber with a pro-2nd amendment company.

 

I understand your point, I worked at a anti-liberty company for a number of years, although I carried a firearm everyday there, I came to the realization I couldn't support that company any longer, and planned an exit strategy.  It was scary, but the best decision I ever made in my life, I'm a lot more happy being my own boss than working for somebody else.  And unlike plumbing, my field was a lot smaller, there are a handful of companies in this state that hire people with my skillset, and maybe 12-24 guys doing that work in the entire state, less than 2,000 to 3,000 in the entire country.

 

I doubt it's that simple. Getting a new job ain't all that easy right now. Getting a new job that I'm skilled at (plumbing) that would offer me comparable pay and benefits is quite hard to do for me.

Edited April 25, 2014 by JayC

[RobertNashville]

You know there is a simple solution to this problem?  Go get a job with a company that cares about your safety to and from work.  It's not the governments job to make your life easier, you choose to continue to work for a company that requires that you be unarmed to and from work, nobody is forcing you to stay.

I think suggesting that someone just get a different job is really rather ridiculous. We have more people out of work in this country today than any other time in the country's history - anyone who currently has a job had damn well better keep it. There is nothing wrong with looking around and keeping options open but there is more to a career and finding the right position than whether a company allows firearms on their property.

[TMF]

[quote name="JayC" post="1142463" timestamp="1398389777"]So, you've made you choice... live with it. If better money and benefits are more important to you than your safety and security, you're an adult and can make that decision for yourself... [/quote] I think he is "living with it". I didnt take him as complaining about his job, but complaining about legislation. I was in the military for a while. I was NEVER allowed to keep my weapon in my vehicle or carry on base. I wasn't just going to end everything I worked hard for over that. I thought the rules were stupid, but I chose to live with it. Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

[Worriedman]

Sometimes you have to make choices in your life for the benefit of family members.  To let 20 years of seniority go, with the subsequent loss of benefits, accrued sick leave and vacation, including loosing health insurance at the age of 60 when you have a spouse who is very ill, well, I think the State should take the permit of someone who would make that choice for being too stupid to carry a firearm.

But as long as you keep your precious presumed "Private Property Rights", (which actually do not exist in the State of TN, all your "peers" have to do is want your stuff, and they can legally take it, see Articles 1 Section 8 and 21 of the TN Constitution). By the way did you see where TVA is going to condemn and take a bunch of private property around Memphis under imminent domain, you need to trundle right down there and demand they no do such a heinous thing...

 

.  It's not the governments job to make your life easier,

Just what is the government's job?

Edited April 25, 2014 by Worriedman

[JayC]

Governments only job is to protect the life, liberty and property (in that order) of it's sovereigns (aka citizens)...  Everything else that the government does is an immoral and evil act.

 

Just what is the government's job?

 

[JAB]

Governments only job is to protect the life, liberty and property (in that order) of it's sovereigns (aka citizens)...  Everything else that the government does is an immoral and evil act.

 

Yes and by that standard laws that would stop an employer from interfering in any way with an employee's right to protect their own life by keeping personal property (a gun) in their own, personal property (their private vehicle) are exactly the kind of laws that the government should be passing and enforcing.  Instead, however, politicians kiss the posteriors of big business while not doing their job and protecting 'life, liberty and property' by instead allowing employers to interfere with the private property rights of their employees.  You are correct in that taking the side of these employers over the 'life, liberty and property' rights of the employee is both immoral and evil but the politicians have to get those kickbacks and 'campaign contributions', you know.

Edited April 28, 2014 by JAB

[E4 No More]

I think it's pretty facile for a self-employed person to suggest to someone who is not self-employed that they quit their job when they do not know what's going on in that person's life that affects his/her decisions. Not everyone can be self-employed, and there are way too many unemployed at this time.

[homeagain]

I think it's pretty facile for a self-employed person to suggest to someone who is not self-employed that they quit their job when they do not know what's going on in that person's life that affects his/her decisions. Not everyone can be self-employed, and there are way too many unemployed at this time.

 

Yup.  But probably no more facile than the suggestions of some that the gubment should further erode at-will employment by restricting an employer's ability to terminate employees and telling them what is/is not allowable on their property. 

[RobertNashville]

I think it's pretty facile for a self-employed person to suggest to someone who is not self-employed that they quit their job when they do not know what's going on in that person's life that affects his/her decisions. Not everyone can be self-employed, and there are way too many unemployed at this time.

I agree.  On a different forum I once had someone call me names I couldn't repeat here just because I wasn't willing to quit my job and throw away a 20 year full pension to "protest" the fact that my employer didn't allow firearms on their property.  There are jobs and there are careers and while the two are similar they aren't necessarily interchangeable...more to the point; each person should do what he/she believe is best for them (which I think that's what liberty is supposed to be about).  ;) 

[E4 No More]

Yup.  But probably no more facile than the suggestions of some that the gubment should further erode at-will employment by restricting an employer's ability to terminate employees and telling them what is/is not allowable on their property. 

On several occasions I've seen employers hide flat-out racial discrimination behind "At Will" employment, so not the best of points with me.

[RobertNashville]

Yup.  But probably no more facile than the suggestions of some that the gubment should further erode at-will employment by restricting an employer's ability to terminate employees and telling them what is/is not allowable on their property. 

Yuup and no employer should have the power to control the contents of a privately owned vehicle any more than the contents of someone's home (or someone's mind).  Further, we aren't just talking about employer's with this issue either...we are talking about parking lots where the public (be they customers or employees) is/are invited to be.

Our country has, for at least 100 years or more, treated property used for business purposes differently than property used for private purposes in order to maintain a civil society which is actually one of the few necessary functions of a government. Another of those few functions of government is to seek a balance of rights when there is a conflict; that is, when one "right" (property rights in this case) comes up against the right to arms. In the case of parking lot owners by law, not being able to forbid legally transported arms inside of a vehicle parked in the parking lot owner's lot, there is clearly no infringement on the rights of the parking lot owner (as the courts have consistently found as these laws have been challenged).