Your morning jolt: NRA chastises Senate GOP leaders

Last week, on the crucial Crossover Day, SB 350 passed the Senate with a comfortable 49-to-4 margin.

The bill, sponsored by state Sen. Don Balfour, R-Snellville, merely calls on the judicial system to restore firearms used in crimes to their innocent owners – a stolen pistol used in a robbery, for instance.

More important was what the bill did not contain – an amendment that would give employees the right to keep firearms in their locked cars in employee parking lots. Four years ago, Balfour led the pro-business fight on the issue, but he has recently converted to the opinion championed by the National Rifle Association.

But apparently not enough of his friends felt the same way. Posted on this NRA website is an attack on Senate GOP leaders:

Every effort was made to work with each interested party and organization that had a vested interest in this bill and was willing to come to the table. The NRA made some changes on the drafted amendment to try to address some concerns.

Unfortunately, Senate Leadership — more specifically state Senate President Pro Tempore Tommie Williams and state Senate Majority Leader Chip Rogers — worked against the NRA’s efforts behind the scenes and helped persuade their colleagues in the Republican Senate caucus that the NRA’s employee protection legislation was too divisive of an issue and it was apparently more important to side with the Georgia Chamber of Commerce and the Georgia Association of Realtors than to uphold the rights of law-abiding gun owners throughout the state.

For the record, this is precisely why many argue that you need a statewide-elected lieutenant governor with some control over the chamber – to take the heat for decisions like this one.

***
Advocates of enforcing Georgia’s sales tax on Internet purchases have been pointing to states that have approved similar legislation. They won’t be pointing to Arizona, which last week rejected the idea. From the Associated Press:

PHOENIX — Amazon.com will not be required to start collecting sales tax on purchases made by Arizona residents after the state Senate on Thursday soundly rejected a proposal that supporters argued was essential to protect local employers.

…The bill didn’t identify Amazon by name, but the legislation was widely viewed as targeted toward the Seattle-based company. The failed plan would have classified Amazon as an in-state retailer for tax purposes because a subsidiary has distribution centers in Arizona.

Amazon contends it doesn’t have to collect sales tax on sales to Arizonans because the parent company doesn’t have a physical presence in the state. And a lobbyist for the online retailer testified during a committee hearing that the bill would violate the Arizona Constitution’s prohibition on bills targeting specific individuals or companies.

***
Lauren McDonald III, son of state Public Service Commission member Lauren “Bubba” McDonald, has killed talk that he might run against state Sen. Jack Murphy, R-Cumming, by deciding to run for Forsyth County sheriff instead.

Lauren McDonald III is currently the county coroner. From the Forsyth News:

“The current sheriff has served a purpose, but now it is time to seize the opportunity for a wave of new ideas,” said McDonald, 43. “An opportunity for a fresh set of eyes to take a look at the way the business of the office operates and make a positive change happen within and outside of the sheriff’s office.”

[Incumbent Ted] Paxton has said he plans to seek a fourth term but has not officially launched his campaign.

- By Jim Galloway, Political Insider

For instant updates, follow me on Twitter, or connect with me on Facebook.

126 comments Add your comment

oppo

March 12th, 2012
8:52 am

sounds to me like the nra’s slimy lobbyist at the capitol is playing political games for cagle instead of doing his job. no one in their right mind believes that tommie williams and chip rogers oppose pro-gun legislation. it’s laughable. I continue to be amazed at how the NRA makes a fool of itself on a regular basis.

td

March 12th, 2012
9:10 am

The SCOTUS has ruled that a person’s car is treated the same as their home so if a person keeps a gun in their car while at work then it should be legal.

John

March 12th, 2012
9:20 am

The Supreme Court ruling actually says a car sholuld be treated the same as a person’s home IF the person is using that car as their home. That ruling further is narrowed in that it only applies to the defense of habitation in self-defense situations. Therefore, IF a homeless person living in their car has to defend themselves against a crime committed against them while they were in their car, they might have a defense argument. If I were a business opwner, I wouldn’t allow a gun on the premises, whther in the car of a customer or employee or in the building itself.

Old School

March 12th, 2012
9:20 am

“The NRA made some changes on the drafted amendment to try to address some concerns.” So now we have the NRA drafting our laws? What do we need the legislature?

Marlboro Man

March 12th, 2012
9:22 am

You can’t smoke Marlboros in you car on employer’s property that has been deemed smoke free.

luangtom

March 12th, 2012
9:24 am

The actions of the NRA are the very reason that states like GA have their own, grass-roots organizations to address state-law on firearms. Stay in Washington, DC…………..

Keith

March 12th, 2012
9:25 am

Before our legislators incorporate this “Internet Tax” lanuguage into the tax reform legislation currently being hashed out, they should read this Fact Sheet http://www.backroomreport.com/GA_House_Bill_993.html. The changes they want will not work and will cost Georgia more in lost taxes than it will take in from Internet taxes.

jarvis

March 12th, 2012
9:35 am

@td, that ’s not a valid comparison in this argument. A person’s house can’t be located on someone else’s property?

I can tell a person to move their car off of my property if I don’t like what is in it. Any property owner, residential or commercial, has the same right.

The same with alcohol and tobacco. I own the property and those things aren’t allowed on my property. Guns are no different.

The 2nd Amendment doesn’t grant carte blanche protection over private property.

td

March 12th, 2012
9:38 am

John

March 12th, 2012
9:20 am

What company? I will let you know if I have come into your company carrying. I have a carry permit and carry my gun everywhere I go. If I go in a government building then I leave it in my car.

Shine

March 12th, 2012
9:41 am

The state should tax home sales and real estate like it does cars and mobile homes. Buy an $80000 mobile home in South ga you pay $6400 in sales ataxes. Buy a house you pay 0. To make it fair the law should be changed so that when somebody buys 4 million in property they pay the same tax rate I do when I buy a roll of toilet paper….

td

March 12th, 2012
9:45 am

jarvis

March 12th, 2012
9:35 am

I have raised this debate before and will again today. Does property rights outweigh individual Constitutional rights? The 2nd Amendment states I have the right to keep AND bear arms. This is a right guaranteed under the Constitution. The SCOTUS has said over and over again that an individual does not have the right to take peoples individual rights away from them because they come onto you business property, like you can not ban people from coming into your store based on their race, gender ect.

Shine

March 12th, 2012
9:46 am

Although I disagree with the NRA on this one, its just more proof that whatever the chambers of corrupt commerse wants it gets no matter who of what party base has to be thrown under the bus.

Shine

March 12th, 2012
9:53 am

Dont be a kook td. You will tell us the second ammendment guarantees you can own mustard gas next.

The first ammendment guarantess freedom of the press so you telling me a reporter can walk into a business and go nosing through filing cabinets and interviewing people on the job?

td

March 12th, 2012
10:57 am

Shine

March 12th, 2012
9:46 am

That is a given. Money is power and the COC has the money. Why do you think there are so many attorneys willing to “sacrifice” 1/4 of their years billable hours to make only $19,000?

jd

March 12th, 2012
11:01 am

This issue is simple. . If you bring a gun on my property without my permission, I will shoot first and ask questions later.

Self_Made

March 12th, 2012
11:02 am

Oh God. Am I agreeing with td this morning? God Bless America!

DJ Sniper

March 12th, 2012
11:03 am

I have no problems at all with gun ownership, but there are some people who act like their rights are being infringed upon because they can’t carry their guns every.single.place that they go. Get a grip already.

td

March 12th, 2012
11:08 am

Shine

March 12th, 2012
9:53 am

Your analogy is not valid because the 1st amendment only says the press can write what they want to write. This is proven everyday because if you think the press wrote an unfair or untrue story about you then you have very little recourse because the burden of proof you have to show for liable is set extremely high because of their rights. If a member of the press came into your place of business and broke into your filing cabinets and stole information to write a story then the individual would be in trouble but you could not stop the actual story from being published.

The second amendment states that an individual has the right to bear arms and if I come into your place of business with a gun then what individual right of yours am I breaking?

td

March 12th, 2012
11:15 am

DJ Sniper

March 12th, 2012
11:03 am

“…the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.” 2nd Amendment

There are two parts to the individual rights guaranteed by the amendment. The first is to own a gun and the second is to be able to carry the gun with you. The amendment is very clear in saying this right “shall not be infringed”. I would say that this right would then trump peoples property rights at least as far as places of business that are open to the public.

td

March 12th, 2012
11:18 am

Puck Refublicans

March 12th, 2012
11:08 am

I totally disagree with your analogy as to what the NRA and individuals feel but since you believe we have distorted the meaning of the 2nd Amendment then please explain to us what the meaning should be?

SAWB

March 12th, 2012
11:19 am

So, often Liberals like to scream about Politicians and Big Business denying the 99% their civil rights. Well, this is an excellent example of just that. The GA Legislature on behalf of the Chamber of Commerce has continued a law that denies the Constitutional Civil Right of legal gun owners to carry in their personal automobiles. Really there is no other way to look at this unless you allow an irrational fear of an inanimate object to get in the way.

Bobby

March 12th, 2012
11:20 am

I thought the NRA was part of the Georgia State Legislature.

yellowdog.

March 12th, 2012
11:21 am

here we go again! this is what we pay our legislators for? typically male crap; its no wonder several female legislators walked out last week on other issue……it s all abourt white males. makes them feel like big macho men……………sickening………

Reasonable Business Owner

March 12th, 2012
11:22 am

Heaven forbid the chamber of commerce and association of realtors has more influence than the NRA. I’m for jobs, economic growth, safety and prosperity for our region. Appeasing a bunch of backwoods and exurban rednecks is the last thing our leadership at the capital needs to be worried about. I’m a gun owner and a republican but the NRA’s agenda is at the absolute bottom of my list of legislative concerns. Let’s fix our highways, tax system, mass transit, restore actual commerce to downtown Atlanta (not t-shirt vendors and weave salons), streamline our bureaucracies, and help our industries grow and thrive.

td

March 12th, 2012
11:29 am

yellowdog.

March 12th, 2012
11:21 am

Nice to see you got your marching orders this morning straight from the Obama administration. Lets try to make everything a wedge issue between the genders.

Random Reader

March 12th, 2012
11:33 am

oK td…….Does my right to bear arms mean that I have the right to own and bear say a patriot missle if I choose???? What if i wanted to drive a fully loaded Bradly??????

Random Reader

March 12th, 2012
11:37 am

td not a wedge issue….The hard facts are that white males make up about 17% of the population in this country but something like 89% of the legislators nations wide…..By my count, yeah, this is an example of older white men doing their thing….

TallaDawg

March 12th, 2012
11:38 am

@ td 9:45 – Property rights ARE rights protected by the Constitutions (U.S. and state). YES, they are on par with, if not superior to, the 2d amendment’s protections.

Bobby

March 12th, 2012
11:51 am

Why do cops take and don’t want to give back your gun if you protect yourself or use it ?

JV

March 12th, 2012
11:55 am

What ever happened to HB 89 or the Business Security and Employee Privacy Act in May 2008?
SECTION 7.
Said part is further amended by adding a new Code section to read as follows:
“16-11-135.
(a) Except as provided in this Code section, no private or public employer, including the state and its political subdivisions, shall establish, maintain, or enforce any policy or rule that has the effect of allowing such employer or its agents to search the locked privately owned vehicles of employees or invited guests on the employer´s parking lot and access thereto.
(b) Except as provided in this Code section, no private or public employer, including the state and its political subdivisions, shall condition employment upon any agreement by a prospective employee that prohibits an employee from entering the parking lot and access thereto when the employee´s privately owned motor vehicle contains a firearm that is locked out of sight within the trunk, glove box, or other enclosed compartment or area within such privately owned motor vehicle, provided that any applicable employees possess a Georgia firearms license.

Puck Refublicans

March 12th, 2012
12:04 pm

TD, you’re right… the founding fathers obviously crafted the 2nd amendment with an eye towards protecting the right of individual citizens to buy and use land mines to hunt squirrels if they want to. Since several contributors have posed the question of limits, why don’t you give us a straight answer? Exactly how lethal would a weapon have to be for you and your fanatical fellow-travelers to agree that it poses too much of a danger to the rest of us to be left in the hands of a private citizen going about in public? What sort of criteria are you using? Your selfish and small-minded need to “protect” yourself with a concealed gun threatens the life, liberty and safety of the rest of society–I don’t think you should have a “right” to do that and I don’t think you can prove that the authors of the constitution did either.

Bill

March 12th, 2012
12:09 pm

There is no problem so big or so small that it can’t be fixed by more guns in more places. Clearly, this is the most pressing issue facing our state.

Bill

March 12th, 2012
12:12 pm

Bobby,
You bought a gun. It ended up in the hands of a criminal and was used to commit a crime. You are surprised that the cops don’t want to give it back to you? Your gun, because you failed to secure it, put their lives at risk.

td

March 12th, 2012
12:12 pm

Puck Refublicans

March 12th, 2012
12:04 pm

First, Your point about gun ownership is for hunting is bogus. Our founding fathers intended for all of to keep and bear arms to resist tyranny of the government and so that every citizen could defend the nation against intrusions on our natural rights both foreign and domestic.

“The strongest reason for the people to retain the right to keep and bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in government.” Thomas Jefferson

Jefferson was very clear in his point. He know where talks about hunting.

Second, As far as your point about what arms a person can have then that is up for debate and I do not know the answer.

SAWB

March 12th, 2012
12:13 pm

So, many red herrings here I have no idea how gender, race, age or missiles play into this issue. The shooting sports now attract a very diverse group of people just visit a local range and I suspect the “old white male” will be the minority. While property rights are a valid concern in a civilized society it does not always have to be my way or no way. A very balanced solution would be to allow business owners to prohibit firearms inside their business, but allow legal gun owners to keep guns in their private vehicles. Again, I fail to see how a rational person could oppose this type of solution.

Now you've done it

March 12th, 2012
12:15 pm

We are being laughed at. How many jobs and how much investment in our state will this cost us?

td

March 12th, 2012
12:19 pm

“When the people fear their government, there is tyranny; when the government fears the people, there is liberty.” Thomas Jefferson

DJ Sniper

March 12th, 2012
12:21 pm

There goes TD with the quotes again. People, your lives are going to come to a screeching halt if you can’t carry your gun every single place you go.

Whoever said we are being laughed at, I totally agree. All the other pressing matters in this state and this is what they focus on.

DJ Sniper

March 12th, 2012
12:23 pm

Sorry, meant to say that your lives are NOT going to come to a screeching halt.

Stop...Just Stop

March 12th, 2012
12:24 pm

SAWB,

It’s easy to see.

First, I have a right to use my property in the manner that I see fit. My property extends to the curtilage bordering another property. If I want to exclude guns from that entire property I should have the right to do so. If that bothers people then I take the risk that they take their business elsewhere. My proprty rights do not end at my door.

On a more practical not, you want to allow people to keep guns in a vehicle with nothing more than a pane of glass or a 10 dollar truck lock to secure them. Not the brightest idea.

Marlboro Man

March 12th, 2012
12:25 pm

td must be scared to carry a gun, who does he fear?

Going Right

March 12th, 2012
12:29 pm

td..
Your only problem as I see it is to continue to argue with those whose brain stems have been surgically severed for the sake of mankind. Unfortunately, they continue to smoke with leaky bongs and the ensuing hard smoke is so powerful that it has bypassed the loose stem and gone straight to the vacuous hole that was once their “brain” (am I presupposing something here? Many of us agree totally with you but others on here are hopelessly vapid that they cannot carry on an intelligent conversation without resorting to innuendo and stupidity.

JRev

March 12th, 2012
12:33 pm

I think every gun owner should have to undergo a pschiatric evaluation, renewable every 4-5 years like a driver’s license. But, insurance would only pay for this if your employer felt like it didn’t go against his faith, like contraception. Oh, and a 1 week minimum waiting period to purchase guns as well. No one NEEDS a gun immediately, unless you work in law enforcement, the military, security, or are a criminal. Oh, and by the way, the pyschiatric evaluation should be mandatory for those in law enforcement as well.

Is It Fair?

March 12th, 2012
12:36 pm

Is It Fair? (#3)
…that after the first three years of “Obamanomics,” the poor are poorer, the poverty rate is rising, the middle class is losing income, and some 5.5+ million fewer Americans have jobs and working today than in 2007 – the year before Obama was elected?

MrLiberty

March 12th, 2012
12:39 pm

As long as we are talking about records, Here are the grades for the republican presidential candidates from Gun Owners of America (an organization that ACTUALLY cares about gun freedom)

Ron Paul A+
Rick Santorum B-
Newt Gingrich C
Mitt Romney D-

But of course Ron Paul would get the highest score when judged on his committment to personal freedom and individual liberty. That’s why he got my vote.

MrLiberty

March 12th, 2012
12:40 pm

Its quite obvious that far too many in this state do not care at all about personal freedom or individual liberty (as the primary results clearly show).

commoncents

March 12th, 2012
12:56 pm

JRev 12:33 “No one NEEDS a gun immediately, unless you work in law enforcement, the military, security, or are a criminal”

What if I want security from a criminal?

NotYou

March 12th, 2012
12:59 pm

Random Reader
March 12th, 2012
11:37 am

“The hard facts are that white males make up about 17% of the population in this country but something like 89% of the legislators nations wide….”.

Just about anyone can run for office and vote.

Michael #1

March 12th, 2012
12:59 pm

The NRA lef by Wayne DE La Pewk creates this whole fear around the second amendmentbeing taken away from people. Guess everything that Jefferson said hundreds of years ago still holds water, just like the Bible. Talk about fear mongers.

commoncents

March 12th, 2012
1:02 pm

Puck 12:04 “Your selfish and small-minded need to “protect” yourself with a concealed gun threatens the life, liberty and safety of the rest of society–I don’t think you should have a “right” to do that and I don’t think you can prove that the authors of the constitution did either”

No one is threatening your rights by carrying. I’d venture to say that you stand next to many weapons carriers on any given day (concealing is easy!) Do you feel threatened every day? Maybe you need to see a therapist or just lock yourself in your home…

I think nut-jobs like you do more damage by voting to my life, liberty and safety than another’s right to carry ever could.