A new law has passed the Georgia House and is headed to the Senate. It promises to increase the locations where Georgians can carry firearms, but that’s not necessarily true. It may also weaken existing laws keeping the mentally handicapped from getting a gun.
Georgia’s HB 512 is most famous for promising to expand the places licensed firearms can be carried. But, according to Fox 31’s Sean Streicher, that’s not the case. “If the bill does pass, it doesn’t mean every bar, church and college campus will automatically have licensed carriers walking around with their gun (http://www.mysouthwestga.com/news/story.aspx?id=869915),” he reports.
Not only that, but the bill may actually make it easier for those with mental issues to get a gun license. According to GeorgiaCarry.org (which pushed for HB 512) “Georgia Gun Owners is asking people to oppose the entire bill based on its misunderstanding of a provision relating to checks for involuntary hospitalizations. The truth is that current law includes voluntary hospitalizations as well as involuntary, and HB 512 is narrowing the scope of that provision down to involuntary hospitalizations only (http://www.georgiacarry.org/cms/2013/03/02/hb-512-needs-your-help/).”
What’s even scarier is that not only does HB 512 limit the denial of a gun license application to only involuntary hospitalizations, but it actually makes it harder for authorities to block issuing those licenses to individuals who may have mental problems.
GeorgiaCarry.org’s Vice-President John Monroe wrote (in that link listed above) “The bill would make the mental health check mandatory, but clarify that it is only for involuntary hospitalizations, and put a time limit of 30 days on it. Moreover, the bill would allow an applicant to state that he or she has not been involuntarily hospitalized, and the probate judge would be bound to accept that statement if not rebutted by the state within 30 days…..The burden of proof is not on the applicant. The probate judge is required to issue the license unless the judge finds the person is not eligible.” So if a person declares he or she is sane, a judge has barely a month to find out if that’s not true, and must otherwise issue the gun license.
What’s incredible is in that same posting, Monroe also concludes “Every significant gun rights organization, including GCO, has taken a position that mass shootings are a mental health issue and not a gun issue, and that existing mental health laws should be enforced.”
If mass shootings are a mental health issue, and existing mental health laws should be enforced, then why would anyone pass a bill to water them down?
It’s not always easy to catch shooters with mental health screenings. An NBC study of shooters before the wave of rampage killings found only a third had a mental health evaluation and only a fifth were diagnosed with having a mental illness (http://www.examiner.com/article/aurora-colorado-shooting-gun-control-vs-mental-health). Clearly, we don’t need to be weakening mental health studies or provisions on mental disabilities for those who hope to carry guns.
HB 512 seems to be out of step with what most national Republicans are saying about the need for tougher mental health screenings as a panacea to spree shootings. It doesn’t even increase the places you can actually carry a gun. I urge local conservatives to reexamine this bill.
"It doesn’t even increase the places you can actually carry a gun."
That is plainly not true and can be seen as such with even a brief glance at the legislation. What the bill does is keep the private property rights Georgia has ALWAYS held supreme, while getting the government out of telling a PRIVATE church that it MUST NOT allow weapons carry, even if they want to. Perhaps reading the bill before inserting a quote of a news source would have told you this.
Most important to my myself and my family is that we will no longer be forced to disarm ourselves when attending classes at Public institutions of higher learning. Absolutely, private colleges can still say no as they are within their rights to do so. I wish they would be smart enough to recognize it is in their student's best interest to allow people to defend themselves. Perhaps that may have helped stop a rape that occurred here in Augusta on the Paine College campus a couple weeks ago. The suspect in custody has had a history of previous incidents. It may not have helped, but it certainly would be better than the alternative of simply having to endure a nightmare like that. Thank you for the story, but I respectfully ask you do more research before publishing it. This is an editorial and you are within your own rights to allow your own sentiments to shine through, but please do not report falsehoods.
Respectfully,
David Hopper
(2012 Republican Candidate for Georgia House District #125.)
I was merely citing the report from Fox Channel 31 in Albany, Georgia, in my report (and the website is listed above). If Fox 31 got it wrong, my apologies for citing a bad report.
But in Fox Channel 31's defense, I've noticed a tendency of the public to hear a law's name, hear it pass, and then go out and interpret the law as they see fit. That could mean someone hears the bill passes, and assumes he or she can walk into any bar with a gun, no matter what.
I thank you for noting my error, as well as clarifying for the public the fact that if HB 512 passes, it doesn't automatically mean someone can carry a gun into any bar, church or college, which was the purpose of the article.
John A. Tures
LaGrange College