Posted on 02/04/2008 6:09:46 PM PST by DocH
In the blink of an eye, and with no fingerprints, the state Senate may have just deep-sixed H.B. 89, the tortured guns-in-parking-lots bill.
We say “may” because deniability is such an important part of the conspiracy.
Just to review:
You’ll recall that the Senate passed the bill out early this session, to get rid of the legislation that had provoked the state’s business community.
Lt. Gov. Casey Cagle had promised the National Rifle Association, which backed the measure, a roll call vote. The gun group threatened to make the vote a scorecard issue come the next election.
The NRA got its vote, but not much more. As gutted by the Senate, the bill only slightly broadened an employee’s right to keep a gun in a car parked on a company lot.
The legislation then went to the House, which on Thursday added provisions to expand the places where those with concealed weapons permits can carry their pieces. Churches, parks and such.
The House changes required approval by the Senate, which might have been why the NRA supported them. The amendments gave the gun group yet another chance to get its way in the Senate.
But this morning, seconds after the preacher of the day had finished his sermon, Senate Rules Chairman Don Balfour moved that the Senate reject all the changes to the gun bill added by the House.
There wasn’t even a voice vote, and certainly not any roll call documentation shows any Republican in the chamber voting against the bill. There simply was no objection to Balfour’s motion. No fingerprints.
All it took was 17 seconds. Here’s what it sounded like. (You’ll notice that Balfour’s mike was acting up.)
The Senate then shipped its demand to the House. Which insisted on its permission. A conference committee has been formed. Three House members, and three senators.
And gosh, if those lawmakers can’t come to an agreement, the bill stays in limbo until hell freezes over.
Which, we’re told, it will.
Here’s the line that Senate President pro tem Eric Johnson of Savannah posted on his blog: “The first order of business was to disagree to the House’s amendment to the ‘guns in parking lots’ bill. They allowed guns to be concealed and carried in churches. The Senate wanted to run that one by God first. It looks like this delightful little bill will be around for a while.”
Apparently, they (the Governor and the Senate mainly) put the wishes of wealthy businessmen and other community "leaders" (read that, rabble-rousers) above the Constitutional, potentially life-or-death, 2nd Amendment RIGHTS of Georgia's law-abiding citizens.
A BIG sign ???
NO RINO HUNTING
But, put this argument in different terms. Would the AJC and its friends on the left, and those members of the Georgia Legislature support a law that allows a property owner or employer to forbid entry to a person with a condom concealed in his wallet? Or, to make it even more PC, to forbid entry to a person with HIV in his bloodstream?
I would appreciate any constructive comments.
This bill would have also allowed law abiding citizens with a Ga. Firearms License to CCW in state parks in Ga.
Meredith Emerson was a law abiding Ga citizen, and was not carring a weapon while hiking in a Ga state park. She was attacked, kidnapped, and held prisoner for 3 days by a man in his 60s.
She was taken to a remote wooded area, tied to a tree, then beaten to death with a tire tool. Then the kidnapper cut her head off.
It is time to allow Ga. citizens the choice to protect themselves in their home state, especially in the public areas we pay for every day in taxes taken from us by the state.
To me the most dangerous time entering or leaving any business has been mall parking lots. Of course people in Nebraska might say inside a mall is not longer safe as well.
Add in car jackings and you can understand why I only shop strip malls and other businesses that allow law abiding citizens to carry.
If the owner wants to restrict firearms on his/her property that is her/his right.
I just don't shop there.
Nobody knows which “rights” I’m exercising until I need to defend myself.
At which point I don’t give a damn.
Meredith Emerson SHOULD have broken the law or stayed out of the park. Do not go where there is risk of personal attacks without an escort or a firearm. This is not the nice world it was 40 years ago!
I think the easiest, fastest, most effective way to address this problem is through lawsuits by families of those killed in these ‘gun free’ zones.
I needed to include: against the property owner.
If I were a business owner, the last thing I would do is prohibit workers and visitors from bringing their guns. I don’t want people being defenseless if some deranged maniac decided to use my business as a shooting gallery.
I am asking if a property owner can do this, can he also prohibit who carry HIV from coming on his premises?
Firearms that are carried concealed on the person are only being carried for personal protection. They are not being carried for any public display or use. Indeed, in my own state the law states that a concealed weapon must remain concealed in public except when necessary for immediate use.
Just as HIV is a personal, and private, matter, so is the issue of self defense. Nobody can provide self defense for me. What I carry in my pants is my own business. That is where I would draw the line with respect to the property owner’s right to draw conditions of entry to his premises.
I agree with you. What I object to is the criminalizing of citizens who wish to exercise their God given right to defend themselves.
Many Ga. citizens I know personally violate this law every time they go afield, or to many other “prohibited areas”.
And like it or not, the guns are in the cars in the parking lots today, were there 10 years ago, and will be there in the future, law or no law.
RINO hunting SHOULD be legal. :)
Well everybody knows that criminals abide by these rules. Honest! Just ask ‘em! /s
When we had that idiot shooting at complete strangers in the Tacoma mall a couple years ago, a man with a RTC permit was there. If he hadn’t been, more people might have been hurt or killed. It’s a real tough guy who can shoot anybody anywhere for any reason, but when someone shoots BACK.....well things tend to change.
A polite, civil society is an armed society.
If laws explicitly stated that business owners were not responsible for the actions of concealed-carry holders with their weapons unless they carried weapons as part of their duties, and if laws also explicitly stated that people who post "gun free zones" are liable for any harm that comes to people therein, how many businesses would post "gun free zones", even if they were allowed to do so?
I wonder if some of these business owners have higher insurance rates if they allow firearms on the premises. If true, this is what needs attacked. I agree with other posters. The way to stop this is if you get shot while on these properties and have a CCW, then sue their (business and insurance company) pants off for not allowing you to defend yourself.
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.