GEORGIA: Governor Deal Signs NRA-Backed Legislation into Law

[GreenStormCloud]

http://www.nraila.org/legislation/state-legislation/2012/05/georgia-governor-deal-signs-nra-backed-legislation-into-law.aspx

On May 3, Georgia Governor Nathan Deal (R) signed SB 350 into law. Senate Bill 350, which went into effect immediately upon the Governor’s approval, ensures protection for seized firearms.

SB 350 mandates municipal, county and state police authorities return all seized firearms, not currently being held as evidence in a criminal investigation, to the lawful owner if able. If the lawful owner is not found or unable to take possession of the firearm, SB 350 requires these agencies sell these firearms at a public auction to licensed firearms dealers. Previous Georgia law allowed for seized guns to be immediately destroyed. SB 350 prevents the wasteful and expensive practice of destroying firearms that could be sold to federally licensed firearms dealers.
--------------
Frontlash. Yeah.

[Hoyt]

1. Another right wing bigot signs a bill supported by other right wing bigots.

Last edited Wed May 9, 2012, 11:10 PM - Edit history (1)

Surprised he didn't support giving the guns and ammo to Minute Men who pledge to shoot people who came here for a better life.

[Glaug-Eldare]

2. Er...

Are you saying that your things cease to belong to you when they're taken as evidence, regardless of whether you are at fault, charged, or even involved in the commission of a crime? That's kinda silly.

[oneshooter]

3. Hoyt LOVES his police state.

[Hoyt]

5. "Silly" -- what the heck do you guys call walking around city streets and shops with a gun?

[Glaug-Eldare]

6. Does this law only apply to those who carry outside the home?

Sounds to me like it protects those who keep guns to protect homes and businesses as well. Licensed carry is not a crime in Georgia, so those who do so are entitled to their property rights, as well. Answer the question:

Does your property (jewelry, electronics, papers, vehicles) belong to you after the police have finished using it as evidence?

or, if you prefer, this one:

Is there some overriding reason that a person who has not broken the law should have any of their property seized and destroyed as a result of someone else's action?

[Hoyt]

7. Don't carry, and/or don't shoot people . . . . . .you'd never have a problem under old or new law.

[Glaug-Eldare]

8. That doesn't answer the question

[slackmaster]

26. That's baloney Hoyt. The topic isn't "guns that were confiscated from people who were carrying them"

Or "guns that were confiscated from people who shot people."

[Simo 1939_1940]

9. I call it calm preparation for an unlikely but not impossible negative occurrence.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/117238073#post9

[NewMoonTherian]

11. I really can't fathom why you would oppose this.

It seems like you just completely refuse to view it objectively, but since you can't criticize the law on its own merit, you're throwing a bunch of nonsense at it to see what sticks.

Maybe I'm wrong. Maybe you see some public danger here that everyone else has overlooked. Please tell us what your issue is. I can't promise you'll convince anyone, but you might not look so foolish.

[Hoyt]

15. Actually, I have no problem with this particular law -- but most gun laws are just right wing BS.

Although, I would not want police to be forced to return weapons when there is any chance the shooter used the gun improperly. For example, if there had not been a public outrage over Zimmerman, the police probably would have returned his gun and patted him on the back for shooting an unarmed kid.

Also, I was pointing out that most gun laws are sponsored by right wing Republicans who support Ted Nugent, the Minute Men, Zimmerman, NRA, and similar worthless people and organizations.

Crux of the matter, don't really like right wing bigots getting accolades on DU.

[NewMoonTherian]

31. I appreciate your clarification.

The law specifically lays out what to do if the gun can't be returned(e.g. if the owner is found guilty of a crime that disqualifies them from owning firearms), so that isn't an issue.

Now, in the event the Z-man is found innocent(fat chance), under a law similar to this one, the gun would have to be returned. We can't say "Well, we can't prove you're guilty of a crime, but just in case you are, we're still taking away your property," any more than we can say "We can't prove you're guilty, but just in case you are, we're going to execute you." The ruling is the ruling, even if the court gets it wrong.

I don't really evaluate a proposed law based on the sponsor. I judge them based on their content. I'm not going to cut off my nose to spite my face.

As for you last point, I think that's something we can all agree on.

[hack89]

16. So you don't believe in private property? nt

[Hoyt]

17. Actually I do believe in "private property." Except when a gun is used to shoot someone, it should

be thoroughly investigated. Any doubt about returning the gun, should be reason to hold it in most cases.

Police and prosecutors hold a lot of evidence for a long time. Just because a few are afraid of losing their gun, doesn't change that.

Besides, as I have pointed out in numerous posts, I'm more interested in exposing the right wingers who enact this gun crap at the behest of the NRA, bigots, compound dwellers, and others.

[hack89]

18. But the law allows for that

the problem is police destroying guns after the investigation.

[Hoyt]

19. To be honest with you Hack, who in the heck would want a gun that was used to shoot someone.

What are you going to do, put it in a display case to show all your friends?

The more I hear you guys whining about things like this, and fawning all over guns and the shooting of people, the more I think we need to clamp down hard on people who love guns too much.

[slackmaster]

20. The topic here isn't "guns that were used to shoot people"

It's about guns that were taken in by police as evidence in crime investigations in situations, that belong to people who haven't committed any crimes.

[Hoyt]

21. When you shoot someone, there is a chance you committed a crime.

In any event, the topic -- as I see it -- is the love/reverence given here for right wingers who sign/enact/support right wing gun laws.

[slackmaster]

25. The topic also isn't "people who shot someone getting guns returned to them by the police"

In any event, the topic -- as I see it -- is the love/reverence given here for right wingers who sign/enact/support right wing gun laws.

Do you support the Fourth Amendment, Hoyt?

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

[DonP]

22. Kind of like sending your car to the "crusher" after you're found "not guilty" of speeding.

You get stopped for speeding or an illegal left turn and the police confiscate your car for 6 months give or take.

You're found not guilty and informed that they sending your car to Calumet Auto Wreckers to be crushed and recycled, "here's your receipt - have a nice day"

I guess for some people, as long as the police do it, it can't be illegal. Wait, wasn't that Nixon's defense?

[hack89]

23. Who said the gun was used to shoot someone?

police seize weapons all the time for lots of different reasons.

Secondly, it is a lump of steel. The criminal who used it to shoot someone is the problem.

[hack89]

24. How do you plan to measure how much a person loves guns?

what objectives measures will you use and how do you ensure due process will be adhered to?

[Johnny Rico]

27. Don't expect a meaningful answer...

Last edited Thu May 10, 2012, 01:57 PM - Edit history (1)

[Hoyt]

28. See how they "handle" it and slobber in gun stores comes to mind.

When you buy a gun to shoot demons, you need to plan on some inconviences along the way.

[Glaug-Eldare]

29. Again and again, over and over,

you assert that people should only enjoy the civil rights you approve of.

"If you decide to be Catholic, don't plan on living in this neighborhood."
"If you just have to be a sodomite, you ought to expect a few ass-beatings." "
"If you get around with a wheelchair, don't complain when you can't get up the stairs to vote.""

2A exists, and it means something you don't want it to mean. The route to overturning it is through Constitutional amendment, not unwarranted seizure of guns, regardless of the owner's guilt or innocence.


EDIT: Oh. You don't mind this law? I'll cease my ranting then.

[Hoyt]

32. Walking out your door with a gun, prepared to shoot citizens, is quite different from your list.

[Glaug-Eldare]

33. Come on, Hoyt, you know how to read

This is not exclusive to carry weapons. Even then, people should not have their property stolen as a result of obeying the law, whether you like the law or not. I'm opposed to super bright headlights, but I don't believe cars equipped with them should be automatically destroyed if they're involved in a crash. "If they insist on dazzling other motorists, they should be prepared for some inconveniences."

[hack89]

30. So how do you codify that in legislation?

how would the law read and who would enforce it?


As an aside, I know this is not a serious subject for you and you are just having fun. Thanks for livening up the forum.

[ileus]

4. Why destroy magnificent pieces of craftsmanship...

And why steal from the people....

Give them back or sell them no reason to deprive society of these firearms.

[NewMoonTherian]

10. I wouldn't really call this frontlash.

It doesn't expand citizens' ability to carry and use firearms for legitimate purposes. It simply helps protect innocent people from thieving scum who use positions of power to harass them. It's a correction of a gigantic error, and a victory for common sense.

[GreenStormCloud]

13. Maybe.

But since the real reason that I have started saying "frontlash. Yeah." is to annoy a certain poster who loves to post "backlash" I am going to let it stand. I am using it anytime that a pro-gun law is passed, but others are welcome to use it as they see fit.

[NewMoonTherian]

14. Oh. Well that's something I get definitely get on board with! n/t

[slackmaster]

12. Destroying anything that can be lawfully returned to its owner is wasteful, and amounts...

...to an unlawful seizure (i.e. 4th Amendment violation.)

This is a common-sense restoration of a Constitutional right, nothing more.

[gendoikari87]

34. awesome

now where can I find one of these public auctions?