Posted on 01/24/2007 3:00:17 PM PST by neverdem
Georgia lawmakers in both the House and Senate, backed by the National Rifle Association, are trying once again to pass a measure that would allow Georgians to leave registered guns in their vehicles while they are at work.
Sen. Chip Rogers (R-Woodstock) and State Rep. Tom Graves (R-Ranger) filed identical bills Tuesday that they say will protect people who are going to and from their jobs.
"Our main objective is to put employees on the same level playing field as any other individual who would park in a public parking lot," Rogers said.
Last year, a similar measure, the Georgia Self Defense Act, failed to gain much traction. The bill passed a House committee, but failed to reach the floor for a vote. The senator who sponsored a companion version withdrew the measure.
The Georgia Self Defense Act failed to pass last year partially because of pressure from business organizations that opposed it, saying the bill could increase the chance of workplace violence. Some employers also opposed language that would have allowed employees to leave firearms in vehicles left in private parking lots.
Rogers and Graves said their new proposal does not include employee parking that is restricted from the general public. Both Senate Bill 43 and House Bill 143 also exclude vehicles owned by an employer and used by a worker for business purposes. In addition, the bill excludes employees who are already restricted from carrying firearms on their employer's premises because of disciplinary action, and does not apply to penal and correctional institutions.
"We want to ensure that law-abiding citizens have the opportunity to protect themselves, whether they're leaving work or out shopping," Graves said. Joe Fleming, the senior vice president of government affairs for the Georgia Chamber of Commerce, said Tuesday that the group's members plan to review the new bill this week before taking a stand on it. He said that the language of the new proposal differs from last year's bill.
Several lawmakers expressed reservations about the new proposal.
State Rep. Stephanie Stuckey Benfield (D-Atlanta) said that she is concerned that the bill could lead to workplace violence or lead to domestic violence.
"I can see somebody who's mentally ill or disgruntled taking advantage of this law. I don't know if there is a fix to that legislatively, other than to not pass the bill," said Benfield.
Andrew Arulanadam, director of public affairs for the National Rifle Association, said the organization discounts concerns about the bill leading to increased workplace violence. He said that many employees work long hours or stop on the way home to buy groceries and need to be able to defend themselves.
Sounds fair, after all the criminals do that...
Meadow Muffin
But the person who's mentally ill or disgruntled will decide not to take a gun to the workplace if you don't have this law? Ms Benfield, with all due respect, your brains must be located in the penis that did not form when you were in the fetal state.
Should citizens be limited by what a criminal or mentally ill person might do? I think not!
A perfect example of an elected official who either doesn't grasp or doesn't appreciate the difference between regulation of government and private concerns.
A the owner of a private business should be allowed to prohibit anyone and anything he pleases from his private property. Yes, banning guns from the parking lot is stupid and a pain to gun owners, but it's also the business' right to do so, as with any other private property.
"State Rep. Stephanie Stuckey Benfield (D-Atlanta) said that she is concerned that the bill could lead to workplace violence or lead to domestic violence."
So now owning a gun and having it in your car leads to domestic violence?
Are you sure it isn't domestic violence would lead to owning a gun?/s
Well put. I don't see the issue here. Do some employers do car searches every morning?
Not a lawyer and all that, but when private propery is open to the public, then the rules are slightly different. (It's a fine distinction, and possibly the cusp of the slippery slope.)
She's a (D) from Craplanta. Expecting her to form a coherent thought is a stretch.
"Not a lawyer and all that, but when private propery is open to the public, then the rules are slightly different."
Park in a business' parking lot and see how public it is when they tow your car away.
Put a "Blacks Need Not Apply" sign in the window and see how far you get with that concept.
When did the inside of my vehicle become the private property of the parking lot owner?
If you cannot have a weapon in your car because of private or public parking rules then your Constitutionally recognized natural right to bear arms for defense is meaningless.
There is a reason why I lock my car.
"Non-smokers not allowed on this property. Anyone without a lit cigarette, will be shot."
When did the inside of my vehicle become the private property of the parking lot owner?
***I'd like to see the answer to that question as well. I can see there are limitations to some of our rights when we go onto private property, such as the right to peacably assemble (you need permission), but if you allow someone to bring their own private property onto your private property, you have tacitly agreed that your rights end at the point where their private property begins.
The parking lot might be private property, but so is your vehicle. That means you should have the right to decide what should be allowed in YOUR private property.
Not really. "Open to the public" is always at the discretion of the property owner. Businesses regularly demand ex-employees leave the premises, and have them arrested for trespass if they don't. That's the property owner's right.
You illustrate an important point. How ever you may feel about civil rights law, it does violate private property control to a degree.
The ADA took away more private property rights.
This type of legislation is poised to chip away another chunk.
It's important here to remember the basic philosophy of the founding fathers. They were interested in strictly limiting the power and authority of the government. The Constitution was written with that aim in mind. They weren't working to restrict personal behavior much at all.
However, the Federal Government has so thoroughly stretched, spun and abused the "interstate commerce" clause of the Constitution as to render the founding fathers' vision all but lifeless. Now the tables have effectively turned, and a too-powerful government continually seeks to limit the liberties of the people. Even those expressly protected by the Constitution they have each sworn with an oath to protect and defend.
People should have the right to be jerks.
Don't misunderstand; racial discrimination is a Bad Thing. I don't think too many people honestly believe otherwise. But the pursuit of fairness in that area has very clearly affected liberty in the area of private property.
It's far from certain that Federal authority over a private citizen's bigotry is a Good Thing. Even if it is, it set a precedent that could not be contained: The Federal Government can declare and enforce what is ethically and morally right. This is a power the founding fathers did not grant in the Constitution. Laws concerning individuals, and by extension, private businesses, were meant to be left to the states.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.