Monday, March 11, 2013

Own a Gun in Georgia, Not a Diploma

ATLANTA, GAHB 125, the bill that was supposed to offer a fix to HB 87, but instead inserted damaging and cumbersome provisions making immigrants' lives in the state much more difficult, has passed the Georgia House. It takes away Driver’s Licenses from federal DACA beneficiaries who already have driver’s license under current state law, and people in need will be left out of governmental help if they do not show "verifible papers." Meanwhile, the Republican's Georgia legislature is almost ready to let people over 18 years old carry gun in schools, churches, parks, bars, and provide license to people with mental health and drug issues. 

The bill started out as a simple fix to the problems created by HB 87 for the Secretary of State’s office in processing of business and professional licenses and renewals. The SOS was charged with annual submission and verification of proof of lawful status. The sheer volume of license application and renewals resulted in backlog and delays that disrupted businesses and professionals (such as nurses) from doing their jobs. 

The remedy and original intent of HB 125 was to “fix” the problem from HB 87 by now requiring that document verification did not need to repeated annually, once was enough. Simple and accepted by all involved as a reasonable remedy for the unworkable requirement of HB 87.

The original HB 125 gathered numerous endorsements from groups on both sides of the immigration issue. When the bill went before committee, the original 6 page bill became a 13 page bill with new provisions that, among other things, threatens drivers licenses for Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) approved students, requires proof of citizenship for obtaining homestead exemptions, no longer accepts Passports as a stand-alone acceptable proof of status, and several other troublesome provisions.

The surprise hijacking of the bill was followed by a House floor vote where debate was cut-off and opponents of the bill did not get to challenge the problem provisions added to the bill.

HB 125 is now in the Senate assigned to the Judiciary Non-Civil Committee.

Important Note: SB 160 is the Senate version of the original HB 125. SB 160 was passed without drama by the Senate. And without any amendments, so it remains a supportable and proper remedy to the Sec. of State’s problems…if it stays in its current form.  It has been assigned to the House Judiciary Non-Civil Committee. The same committee that hijacked HB 125.

What Could Happen?

The Senate Committee could hold the bill, and insist that their SB 160 be passed by the House Committee without harmful amendments. The Senate Committee could also strip off the offending language and return to the original content (making it the same as their already passed SB 160.) Both of these outcomes are possible, but not without some great effort.

HB 125 is Bad for Business, Bad for the Economy, Bad for Immigrants and Bad for Georgia.

Section 1 expands HB 87 (Georgia’s Anti-Immigration law) by modifying its “Definitions” of “contractor” and to which entities HB 87 applies

Section 2 extends HB 87’s E-Verify Requirement and Future IMAGE requirement to every employer in Georgia

Section 2 expands the scope of the mandate of the un-oversighted Immigration Enforcement Review Board

Section 3 modifies and increases the mandatory application of E-Verify to Georgia Employers

Section 3 increases compliance costs for State Agencies, Counties and Municipalities

Section 4, while limiting HB 87’s compliance requirement to NEW licenses, requires additional compliance efforts by businesses and state agencies, counties and municipalities

Section 5 substantially modifies the penalties imposable by the Immigration Enforcement Review Board

Section 6 eliminates the Federal and Attorney General definitions of “Public Benefits” and greatly expands what are prohibited “Public Benefits” under HB 87

Section 6 adds as “Public Benefits” Homestead Exemptions, Public and Assisted Housing, Retirement Benefits, Driver Licenses, Grants and Tax Credits

Section 6 takes away Driver’s Licenses from federal DACA beneficiaries who already have driver’s license under current state law!

Section 6 will require Hundreds of thousands of Georgia Homeowners to prove their legal immigration status (including citizens) to get a Homestead Exemption!

Section 6 also bars ALL undocumented students from attending any Georgia college or university even if they pay in-state tuition and even if they are DACA beneficiaries

Section 7 eliminates the use of a foreign passport as a secure and verifiable document, eliminating the ability of any foreign national form showing their immigration status to obtain a Georgia License, or from signing to obtain lawful benefits for their US Citizen children.

Section 8 mandates creation of a new immigration compliance system, which is unfunded and unnecessary for any legitimate state purpose.

Section 9 implements all these changes on July 1, 2013.

Section 10 repeals all contravening laws and statutes, without mentioning them.

HB 125 is the steroid needed to revive the failure that was HB 87.

HB 125 is bad for business, bad for the economy, bad for our state’s image.  

Simply put, HB 125 is bad for Georgia.  

In Case You Want to Call

Lt. Governor Casey Cagle  (404) 656-5030
Sen. Jeff Mullis, Rules Committee Chairman (404) 656-0057

Sen. Jesse Stone, Chairman Senate Judiciary Non-Civil (404) 463-1314
Sen. William Ligon, Jr., Vice Chair  (404) 656-0045
Sen. Curt Thompson, Secretary (404) 463-1318
Sen. Josh McKoon,  Ex-Officio (404) 463-3931
Sen. Charlie Bethel, Member (404) 651-7738
Sen. John Crosby, Member (404) 463-5258
Sen. Vincent Fort, Member (404) 656-5091
Sen. Hunter Hill, Member (404) 463-2518
Sen. Ron Ramsey, Sr., Member (404) 463-2598

Gun Craziness to Madness: Georgia to become the WWW of the South

The Georgia Senate passed a bill that would loosen restrictions on gun ownership. SB 101 allows 18-year-old Georgians with basic military training to apply for a license to carry. Also, HB 512 would allow licensed gun owners to carry guns in churches, bars, government buildings without security guards and on college campuses.

SB 101 makes zero sense because members of the military can carry concealed with no permit needed so why the would be "allowed" to apply for a carry is...ridiculous. Concealed Carry Weapon Exemptions • O.C.G.A. § 16-11-130 Exemptions from Code Sections 16-11-126 through 16-11-127.2 which are also provided in this document. (a) Code Sections 16-11-126 through 16-11-127.2 shall not apply to or affect any of the following persons if such persons are employed in the offices listed below or when authorized by federal or state law, regulations, or order: (3) Persons in the military service of the state or of the United States.

HB 512 limit the denial of a gun license application to not only involuntary hospitalizations, but it actually makes it harder for authorities to block issuing those licenses to individuals who may have mental problems or drug addictions. 

Alcohol, drug, and guns, a legalized lethal mix served by the Georgia General Assembly in order to balance the budget, to improve students achievement, to create jobs and lift the economic crisis in the state (?) 

The 56 Georgia legislators who voted against the bill included Democrat Stacey Abrams of the Atlanta district 89, as well as Democrat Kimberly Alexander, who represents the Hiram, Ga. district.

Democrat Tonya Anderson of Lithonia opposed the bill, as did female Democrats Sharon Beasley-Teague, Simone Bell, Karen Bennett, Patty Bentley, Dee Dawkins-Haigler, Pam Dickerson, and Karla Drenner.

Others who oppossed the passage of gun bill HB 512 include Democrats Demetrius Douglas,Winfred J. Dukes, Carl Von Epps, Stacey Evans, and Virgil Fludd, who represents Tyrone, Ga., as well as James Beverly, Tyrone Brooks and Roger Bruce.

Additional opponents of the bill that would allow carry-conceal permit holders to enter churches, college campuses and bars with their registered weapons include Democrats Spencer Frye of Athens, Carol Fullerton of Albany, Pat Gardner of Atlanta, J. Craig Gordon of Savannah, and Charles Gregory of Kennesaw, a city that has had a mandatory gun ownership law since 1982.

Democrat Michelle Henson of Stone Mountain voted no to supporting the new gun bill proposed in the House as well, as did the following other Democrats in the state: Scott Holcomb, Henry "Wayne" Howard in Augusta, Carolyn Hugley of Columbus, Mack Jackson of Sandersville, Sheila Jones of Atlanta, LaDawn Jones of College Park, and Darryl Jordan of Riverdale.

Four House representatives did not vote on the controversial gun bill, and they were Augusta's Rep. Quincy Murphy, House Speaker Republican David Ralston, who does not vote unless a tiebreaker vote is needed, and Republican Chuck Sims of Ambrose. The fourth rep could not vote as the seat is currently vacant.

Three reps from the House were excused from the HB 512 gun bill vote, and they include Democrat Gloria Frazier of Hephzibah, Republican Rich Golick of Smyrna, and Democrat Brian Thomas of Lilburn.

HB 512 must now pass the Senate within the next 10 days if it is to become law this year. However, it could be passed as law next year even if it is not heard before the end of this year's Georgia General Assembly.

The Family Protection Act was proposed by a city leader in the town of Nelson – just 50 miles north of Atlanta. It calls on every household to have a gun as a means to keep crime down. The proposal was unanimously approved by city council members earlier this week.  

"In order to provide for the emergency management of the city, and further in order to provide for and protect the safety, security and general welfare of the city and its inhabitants, every head of household residing in the city limits is required to maintain a firearm, together with ammunition therefore,” the two-paragraph proposal reads.

Although there would be no penalty for not having a weapon, the new law would deter would-be criminals, according to Councilman Duane Cronic.

The Right to Bear Arms to Protect 'Properties'

Professor Carl T. Bogus argues that there is strong reason to believe that, in significant part, James
Madison drafted the Second Amendment to assure his constituents in Virginia, and the South
generally, that Congress could not use its newly-acquired powers to indirectly undermine the
slave system by disarming the militia, on which the South relied for slave control.

His argument is based on a multiplicity of the historical evidence, including debates between James Madison and George Mason and Patrick Henry at the Constitutional Ratifying Convention in Richmond,
Virginia in June 1788; the record from the First Congress; and the antecedent of the American
right to bear arms provision in the English Declaration of Rights of 1688.

This work, copyright 1998 by Carl Bogus, was originally published in the UC Davis Law
Review, vol. 31, p. 309, copyright 1998 by The Regents of the University of California.

The Hidden History of the Second Amendment reveled in 1998 one of the most intriguing aspect of the current debate about the right to bear arms, the Constitution and the right of law abiding citizens to be protected by its government or by themselves.

All this under the presidency of the first black and the real story behind doubters of the birth right of Barack Obama to be president and the Fourteen Amendment.

On the other side of the equation, there are believers of the Second Amendment to protect land owners against the Army. If a land owner is going to give the Army house, they better have guns to protect themselves against soldiers whom might want to take over the land. Just thinking.

In a dictatorship regime most all the time when the Army come to your land you just say good bye to your property.

Also there is this view about property for Southerners and some in the North, about the notion of property of humans, such as the black race. Therefore, black humans, land and guns are interconnected under the right of the white specie to be protected under the Second Amendment.

The right to bear arms in that context means the right of the white rich man to own a gun to protect his properties; black folks and lands.

No comments:

Post a Comment