By Brett Daniel Shehadey
Special Contributor for In Homeland Security
Wednesday—Georgia Governor Nathan Deal just signed perhaps the most pro-gun state legislation of the 21st century. The Safe Carry Protection Act will open wide the state for concealed and open carry license holders.
Private residents in Georgia are now lawfully permitted to carry guns in airports, bars, schools, churches and certain government buildings through public access points away from restricted or security screening areas. There are also many exceptions to the media hype.
All of these people must be licensed gun holders; in schools, the school boards will decide to remain more weapons-free or open gun-safe; meaning, a person must be approved by the school board to have a firearm on primary and secondary school campuses or remain in their vehicles, etc. So no gun totting Georgians will be walking the halls of a grade school campus, but teachers might be armed, for example, and other approved personnel.
At all churches the staff will choose to allow guns or not. In Southern practice, one typically does not bring weapons inside the church.
For private businesses, they have a choice to accept or reject residents that carry guns on their property but cannot restrict guns in general. They maintain the right to refuse clients and run their business their way, for the most part. Obviously, if the ownership does not know if the clients are packing heat, because their weapons are concealed, they will in practice no longer be hindered from entry, as before; especially in bars and places where alcohol can be served or purchased.
Aside from a few restricted zones, like mental hospitals, this new Georgian law opens the decisions to accept or reject armed residents themselves but cannot restrict guns themselves. Schools and private property owners will have greater freedom to make their own gun regulations and draw out their own safety plans.
Critics call the new law the “guns everywhere law.” This was a feature proposal idea by many who say that if there are more guns in public by responsible and legal carriers, there will be less incidents of mass killings.
The Safe Carry Protection Act seems primarily designed as a preservation law, in the minds of proponents and also serves as a revival for gun-rights laws in Georgian society. This makes transport easier for hunting and self-defense purposes.
The law acts as a radical de facto model that allows more guns on the streets and in more public places in order to lower crime. That is the ongoing controversy for guns and the which is better: more or less? Second Amendment rights advocates cite their right to keep and bear arms and complain that it is being infringed upon the right to bear their weapons. But also in that is the pretext that the people are part of a well regulated militia; a portion never far behind the political debate with liberals.
It is interesting that one side argues for gun rights and the other argues the Second Amendment applies to only a well-regulated militia that is armed as a means for gun control. Neither position seems to be accurately representing the constitution at all. For one, there are no more militias of the 18th century variety and whatever does pass for the militia (e.g. National Guard) is not mandatory for everyone; especially gun-owners. People serving something larger than themselves would, in the past, bring their weapons home and then train and drill in the community with their own weapons. The militia system is all but done a way with now but the theory of it might be salvageable as a compromise of sorts and for greater representation of the original intent.
Clearly, the Georgian law is estranged from the Second Amendment’s full intents and purposes or there would have been mention of reworking the state militia system in tandem to their Right to bear arms as worded. Whether this new law is any safer or will keep Georgians safer than they already are or less safe remains to be seen.
Most strong red states that are pro-gun do not typically allow guns to be taken in bars or airports, for example. Meanwhile, blue states often have extremely harsh gun carry laws and often involve the protection of one’s property rather than their personal defense (e.g. an armed private businessman carrying large sums of money versus a woman living in a high-crime area). Is it an infringement to restrict gun carry in certain places like bars? Is that the idea of a well-regulated and disciplined cadre?
While many states have been restricting laws regarding loaded firearm transport, Georgia has taken the extreme opposite path. The national rhetoric in the wake of school shootings and the large-scale trend of murder-suicides in which shooters are involved is generally negative in mainstream media, but no legislation has passed in Congress that really tackled the gun debate either way. The nation remains split around a faulty divide and interpretation of the Second Amendment that omits wording and or context.
The Georgia law lowers age to apply for weapons carry permits to 18 year olds and must provide proof of basic firearms training; the fingerprinting new licensees; and state and federal background checks.
One raised concern for Georgian law enforcement officials was the laws restriction to detain and check people for gun carry licenses, according to USA Today. It also removes restrictions to obtain a firearms permit for some with previous misdemeanors.
The law does not prevent the police from asking people directly if they are armed and if they have a license to carry. Still, did the person holding the rifle or packing the pistol just commit a robbery? How are the police to offer better or optimal protection if they have a difficult time determine on the spot the friend from foe? Will this help law enforcement officials or prevent crime? An officer’s approach to any gun holders, in light of new legislation, will be more of a challenge and there now exists less ‘on-suspicion’ grounds which could hinder public safety or the investigation of active or same-day crimes.
The spirit of the Second Amendment seems to be that people with arms have a community responsibility that must be regulated in concert with others for their own persons an the common good. Rather than a mere individual Right, this was at one time a Right of honor and service to self, family, community and country all intermingled together. As down to earth American conservative as the Georgia law might be, it still separates or reconcile one’s state service and militia obligations with their right to keep and bear arms.
Comments are closed.