Warning

 

Close

Confirm Action

Are you sure you wish to do this?

Confirm Cancel
Member Login
Posted: 3/2/2006 6:11:55 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 3/2/2006 6:13:27 PM EDT by thompsondd]
If you are in fear for your personal safety, you actually get to defend yourself FIRST???? What a revolutionary concept.

Now, why does House approval seem 'iffy'?


ATLANTA (AP) Georgians would be allowed to shoot first if they feel threatened, under a bill passed Thursday in the state Senate.

The bill, sponsored by Sen. Greg Goggans, R-Douglas, says people trying to defend themselves, other people or their property need not attempt to flee before using deadly force.

The state already has a similar law for people protecting their homes. But the Goggans bill, endorsed by the National Rifle Association, would allow Georgians to use deadly force as long as they are in a place legally. If a firearm is used, they must legally possess the weapon.

``This is about putting common sense into code,'' said Goggans. ``Every law-abiding citizen in Georgia should have the right to choose whether to stand their ground or flee.''

The bill passed 40-13.

Critics said they fear the law could be used to justify shootings and other violence not associated with self-defense.

``If someone is on a driving range hitting golf balls and they feel like they are at risk, what is to prevent a verbal disagreement from turning into a slaying?'' said Sen. Steve Thompson, D-Powder Springs.

Sen. Regina Thomas, D-Savannah, whose husband is a retired police officer, said she was concerned the bill could lead people to take the law into their own hands and even try to justify resisting arrest.

``I'm afraid for our law enforcement officers if we're giving a recipe and authority for anyone to use force against force,'' she said.

Goggans said he began looking at Georgia's gun laws after Florida passed a similar bill last year. That state's ``stand your ground'' law led some gun control advocates to hand out leaflets at Florida airports, warning visitors to ``take sensible precautions'' while in the state.

Goggans defended the plan, saying prosecutors and judges decide when criminal charges are needed in shooting cases.

``I'm going to err on the side of the law-abiding citizen and make (the law) as strong as possible,'' he said. (Whooaaa trigger. You are going to make a name for yourself thinking like that. We sheeple aren't smart enough to be trusted to defend ourselves. Haven't you heard??)

The bill now goes to the House.

On the Net: Senate Bill 396, http://www.legis.ga.gov/



Link Posted: 3/2/2006 6:52:13 PM EDT
I think it's a great thing. Several states are following FL's lead.

At the core what I think this bill does is restrict DA's from going after law abiding citizens (often recklessly) for defending themselves. Currently and in the past I believe we were solely at the mercy of local DA's and their own interpretation of state law. I think SB396 better defines what is justifiable self defense and could save a lot of people a lot of money having to defend themselves a second time, from an agressive anti-gun DA.
Link Posted: 3/2/2006 7:39:56 PM EDT
Dead men tell no tales. Ever heard of only one witness. Usually the victim who is defending themselves becomes the victim again in court when he is sued by his attacker. This should deter scumbags from preying on the weak if there is a possibility of them being armed. I think this is a great bill and one that has been a long time coming. Law abiding, tax paying citizens should not have to fear for their safety from non-tax paying, non-contributing members of society. The criminals should have to fear for theirs.

Instead of the law abiding citizen being afraid of the criminal, the criminal should be afraid of the law abiding citizen. What this country needs is some real law and order.
Link Posted: 3/3/2006 3:38:08 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 3/3/2006 3:39:17 AM EDT by birdbarian]

Originally Posted By thompsondd:
If you are in fear for your personal safety, you actually get to defend yourself FIRST???? What a revolutionary concept.

Now, why does House approval seem 'iffy'?


``If someone is on a driving range hitting golf balls and they feel like they are at risk, what is to prevent a verbal disagreement from turning into a slaying?'' said Sen. Steve Thompson, D-Powder Springs.

Sen. Regina Thomaspson, D-Savannah, whose husband is a retired police officer, said she was concerned the bill could lead people to take the law into their own hands and even try to justify resisting arrest.




You need to talk some sense into your cousins... oh wait they're Dimocrats. No chance of that. Hope our Republican state legislature gets this one through.
Link Posted: 3/3/2006 3:41:01 AM EDT
Link Posted: 3/3/2006 6:39:25 AM EDT

Originally Posted By birdbarian:

Sen. Regina Thomaspson, D-Savannah, whose husband is a retired police officer, said she was concerned the bill could lead people to take the law into their own hands and even try to justify resisting arrest.




[rant]
The way I understand it, the law always WAS in our hands.

I recall something about "for the people, of the people, and by the people."


typical tyrant. " I assume authority because my husband was given authority, so adecree what the peasants may have and what they may not have.


[/rant]

OT- but someone at work mentioned something about a law preventing employers from making policies against carrying firearms in your vehicle at work.

anyone hear this?

Link Posted: 3/3/2006 7:22:31 AM EDT
[Rant]
Personaly, I dont care what any employer says about not carying a firearm in my car, its my damn car and I'll always have a gun in my car regardless. Its my right and not a right that any employer has the ability to take away.
Link Posted: 3/3/2006 8:11:53 AM EDT
I feel the same way, but they can fire you for having it on the property with a policy in place. With a law preventing said policy, they'd be subject to a wrongful termination suit.
Link Posted: 3/3/2006 8:50:24 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 3/3/2006 9:03:22 AM EDT by Lawman734]

Dead men tell no tales. Ever heard of only one witness. Usually the victim who is defending themselves becomes the victim again in court when he is sued by his attacker. This should deter scumbags from preying on the weak if there is a possibility of them being armed.


2 points:
I don't think this bill will deter any of the shitbags of society from committing further crimes against armed citizens-my opinion. Hell, Georgia already allows open and concealed carry and while it may make some bad guys think-they also know that most don't bother to carry, let alone own a firearm. It merely protects the person defending themselves from criminal prosecution.
My second point is in regards to the "only one witness" and dead man tell no tales statement. That means jack shit, because if you kill off the perp-you most likely still will be sued by the perps (only now called a "victim") family. My agency and the Gwinnett County Sheriffs Office is currently dealing with just that issue due to a certain taser incident that occurred at the jail. My friend was the arresting officer and had nothing to do with what happened at the jail, but he is still being sued anyway-because this turds wife called 911 only to help her husband (turd), not take him to jail. Even saying this after the turd beat the crap out of my buddy, broke his nose and took his baton. He only gave up after he realized he was about to be shot. The bottom line is your still most likely going to be sued-even if there is no real standing for the lawsuit, which at the very least is going to cost you your time and money.

With that being said, my colleagues and I are definetely keeping an eye on this and hoping it passes because quite frankly, it makes it easier for everybody (as well as just making sense). For the person being attacked or in fear for his safety, it removes any doubt as to where he stands legally. For Law Enforcement it makes finding the bad guy easier, as well as removing another shitbag from the street to hopefully not prey on innocent people again.
Link Posted: 3/3/2006 11:25:50 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 3/3/2006 11:27:57 AM EDT by California_Kid]
The idiots who oppose this obviously good bill haven't noticed that the language to be added to existing Georgia law is almost copied verbatim from the California Penal Code.

Proposed Georgia language:


(b) A person is presumed to have held a reasonable fear of imminent threat of death or serious bodily injury to himself or herself or to another when using defensive force that is intended or likely to cause death or great bodily harm to another if the person against whom the defensive force was used was in the process of unlawfully and forcibly entering or had unlawfully and forcibly entered upon an occupied habitation and the person who uses defensive force knew or had reason to believe that an unlawful and forcible entry was occurring or had occurred."


From the California Penal Code...


198.5. Any person using force intended or likely to cause death or great bodily injury within his or her residence shall be presumed to have held a reasonable fear of imminent peril of death or great bodily injury to self, family, or a member of the household when that force is used against another person, not a member of the family or household, who unlawfully and forcibly enters or has unlawfully and forcibly entered the residence and the person using the force knew or had reason to believe that an unlawful and forcible entry occurred.

Link Posted: 3/3/2006 11:35:38 AM EDT
I do believe that they included a prevision exempting people from civil litigation. Not that I believe that even that will stop it from happening.
Link Posted: 3/3/2006 11:58:04 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 3/3/2006 11:58:21 AM EDT by California_Kid]

Originally Posted By Mayo:
I do believe that they included a prevision exempting people from civil litigation. Not that I believe that even that will stop it from happening.



True enough. See the last paragraph at www.legis.ga.gov/legis/2005_06/search/hb1061.htm
Link Posted: 3/3/2006 12:12:17 PM EDT

I do believe that they included a prevision exempting people from civil litigation.


I was not aware of that, I hope it happens.
Link Posted: 3/4/2006 10:07:44 PM EDT
I agree with lawman 734
Link Posted: 3/5/2006 4:54:50 PM EDT

Originally Posted By Lawman734:

I do believe that they included a prevision exempting people from civil litigation.


I was not aware of that, I hope it happens.



Sweet...

"51-11-9.
A person who is justified in threatening or using force against another under the provisions of Code Section 16-3-21 or 16-3-23, relating to the use of force in defense of self or others or defense of a habitation, respectively, shall not be held liable in any civil action brought as a result of the threat or use of such force."
Link Posted: 3/5/2006 7:29:27 PM EDT

Originally Posted By birdbarian:

Originally Posted By Lawman734:

I do believe that they included a prevision exempting people from civil litigation.


I was not aware of that, I hope it happens.



Sweet...

"51-11-9.
A person who is justified in threatening or using force against another under the provisions of Code Section 16-3-21 or 16-3-23, relating to the use of force in defense of self or others or defense of a habitation, respectively, shall not be held liable in any civil action brought as a result of the threat or use of such force."



Out-friggin-standing!
Link Posted: 3/6/2006 6:16:24 AM EDT
If the civil justice system worked properly, the liability protection clause would be unnecessary.
Link Posted: 3/6/2006 6:27:39 AM EDT
WSBTV's retiring GM and VP gave blistering opinion on last night's 6 o'clock news. He basically said that this bill would allow drug dealers to shoot vice cops and homeowners to shoot kids riding across their lawn. What a bunch of drivel and outright lies!

Boortz has been all over this, today.
Link Posted: 3/6/2006 7:50:47 AM EDT
He might as well have just quoted Cynthia Tucker's Op Ed piece a month or so ago. One of the few times I've written to the Urinal Constipation to refute her moronic thought processes. I was pleasantly surprised that they printed my letter.
Link Posted: 3/6/2006 7:53:39 PM EDT
Lawman 734,

I completly agree with your 2 pionts, We need more lawmen like you. Most of the anti-gun nuts justify their oppressive laws by saying it will help police officers. i.e. assault riffle ban. Every policeman I've ever talked to says "a bad-guy is going to carry a gun no matter what the law states." The politictians need to start talking to policemen? Honestly, can anyone think of a gun control law passed in the last 50 yrs that actually helped prevent crime?
Link Posted: 3/6/2006 8:07:59 PM EDT

Originally Posted By wharfrat:
Honestly, can anyone think of a gun control law passed in the last 50 yrs that actually helped prevent crime?

The NFA registry seems to work really well. AFAIK, no NFA guns have been used in a crime.
Link Posted: 3/6/2006 8:44:17 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 3/6/2006 8:48:36 PM EDT by Nivuahc]
Maybe I'm just simple minded, but I fail to see how further restrictions on the rights of the law-abiding does a thing to deter those who would break the law.

NFA guns have been used in crime. There's only one case, that I'm aware of, where an NFA weapon was used by the licensed carrier in the commission of a crime. But to say that NFA weapons aren't used in crime is a huuuuuuuuge stretch of the imagination.

ETA: On second reading, maybe you were being sarcastic?
Link Posted: 3/6/2006 8:57:33 PM EDT
Apparently it was a poor attempt at humor.
Link Posted: 3/6/2006 9:15:10 PM EDT
Don't blame yourself... you have to remember, I'm a little slow
Link Posted: 3/7/2006 7:51:14 PM EDT


I just saw this listed on packing.org and I am delighted.

Now if we can get them to roll back the restricted places for CCW, then I might be able to carry my weapon to more places than just the local gas station. I hate that long list of no-go places.



Link Posted: 3/7/2006 7:54:49 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 3/7/2006 8:10:35 PM EDT by five2one]


Sen. Regina Thomaspson, D-Savannah, whose husband is a retired police officer, said she was concerned the bill could lead people to take the law into their own hands and even try to justify resisting arrest.



Argh, I need to write her letters and email, and make phone calls. What a freakin idiot?

I live in Savannah. I'm ashamed of my rep.
Link Posted: 3/8/2006 4:59:17 PM EDT

Originally Posted By five2one:


Sen. Regina Thomaspson, D-Savannah, whose husband is a retired police officer, said she was concerned the bill could lead people to take the law into their own hands and even try to justify resisting arrest.



Argh, I need to write her letters and email, and make phone calls. What a freakin idiot?

I live in Savannah. I'm ashamed of my rep.



This WILL be my rep in 2 weeks. That's one vote she definately will NOT be getting; MINE.

/napolean dynamite sound on/ Gosh, you stupid idiot. /napolean dynamite sound off/
Link Posted: 3/13/2006 11:47:51 AM EDT

I wrote to my senator ( A dem in Sav) about SB 396....



Dear Senator:

Please vote for SB 396. It serves as added protection for law abiding
citizens who are justified in using lethal force and it does NOT protect
criminal action. The explicit positions on not needing to retreat and
civil protection for justified uses of lethal force are needed and desired.

Sincerely - five2one with address and phone number.




She wrote back....


Thank you for sharing. This is a dangerous bill.


So I wrote back.....



Dear Senator:

Please, if you can, describe to my why SB 396 is a dangerous bill. Perhaps you know of data showing that unjustified shootings increased in other states where similar laws have been enacted. I do not know of any such data.
Sincerely - five2one



her response just sickens me. Fortunately, it already passed the GA senate and is now with the GA house.



Link Posted: 3/14/2006 8:52:58 AM EDT
Just got this as a reply from my Rep.



HB 1061 never passed out of the Judiciary Committee. This bill is dead for this year.

Thanks for your email.

Sincerely,

Rep. John Yates



This blows
Link Posted: 3/14/2006 9:13:51 AM EDT
Link Posted: 3/14/2006 9:49:41 AM EDT
Best info I can find is on this page. But I don't know what it means.


www.legis.state.ga.us/legis/2005_06/sum/hb1061.htm
Link Posted: 3/14/2006 11:40:37 AM EDT
georgiapacking.org/bills.php

Georgia Packing lists it as still alive. Most other bills including carry in restaurants are dead.
Link Posted: 3/14/2006 11:45:35 AM EDT
Link Posted: 3/14/2006 12:08:10 PM EDT

Originally Posted By chainshaw:
georgiapacking.org/bills.php

Georgia Packing lists it as still alive. Most other bills including carry in restaurants are dead.



Another case where it is better to ask for forgiveness than permission
Link Posted: 3/18/2006 10:14:31 PM EDT
With only a few days left in this years legislative calendar, SB396 really needs your help.

Please see this thread on packing.org for more information.

Please call, write, email and/or fax your state congressmen today!!!!
Link Posted: 3/19/2006 9:40:27 AM EDT
This is a good bill, but I think that the liberal buttholes and yellow press will kill it before it gets anywhere near being signed into law.

I will defend myself and my family REGARDLESS what the law says. The law is not always right.
Link Posted: 3/20/2006 1:59:51 AM EDT
Fwiw, Tim Beardon is FOR the bill. There was a piece in the local paper about it yesterday and he was quoted as saying that it was really something that needs to be passed. He said that the citizens of Georgia should be able to defend themselves without fear of prosecution. I've known Tim for a long time. He used to be a cop. Glad to see him pulling for this legislation.

And as to where it stands, the article in the local paper said that it has yet to be voted on. Keep the letters flying to the other reps...
Top Top