Georgia governor to veto 'campus-carry' concealed gun bill

[Eugene]

Source: Associated Press

Georgia governor to veto 'campus-carry' concealed gun bill

By RYAN PHILLIPS
May. 3, 2016 5:25 PM EDT

ATLANTA (AP) — Georgia Gov. Nathan Deal said Tuesday he will veto a bill allowing concealed handguns on college campuses, rejecting the proposal that was easily approved by a legislature controlled by his own party in an election year.

The bill would have allowed anyone age 21 and over to carry a concealed handgun with the proper permit on a public college or university campus. The veto decision comes weeks after Deal rejected a bill shielding opponents of gay marriage. That measure was backed by conservative groups but blasted by more than 500 Georgia companies as discriminatory.

Deal's decision to kill the bill isn't a complete surprise. After it passed the legislature, he asked members to pass follow-up bills addressing concerns about access to on-campus daycare centers, spaces where high schools students can take college-level courses and where disciplinary hearings are held. They declined, saying the original bill was carefully considered.

Deal, who is in his second and final term, said last week that he would "do what's in the best interests of as many Georgians as possible."

[font size=1]-snip-[/font]

Read more: http://bigstory.ap.org/article/f1dd32355d064c0080e08a228565c6fc/deadline-arrives-georgia-governor-campus-guns-bill

[guillaumeb]

1. What was "carefully considered" by the politicians passing the bill

was NRA blood money and their legion of fanatical, fearful, and loud acolytes who flood the Internet, phone lines, and offices whenever they fear a limit to their supposed right to carry weapons. A right that dates not from the founding of the country, but from a single SCOTUS decision that reversed centuries of SCOTUS precedent.

[sarisataka]

2. That was a major victory

For the NRA. After centuries of gun ownership restricted to the government, private citizens were finally allowed to buy guns.

[guillaumeb]

3. A major victory for fear and for the money purchasing SCOTUS Judges.

And a defeat for peace, a defeat for the legions killed each year by firearms, a defeat for the damage this gun culture does to society.

I liked your sarcasm.

[sarisataka]

4. .

[Kang Colby]

5. ..."for the money purchasing SCOTUS judges"

LOL



SCOTUS ruled on Heller in 2008, and then McDonald in 2010. Before 2008, civilians were not allowed to own firearms in the United States...only the militia.

No one takes gun control seriously. This news from GA is disappointing. But rest assured, the NRA will be back next year to finish the job...like they did this year in W. VA after a foolish 2015 veto of constitutional carry.

[TeddyR]

6. You do realize

That the "right" to keep and bear arms has been recognized since this country was founded, right? Here's a good quote from a Georgia Supreme Court case from 1846 (note that this court ultimately upheld the law that banned certain firearms):

Nor is the right involved in this discussion less comprehensive or valuable: "The right of the people to bear arms shall not be infringed." The right of the whole people, old and young, men, women and boys, and not militia only, to keep and bear arms of every description, not such merely as are used by the militia, shall not be infringed, curtailed, or broken in upon, in the smallest degree; and all this for the important end to be attained: the rearing up and qualifying a well-regulated militia, so vitally necessary to the security of a free State. Our opinion is, that any law, State or Federal, is repugnant to the Constitution, and void, which contravenes this right, originally belonging to our forefathers, trampled under foot by Charles I, and his two wicked sons and successors, reestablished by the revolution of 1688, conveyed to this land of liberty by the colonists, and finally incorporated conspicuously in our own Magna Charta!

And here's the part upholding the law:

We are of the opinion, then, that so far as the act of 1837 seeks to suppress the practice of carrying certain weapons secretly, that it is valid, inasmuch as it does not deprive the citizen of his natural right of self-defence, or of his constitutional right to keep and bear arms. But that so much of it, as contains a prohibition against bearing arms openly, is in conflict with the Constitution, and void; and that, as the defendant has been indicted and convicted for carrying a pistol, without charging that it was done in a concealed manner, under that portion of the statute which entirely forbids its use, the judgment of the court below must be reversed, and the proceeding quashed.

[guillaumeb]

8. A carefull re-reading of my post will show that I was referring to SCOTUS

precedent. SCOTUS obviously referring to the US Supreme Court, your citation of state precedent is totally off point. The SCOTUS is, as the name implies, is the deciding level for the Judiciary.

[TeddyR]

9. Apologies for misreading your post

But you do realize that state courts also get to decide constitutional issue, and the fact that the Georgia Supreme Court determined in 1846 that the right to keep and bear arms is protected by the Second Amendment is an important fact in the discussion?

[guillaumeb]

11. Again, after accepting your kind apology, the SCOTUS is the final arbiter of law.

State courts can decide issues on a state level, but as Alabama Chief Judge Roy Moore can attest, the SCOTUS has the final say. And given that this is a Federal Constitutional issue, Georgia can suggest whatever interpretation it wishes, but the SCOTUS decides.

[TeddyR]

13. Ok

I agree that wasn't much of an apology. But the point still stands - state courts do in fact get to interpret the US constitution. And yes, I know that the SC is the final arbiter of constitutional law, and I'm not arguing otherwise. I'm simply making the point that state court decisions can inform the discussion.

[gejohnston]

7. what centuries of SCOTUS precedent?

there never has been a ruling on the issue before Heller
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nunn_v._Georgia

[guillaumeb]

10. First, prior to DC v Heller, the established and accepted view was that the Second

Amendment referred to a group right, not an individual right. There were few Federal challenges to this view that actually agreed with the plain language of the Amendment.

Second:

Why is Heller such a radical departure from prior Second Amendment case law?
As discussed in the Law Center’s brochure Gun Regulation and the Second Amendment: Moving Forward After District of Columbia v. Heller, the ruling in Heller represented a dramatic reversal of the Court’s previous interpretation of the Second Amendment. In United States v. Miller, the Court stated, in a unanimous decision, that the “obvious purpose” of the Second Amendment was to “assure the continuation and render possible the effectiveness of” the state militia, and the Amendment “must be interpreted and applied with that end in view.” In reliance on Miller, hundreds of lower federal and state appellate courts had rejected Second Amendment challenges to our nation’s gun laws over the last seven decades, making Heller‘s reversal of this interpretation a watershed moment in Second Amendment law.

http://smartgunlaws.org/understanding-district-of-columbia-v-heller/

I realize that this does not accord with your NRA type view, but history is NOT on your side in this issue. Scalia, the supposed originalist, decided that he, and he alone, knew what the true meaning of the language was. To arrive at this supposed true meaning, he discarded most of the language in the Amendment.

[TeddyR]

12. There's lots of scholarly articles

That pre-date Heller that discuss this issue and pretty much confirm that the right to keep and bear arms is an individual right and has been since prior to this country's founding. I recommend reading The Embarrassing Second Amendment. It may not convince you one way or the other but if you are interested in the Second Amendment then I find it to be a well-written article. Linky - http://www.firearmsandliberty.com/embar.html

[guillaumeb]

14. Please read my reply #10. It says it better than I can. eom

[TeddyR]

15. Ok

But I'd still recommend reading the article. The Miller decision is significantly flawed because the defendant in that case disappeared and never entered an appearance before the Supreme Court, meaning the only briefing was submitted by the US. Our legal system is based on advocacy for both sides, so when you only have one side telling the story you get a very slanted set of facts.

[gejohnston]

16. your source lied by omission,

but still wrong. It was never established and the "accepted view" existed only in the minds of a few academics since Miller. That was the government's argument in Miller, but the court rejected it.

What Miller REALLY said was that registering sawed off shotguns did not violate the 2A because it was not a military weapon. It was a 8-0 vote only because Miller was dead and there was no counter argument and no briefs on his behalf. It is a very poor choice. If your claim was true, then why didn't they simply ban machine guns and sawed off shotguns instead of the high transference tax and registration? Because they know a ban would be struck down.
Miller did not say only militias were protected, only ownership of military weapons were protected. If it were a Thompson SMG or a BAR, the ruling might have been quite different. That is why both sides claim that Miller was a victory for their side.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._Miller
http://www.law.nyu.edu/sites/default/files/ECM_PRO_060964.pdf
http://www.encyclopediaofarkansas.net/encyclopedia/entry-detail.aspx?entryID=4742
https://www.law.cornell.edu/supremecourt/text/307/174
Before Miller, look up Nunn v Georgia.

Since I didn't cite an advocacy group from either side, like the NRA, can you do the same? I'm thinking not.

[Lizzie Poppet]

17. While that view had some degree of legal standing...

...the collective right interpretation has always been untenable from a linguistic standpoint.

[guillaumeb]

18. To characterize a unanimous SCOTUS decision as

"some degree of legal standing" is ridiculous. The SCOTUS Second Amendment precedent is scant because there has never, at least prior to D.C. v Heller, been a SCOTUS level disagreement as to what the Second Amendment represents and represented for the Founders.

The Heller decision was a blatant example of legislating from the bench, led by self-proclaimed Originalist Antonin Scalia, that effectively deleted much of the Second Amendment's clear language to arrive at Scalia's pre-determined decision to reverse the clear meaning of the Amendment.

There have been challenges, and state level decisions, but until Heller the recognized meaning of the Amendment protected only the right of a state militia, and its well organized and Federally regulated members, to possess weapons.

I understand that from the NRA's perspective, history must be rewritten to allow the fiction that Heller represents original intent, but calling a cow a horse does not make the cow a horse.

And speaking from a linguistic standpoint, the clear language links a well-regulated militia to the right of "the people", not every individual, to keep and bear arms. Even the phrase "bear arms" was understood by the Founders as carrying weapons in a militia.

[DonP]

19. Ah, so they never bothered to rule on it because, well "everybody knows"

Interesting legal opinion.

No real case law, but well, heck, everybody just knows what it means. No need for any rulings.

Keep stretching.

In the meantime just abide by the law of the land re: Heller and McDonald and whining about that conservative court that upheld Obamcare twice and won't touch Roe v. Wade.

It makes such logical sense.

[guillaumeb]

20. Research SCOTUS decisions prior to Heller and your claim of

"no real case law" is quite hollow. There was no real case law with which you and the NRA agreed, but that is not the same as your claim.

As to the ACA, or Obamacare, the SCOTUS upheld the ACA, in my view, precisely because it represents a massive subsidy to the Insurance industry, a major Obama contributor by the way, and the ACA continues the monetization of the healthcare industry.

Seen that way, the SCOTUS decision on the ACA makes sense. Or cents.

[DonP]

25. Yeah, that's too bad, like it or not you're still stuck with Heller and McDonald as the law

Even if the court gets new judges, their habit is to leave prior decisions alone for extended periods of time.

So the odds of them overturning their own fairly decision by SCOTUS standards are slim and none, with none leading the pack.

[Lizzie Poppet]

21. You couldn't be more wrong about the linguistic analysis.

The language of the preamble is not exclusionary of other rationales besides the necessity of a militia, and main clause's ascription of this right is clearly to "the People." Moreover, the protection of that right also appears in the main clause (not in the preamble). This is basic stuff...

[guillaumeb]

22. The clear language of the Second Amendment links a well regulated militia

to the right of "the people" to bear arms. Quite clear and basic, or it was until Scalia decided that the first clause was merely prefatory. A feat of logical incoherence that the NRA ignores because it supports their goal of increasing revenue for the weapons industry.

The NRA, and some NRA supporters, generally ignore the reference to a well regulated militia, and the necessity of a militia for the common defense, because to admit and follow the clear language undercuts the NRA's, and your, argument.

Plus, when talking about "the people", are you referring to the original intent of that phrase, which refers to white males of property?

For the NRA, linguistic analysis is something that is avoided, and rightfully so, because the clear language, and SCOTUS precedent prior to Heller, is not favorable to the idea of an individual right.

[Lizzie Poppet]

23. See above.

Repeat as needed until you can do more than simply restate your initial assertion.

I'll check back in a few days...

[guillaumeb]

24. The NRA would be quite proud.

But SCOTUS history and rulings regarding the Second Amendment did not start in 2008.

[Lizzie Poppet]

26. Ah, resorting to insult? Bye, Felicia.

Don't bother checking back: off to Ignore with you. I have zero tolerance for that sort of shenanigans.

[beevul]

29. Bull.

The clear language of the Second Amendment links a well regulated militia to the right of "the people" to bear arms. Quite clear and basic, or it was until Scalia decided that the first clause was merely prefatory. A feat of logical incoherence that the NRA ignores because it supports their goal of increasing revenue for the weapons industry.

Bull. If you understand constitutional theory, and understand how a negative charter of rights works, and you read this:

THE Conventions of a number of the States having at the time of their adopting the Constitution, expressed a desire, in order to prevent misconstruction or abuse of its powers, that further declaratory and restrictive clauses should be added: And as extending the ground of public confidence in the Government, will best insure the beneficent ends of its institution

http://billofrights.org/

It becomes crystal clear, that what the significance you place on the first clause is deliberately misplaced with an end in mind.

You know it, and we know it.

Your arguments and the intent behind them are transparent.

The NRA, and some NRA supporters, generally ignore the reference to a well regulated militia, and the necessity of a militia for the common defense, because to admit and follow the clear language undercuts the NRA's, and your, argument.

You want others to admit to your nonsensical collective rights theory, when it doesn't mesh with reality or history?

Why am I not surprised.

We're supposed to believe, that after a war of revolution against the british sparked by *gasp* gun issues, that in spite of the fact that 40+ states wrote individual RKBA into their state constitutions, that the framers didn't intend for individuals to have the right to keep and bear arms, when they wrote "the people" in amendment 2.

Gee, I'll buy that for a dollar.

Plus, when talking about "the people", are you referring to the original intent of that phrase, which refers to white males of property?

Are you?

For the NRA, linguistic analysis is something that is avoided, and rightfully so, because the clear language, and SCOTUS precedent prior to Heller, is not favorable to the idea of an individual right.

And for anti-gunners, the preamble to the bill of rights and the concept of a negative charter of rights go right out the window and rightfully so, because both of those things destroy the credibility and hence the validity of the collective rights theory, and...well...anti-gunners...the really die hard ones...they just can't have that. Even republican former brady president paul helmke recognizes that the collective rights argument is dead. Whats your excuse?

[TeddyR]

30. Where does the Second Amendment

Say that the right to keep and bear arms is limited to militia members? I can't find it in the text. When I read the Second it states the right of "the People" to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. Just like the 1st and 4th Amendment protect the right of "the People" with respect to assembly and unreasonable searches/seizures.

[gejohnston]

28. unanimous only because

there was only one argument presented, and even then it didn't say it was a collective right. It said military weapons were protected.
http://www.law.nyu.edu/sites/default/files/ECM_PRO_060964.pdf
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._Miller
http://davekopel.org/2A/Mags/Collective-Right.html

Using your logic individuals, like you, do not have the right to be secure in your papers or possessions.

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.

- See more at: http://constitution.findlaw.com/amendment4.html#sthash.HMhNYVIP.dpuf

[sarisataka]

27. Not familiar

With the Dred Scott ruling, are you?