Guns everywhere in Georgia

[poikilotrm]

Hell yeah!

http://www.shtfplan.com/headline-news/g ... s_04232014

[TROOPER]

I didn't click the link, but I was listening to the radio -- I am IN Georgia -- and the law isn't exactly what anti-gun people think it is. The law just says that each of the institutions that were previously prohibited places are now free to make their decisions on their own. Also, regarding schools, it allows certain teachers meeting qualifications to concealed-carry. I don't know what those qualifications are... maybe I should've clicked the link. Anyway, reading the same story on Yahoo tells me that liberals are about to die. Seems they also did not click the link. They predict the wild West.

Heck with it... I'll click the link.

------------ ETA --------------

Under the law, school districts will be able to decide whether they want some employees to carry a firearm, and religious leaders can decide whether to allow licensed gun owners to carry guns into their church, synagogue or mosque.

It basically moves the decision to ban or allow down to lower levels. It doesn't guarantee that there will be guns in all of the previously prohibited places, it just transfers the decision to where it should have been all along.

It's good law. If there is a liberal church, town, or school, those institutions can choose to exist under the old system. The law increases freedom -- I don't see how that can be a bad thing.

[jlwilliams]

You mean the anti-gun people are exaggerating? Come on, say it ain't so.

[TROOPER]

You mean the anti-gun people are exaggerating? Come on, say it ain't so.

Hand to God... they were exaggerating.

[silencertalk]

What a joke. You can carry guns in churches and bars in MA. This is not a big deal. What is pitiful is that until this, people in MA could carry in more places than people in GA.

[StoneyGherkin]

If it's true that police can't ask for a carry license without evidence of a crime, I am not so enthusiastic about that aspect of this new measure.

Otherwise sounds good to me, though we carry in the airport outside of the security line up here anyhow; churches are frequent targets for nut-cases, so that's an improvement.

It was fun hearing Al Sharpton get all worked up over it, comparing Georgia to Chicago (which has some of the strictest gun laws in the nation) and how this meant, somehow that Chicago's murder rate would now translate to an increase in Georgia.

Don't ask me, it made no sense the first time around, either.

[poikilotrm]

If it's true that police can't ask for a carry license without evidence of a crime, I am not so enthusiastic about that aspect of this new measure.

Why?

[silencertalk]

If it's true that police can't ask for a carry license without evidence of a crime, I am not so enthusiastic about that aspect of this new measure.

I never saw anyone claim that. The only thing I saw the Norcross Chief say what that you cannot detain someone while investigating if they have a carry permit.

[StoneyGherkin]

If it's true that police can't ask for a carry license without evidence of a crime, I am not so enthusiastic about that aspect of this new measure.

Why?

Why not? Do you think prohibited people should be able to carry without being checked by police? Why would you want that situation?

Sometimes people who are prohibited from firearm ownership still carry guns anyway. Shocking, I know. It's a good thing for public safety to confirm that they are carrying legally.

Not being able to "detain" someone to see if they have a CPL is the same as not being able to ask them for it, isn't it? I see no appreciable difference. "Sorry, I can't be bothered" and off they go. This is a good thing?


If I were working as a police officer I would certainly want to be able to have people show me their CPL's. It's that way here in Washington State and I think it's a good law.

[TROOPER]

Look at it this way, the police must have already detained/arrested a suspect for a crime or suspicion of crime BEFORE asking for a CCP. This seems odd, but look at the alternative -- cops on a city street corner asking every pedestrian on the sidewalk if they have a CCP for no reason. I realize this seems extremely far-fetched, but isn't something very similar to this going on in New York City right now? Except that instead of simply asking every passer-by if s/he has a CCP, they're frisking, and then asking for a CCP. However, if that same situation occurred in Georgia under this law, the cops couldn't ask for a license simply because they had found a gun during a random stop-and-frisk since no other crime or suspicion of crime had occurred.

At any rate, what would be the point of being able to ask for a license if nothing was going on anyway?

By the way, how does that stop-and-frisk policy not violate the fourth amendment? Has this already been settled by some public statement or court case and I just missed it?

[poikilotrm]

Why not? Do you think prohibited people should be able to carry without being checked by police? Why would you want that situation?

Should we have random road bolocks everywhere so the cops can check everyone's papers? Should be people be subject to being accosted everywhere they go just to make sure they are OK? No. Hell no. Driving a car is a presumably lawful act, and cops need to leave people the hell alone. Carrying a gun is a presumably lawful act, and cops need to leave people the hell alone.

In a free country, cops are only interested in going after bad guys, not crawling up everyone's ass constantly.

If I were working as a police officer I would certainly want to be able to have people show me their CPL's. It's that way here in Washington State and I think it's a good law.

If you were a police officer it would be in Moscow in the 1930s.