Ga. law allows guns in restaurants, public transit

“This is the most significant one I have seen”

Permitted gun owners in Georgia will soon be allowed to carry concealed weapons in restaurants that serve alcohol, aboard public transportation and in parks under a new law observers called a significant ... via MSNBC

[Kevin-A Gun Owner]

Good! It's time for the people of America to start policing OUR SELVES!

What Next? A return of manners, order and eventually family values?

[Plant Lady]

Kevin-A Gun Owner wrote:

Good! It's time for the people of America to start policing OUR SELVES!
What Next? A return of manners, order and eventually family values?

Well it is a start anyway :)
I may even consider riding marta again

[Plant Lady]

Alice Johnson, a lobbyist for Georgians for Gun Safety, said it is already too easy to obtain a concealed weapons permit. Unlike some states that require firearms training, Georgia simply requires a background check for felonies.

"We don't have any way of knowing anything about these people who have permits except that they have $15 and passed a fingerprint check," Johnson said.

THESE PEOPLE?? Come live with me a few days. Will that help you out any? jeesh

You have to love these reporters. NOT!

[Daniel]

Plant Lady:

Go easy on them...they've just seen their worst nighmare come true, the official recognition that you have the right to secure the means to defend yourself in areas previously a haven for criminals.

Plant Lady wrote:

Alice Johnson, a lobbyist for Georgians for Gun Safety, said it is already too easy to obtain a concealed weapons permit. Unlike some states that require firearms training, Georgia simply requires a background check for felonies.
"We don't have any way of knowing anything about these people who have permits except that they have $15 and passed a fingerprint check," Johnson said.
THESE PEOPLE?? Come live with me a few days. Will that help you out any? jeesh
You have to love these reporters. NOT!

[Shellback]

I have a GFL (CCW) permit. I carry wherever I go like restaurants and such. I am glad it is legal now. I do believe there should be a training class on self-defense and deadly force for those who carry. I had formal training on deadly force in the military. You should only draw your weapon is danger to life is imminent and only fire if there is no other option.

I rode the MARTA a couple of times going to GA Tech games. I can definitely understand the desire to carry. I have always believed it is better to be caught by the good guys with a gun than being caught by the bad guys without one.

If you don't believe in guns, try putting a "Gun Free Home" sign in your yard.

[Monty]

Shellback wrote:

I have a GFL (CCW) permit. I carry wherever I go like restaurants and such. I am glad it is legal now. I do believe there should be a training class on self-defense and deadly force for those who carry..

Shell, most states do that. In my state the instructor spent almost as much time lecturing on all of the legal ramifications as well. He stressed that even if you believe that you were 100% justified in your use of force and you are not prosecuted, you should still expect to be sued.

[Ron]

In Texas, we have to prove that we can handle a firearm, its recoil, and we actually have to get the bullet to hit within specific zones of a target. If the applicant cannot get enough bullets to hit in the zone, he/she flunks the test and does not get a license. They can retry in a future class. We also spend over half of the day discussing and being tested on firearms laws. And we are investigated by the FBI including Texas DPS and local peace officers.

In Texas, if the shooting is justified, the license holder cannot be sued.

I can't believe that Texas has actually given reciprocity to Georgian CCW holders. I wish Georgia would look to Texas and other states for making improvements to their CCW program.

[GunShowOnTheNet]

In reality, there should be NO 'permit' required in the first place.

"The Right is General.— It may be supposed from the phraseology of this provision that the right to keep and bear arms was only guaranteed to the militia; but this would be an interpretation not warranted by the intent. The militia, as has been elsewhere explained, consists of those persons who, under the law, are liable to the performance of military duty, and are officered and enrolled for service when called upon. But the law may make provision for the enrolment of all who are fit to perform military duty, or of a small number only, or it may wholly omit to make any provision at all; and if the right were limited to those enrolled, the purpose of this guaranty might be defeated altogether by the action or neglect to act of the government it was meant to hold in check. The meaning of the provision undoubtedly is, that the people, from whom the militia must be taken, shall have the right to keep and bear arms, and THEY NEED NO PERMISSION OR REGULATION OF LAW FOR THE PURPOSE. But this enables the government to have a well regulated militia; for to bear arms implies something more than the mere keeping; it implies the learning to handle and use them in a way that makes those who keep them ready for their efficient use; in other words, it implies the right to meet for voluntary discipline in arms, observing in doing so the laws of public order."

- Thomas M. Cooley, LL.D., THE GENERAL PRINCIPLES OF CONSTITUTIONAL LAW IN THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA [1880], FOURTH EDITION EDITED BY JON ROLAND,(Constitution Society), 2002.
(Mr. Cooley was Dean of the University of Michigan's Law School, Michigan Supreme Court justice, and a nationally recognized scholar. And, was one of the authorities quoted in the recent D.C. Court decision).
http://gunshowonthenet.com/AfterTheFact/DCApp...

"For, in principle, there is no difference between a law prohibiting the wearing of concealed arms, and a law forbidding the wearing such as are exposed; and if the former be unconstitutional, the latter must be so likewise. But it should not be forgotten, that it is not only a part of the right that is secured by the constitution; it is the right entire and complete, as it existed at the adoption of the constitution; and if any portion of that right be impaired, immaterial how small the part may be, and immaterial the order of time at which it be done, it is equally forbidden by the constitution."

- Bliss vs. Commonwealth, 12 Ky.(2 Litt.) 90, at 92, and 93, 13 Am. Dec. 251 (1822).
http://gunshowonthenet.com/2ALaw/blissVcommon...

"A system of licensing and registration, is the perfect device to deny gun ownership to the bourgeoisie."

- Vladimir Lenin, "The Beginning of the Revolution in Russia", Selected Works, Vol. I, International Publishers, New York, 1967.

[Jack Burton]

Ron wrote:

I can't believe that Texas has actually given reciprocity to Georgian CCW holders. I wish Georgia would look to Texas and other states for making improvements to their CCW program.

ron... in Indiana and various other states we have NO requirements other than a background check... no training... no testing... no anything.

YET...we have the same identical rate of misuse of guns from our CCW holders that Texas does -- virtually zero.

Before you call for mandatory training and testing you might want to try explaining that fact.

[GunShowOnTheNet]

The following is an article from the New York Times concerning Concealed Carry in 1874:

"...Yet it would be useless to deny the existence of a general feeling in the commmunity that a law against carrying pistols would be a virtual disarmament of the law-abiding citizen, who would obey the statute, for the benefit of the lawless, who would persistently disregard it. That opinion was even expressed by a Magistrate on the bench, and is, no doubt, largely shared by the better portion of the community. Theoretically, the citizen has no occasion for weapons of self-defense. Practically we all know he has, and must at times, in any city however well governed and well policed.

"The objection that such a law as that suggested would be disregarded by the very persons whom it was chiefly designed to reach, is not, of course, logically speaking, a valid objection. The disorderly and dangerous classes defy all laws, and their opposition is not only to be expected, but constitutes one of the chief necessities for making laws at all. Nevertheless, the objection will have weight with many, and may tend to the continuance of a practice which all good men must deprecate, if they do not condemn. The way to meet this argument has already been indicated in these columns. If it is impracticable to forbid the carrying of pistols outright, their sale should at least be so restricted as to furnish a partial guarantee against their getting into improper hands...."

"...Nor need there be any apprehension that the just freedom of the citizen would thereby be infringed. The constitutional right to carry arms..."

And thus we see how that the individual Constitutional Right was PUBLICLY and NATIONALLY ADMITTED, as well as how the subversion started....
http://gunshowonthenet.blogspot.com/2008/05/s...

[Shellback]

Jack Burton wrote:

<quoted text>
ron... in Indiana and various other states we have NO requirements other than a background check... no training... no testing... no anything.
YET...we have the same identical rate of misuse of guns from our CCW holders that Texas does -- virtually zero.
Before you call for mandatory training and testing you might want to try explaining that fact.

People said the same thing about hunter education here in Georgia. I had to take the course when I moved here from Alabama. I didn't learn a thing from it as I had a great instructor like my Grandfather.

There are people who are not quite as lucky as me though. I have been in the woods with them and they scared the crap out of me. I've actually heard bullets whizzing by over my head.

If you are going to carry something that can take alife in a split second, a person needs to know when it is okay to shoot and when it is not. For example, if someone snatches your wife's purse and takes off, it is not okay. However, if they pull a knife and demand your wallet, then you should pull your gun and only shoot if he continues to be agressive, no one else in the line of fire etc.

It would only take one person with a complete lapse in judgement to ruin it for everyone.

[el politico]

Shellback wrote:

<quoted text>
...It would only take one person with a complete lapse in judgement to ruin it for everyone.

If one person could ruin it for everyone, then we have lost the battle. If one person says the wrong thing, are all Americans going to lose the right to free speech?

Time to give up the timidity. It is a God-given right, and we will stand up for it as a God-given right.
I would no more give up my guns as I would give up my children. Those guns are used to protect those children and their home. God help anyone trying to violate either, because they will see him sooner than later.

[Plant Lady]

el politico wrote:

<quoted text>
If one person could ruin it for everyone, then we have lost the battle. If one person says the wrong thing, are all Americans going to lose the right to free speech?
Time to give up the timidity. It is a God-given right, and we will stand up for it as a God-given right.
I would no more give up my guns as I would give up my children. Those guns are used to protect those children and their home. God help anyone trying to violate either, because they will see him sooner than later.

Good posting Sir

[GunShowOnTheNet]

el politico wrote:

<quoted text>
If one person could ruin it for everyone, then we have lost the battle. If one person says the wrong thing, are all Americans going to lose the right to free speech?
Time to give up the timidity. It is a God-given right, and we will stand up for it as a God-given right.
I would no more give up my guns as I would give up my children. Those guns are used to protect those children and their home. God help anyone trying to violate either, because they will see him sooner than later.

Hat-tip, bud.

[mr_man]

Monty wrote:

<quoted text>
Shell, most states do that. In my state the instructor spent almost as much time lecturing on all of the legal ramifications as well. He stressed that even if you believe that you were 100% justified in your use of force and you are not prosecuted, you should still expect to be sued.

Ga passed a liscense to kill law check it out.

[Monty]

mr_man wrote:

<quoted text>Ga passed a liscense to kill law check it out.

License to kill huh, where would I find that one?

[feedup]

mr_man wrote:

<quoted text>Ga passed a liscense to kill law check it out.

Was that the James bond 007 bill that passed?

[Kevin-A Gun Owner]

What I think Mr_man means is that a lawful citizen does *NOT* have to retreat when in his own home.

http://www.legis.state.ga.us/legis/2005_06/fu...

I found it in the Georgia legislature.

Section two I believe...

(don't tell me I skimmed and posted the wrong bit)

[Plant Lady]

mr_man wrote:

<quoted text>Ga passed a liscense to kill law check it out.

One must wonder if you extrapolated that from this thread/article, what you must have gotten out of reading Moby Dick.

[Shellback]

Kevin-A Gun Owner wrote:

What I think Mr_man means is that a lawful citizen does *NOT* have to retreat when in his own home.
http://www.legis.state.ga.us/legis/2005_06/fu...
I found it in the Georgia legislature.
Section two I believe...
(don't tell me I skimmed and posted the wrong bit)

Thanks! Very helpful.