Half Off Depot Atlanta
 

Most Viewed

Top 6 articles this week:

Top Rated

Top 5 recent articles:

Advertisement
ACC

Current Articles | Categories | Search | Syndication

Gun Loving Sons-of-Guns

How different is Georgia’s attitude about guns from those of other states?


Local gun store Tucker Gun’s Glock kiosk.
Spark St. Jude

By Chuck Stanley

In the final days of Georgia’s most recent legislative session, the state Senate issued a resolution affirming, in part, that “further infringements [by the federal government] on the right to keep and bear arms” would “constitute a nullification of the Constitution for the United States of America by the government of the United States of America.”

In other words, if the United States Congress passes gun-control legislation overriding Georgia’s relatively lax regulations, the state Senate is prepared to see Georgia secede from the union.

This is roughly the same nullification argument that helped catapult the nation into civil war during the 19th century. What the senators who passed this resolution hope to accomplish by resuscitating the idea of nullification is unclear. What is clear, though, is Georgia’s seriousness about allowing its citizens to pack heat.

While gun-control advocates bemoan Georgia’s lack of gun regulation, some politicians in the state are convinced that our current gun laws are too oppressive. Rep. Tim Bearden (R-Villa Rica), who sponsored last year’s gun legislation allowing firearms in restaurants and state parks, this year sponsored what would be the most sweeping gun legislation to hit the state in decades.

If passed, House Bill 615 would allow concealed weapons at public gatherings and bars, provide for the issuance of lifetime conceal-and-carry permits, and prohibit any representative of the state from seizing or limiting the sale of firearms during a state of emergency. Although the bill did not make it to a vote in the recent legislative session, Bearden hopes to reintroduce it when the House reconvenes.

Considering the recent talk of nullification coming from the General Assembly, the language protecting gun owners during a state of emergency may conjure images of Georgia residents in an armed uprising, possibly in response to gun-control legislation, against their government. Bearden, however, says his concern over gun rights during a state of emergency grew from the response to Hurricane Katrina in New Orleans.

“Law enforcement officers were out there taking firearms away from law-abiding citizens,” Bearden says. “In a federal emergency, that is when you need your firearms the most.”

In addition to his stance that guns should be allowed nearly anywhere in the state, and under any circumstances, Bearden opposes laws that support tracking guns used in crime with minimal inconvenience to law-abiding gun owners. One such measure, ammunition coding, would make it easier for law enforcement to trace the origin of bullets fired during the commission of a crime.

“It’s tracking a person who’s doing something that’s lawful,” he says of ammunition coding. “We’re trying to punish law-abiding citizens for the actions of criminals, and that is not the way to do things.”

Bearden says he supports the state Senate’s statement against federal action on gun control, and was a proponent of similar resolutions from the House.

“The folks on the federal level,” he says, “need to take a little bit of time and read the Constitution, I think, because they have totally lost all sense of reality when it comes to the Second Amendment.”

GEORGIA LAGS IN REGULATION


Doug Pennington, with the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence, finds it curious when gun-rights supporters rail against federal gun-control measures, considering how few such measures there are.

“What people don’t realize, at the national level, at least, is that I can count the federal gun laws on the books on one hand. I don’t even need all five fingers to do it,” he says, quickly rattling off the 1934 ban on machine guns, the Gun Control Act of 1968 prohibiting gun sales to felons, and the Brady Law, which requires licensed gun dealers to perform criminal background checks.

“There are so few [federal laws] to evade in the first place,” he says. “What are you going to do in the state of Georgia, not run a criminal background check on people?”

The lack of federal regulation leaves individual states largely on their own when it comes to legislating gun sales. In Georgia’s case, that means very little control. Georgia currently sits in the bottom third of a yearly report released by the Brady Campaign, earning seven points out of 100 for legislation aimed at preventing gun violence. Georgia cracked the bottom third last year when Governor Perdue signed legislation preventing employers from forbidding guns in business parking lots and allowing concealed weapons to be carried on public transit and in restaurants.

Georgia’s ranking, tied for 33rd with Kansas and Tennessee, places it among the least regulated states in the nation when it comes to guns. In some ways, says Pennington, Georgia is even worse than the company it keeps on the yearly scorecard.

“At least the state of Texas [for example] requires 10 hours of training before you can get a conceal-and-carry permit,” he says.

The lack of effort to regulate gun sales in Georgia has effects beyond the state line. Georgia’s absence of restrictions on bulk purchases and universal background checks facilitate what is called the “iron pipeline,” where guns bought in bulk from Southern states are transported and sold in states with tougher gun laws. In 2007, the Brady Center identified Georgia as the leading source of recovered guns used in crimes in the United States.

Pennington, speaking on a day when a bill aimed at limiting credit card issuance passed through the U.S. Congress despite a tacked-on clause allowing guns to be carried in national parks, believes that with the proper safeguards, America can drastically reduce gun violence while respecting the Second Amendment. We know how to do this, says Pennington. We simply have to enforce the laws.

“Guns aren’t heroin,” he says. “Heroin is immediately illegal, as soon as it’s created. But guns are a legal product. … States like Georgia really don’t care about how guns end up going from licensed gun dealers into the hands of gun traffickers and into the hands of criminals.” SP
Rating:

"What the senators who passed this resolution hope to accomplish by resuscitating the idea of nullification is unclear." The states can get together and have the constitution amended. Several state legislators across the country are already discussing this as it relates to taxes, guns, and other issues. There are more red states than blue states, so despite those states being more sparsely populated, this makes it completely possible. At some point the federal government will push too far. The 10th amendment was written for a reason. War between the states unnecessary.

jtjathomps
Sunday, June 07, 2009 at 2:26 AM


This quote is from the author, not someone interviewed for the story: "...Bearden opposes laws that support tracking guns used in crime with minimal inconvenience to law-abiding gun owners. One such measure, ammunition coding, would make it easier for law enforcement to trace the origin of bullets fired during the commission of a crime."

Is this an opinion piece? The author's calling ammunition coding a "minimal inconvenience." A law forcing ammunition coding would have the effect of raising ammo costs substantially for law abiding shooters. Limiting access to ammo by making it prohibitively expensive -- I wouldn't call that a "minimal inconvenience."

Danieljalmond2004@yahoo.com
Sunday, June 07, 2009 at 3:54 AM


"...his stance that guns should be allowed nearly anywhere in the state, and under any circumstances"

Why not? The criminals do. That is the key point. The "gun free zones" only work for the criminal, who cares not for laws. The law abiding citizen is just victim when he can't defend himself.

citizen
Sunday, June 07, 2009 at 7:10 AM


Ignoring the obvious Bias from the author....
I would like for the author to list all Public Gatherings under Georgia Law.
Please be thorough. This way instead of repealing a law that is unclear, vague, and yes, Racist . I can just follow the law.

GunMonkey
Sunday, June 07, 2009 at 10:40 AM


"... Georgia’s relatively lax regulations..."
What?
Out of the 48 states that allow law abiding citizens to carry firearms, Georgia is among only 12 that prohibit carry in publicly owned buildings; one out of only 23 that prohibit carry in bars; one out of only 5 that prohibit carry in churches; one out of only 10 that prohibit carry in sporting/entertainment events; and 17 states allow carry at colleges/universities - including California!!!

Did the writers only measure of "lax" come after drinking the Brady cool-aid? Give me a break!

GooberTim
Sunday, June 07, 2009 at 11:28 AM


Edit above post to include that Georgia prohibits carry at colleges/university.

GooberTim
Sunday, June 07, 2009 at 11:31 AM


1. I think if you're going to have carry-permits, you should be allowed to carry. I thought it ridiculous, and to be honest, discriminatory, that up until this year, you couldn't carry on MARTA. So, that meant it left single women defenseless both downtown, and in outlying areas, often coming back & having to walk home alone, in the dark.

2. It's crazy not having everyone pass a gun-handling/safety class before being issued a permit! Just crazy, absolutely!

3. There should be "reasonable" regulations in place, ie, closing the gun show loophole, denying quantity purchases at one time, registration of guns, for easier tracing after crimes, etc.

4. I wish the NRA, and other "gun nuts", would get over trying to use fear tactics, "the govt. is going to take our guns away", and get real. That ain't gonna happen, ever, and even President Obama has stated that, as clearly as possible. It would be an impossible act to accomplish, even if it were ever ordered, & if it were, it would NOT be because we've allowed some sensible gun regulations to be instated!

5. At the same time, I wish the extreme "anti-gun nuts" would accept that the "horse is out of the barn", and guns aren't going to go away, not in this country, especially not during tough economic times, and police budgets being hacked away.

Perhaps one day, we can drop all the posturing on both of the extremes, meet in the realistic, and pragmatic middle, and agree to a set of laws & rules that don't restrict law-abiding citizens from owning and carrying a firearm, but do provide for adequate training in their use, prevent access by criminals, & allow law enforcement tools for tracking down the ownership of guns used in violent crimes.

Then we'll all be safer, and the bickering could finally come to an end....

SaxnFlutman
Sunday, June 07, 2009 at 4:10 PM


Gee Chuck...yer an idiot.

had you actually RESEARCHED your story you would know you can carry in a bar NOW.

I suppose you are one of those who thinks guns cause crime....well allow me to enlighten you, guns cause crime in the same way that spoons cause Rosie O'Donnel to be fat and stupid.

A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the People to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

What part of this isn't in English? If you don't like it, get it repealed.

I have a concealed carry permit and I exercise that right whenever I leave my home. I have the right to protect myself, my property and my loved ones with deadly force, if this makes you uncomfortable one can only wonder if, at some point, you might plan to threaten my life, property or loved ones.

God help you if you do.

MikeSouth
Sunday, June 07, 2009 at 7:11 PM


I might also add that it is NOT illegal to own or purchase a machine gun. The federal law passed in 1969 only limited which machine guns could be bought and sold, so long as you comply with Federal law and get the stamp both machine guns and silencers are perfectly legal. Where the Federal law goes wrong is in limiting which ones.

Also what Mr Bearden is proposing isn't a prelude to secession, it is a declaration affirming the notion of the 9th and 10th amendments. more than a third of the states now have similar laws on the books or are in the process of passing them.

now pull your cranium out of your posterior and research your story next time

Mike South

A Gun Totin, Libertarian Pornographer

MikeSouth
Sunday, June 07, 2009 at 7:20 PM


First off, thanks to each of you for taking such an interest in this story. Let me address a few of your comments and concerns.

Jeff, you are pretty much on target, but I don't see anything in this particular resolution that leads me to believe those who signed it are seeking an amendment to the US Constitution. You can read SR 632 in its entirety at the address below.
<http://www.legis.ga.gov/legis/2009_10/fulltext/sr632.htm>

Daniel, higher costs associated with ammunition encoding are certainly a valid concern. However, I would argue that a focus on tracking guns would create substantially fewer obstacles to gun ownership than restricting access to firearms would. I had no intention of implying that encoding is widely accepted by gun rights advocates.

George, the Official Code of Georgia states "A person shall be guilty of a misdemeanor when he or she carries to or while at a public gathering any explosive compound, firearm, or knife designed for the purpose of offense and defense. (b)For the purpose of this Code section, 'public gathering' shall include, but shall not be limited to, athletic or sporting events, churches or church functions, political rallies or functions, publicly owned or operated buildings, or establishments at which alcoholic beverages are sold for consumption on the premises and which derive less than 50 percent of their total annual gross food and beverage sales from the sale of prepared meals or food."

Tim, "relatively lax regulation" does not mean that Georgia's gun laws are the most lenient in the nation across all categories. Rather, on the whole, Georgia lacks the type of regulation that one would find in states less concerned with gun owners' rights and more concerned with gun control. Iowa, for example, does not have the same requirements as Georgia for state licensing, record keeping and retention of gun dealers. However, employers are not required to allow firearms on their premises, deadly force is not considered a valid first resort in public places, and the state requires a permit for purchase of handguns at gun shows. The difference between Georgia and the strictest states, including California, is even more pronounced.
The Brady Foundation, whose pro-gun control stance is pretty straight forward, provides some of the most comprehensive information regarding state gun laws. The yearly interstate comparisons, of themselves, are not necessarily biased. I would think Georgia's ranking on such a list would be as much reason for celebration amongst the state's staunchest gun rights advocates as it is a source of frustration amongst local supporters of tough gun control.

Mike, thanks to you especially for your insightful comments. Fear not, I have no interest in your life property or loved ones. I do, however question your practice of wishing God's help upon those who might want to do you harm.

Thank you for helping to clarify that the National Firearms Act of 1934, sometimes referred to as "the machine gun ban" and alluded to as such in this piece, does not actually ban machine guns, but instead severely limits their accessibility to the general public.

If you refer to the definition of "public gathering" above, you will see that weapons are prohibited in establishments whose alcohol accounts for over 50 percent of their sales. Essentially, this means you can carry a gun into a restaurant that serves alcohol, but not most bars. I can see where your confusion comes from.

Additionally, I should note that Tim Bearden did not propose the resolution (SR 632) mentioned at the start of the piece but does support it. And in fairness to Representative Bearden, he specifically stated to me that he does not feel comfortable advocating secession. The argument for nullification, based on the ninth and 10th amendments does date back to the early 19th century and was an important argument supporting the right of states to leave the union. The willingness of Georgia's elected representatives to revisit such a contentious issue, right or wrong, partly in anticipation of federal gun legislation serves to illustrate their tenacious dedication to gun rights.

Finally, my cranium is quite comfortable in its present position, though I appreciate your concern. I take pride in the research I do for each story I write. Best of luck with regard to your gun totin', porno and libertarianism. Keep reading.

I hope this clears up any concerns. I look forward to all of your comments on the next story.

Thanks,
Chuck Stanley



Anonymous
Monday, June 08, 2009 at 5:38 PM


Steven, I neglected to mention your post. Thanks for writing and for adding your perspective. I like your assumption that each side of the argument has some inherent truth behind it, which also presupposes each side is partly wrong. I tend to find this method of argument more productive than digging in one's heels and hurling insults.
Thanks,
Chuck Stanley

Chuck Stanley
Monday, June 08, 2009 at 6:02 PM


Chuck: I know what the laws says, I've read it on the back of my license a few times while bored. The key phrase is "but shall not be limited to,"

Is a Movie Theatre a Public Gathering? How about a Car Show? We already know that the restrooms at an Interstate rest area already are. Nobody is forcing people to own or carry firearms. Just that those of us who wish to protect ourselves and our loved one can in those location where criminals, who by definition do not follow the law, can carry their firearms.

When I was going to school we were taught that journalism is the 5W's and How. That opinions and Bias should be left to the Opinion and letters to the editor. Unfortunately that practice seems to have fallen from favor in the media of today.

GunMonkey
Monday, June 08, 2009 at 8:44 PM


Also you write "
Georgia’s ranking, tied for 33rd with Kansas and Tennessee, places it among the least regulated states in the nation when it comes to guns. In some ways, says Pennington, Georgia is even worse than the company it keeps on the yearly scorecard."

Did you research what the crime rates were in places with poor brady scores, and those with high brady scores? Places that antecdotally have near mythological crime rates such as DC, and Illinois always seem to rank the best on the brady scorecard.

GunMonkey
Monday, June 08, 2009 at 8:52 PM


George, Thanks again for your continued interest in this story. I take it as a great compliment that you have become so engrossed. I'm sure, as someone with a keen interest in the principals of journalism, you understand that it would be irresponsible for me to give you legal advice or attempt to interpret specific verbiage within the law. For your concerns about where you can legally carry your gun, your best bet would be to consult with an attorney, a law enforcement official or both. I didn't delve into that for this story, which was about dissatisfaction from both sides of the debate with Georgia's current gun laws at a time when fear of federal gun restrictions by gun rights advocates seems equaled only by frustration from gun control advocates over their own lack of progress made at the federal level. Attitudes of those I spoke with toward Georgia's laws were shaped by the scope of regulation and general philosophy toward gun ownership and preventing gun violence, rather than poor wording within the existing bill. This is not a bad idea for a story, but it is not what this specific story was about.

As for violent crime and Brady rankings, the FBI has a wealth of readily available data on crime by state. There is no clearly identifiable correlation between Brady rankings and crime stats. For 2007, the most recent year complete information is available, the five states behind D.C. in violent crime/100,000 people are South Carolina, Tennessee, Nevada, Louisiana and Florida. I discount D.C. and its astronomic crime rate because contrary to your assertion, Brady does not rank it, as it is not a state. This leads me to wonder if you are perhaps looking at some other ranking that I am not familiar with.

Anyway, Louisiana sits at the bottom of the Brady rankings, while Tennessee and Florida sit in the bottom third at 33 (tied with GA and Montana) and 36 respectively. South Carolina, in a four way tie for 27, and Nevada, three way tie for 23, straddle the middle of the pack. That states with similar crime rates don't fall together on the Brady score card leaves me with the impression that a wide variety of factors contribute to violent crime. Although you could interpret the data to say that gun laws don't effect crime rates at all, I would consider this a bold and not all together responsible conclusion to make about a variable that cannot be isolated. It should be noted that of the top 10 scoring Brady states, only Maryland ranks in the top ten states for violent crime. Once again, this correlation, or lack there of, would be an interesting topic to investigate for a story. However, it was not the topic of this story.

I have enjoyed this discourse and am glad to have had the time to address some of your concerns. However, I likely will not have the time to comment further. Feel free to take the last word, and keep reading.

Thanks,
Chuck Stanley

Chuck Stanley
Tuesday, June 09, 2009 at 1:12 PM


Not to ruffle your trigger finger there Mike but wouldn't a nullification of the Constitution include the 9th and 10th amendment's?

The General Assembly had succession on the brain in the last session. They kinda glanced over the whole Marta going bankrupt thing and introduced a whole slew of, trying to put this lightly... unimportant legislation.

My favorite being HR 21 from our friends in the former Milton County. Not only that they commissioned a $250,000 study to be done by GSU and UGA to tell them exactly how much it was going to cost them to 'succeed' from Fulton County.

The Crafty legislation would also allow them to do so without having a vote in Fulton. ie: If you live in a geographical region, draw a line, have a vote, and wala, New county.

http://www.georgiaonlinenews.com/templates/gonso_greensheet.cfm?editionid=87&storyid=320&id=0

I have no doubt that the State Legislature has seriously considered succession more than once in the last few years cause they sure as hell aren't thinking about infrastructure.

As a personal preference I don't carry a gun. I can assume there are a ton of idiots out there armed to the teeth and then a handful of responsible, trained gun owners here and there.

I fear my Government more than the idiot's or those who hunt them so 'carry' on.

Personally, I'd like to see the General Assembly to spend at least 5 minutes on something to do with Economics before we get out of this decade.

I doubt it will happen.

Turner Knapp

neoturner
Tuesday, June 09, 2009 at 5:58 PM


Ugh I apologize for the over use of the apostrophe. Been doing that a lot lately. Politics has a lot of possession. 9 Tenths of the law right!

neoturner
Tuesday, June 09, 2009 at 10:07 PM


Hey Chuck,
Your bias is showing. Is that intentional?
"GEORGIA LAGS IN REGULATION"
Wrong.
Is this a race to have unconstitutional laws?
"George leads in regulation" because we have less.


notahemi
Friday, June 12, 2009 at 8:16 AM


Hi, Notahemi:

While I'm sure Chuck is happy to defend any part of his story, it doesn't seem right to ask him to take heat for something he didn't do. It was I who inserted that "Georgia lags in regulation" subhead you've taken issue with.

Thanks for reading!

Kevin Moreau
Editor

Kevin Moreau
Friday, June 12, 2009 at 11:31 AM


Ammo tagging is not "minimal intrusion" -- it requires expensive changes to the design of guns. A single company owns the patent - can you say "special interest pleading?" Any criminal who wants to avoid having his ammo microstamped can a) obtain one of a hundred million older weapons, or b) file off the bit which stamps the ammo. The bill serves only three purposes: to make the company which owns the patent rich; to increase the cost of new weapons; and to make hoplophobes happy. This proposal is utterly worthless, arrant nonsense. How can the Sunday Paper endorse it in the slightest degree?

terrymac
Friday, June 19, 2009 at 12:16 PM


The Brady spokesman claimed that federal regulation of firearms is almost non-existent. Suggest you do some research with people who know the field a lot better than the Brady Campaign, which basically recycles lies as sound bites. Among other things: federal regulation now prohibits mail-order sales of firearms. One used to be able to order a rifle from Sears and have it shipped to one's door. It must now be shipped to a federally licensed dealer. If this has in any way stopped criminals from obtaining weapons on the street, I surely would like to know. It is purely an inconvenience to law-abiding gun owners.

terrymac
Friday, June 19, 2009 at 12:28 PM


You must be logged in to post a comment. You can log in here.

The Sunday Paper actively moderates site content.
Offensive material will be removed.
However, user comments on display do not necessarily reflect the opinions of the Sunday Paper or its staff.

 
Advertisement
Art Institute
Advertisement
Zifty
Advertisement
Sharp Residential Banner Block
 
RSSTwitterFacebookMySpaceVirb