Georgia governor signs liberalizing concealed carry law

posted at 8:11 pm on April 24, 2014 by Erika Johnsen

The distraught opponents of the gun-rights legislation passed by the Georgia legislature last month and signed into law by Gov. Nathan Deal on Wednesday have dubbed the package the “guns everywhere bill.” I gather that the moniker is meant as a disparagement, but I don’t get that. Allowing responsible citizens to carry concealed firearms in more places, after all, is kinda’ the point.

House Bill 60, or the Safe Carry Protection Act of 2014 — which opponents have nicknamed the “guns everywhere bill” — specifies where Georgia residents can carry weapons. Included are provisions that allow residents who have concealed carry permits to take guns into some bars, churches, school zones, government buildings and certain parts of airports.

GeorgiaCarry, which lobbied for the bill, calls it “meaningful pro-gun legislation,” despite it being watered down from the group’s perspective. Still, the group has lauded the legislation, which will go into effect July 1. Americans for Responsible Solutions opposed the bill, calling it “extremism in action.”

Calling it “a great day to reaffirm our liberties,” Deal said the law allows residents to protect their families and expands the list of places where they can legally carry firearms, while allowing certain property owners, namely churches and bars, to make judgments on whether they want worshippers and patrons carrying guns.

“Roughly 500,000 Georgia citizens have a permit of this kind, which is approximately 5 percent of our population. License holders have passed background checks and are in good standing with the law. This law gives added protections to those who have played by the rules — and who can protect themselves and others from those who don’t play by the rules.”

The law will go into effect on July 1st and allow permit holders to brings their firearms into churches/bars/schools (although these establishments will be able to self-determine on an individual basis), the pre-TSA areas of airports, government buildings that don’t require security screening, as well as prohibit any kind of state database of licensed gun owners and eliminate the requirement that people renewing their permits must once again get fingerprinted. There’s plenty of the usual progressive outrage going around about the supposed dangers of extending gun rights to all of these ‘sensitive’ areas, particularly the bars/restaurants provision — but somehow Maine, Arizona, Tennessee, Virginia, Ohio, North Carolina, and recently South Carolina have all allowed permit holders to carry in establishments that serve alcohol (provided they don’t imbibe) without inspiring rashes of the mass drunken tough-guy shootouts that lefties claim to fear. Good for Georgia for getting on board.


Related Posts:

Breaking on Hot Air

Blowback

Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.

Trackbacks/Pings

Trackback URL

Comments

Good day for civil rights in GA.

crrr6 on April 24, 2014 at 8:17 PM

Supporters should have referred to it as the “victim armament” bill …

ShainS on April 24, 2014 at 8:18 PM

And on the very same day Gov. Janet Brewer vetoed much the same measures here in AZ.

She’s pathetic.

wolly4321 on April 24, 2014 at 8:20 PM

Good news for you Georgians.

Murphy9 on April 24, 2014 at 8:26 PM

Fear mongers lose.

They told us in Ohio that letting guns into bars would be the end of the world.

CW on April 24, 2014 at 8:28 PM

And on the very same day Gov. Janet Brewer vetoed much the same measures here in AZ.

She’s pathetic.

wolly4321 on April 24, 2014 at 8:20 PM

.
She did ? ! . . . . . What the hang is her explanation for that ?

listens2glenn on April 24, 2014 at 8:32 PM

Great news.

Went to a pizza joint in Virginia over Christmas, hadn’t realized open carry had passed. Another family walked in, father was carrying. Didn’t faze me at all. Couple of cops walk in, sit down nearby — and eat supper. Good times had by all.

rbj on April 24, 2014 at 8:34 PM

Only police officers and the BLM should be allowed to carry weapons into bars, churches and cattle ranches.

//nomispartisan and other lefty idjits

Dolce Far Niente on April 24, 2014 at 8:36 PM

Good day for civil rights in GA.

crrr6 on April 24, 2014 at 8:17 PM

Yes it is. Let’s call it the “Civil Rights Everywhere Bill”.

slickwillie2001 on April 24, 2014 at 8:40 PM

Great news for Georgia – and NC if there’s reciprocity. It IS for the children…

vnvet on April 24, 2014 at 8:40 PM

Maine, Arizona, Tennessee, Virginia, Ohio, North Carolina, and recently South Carolina have all allowed permit holders to carry in establishments that serve alcohol (provided they don’t imbibe) without inspiring rashes of the mass drunken tough-guy shootouts that lefties claim to fear.

Mass shootouts? No, that’s Chicago. A gun free city.

Happy Nomad on April 24, 2014 at 8:44 PM

The liberals here in GA are losing it. lol. I try to explain that Virginia, Ohio, and others have carry in bars and there hasn’t been any problems. It boils down to liberals don’t trust people. They want to use the government to control people’s actions. Never mind that concealed carry holders are responsible people in general.

Donald Draper on April 24, 2014 at 8:44 PM

A federal agency declaring entire state territory a federal reserve as a habitat of a rare Georgian mosquito in 5… 4… 3…

Rix on April 24, 2014 at 8:45 PM

she did ? ! . . . . . What the hang is her explanation for that ? listens2glenn on April 24, 2014 at 8:32 PM

She vetoed 3.

The main one on ccw holders carrying in public buildings, no reason.

Our state Constitution doesn’t allow cities or Counties to enact gun laws hasher than State laws. The new law would have fined lawmakers $5k for trying to. She said it wasn’t needed.

3rd one was to make it aggravated assault to attack a legally carrying person to get thier weapon. She said it’s already against the law.

That one especially bothers me. An unarmed person attacks me trying to get my gun and I shoot them? This would have added a layer of legal protection.

Brewer is a hack.

wolly4321 on April 24, 2014 at 8:46 PM

Jim56 would advocate that only cops should carry guns, and execute citizens as necessary.

Bishop on April 24, 2014 at 8:47 PM

The GOP there should have named it the..

“Good Manners Incentive Bill”

KirknBurker on April 24, 2014 at 8:49 PM

For the record, you can’t carry in a bar in AZ. But you can in restraunts that serve alcohol.

wolly4321 on April 24, 2014 at 8:49 PM

They told us in Ohio that letting guns into bars would be the end of the world.

CW on April 24, 2014 at 8:28 PM

Oh please! OSU losing to Michigan is deemed the end of the world. The Browns moving to Baltimore was the end of the world.

Ohio going for Obama twice….. well that was the end of the world. Thanks a lot you all for being so goddamned stupid. Obamaphone lady is the epitome of your state.

Happy Nomad on April 24, 2014 at 8:49 PM

Hey, if Christ sent out the Apostles with swords, I think we can let people who have no violent felony convictions to carry concealed in more places.

KirknBurker on April 24, 2014 at 8:50 PM

Guns in school should be a no no anywhere. Guns in hospitals. Guns in court. All bad ideas. But I don’t live in Georgia. So I am not going to think about it too much.

coolrepublica on April 24, 2014 at 8:50 PM

…good for the Gov!

KOOLAID2 on April 24, 2014 at 8:54 PM

coolrepublica on April 24, 2014 at 8:50 PM

All of your arguments will work only in utopia.

The only way to stop a bad guy with a gun is to have a good guy with a gun.

cozmo on April 24, 2014 at 8:54 PM

jim56 would advocate that only cops should carry guns, and execute citizens as necessary. Bishop on April 24, 2014 at 8:47 PM

I’m not arguing with you anymore, I’m done! /

;)

wolly4321 on April 24, 2014 at 8:54 PM

; )

Bmore on April 24, 2014 at 8:56 PM

Went to a pizza joint in Virginia over Christmas, hadn’t realized open carry had passed. Another family walked in, father was carrying. Didn’t faze me at all. Couple of cops walk in, sit down nearby — and eat supper. Good times had by all.

rbj on April 24, 2014 at 8:34 PM

Open carry, even in places that serve alcohol, has been legal in Virginia for a long time. What was illegal was concealed carry in those places. Concealed carry was only recently legalized in places serving alcohol.

Oldnuke on April 24, 2014 at 8:56 PM

coolrepublica on April 24, 2014 at 8:50 PM

The law will go into effect on July 1st and allow permit holders to brings their firearms into churches/bars/schools (although these establishments will be able to self-determine on an individual basis), the pre-TSA areas of airports, government buildings that don’t require security screening

Did you not read the post?

Barred on April 24, 2014 at 9:00 PM

I’ve never carried a .22LR 5 shot North American revolver in my front right pocket in to a bar. Ever.

wolly4321 on April 24, 2014 at 9:01 PM

Guns in school should be a no no anywhere. Guns in hospitals. Guns in court. All bad ideas. But I don’t live in Georgia. So I am not going to think about it too much.

coolrepublica on April 24, 2014 at 8:50 PM

That’s what the shooters at Columbine and Newton were counting on.

Capitalist Infidel on April 24, 2014 at 9:02 PM

@Oldnuke, thanks, hadn’t lived in the Old Dominion since the mid-90s, hadn’t seen it before, even though it’s Newport News — lots of military (Navy)

rbj on April 24, 2014 at 9:03 PM

liberals don’t trust themselves. They project their craven depravity onto everyone else.

Murphy9 on April 24, 2014 at 9:08 PM

An armed society is a polite society.
Robert A. Heinlein

This explains why liberals are such @$$wholes and why they want guns banned.

SupplyGuy on April 24, 2014 at 9:10 PM

I’m probably going to catch some heat for saying this from some people,but I object to the stipulation that if one carries in businesses that serve alcohol then they cannot drink alcohol. I don’t see any problem with me going into my favorite pub (as I often do) and having a burger and a beer while carrying. Why should I have to leave it at home over one beer? I can drink a beer and not go crazy and start shooting people. Why should I be less free to defend myself just because of a harmless choice of beverage.

The individual business should be free to set its own policies, of course, but if it’s fine with them, the law should not interfere.

WhatSlushfund on April 24, 2014 at 9:17 PM

Cool is still an idiot.

CW on April 24, 2014 at 9:19 PM

Should have called it the “Victims Protection Act.

Much more true than the false names the left gives to laws such as “Affordable Care Act”.

IrishEyes on April 24, 2014 at 9:22 PM

I think only skeet guns should be allowed in bars as I understand they lack killing power.

Dolce Far Niente on April 24, 2014 at 9:34 PM

Victims Protection Act is the perfect name. We should be honest about what these actually are about instead of the lying Affordable Care Act. Everyone should be taught to carry and shoot accurately to protect themselves , it is our right and obligation to take care of ourselves. Teach them young and teach them right. Protect themselves and there will be less crime happening i the streets.

Duna on April 24, 2014 at 9:35 PM

In my world, you would need a permit to NOT carry a gun…

PointnClick on April 24, 2014 at 9:37 PM

This law has nothing to do with concealed carry. It is just about carry. Georgia has no distinction between open and concealed carry.

In Georgia, it isn’t illegal to carry while drinking or even drunk (unless hunting). This law just lets you carry in a place that have sales of more than 50% drinks. Before this law, it was difficult/impossible to know if you are entering a “bar” or a restaurant.

wambat on April 24, 2014 at 9:42 PM

Very good! We need more laws like this that reaffirm the rights of law-abiding citizens instead of further restricting then.

WhatSlushfund on April 24, 2014 at 9:17 PM

In most states, you’re just required to secure it in your vehicle. Unfortunately, intoxicants like alcohol and marijuana distinctly and empirically affect imbibers’ judgment. While you and I might find a single beer insignificant, a 90lb first-time drinker might not. Same idea of why I don’t think you should be allowed to operate a 3000lb kinetic weapon loaded with 20-30 gallons of incendiary while intoxicated.

Asurea on April 24, 2014 at 9:45 PM

In my world, you would need a permit to NOT carry a gun…
PointnClick on April 24, 2014 at 9:37 PM

Personally believe that if you aren’t a convicted violent felon, you should be able to carry anything you can prove you can maintain well and utilize effectively (accuracy).

Asurea on April 24, 2014 at 9:48 PM

WhatSlushfund on April 24, 2014 at 9:17 PM

Got no problem w/ it.

bernzright777 on April 24, 2014 at 9:48 PM

Unfortunately, intoxicants like alcohol and marijuana distinctly and empirically affect imbibers’ judgment. While you and I might find a single beer insignificant, a 90lb first-time drinker might not. Same idea of why I don’t think you should be allowed to operate a 3000lb kinetic weapon loaded with 20-30 gallons of incendiary while intoxicated.

Asurea on April 24, 2014 at 9:45 PM

That’s going to be the obvious counter-argument. The ‘where do you draw the line’ argument.

I would say that when it comes to arms there should be no lines (and this is totally putting aside the fact that the Second Amendment explicitly makes illegal any restrictions on arms – no matter what the Supreme Court compromised losers might claim – even “3000lb kinetic weapons loaded with 20-30 gallons of incendiary,” whatever those are.)

There are built-in human safeguards. How many times have you seen a bar fight break out – in other words, only fighting with fists – where people didn’t jump in and cool things out. Same thing with guns. If some 90lb first-time drinker got stupid with his or her gun (I don’t know many 90lb first-time-drinking 21-year olds), then some other armed person could take them out. It doesn’t matter if it’s with fists or guns. As long as the other patrons have the freedom to have guns.

If you’re going to act like an idiot while drunk, whether with a gun or anything else, then you deserve what you get. I drink like a fish, and have been in plenty of bar brawls (none of which I’ve started — I’ve always been on the jumping-in side) but whether with fists, knives or guns, just like anything else it’s a self-policing situation. Anyone dumb enough to start drunkenly waving their gun around in a bar and threatening people deserves to go down.

And besides, anyone dumb enough to do that would do it anyway, regardless of the law. And lots of people drink with guns outside of bars and could do the same thing if they wanted to. Isolating the law to only within bars makes no sense.

WhatSlushfund on April 24, 2014 at 10:45 PM

“3000lb kinetic weapons loaded with 20-30 gallons of incendiary,” whatever those are.)

They’re called “cars.” ;-)

CDeb on April 24, 2014 at 10:57 PM

…even “3000lb kinetic weapons loaded with 20-30 gallons of incendiary,” whatever those are.

…A car. Think about it.

And besides, anyone dumb enough to do that would do it anyway, regardless of the law. And lots of people drink with guns outside of bars and could do the same thing if they wanted to. Isolating the law to only within bars makes no sense.
WhatSlushfund on April 24, 2014 at 10:45 PM

Bars are concentrations of people with inhibited decision-making capabilities. You, yourself, indicated that you’ve been in several bar brawls. When was the last time you had that problem at a restaurant or the like? Besides, the assumption is that you’ll get out of the car sober, and leave your weapon there before you get plastered.

I’d have an issue with a federal law limiting anything that isn’t CBNR, but as a state law, I find this perfectly acceptable.

Asurea on April 24, 2014 at 10:59 PM

They’re called “cars.” ;-)

CDeb on April 24, 2014 at 10:57 PM

Oh. Heh.

WhatSlushfund on April 24, 2014 at 11:04 PM

I’d have an issue with a federal law limiting anything that isn’t CBNR, but as a state law, I find this perfectly acceptable.

Asurea on April 24, 2014 at 10:59 PM

Ok, possibly dumb question: what is ‘CBNR’?

WhatSlushfund on April 24, 2014 at 11:07 PM

Ok, possibly dumb question: what is ‘CBNR’?
WhatSlushfund on April 24, 2014 at 11:07 PM

Not that dumb, really, as it’s a fairly specific term. The acronym refers to “Chemical, Biological, Nuclear, and Radiological”, specifically weapons in those categories.

Asurea on April 24, 2014 at 11:12 PM

I’d have an issue with a federal law limiting anything that isn’t CBNR, but as a state law, I find this perfectly acceptable.

Asurea on April 24, 2014 at 10:59 PM

Ok, possibly dumb question: what is ‘CBNR’?

WhatSlushfund on April 24, 2014 at 11:07 PM

Not that dumb, really, as it’s a fairly specific term. The acronym refers to “Chemical, Biological, Nuclear, and Radiological”, specifically weapons in those categories.

Asurea on April 24, 2014 at 11:12 PM

Ah, very interesting. I just learned something. Anyway, on what Constitutional basis would you argue that the Federal Government has the right to limit CBNRs?

Also, how would you argue that states have the right to override the Constitution?

WhatSlushfund on April 24, 2014 at 11:20 PM

Jim56 would advocate that only cops should carry guns, and execute citizens as necessary. groups of criminals who aim guns at cops.

Bishop on April 24, 2014 at 8:47 PM

Fixed it for you.

jim56 on April 24, 2014 at 11:54 PM

There are built-in human safeguards. How many times have you seen a bar fight break out – in other words, only fighting with fists – where people didn’t jump in and cool things out. Same thing with guns. If some 90lb first-time drinker got stupid with his or her gun (I don’t know many 90lb first-time-drinking 21-year olds), then some other armed person could take them out. It doesn’t matter if it’s with fists or guns. As long as the other patrons have the freedom to have guns.

If you’re going to act like an idiot while drunk, whether with a gun or anything else, then you deserve what you get. I drink like a fish, and have been in plenty of bar brawls (none of which I’ve started — I’ve always been on the jumping-in side) but whether with fists, knives or guns, just like anything else it’s a self-policing situation. Anyone dumb enough to start drunkenly waving their gun around in a bar and threatening people deserves to go down.

And besides, anyone dumb enough to do that would do it anyway, regardless of the law. And lots of people drink with guns outside of bars and could do the same thing if they wanted to. Isolating the law to only within bars makes no sense.

WhatSlushfund on April 24, 2014 at 10:45 PM

Great. So another armed and possibly drunk patron might decide to take out (presumably with a gun) the drunk first patron waving his gun around. Yeah. No chance at all that a few people get shot when all that occurs. And no chance at all that some people might get uncomfortable going into bars in Georgia. And I guess there’s no ability of individual property owners to decide how they want to use their own property because the state government is ordering them to do this.

jim56 on April 24, 2014 at 11:58 PM

Jim56 would advocate that cops should carry guns, and execute groups of criminals who aim guns at cops.

jim56 on April 24, 2014 at 11:54 PM

Therefore, “ordinary”, law-abiding, citizens have a right to carry also, correct? (Let’s call it a “right to bear arms”)

mockmook on April 25, 2014 at 12:14 AM

Ah, very interesting. I just learned something. Anyway, on what Constitutional basis would you argue that the Federal Government has the right to limit CBNRs?
Also, how would you argue that states have the right to override the Constitution?
WhatSlushfund on April 24, 2014 at 11:20 PM

“Arms” is generally understood to mean “personal weapons”. Very, very few private citizens have the ability to properly store things such as weaponized biological agents and VX, and I can see no purpose of personal liberty that can be served by such weapons. Really, the entire class of weapons I’m talking about were envisioned and designed to wipe out large populations of civilians. It’s bad enough they exist at all, and they thankfully seem destined to be used only as part of a “mutually assured destruction” deterrent.

Weaponized biological agents, by the way, pose a real threat to our entire species, and are impossible to control or limit.

The feds are trying to redefine this class of weapons to include normal high and low impulse explosives, but I disagree with that and believe any law abiding citizen should be able to own such materials.

As to the states versus the Constitution, I have always understood the Constitution as specifying the specific duties of the federal government, with all other rights being reserved to the states or the people. The Bill of Rights was intended to explicitly limit the federal government. If Georgia’s state Constitution permits the law, then I believe it is acceptable.

Asurea on April 25, 2014 at 12:20 AM

jim56 on April 24, 2014 at 11:58 PM

You’re not actually paying attention. The law in question does bar drinking and carrying, and does allow owners to bar carrying within their establishment.

Asurea on April 25, 2014 at 12:22 AM

And no chance at all that some people might get uncomfortable going into bars in Georgia.

jim56 on April 24, 2014 at 11:58 PM

I’m glad that you brought this point up actually. From a business perspective, I bet if it were legally possible for there to be gun-friendly bars, not just in Georgia but everywhere, that would increase business. I’d personally feel much more comfortable in a gun-friendly place than another one of these *yawn* “gun free” zones, where you’re a sitting duck.

Profit + security. Libs hate that concept. Watching their heads explode alone at such a thing would be worth the door charge.

WhatSlushfund on April 25, 2014 at 12:30 AM

It’s a shame that Georgia had to write this piece of legislation in the first place, we are human beings and should not be treated like barnyard animals, fenced, herded, then fed political slop.
There should not be laws that infringe on any of our constitutional rights.
If you don’t like guns move to the UK.
If you want “free” healthcare move to Canada.
There are several other halfwit nations are out there with a boutique of oppressive practices … try Venezuela for sucky reality.

kregg on April 25, 2014 at 5:31 AM

jim56 on April 24, 2014 at 11:58 PM

Do such bars frisk their patrons? Just wondering how they know. Probably have incredible super powers like you?

CW on April 25, 2014 at 7:18 AM

I love this. I’m all for it. Responsible gun owners are just that, responsible.

neyney on April 25, 2014 at 11:40 AM

Jim56 would advocate that cops should carry guns, and execute groups of criminals who aim guns at cops.

jim56 on April 24, 2014 at 11:54 PM

Therefore, “ordinary”, law-abiding, citizens have a right to carry also, correct? (Let’s call it a “right to bear arms”)

mockmook on April 25, 2014 at 12:14 AM

And so do cops and federal officers, who also have rights.

jim56 on April 25, 2014 at 1:08 PM

I’m glad that you brought this point up actually. From a business perspective, I bet if it were legally possible for there to be gun-friendly bars, not just in Georgia but everywhere, that would increase business. I’d personally feel much more comfortable in a gun-friendly place than another one of these *yawn* “gun free” zones, where you’re a sitting duck.

Profit + security. Libs hate that concept. Watching their heads explode alone at such a thing would be worth the door charge.

WhatSlushfund on April 25, 2014 at 12:30 AM

A few communities where I live give bars the option to let people smoke in them. There are generally fewer people in those bars.

jim56 on April 25, 2014 at 1:09 PM