So there's this:
www.ajc.com
This issue has always had me more than a bit torn.
On the one hand, you don't want to go back to the days of the Wild, Wild West and have shootouts on every street corner over all manner of disagreement.
On the other hand, we're already there. In fact, we never really left it.
To get a carry license in Georgia is a bit pricey ($75.00 for the application, I think a $50.00 fingerprint fee plus a $25.00 licensing fee) and takes considerable time (weeks for the FBI background check to take place, and your license to be mailed to you) all for an alleged "right" that the constitution allegedly guarantees you.
Meanwhile, the criminal doesn't care. They're packing heat everywhere they go with absolutely no regard whatsoever for any law.
So is Kemp really wrong?
I mean, who do they expect will suddenly take to the streets with guns to start murdering people? Those people are already there. We read about them in the news and see them on the TV news every single day.
The only people that would start carrying are the very same people that really didn't want to jump through all the hoops and bureaucracy of getting a license. And frankly, I don't think very many people would.
I do agree that more guns isn't an answer for anything, but at the same time is it really that big of a difference when we already live in a world where there are no gun laws to prevent criminals from obtaining guns to begin with?
Like private sales: there are no laws on them at all. The local gun store has to jump through all kinds of hoops but I can literally sell anything I want to anybody I want with absolutely zero accountability.
It's the same with carrying. No typical, law abiding citizen can carry a gun in public but any criminal can and does.
It's a really tough row to hoe. Like all things in our nation, the system seems to be an all or nothing proposition; and we can surely see by now that those never, ever work out well over the long haul.
A part of me wonders: what if permits had no fees? Would that encourage more people to actually get licensed? Is that a possible option?
Or
What if carrying a gun illegally was a 20 years in prison offense? Would that deter criminals? (The answer is no, it wouldn't. Nothing actually deters criminals. We know that by now or at least we should.)
It will be interesting to see where this goes and what winds up happening. I can see both sides of the issue but when it comes right down to it I think Governor Kemp has a point: Why is it that only the law abiding citizen is the one restricted from exercising a right?
It is food for thought on both sides of the issue.

Kemp sets the stage for a new Georgia fight over gun rights
Gov. Brian Kemp is set to formally endorse a long-stalled effort to expand Georgians’ rights to carry firearms as a bruising reelection battle looms.
“In the face of rising violent crime across the country, law-abiding citizens should have their constitutional rights protected — not undermined,” he said in a speech at Adventure Outdoors, a massive gun range and firearms store in Smyrna.
“And while this position has recently become popular for others as we enter the campaign season, my position has remained the same,” Kemp said. “I believe the United States Constitution grants the citizens of our state the right to carry a firearm without state government approval.”
And here's the typical rebuttal:“The same guy who pointed a gun at a teenager on TV now panders with reckless proposals threatening Georgia lives,” said Lauren Groh-Wargo, Abrams’ campaign manager. “As her opponents run to dangerous extremes and fight desperately to salvage their political careers, Abrams is fighting for Georgians and their safety.”
This issue has always had me more than a bit torn.
On the one hand, you don't want to go back to the days of the Wild, Wild West and have shootouts on every street corner over all manner of disagreement.
On the other hand, we're already there. In fact, we never really left it.
To get a carry license in Georgia is a bit pricey ($75.00 for the application, I think a $50.00 fingerprint fee plus a $25.00 licensing fee) and takes considerable time (weeks for the FBI background check to take place, and your license to be mailed to you) all for an alleged "right" that the constitution allegedly guarantees you.
Meanwhile, the criminal doesn't care. They're packing heat everywhere they go with absolutely no regard whatsoever for any law.
So is Kemp really wrong?
I mean, who do they expect will suddenly take to the streets with guns to start murdering people? Those people are already there. We read about them in the news and see them on the TV news every single day.
The only people that would start carrying are the very same people that really didn't want to jump through all the hoops and bureaucracy of getting a license. And frankly, I don't think very many people would.
I do agree that more guns isn't an answer for anything, but at the same time is it really that big of a difference when we already live in a world where there are no gun laws to prevent criminals from obtaining guns to begin with?
Like private sales: there are no laws on them at all. The local gun store has to jump through all kinds of hoops but I can literally sell anything I want to anybody I want with absolutely zero accountability.
It's the same with carrying. No typical, law abiding citizen can carry a gun in public but any criminal can and does.
It's a really tough row to hoe. Like all things in our nation, the system seems to be an all or nothing proposition; and we can surely see by now that those never, ever work out well over the long haul.
A part of me wonders: what if permits had no fees? Would that encourage more people to actually get licensed? Is that a possible option?
Or
What if carrying a gun illegally was a 20 years in prison offense? Would that deter criminals? (The answer is no, it wouldn't. Nothing actually deters criminals. We know that by now or at least we should.)
It will be interesting to see where this goes and what winds up happening. I can see both sides of the issue but when it comes right down to it I think Governor Kemp has a point: Why is it that only the law abiding citizen is the one restricted from exercising a right?
It is food for thought on both sides of the issue.