HB 615 is being heralded as a “comprehensive revision of Georgia’s gun laws”, but it has recently come under fire from some even within the liberty movement.
I needed to look at this bill for a few reasons, and so today I did. What I found was rather interesting, and has changed my views on the bill as it exists at this moment.
First, I think that this bill will pass any Constitutionality challenge based on the requirement of a single subject, as the subject here is gun rights, and the various areas HB 615 changes are all specific instances of laws regarding gun rights.
As far as the various changes made in HB 615, the first is that the phrase “pistol, revolver, or concealable firearm” is replaced with “weapon”, allowing a greater range of weaponry to be legally carried. One problem I have with this is that “weapon” is never clearly defined, and thus a restrictive definition could be added at a later time. Other than that though, this seems like a good move.
Next, the requirement that a concealed weapon be in some form of holster is removed, which is a great change that allows people to carry as they see fit.
However, it appears that the bill then conflicts itself by banning anyone convicted of “a crime punishable by imprisonment for a term exceeding one year” from transporting a weapon that is “enclosed in a case, unloaded, and separated from its ammunition”, but then ALLOWING “any person who has been convicted of a felony” to transport a weapon with the stated restrictions. If I understand it correctly, a felony per Georgia law is basically any crime that can be punished by more than one year in prison, hence the apparent contradiction. I have reached out to a few sources for input about this, any obviously, if any readers have any clarification here it would be GREATLY appreciated!
But even the apparent contradiction isn’t where I changed my opinion of this bill – though it certainly gives me pause.
The next change made by 615 is quite possibly one of the biggest reasons to pass this bill. It bans carrying “explosive compound, firearm, or knife designed for the purpose of offense or defense while in a portion of a building that houses a courtroom or a jail or prison.” yet repeals the “public gathering” prohibition on guns and allows carry in every location that does not house a courtroom, jail, or prison while still respecting property owners’ rights to refuse to allow weapons on their premises. It also specifically allows weapons which are used as evidence in a legal proceeding, so long as they are handled as directed by the personnel “providing courtroom security”. Furthermore, it even allows a person to enter a location containing a courtroom, jail, or prison with a weapon, provided that they notify “security or management personnel” of the weapon and follow their directions “for securing, storing, or temporarily surrendering such weapon on site”. However, it also notes that a person shall not be denied entry into such a location due to a lack of secure storage space for their weapon.
The next section, beginning in Section 4 of the bill, is what changed my mind on the bill. Under current law, concealed weapons permits are issued by the local probate judge. Under HB 615, concealed weapons permits would be issued by the Secretary of State. In other words, this is yet another case of the State grabbing power that rightfully belongs at the local level – if it indeed belongs with government at all. The ONLY good thing about this section is that it removes the ability of the person issuing the license to deny it on the grounds that the applicant is “not of good moral character”.
Section 5 of this bill prohibits any State employee or official in any capacity (including the Georgia National Guard when working under the direction of the Governor) from seizing, requiring registration of, or prohibiting the possession or carry of a firearm, even during a declared official state of emergency. It also provides two different legal remedies for people who are subject to officials violating this section, both by suing the people who violated this section and by petitioning the local court to get the gun back. Section 6 of this bill removes the Governor’s power to suspend or limit the sale, dispensing, or transportation of firearms. Both of these are again good reasons to pass this bill.
In conclusion, HB 615 really has a lot of GREAT things as far as gun rights are concerned. HOWEVER, it also presents an extremely troubling proposal in attempting to make who does or does not get a concealed weapons permit a State, rather than a local, decision. It is specifically because of this provision, encapsulated almost entirely within Sections 4 and 7 of this bill, that I must ultimately determine that this bill is NOT within the best interest of Georgians, and therefore I will work to OPPOSE this measure.
For the record though, the Secretary of State provision is put in place because a number of local probate courts drag their feet in issuing permits despite Georgia law. Since Georgia is a “Shall Issue” state, there isn’t any power to be grabbed from local governments, just what some may see as an unfunded mandate.
I’m personally mixed on the SoS office taking charge, since then the whole state can be delayed with the wrong Secretary in power, as opposed to just some living in gun-unfriendly areas.
I don’t have a real problem with the SOS issuing permits. Locals don’t issue driver’s licenses, fishing/hunting licenses, or professional licenses. Issuance by a state agency would be more uniform and less subject to the quirks of a local probate judge turning someone down for personal reasons or because he had a liberal streak. I’m not suggesting this is a problem, as I don’t know of a county in our area where this is happening.
As far as the rest of HB 615, I do think the ambiguity of “public gatherings” should be eliminated. The more places we can carry – the better. IIRC last year, permit holders were allowed to carry on MARTA. Despite predictions of shoot-outs and gun-slinging fire fights, it has been pretty quiet. Gun-free zones only benefit the bad guys.
Cartman,
615 DOES eliminate the entire “public gatherings” clause. Like I said, I do like at least the removal of the “good moral character” clause when allowing the SoS to do this, but I personally am very much a localist – I think government power should be on the level as close to the individual as possible.
Jeff. I did realize that 615 eliminated the public gatherings clause. I was just sloppy in wording my agreement. It should have read, “I do think…” instead of “I do think…”
As far as the Probate Judge vs. SOS, I really don’t have strong feelings about it. A liberal gun-hater could end up in either position and make life difficult. Perhaps the best approach would be to allow concealed carry without the necessity of a permit. Felons aren’t allowed to possess a firearm anyway. Heck. Other than being in proximity to prisoners, I don’t necessarily agree with even the prohibition in the courthouse. If someone is going to kill a judge, he can do it just as easily in the parking lot. As I said before, Gun-Free Zones provide a false sense of security.
When this used to be a free country – you could smoke a cigarette and carry a pistol on an airliner. Now we are sheep. …and no. I don’t smoke.
Jeff,
The problem is that there is no “government power” involved currently, except in violation of Georgia law. The probate courts don’t have a say in who gets a permit, the State of Georgia already does that currently. In addition, many probate judges are known to drag their feet in issuing Georgia Firearms Licenses (we don’t actually have a concealed carry permit, ours permits both open and concealed carry) for various reasons in direct violation of Georgia law. The proposed measure of moving it to the Secretary of State’s office is just an effort to prevent that.
What was missed, however, is what happens when you get an anti-gun SoS who drags their feet on all permits…for the entire state.