Georgia passes Guns Everywhere law

Post Reply New Topic

Restraining my opinion on the actual law, What I am thinking about is why there seem to be these continuous episodes the past couple years of Conservative officials passing their pieces of legislation "late at night" or " last hour", "last point of business". Why do they always enact these controversial tidbits in such nefarious ways, sometimes even refusing the normal procedural process of debate? Why do they keep trying to circumvent the established process of doing things? Where is the integrity? These acts, to me, are just as dishonest and deceitful ass the out-in-the-light corruption that is going on with both established political parties. It seems like with the introduction of the Tea Party into our political system, the good old American practice of "fair play" has gone by the wayside. Tea Party politicians seem to have little concept the quality of honour.

http://www.ajc.com/news/news/state-regi ... ill/nfHn6/

Passing unpopular or controversial bills late at night or during holidays when everyone tends to be away is nothing new. Why the Tea Party does it now may have to do with it being a theatrical, radical organization that sees itself losing relevance as American culture moves away from the values championed by conservatives over the last sixty years, so it passes politically combative laws by whatever means it can as an assertion of dominance.

Or maybe these lawmakers just felt so strongly that church should not be interrupted by the loud, annoying reports of gunfire, and that potential gunmen in the pews should use silencers so as not to disturb the sermon.

1. Silencers are covered under federal law so I doubt they will be able to trump federal law. Unless this means Georgia banned them in the state but will now allow them under federal law.

2. The guns in church thing should be up to the church, not the government.

Perhaps the OP should read up on the NY SAFE act and the Hughes Amendment to the FOPA before hauling out the "midnight legislation" card. Not that I expect doing actual research to get in the way of bitter crankery, but...

Returning back to the law itself (and not the manner it was passed in)...

I have no problems with guns themselves. While I personally do not own a gun and probably never will (they seem useless to me), I see them as a central part of our culture. Gun ownership does not strike me as rational, but not everything valued in a culture is rational. To me, guns seem sacred in large parts of American society.

There are a few provisions of this law that go way too far, though. Guns should not be allowed in churches. Guns should not be allowed in Hartsfield-Jackson International Airport, a place where airline passengers are necessarily unarmed. Guns should not be on display anywhere outsiders congregate. Like it or not, foreign money is what keeps this state humming. And there is no reason you need a silencer. I am all for passing whatever cockeyed legislation, but when it hurts our image with the businesses and investors we need, that is when I get concerned.

But I pick my battles when it comes to Georgia's legislature. They didn't pass RFRA, and they did a few other things I like. You win some, you lose some.

I do not own guns or see reasons to own a gun. I don't care what other people own and am not preaching to take any guns away from anyone. If that's what someone needs to feel secure, that's their bag, not mine. I don't feel threatened by anyone or the government, but then I don't allow people to preach the propaganda of fear into my head. I just think there is a culture here of gun worship. I think maybe some people actually have fantasies of conjuring some way to have sex with their gun. Its just over the top to me, this culture of gun worship. And to equate gun ownership in any way whatsoever with religion or God is just to me, the epitome of hypocrisy

And now comes the Tea Party gangbang. And someone earlier made the laughable comment that this is a "liberal" forum. Yeah, right. What I see right now is about 6;1, not in my favor. So much for the Liberal domination theory/fabrication

I mean, everyone has a different totem to cling to. I just take it as is. People in Georgia who do like guns are really no different from anyone else in the world. They are just seeking to fill their instinctual needs, like the rest of us. At least they are not arming themselves for the sole reason that they see an imminent conflict coming, as happens in societies all over the planet.

Liberals are not emotionally equipped to bludgeon people with words without conscience. That is a Conservative quality. That is why they all seem to need to secure themselves with weaponry, because their words and behaviorisms so alienate and put people on guard that Conservatives always have the feeling that what they have served up is coming back to get them. I only know I feel no need to own a gun, because I do not treat people with such disdain and disrespect that I need to be constantly looking over my shoulder. Only Conservatives treat other human beings this way.

Why not? Shouldn't that be up to the church?



If it's outside the security zone, why not?



"Outsiders"? "On display?"



Not deafening yourself and those around you isn't beneficial? Not that you'd know what I do or do not need, or I'd wager anything about silencers that didn't come from watching movies. Silencers were already legal in Georgia BTW, the law just makes it legal to hunt with them, which makes perfect sense because you wouldn't want to walk around in the woods unable to hear because you're wearing muffs, or miss your shot at a buck because you were fumbling for your hearing protection. Give me one example of a crime committed with a legally owned silencer, I'll wait.

I believe there are homemade ways to make silencers.Proably doesn't work as well.

Don't know if it was for real or not, but I saw a CSI program once where the bad-guy used a plastic pop bottle stuffed with wire wool. It was supposedly good for a couple of shots. Maybe the resident firearms expert Dox would care to comment?

Yes, you can make them but there are legality issues. They are regulated by the terms of the Natilnal Firearms act, the same law that regulages fully automatic weapons and sawed off shotguns and rifles. There's a tax stamp and other paperwork involved.

The guts of a typical suppressor are baffles for the projectile to pass through and spacers. One end has to be threaded with corresponding threads cut into the end of the barrel to attach it to the weapon. Suppressors are not my forte but maybe Dox can pick up where I left off. I do know that suppressors are of their greatest benefit when the bullet is traveling at sub-sonic velocities.
[img][800:420]http://i171.photobucket.com/albums/u320/ranb40/suppressors/510W-1.jpg[/img]

Yup, done correctly that will actually work for a shot or two, depending on the caliber. I actually saw a pretty effective homemade .22 suppressor made from a hydrogen peroxide bottle, fiberglass insulation, and cardboard baffles, all held together with duct tape, that knocked the report down to airgun levels and held up fairly well. Then there's the infamous oil filter suppressor, where you just thread an automotive oil filter onto the barrel of your gun and fire a shot to create a path for the bullet, with the internals of the filter functioning as the baffles. Even wrapping a pillow around the gun will work for one shot, though it's really a point blank thing and blows stuffing all over the place. All of this stuff is highly illegal if done without the proper paperwork of course, but it does point out the silliness of the law as written, when common items are subject to federal regulation when used to make a gun less loud. I'd also point out that even purpose built silencers are bulky and make the gun difficult to conceal and draw, which is really the major reason you don't see them used in crime all that often, despite what Hollywood depicts.

Better: a crime committed with a legally owned silencer that could not have been committed without a silencer.

If silencers are as widespread as you claim, it shouldn't be surprising to see them occasionally pop up in crime, and I don't know if news agencies would even report that.

I'll be waiting even longer on that one; I typically don't ask questions that I don't already know the answers to.



I don't think I claimed that they are particularly widespread, they're highly controlled at the federal level and require a $200 tax stamp, a bunch of paperwork, the signature of your local sheriff, and 9-18 months of waiting on the ATF to process your paperwork in order to own. However, they are child's play to make and don't even require tools if you're going for disposable, which combined with my own experience with them leads me to believe that the reason they aren't used criminally more often comes down to bulk and convenience, the same reasons we don't see rifles and shotguns used in crime much compared to more concealable weapons.

As to the media, given their sensationalistic bent and appetite for bleeding leads, I would wager that something "exotic" like a silencer being used in a crime would make a story more likely to receive coverage and would probably be specifically emphasized. It's also a heavy federal charge, which again, would likely draw the media to the story.