"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State..."

The whole idea of the Second Amendment is that the people themselves form a well regulated militia that ensures the security of a free state. Not only are the people armed for their own self defense but also for the security of their community.

Fundamental to this idea is that the State simply does not have a monopoly on the use of force. Not only do citizens have a right to bear arms, but the police have no more right to use deadly force than any other person--the standard is the same--and any member of the public, that well regulated militia, can act to stop crime when they see it.

Until now.

Georgia's Republicans are eviscerating a fundamental principle behind the Second Amendment:

https://www.news4jax.com/news/georgia/2021/03/09/house-unanimously-passes-overhaul-of-georgia-citizens-arrest-law/

Under the bill, people who are mere bystanders or witnesses generally would not have the right to detain people. Deadly force couldn’t be used to detain someone unless it’s in self-protection, protecting a home, or preventing a forcible felony.

See something? Don't you dare do anything about it. Call the AUTHORITIES: Georgia has no interest in being a free state!

Without having more details.  It does not destroy the second amendment. It tells you a bystander that since you may not have all the facts about what is going on, that you should call the police and let them investigate.  It doesn’t preclude you from defending yourself or your home or property

It was already illegal to execute a citizen's arrest when you did not have enough facts to have probable cause. This makes it illegal even when you do.

It eliminates the concept of a well regulated militia ensuring the security of a free state and asserts a state monopoly on the use of force.

Your comment, absolute deference to a State monopoly on the use of force ("call the police and let them investigate") is anathema to the Second Amendment's conception of security in a free state.

The Anti-Samaritan Law
Smile And Wave Law
Watch a Bitch Get Raped Law

seriously, gotta fight them on social media nowadays with hash tags.  All that matter is power and reelection to these people (public perception/popularity)

Politics, and the people who make them...
Are proving to not be friends.

Republicans seem to be hell bent on proving it.

The GA State Republicans used his murder as an excuse to roll back the Second Amendment, but since Arbery's killers are already being charged with murder without this law it's just an excuse.

The real goal is the expansion of State power and marginalizing the role of the public in mutual security.

OP seems triggered by something not occurring in his state. Maybe he has a vacation home there.

In any case, it's a Fourth Amendment issue, not the Second Amendment.

Mods should move this thread out of the sub forum.

The second amendment doesn't have anything to do with law enforcement.

"Citizens arrest" is law enforcement.

"Security of a free state" refers to maintaining a state of liberty, not enforcing laws.


Believe it or not, government does have legitimate functions, and law enforcement is one of them.

I never thought the Second Amendment was about groups of bystanders (who aren't clear what's happening) just opening fire on the situation.

IMHO, Georgia would be much better off if Sherman and his army were resurrected and burned everything south of Georgia Tech inside the Perimeter. No Quarter to the rotten libtards.

Bingo.

Get him to roll up the west coast as well

It doesn't allow you to detain them at all. If someone comes and burns down you neighbor's home you're supposed to stand there watching.

Read the entirety of the 2nd Amendment and not only the second clause. It says two things--first, what we always talk about, the right of the people to keep and bear arms. But it also speaks to WHY, and it doesn't actually say "self defense", it says something much broader than that--the security of a free state.

Security obviously starts with self, but it extends beyond that, to the security of your community and ultimately the security of the nation. The right of the people to keep and bear arms backstops all of that, and if it's reduced to mere self defense it's extensively diminished, and therefore the very need to keep and bear arms is undermined.

If someone's burning down your neighbor's house, do you stand around gawking? Or do you stop them? I would hope that in a good community you would step in, and that neighbors would mutually ensure one another's security by enforcing such basic laws.

But this law is, for the first time ever, saying you cannot do that.  You are relegated to the role of an informant and you should defer to the State as the only authorized agent capable of using force to stop the commission of a crime.

The Koreans who famously took to the roof tops in LA riots to defend each other's property would be prohibited from coming to one another's aid by this law--relegated to calling the police, taking no action themselves to stop crimes happening right in front of them, no matter how blatantly criminal, each isolated from the other, able only to defend their own property, and watch and do nothing with respect to crimes against their neighbors. We're not talking about "investigations" where you "do not have all the facts" - we're talking about being prohibited from intervening to stop an obvious and blatant crime in progress, unless and except for some very limited circumstances outlined as exceptions.

A Great Wall of Text that doesn't address anything.

Random people opening fire (deadly force) in to enforce "something" outside of a forcible felony, protection of a home or self defense?

If my neighbor's house is on fire I call the fire department (my hose isn't going to do shit).  If someone is trapped I may try to get them out (risk assessment first)

I see a non- forcible felony?  I'm not going to employ deadly force to stop it or try and play 5-O.  Misdemeanor?  Same.

But you want roll up and employ deadly force on what?  An embezzler?   Someone using farm diesel in a non-farm vehicle?

The Second Amendment isn't about being an undeputized posse of one.  The traditional common law law enforcement is the sheriff, not the militia.

Some of the shit bouncing around in some peoples' heads is pretty scary.

Where on earth did you get the idea that it would be "random people opening fire"???????

Today it is the law in all 50 states that if you directly witness someone committing a crime you can detain them until the police arrive. It's not random people -- it's people who directly witness the crime, and it's certainly not opening fire on whoever is committing the crime. You execute a citizens arrest. That starts with telling them they are detained, and force only comes into it if they resist. Obviously, being armed backstops that, in the event that they resort to deadly force in an attempt to resist.

Your weird hyperbolic response, "random people opening fire", is not an apt description of the law as it exists right now, today, in all 50 states.

Going forward Georgia will be the only State in the union where you have to stand back and watch the crime and simply defer to State of Georgia's exclusive monopoly on the use of force.

What crimes, outside of a forcible felony, protection of a home or self defense, are random people (or specifically you) going to interject themselves into?

You want to go all vigilante on a kid buying beer underage?  You going to swoop in and citizen's arrest someone smoking weed and hold them at gunpoint?  

It seems this covers the big three (a forcible felony, protection of a home or self defense).

Thanks for letting us know low post count lurker no account holding guy!

It’s the militia’s job to make sure kids smoking weed get taken down!!! /s

There’s plenty of infringements out there to worry about. Not getting to play police and intervene unless it’s a forcible felony isn’t one of them.

Forcible felony” means treason; murder; manslaughter; sexual battery; carjacking; home-invasion robbery; robbery; burglary; arson; kidnapping; aggravated assault; aggravated battery; aggravated stalking; aircraft piracy; unlawful throwing, placing, or discharging of a destructive device or bomb; and any other felony which involves the use or threat of physical force or violence against any individual.

Why do you keep using the word "random", is that to make some sort of emotional point that has no logical basis?

Maybe it's my neighbor's property. Is that random?

By using the phrase "random" you seek to minimize the extent to which one person in a community can look out for another.

Oh boy. What scenario do you have in mind that you would want to intervene in that isn't already a forcible felony? It is often better to be a good witness than insert yourself into, and quite possibly escalate, a situation you are not personally involved in.

How many citizen's arrests happen before this anyway?  It doesn't need to be law, but MYOB is generally a good idea anyway.

GA Republicans have never really cared about the 2A. I don’t know why you thought otherwise. Yesterday they killed the last surviving pro gun bill this session.

OP is intentionally misreading the second amendment, adding shit that's not there, just like the left does.

And then using it to further turn conservatives, Republicans, and gun owners against each other in meaningless squabbles as they ignore the real enemies.

We are being trained to attack our own first when things go against us rather than focusing on the enemy.  The commies are winning because they do the opposite.

"Georgia Republicans eviscerate the Second Amendment."  What bullshit.

I think OP is implying one can not topple/take over hostile/capricious government, while armed.
That the 2nd only extends beyond hunting/sporting for the purpose of self/home defense. Anything else? Call the cops.

In a way, OP isn't adding things that do not exist. OP is rather being absolutist in interpreting the 2nd.
Ask around what the 2nd protects.
Some may say hunting.-Fudds.
Some may say shooting sports.
Some may say home/self defense.
Some may say protection from tyranny and all threats foreign and domestic.

If anything is leftist-its the subjective interpretation/limitation of individual liberties while expanding the role/responsibility/power of government,

Remember that old guy in Texas, way back, that called 911 about someone breaking into his neighbors house and telling dispatch he was gonna shoot the intruder if the cops didn't show up?
How he was brought up on pre-meditated murder...
That cuck Bill O Reilly applauded his calling the cops but condemned him intervening on grounds that it wasn't his property or duty to intervene...
Because only law enforcement is capable of that role...
Well. That's being absolutist. Not relying on .gov for all the things. That sort of thinking/talking is these days.

Many will chime in with brainlet responses of armed vigilantes and insurrectionists and say, if you want to help protect your community, go be a cop.
Next breath-Praise rooftop Koreans for defending their homes and businesses from rioting looting and what not.
Or go enlist in the marines/army.
Followed by feigning outrage over the National Guard turning DC into a garrison following magoo being seated.

Then there's the absurd of firing upon a group of kids smoking Devils lettuce in the woods somewhere and other nonsense.
But when antifa and BLM had the suburbanites scared shitless, it was cool to organize with locals and follow roof top Korean models when sympathizing mayors/governors wanted stand downs to let that shit spread and continue.

So much for that rugged individualist vs group think utopian collectivist argument.
That'll happen when you suburbia/city all the things I suppose...
There's a tax funded socialized service for that. With a code/ordinance/law that prevents that task from being performed by anyone that isn't a .gov employee.

Next up-OP and others like him want thermonuclear tipped missiles for property defense!
OP and others like him want reaper drones and A10s to do CAS strafing runs/hell fires to thwart bums and drug dealers.
OP and others like him want suppressed belt feds and Abrams tanks to overthrow their elected officials and shit heel bureacrats.
OP and others like him are anarchists! REEEEEEE!

That's usually how these threads go. Everyone likes to say they're pro2A. But...
Muh modern societyz! Shit heel cityiot leftists say that line an awful lot.

Any who differ are chalked up as lolbertarians/anarchists and somehow conflated with degenerate leftists and authoritarian statist neocons.
Those 2 are 1 in the same. Only .gov should be trusted with that sort of responsibility! The average individual shouldn't/can't!

This. 2A literally says that an by armed population is necessary for security in a free state. It could have, but did not, say merely for self defense--it describes security in a much more general sense.

Deferring everything to the government and claiming private citizens can't take security into their own hands is 100% an attack on the literal text of 2A as well as everything it represents.

Why in the 7 hells would I want to intentionally involve myself with the police.  Unless I'm grossly misinformed in Tn I can use deadly force if my life is in danger or I'm in a position to
help where someone else's life is in danger.  That has nothing to do with the right to keep and bear arms,  only the use of deadly force.  If I could stop a purse snatching I would but I wouldn't try and detain someone.  If someone other than an officer of the law tried to detain me that would probably escalate pretty quickly and end poorly for one of us.

I think Ga is effed but I don't see this as a 2a issue.

I’m curious what situations the OP thinks merit the use of deadly force outside those restrictions?

Ok- as best I can tell...

If someone shoots your wife to death, drops the gun and starts running away, it is now illegal in GA to capture them and hold them for the police....?

Because it is after the "felony" is completed.

Is that right or am I misunderstanding something?  

Because that is insane.

All of these "news" articles claim citizens arrest laws are racist... despite them being an inheritance from English Common Law.

So did the Devil win the fiddling contest against Johnny down there in Georgia on the second round?

I agree this is trash.  Too vague.