Category: Gun Rights Organizations

Ahab notes an e-mail he received from the GeorgiaCarry.org folks:

I have been working closely with the NRA trying to get them to join the other groups that have already given their written endorsement to HB 915, including GCO, GSSA (the NRA affiliate in Georgia), SCCC, and GOA. I still hold out hope that the NRA will endorse HB 915 in the near future. If somebody at the NRA with whom I have been working is actively at the same time passing out misinformation, I would like to know about it.

I am probably the person that originated this with my post.  I also hope that NRA will endorse HB 915, but I suspect that 915 will have to be modified to not pose a threat to HB 89.  I’m still not convinced by the folks who say there’s no danger there; I think there is.  I will try to get one of our attorney bloggers to weigh in on this matter.

I’m not in agreement that the parking lot carry bill should be a priority, but this parking lot carry bill is important to a lot of other gun owners.  The NRA has staked its reputation on the car carry bill, and they aren’t going to abandon it at this point.  As much as I think that sucks, because carry laws affect me more than a parking lot law would, I’m not the only gun owner out there.  I think there needs to be a little understanding that sometimes the powers that be will push the interests of other gun owners over yours.

Ed over at the comments on Jeff’s site responds to my comments on HB 915:

Go back and read the bill again. We have literally been working on this bill for years, and we last worked through this portion some time ago (before the NRA ever dreamed up a parking lots bill for Georgia). Removing that section would change the bill. Here is why. Section 4 of HB 915 is an express authorization for license holders to carry “in all areas of this State, except as specifically limited in this Code Section.” While this language was also stolen directly from the senate bill that the NRA pushed into law in Colorado, it was good language for Georgia because of the odd case law here pertaining to criminal trespass and government property. This authority to carry “in all areas of the State” language will ensure that local government officials cannot simply use criminal trespass law to eject lawful firearm carriers or arrest them.

BUT IF SUBSECTION C IS REMOVED, then Section 4 would mean that a person with a firearms license would be authorized to carry in all areas of the state, including any and all private property. That means your private property, Sebastion. Do you think that is a good idea? Would such a bill be likely to pass? If not, then why do you suggest the language be removed?

In other words, the language to which you point is integral to HB 915 and has NOTHING to do with the NRA’s parking lots bill. You need to be more careful in looking at the effects of your suggestions.

GCO’s Secretary informed me that he went through the time stamped drafts of the bill, and that provision appears in every version, INCLUDING THE VERSIONS THAT PREDATE THE NRA’S PARKING LOTS BILL. In light of this evidence, please QUIT claiming that anybody had any designs to “scuttle” anything the NRA is doing. You are simply wrong, and I wish you would take affirmative steps to correct the misinformation you have been publishing and distributing.

Please correct your statements on your blog and here.

I do apologize if this was not deliberately intended, and have put this here in its entirety in the interest of fairness on that issue, and I will update the original post with a link here.

But I still don’t see how this section doesn’t interfere with the parking lot bill NRA is pushing.   I am not, however, an expert on Georgia firearms law, but based on my reading of both bills, HB 915 could interfere with HB 89.  Can some of our attorney types on the blogosphere weigh in with what they think?

I’m glad to see Congressman Bob Barr, who has done more for gun rights in this country, both in and out of Congress, than a lot of other folks, speaking about the Heller case, and also praising some of the excellent work done by GeorgiaCarry.org:

While the debate over firearms rights in Georgia is often seen as a black and white issue — with gun control advocates lining up against the National Rifle Association (for which I serve as a board member) and other pro-Second Amendment groups, and with various media outlets taking sides reflective of the views of their editorial directors — the fact is, there is probably more that is not known about Georgia�s gun laws than is known. At least one group — GeorgiaCarry.Org — is working to educate not only lawmakers, but also journalists and the citizenry, concerning the history and extent of our state’s gun laws.

And closes with this:

These and other firearms-related issues likely will — and should — occupy the attention of our legislators during the 2008 session. One hopes that organizations like the NRA and GeorgiaCarry.Org, will continue to proactively educate and advocate on behalf of the inherent Second Amendment rights of all law-abiding Georgians, just as the lawyers representing such citizens in the District of Columbia will be doing in the Supreme Court early next year.

Hopefully NRA and GeorgiaCarry.org will be able to resolve differences over bills and work together.  HB 915 is mostly a fine bill, with laudable and necessary objectives, but including the provision scuttling the parking lot bill was guaranteed to ensure NRA would not get behind it.  Sometimes to work together, you have to put minor differences aside.  Car carry is important to some gun owners, and while I don’t agree with it, if HB 915 is important to you, it’s not exactly a winning move to be selfish about your concerns, while saying someone else’s don’t matter.

I think reasonable people can disagree on the property rights aspects, I certainly have my views, which contrast against NRA’s and more than a few of my readers, I understand that taking that position has its consequences with other gun owners who disagree with me.

The Rome News-Tribune is covering the HB89, HB 915 controversy, and stumbles across the reason NRA is probably not backing HB 915:

Now for the meat in the coconut. Bearden’s bill – prefiled last week as HB 915 – contains this language: “Nothing in this Code section shall be construed to limit, restrict, or prohibit in any manner the existing rights of a private property owner, unless such private property has been leased to a government entity, and nothing in this Code section shall be construed to limit, restrict, or prohibit in any manner the existing rights of a private tenant, private employer, or private business entity.”

I didn’t see this section of HB 915 upon my first reading of the bill, or rather, what it did exactly didn’t quite sink in:

(c) This Nothing in this Code section shall not apply to competitors participating in organized sport shooting events. Law enforcement officers, peace officers retired from state or federal law enforcement agencies, judges, magistrates, solicitors-general, and district attorneys may carry pistols in publicly owned or operated buildings be construed to limit, restrict, or prohibit in any manner the existing rights of a private property owner, unless such private property has been leased to a government entity, and nothing in this Code section shall be construed to limit, restrict, or prohibit in any manner the existing rights of a private tenant, private employer, or private business entity

So basically HB 915, GeorgiaCarry’s preferred bill, scuttles HB 89, the NRA bill, by design, and you folks are wondering why NRA isn’t getting behind HB 915? Listen, I like the rest of the provisions in HB 915, but this isn’t a way to get things done.

I don’t agree with the NRA bill, but smearing them for not supporting your preferred bill when it undermines their preferred bill strikes me as not only unfair, but underhanded. If we spent half as much time going after the anti-gunners as we spend going after each other, we might get somewhere.

UPDATE:  GeorgiaCarry.org has responded that HB 915 has nothing to do with HB 89, and that they have been working on this bill long before NRA introduced the parking lot bill.  I do apologize for the insinuation that this was deliberate, but I’m still not sure I agree that this section doesn’t interfere with the main purpose of HB 89.  I will have more on this, but be sure to follow the link to hear their side of this issue.

Both Conservative Scalawag and this guy are unhappy about NRA’s lack of support for Georgia HB 915, which improves Georgia’s carry laws by removing off limits places, and also includes a number of other pro-gun provisions:

Yep, the NRA, in my opinion has completely alienated the Georgia citizens and gun owners. This begs the question, are they even relevant as a pro-2nd Amendment organization any longer, or just another DC lobbyist group with its own interest at heart.

I wouldn’t go that far, but I agree that we should be asking for answers here, and I’m going to try to get one.  This could be a matter of NRA believing that HB 89 is a more important legislative priority for them, which I think would be a mistake, but I also think it would be a mistake to pick up our toys and go home because we disagree on priority, or in my case, whether HB 89 is desirable at all.

If NRA were ignoring fighting an anti-gun bill in favor of pushing HB 89, then I would agree with a high level of outrage, but that’s not the case here.  The fact is, HB 89, which prevents employers from firing employees for having a firearm in their vehicle, is important to a lot of gun owners, and I doubt the folks who support that bill feel like NRA is ignoring their concerns.   We all have to be a little patient here.

As I have said before, I don’t agree with the NRA on pushing the parking lot stuff, but I’m not going to agree with the NRA on a lot of things over the course of years.   Nonetheless, they’ve staked a lot of political capital on this particular issue, so from their perspective, it’s necessary for them to follow through.  Before we get out the torches and pitchforks, let me see if I can find out what’s going on.

Bitter and I attended part of the Board of Directors meeting for the NRA this weekend, since we were in Virginia this weekend.  Chris Cox’s report before the Board stressed the dire need for ATF reform, speaking about how far back this problem goes, and their strategy to fix it through congressional action.  Also stressed were all the upcoming challenges we will be facing in 2008, which are numerous.  I was also quite happy that he thought highly enough of our meeting with NRA folks at the Gun Blogger Rendezvous to mention that specifically in his report before the directors, given that we were a tough crowd.

The NRA isn’t a closed society.  Any member can attend the Board of Directors meeting, though some items do tend to be discussed in executive session, with only board members and officers present.  Of course, I’d be a liar if I told you it was exciting and riveting.  Think of your local gun club meeting, only a lot longer, and with a lot more items to discuss and report on.  More speeches too.

According to this article, NRA is heading down to Georgia to talk about H.B. 89, the bill to allow people to have firearms in their vehicles while on company property.

As I covered a few days ago, there is another bill that’s really worth looking at in Georgia. Georgia has among the worst carry restrictions in The South, and it’s high time we looked at getting rid of some.

In the interest of full disclosure, I don’t agree with the NRA on the pursuit of H.B. 89, because I think they are an infringement on the private property rights of employers.  This expands government regulations into areas they have no business interfering with.

This is a startling admission from the New York Times:

 There’s an attractive logic to this argument, except that, in practice, it runs into some nettlesome inconsistencies. For instance, the National Rifle Association is also a dues-paying group that aggregates the power of its members, as is the National Federation of Independent Businesses, and I doubt very much that Edwards or other Democrats would describe these as anything other than special interests. Just like the N.R.A., Big Labor tries to manipulate elections to gain access and favor for its members. That doesn’t make unions a corrupting influence; as Andrew Stern, the president of the Service Employees International Union, always says, unions have been the greatest antipoverty program in American history. But it does make labor a special interest, whether Democrats like it or not.

Is it just me, or is that the first time you’ve ever seem anyone at the New York Times state that the NRA represents its members interests, rather than being a toady of the firearms industry?

As I’ve said before, I generally find myself being the damned yankee that complains about restrictive carry laws in The South, particularly in the onerous number of “off limits” places.  Georgia is looking to remedy that with HB 915:

GCO fully supports the Second Amendment Protection Act of 2008, introduced today by Rep. Timothy Bearden, D. 68.  GCO’s top legislative priority for 2008 is the passage of HB 915.

Do you know:

Georgia has more places off limits to carrying a firearm than California. In fact, Georgia has more places off limits to carry than any state in the nation. Shocked, surprised, disgusted? Fed up? Finally ready to do something about it?

Sounds good to me.  Now if we can pass this, maybe we can convince Tennessee to ditch carry restrictions on federal lands, and state parks.   Same for Florida too, for that matter.

Conservative Sacalawag [wants to know where the NRA is with all of this]*.  I would imagine they’d be behind lifting carry restrictions, as they have been in many other states, but I suspect we’ll see more movement on this after the holidays.

* Link dead