Posted: 4/18/2007 1:44:41 PM EDT
|
From 11.Alive.com Cagle Says Bill Dead Cagle: Gun Bill Dead Written By: Denis O'Hayer Last Modified: 4/18/2007 4:29:08 PM Wed. 4/18/07 4:06 p.m. In an interview with 11Alive News, Lt. Gov. Casey Cagle (R-Ga.) said the controversial bill loosening the limits on guns in motor vehicles "is definitely dead" for this year. Cagle told me the Virginia Tech tragedy was one major factor--even though the bill did not deal directly with circumstances like those at the school. The other major factor, he said, was a complete impasse between the National Rifle Association (which lobbied intensely for the bill), and business and real estate groups (which had opposed it). Cagle said no language could be found that was acceptable to both sides. By the time it got to the Senate floor last night, H.B. 89 was a combination of two bills. One would have allowed law-abiding citizens to carry guns virtually anywhere in their cars (right now, you're restricted to open view and the glove compartment, unless you have a permit). The other provision would have allowed you to take your gun in your car to your workplace--as long as you left it locked in the car. Your employer could not force you to agree to an inspection. It was in short, a "don't ask, don't tell" provision. That second provision set up the classic confrontation of the right to bear arms versus the rights of property owners. Cagle said that impasse could not be overcome. He also said the "public relations" surrounding the Virginia Tech massacre made it difficult to consider the bill right now. Last night, the Senate adjourned without taking a scheduled vote on the bill. The measure then went back to the Rules Committee, which was scheduled this afternoon to consider returning it to the floor for a vote on Thursday. Cagle's comments appear to short-circuit that process. -Mrs.Monk |
|
Find your Senator/Congress person: www.sos.state.ga.us/cgi-bin/Locator.asp |
|
The NRA's motivation was to have another state protect employees from their gun banning employers. They applied tremendous pressure on the Senate to pass the bill. The problem for thier bill was that it met resistance from Employers and Property Owners who are worried about liability and thier rights to control thier work environment. Apparently, the NRA had negotiated an agreement with the Chamber of Commerce and Realtors prior to the session. When the bill was heard in the House Non Civil Judicary Committee, the Committee changed the liability language. The NRA did not oppose the change. The Chamber and Realtors felt double crossed by the NRA. Then the situation spiraled out of control. To Lt. Gov. Cagle and the Senate's credit, they tried to create a compromise bill that would balance property/employer rights with gun rights. Its a very fine line to walk. Unfortunately, the starting point was so bad that it would not get better, just worse. Instead of backing off and regrouping, the NRA got really desparate. Wayne LaPerrier and other NRA cheifs made calls and visited the Capitol. They started threatening the Senators with a promise of campaigning against them in the next election and guaranteeing them an F rating if the bill isn't passed. Basically they were strong arming them. I'm hopeful that the Senate will take up HB89 and not penalize Georgia gun owners for the actions of the NRA. There are alot of friends of the 2nd Amendment in the Senate, include the Lt. Gov. If there were not, the Senate wouldn't have worked so hard on trying to find a compromise. |
|
Find your state reps here: www.congress.org/congressorg/state/main/?state=GA&view=myofficials#0 Put your zip code in under the elected officials area near the bottom. Maybe I missed it, but where does the unamended version say I can carry my gun in my car at work, even though my employer says I can't? I see that plainly stated in the NRA version. That's really the only part I care about. My employer will fire me for having a gun in my car, and I had to sign a policy saying I would allow them to search or be fired. As such, I can't carry my gun without fear of being fired, even though I have a legal concealed carry permit.  What part of HB 89 unamended version addresses that, if any?
|
The unamended HB89 deletes the requirement that a firearm be in full view, glove box or console for anyone without a License but eligible for a license. Its a small step but an important one. There are several cases where honest folks have been convicted for violating the full view requirement because a portion of the gun was covered or was not visble from all sides of the car. This bill will help you at traffic stops and interactions with LE. The employer language is in the amended version. www.legis.ga.gov/legis/2007_08/versions/hb89_Sen_ctee_sub_LC_28_3747S_4.htm I'm a public school grad and I have a hard time understanding the language. My interpretation of the language to your situation is that the NRA compromise language would not protect you since you are not a "prospective employee" and you already consented to the search. If you worked at Lockheed you wouldn't be protected. I'm not protected either because I'd get fired for stealing if I didn't allow them to search my car. |
That's not how I read that.
That part protects me as an existing employee, the way I read it.
That part is only valid if they have probable cause to think you have stolen property. I'm not worried about that at all, plus, the first section I quoted says they can't enforce the "no guns" rule anyway if they do find a gun legally kept in my car during the search. They'd have to amend their weapons policy to remove the search option before they could maintain or enforce it, right? |
|
Here are my thoughts for your critique .. Section 16-11-135 (a) says employers can't search cars in parking lots Section 16-11-135 (b) says employers can't make a condition for hiring a ban on guns in the cars. This section only applies to "prospective employees" So as an existing employee, your company can say that you can not possess a gun in your car in the parking lot. And, an employer can ask you to search your car for stolen goods. If you consent and they find a pistol, you can be fired. What happens if you say no to the search? I'd figure they fire you for "unspecified reasons" or for "reduction in force" etc. I'm not a lawyer. BTW, the only company that I've ever been aware of that searched cars for guns was Lockheed. Section d4 excludes Lockheed employees. Surely the Lockheed Employees deserve the right to self defense. |
|
when SB43/HB143 was routing, the revision to them stated that if a facility had either security gaurds, a security gate, or fended in parking, that the employer could have a policy of no guns. That made no sense at all. It isn't at work that people need to be able to carry. What about the ride to and from work? Bottom line is gun owners are treated like criminals and we need to stand against being demonized for our beliefs. |
While I'm against the business owners in this debate, I'd point out that most business owners aren't corporations; they're people who pay taxes and vote, just like we do. My main grip is with permit holders' not being able to carry in restaurants that serve alcohol. The Gov fishbacked on that one last year. |