The Senate in Georgia is working on a bill that does many things in regards to gun rights and gun control.
This bill will limit the ability of someone to buy a gun for someone else (which is already illegal federally), which I don't have a problem with, just so long as it doesn't start to move into the realm of prohibiting private sales or transfers of firearms.
Another aspect that I find important is that it would allow Georgians to carry a firearm in their car without the need for a concealed carry permit. This is already the case in many states (though most people don't know about it) and there has not been the increase in 'random shootings' that the anti-gun forces suggest. This will hopefully cut down on crime.
Now, I should be clear. I don't really recommend carrying a firearm in your car if you don't have a concealed carry permit. Mostly because while you are in the store buying whatever you went there to buy, someone can break into your car or steal your car. Now they have YOUR gun. (This is also why I don't go into shops that do not allow me to carry after the first time. I also make a point to complain to the store manager, if not write a letter to the corporate offices.)
Another aspect of this package would be to allow those with a concealed carry permit to carry in public places like parks, historic sites, monuments, etc. It is silly to let someone walk down a public street armed but not allow them to walk in a park armed. This is definately a good move in my opinion.
There is also a requirement in this bill to require judges to issue or not issue a concealed carry permit within 45 days. Some Judges, who thought that only their armed guards ought to ever be armed, had a habit of just not 'getting to' the concealed carry permit cases to rule on them, as there is no reason to deny such a request if the person is not a feleon. So, they tried to affect your ability to carry based on thier personal desires, not on any actual legal grounds.
One last bit in this prevents employers from prohibiting employees from having firearms in their car and prohibits them from being allowed to search the employees car. I wholly agree with these ideas, as should anyone who opposes illegal search and seizure by any private or public entity. You do not have a right to go through my car because you don't like guns.
Now, as with before, I do not recomment keeping a gun in your car if you are not in your car for risk of theft, but that's just me.
HTML went screwy, FYI. Didn't format right.
-- quis custodiet ipsos custodes?
Thank you. I use the "rich text" formatting to enter in the link and sometimes forget to swap it back to fill in the body of my blog.
I also corrected my basic typo of the word Georgia.
Not in my best form this morning, I guess. heh.
You are fired! You typo'd Georgia!
-----
Soar high and laugh on the wind
~Fallon~
"If you have built castles in the air, your work need not be lost; that is where they should be. Now put the foundations under them."- Thoreau
-----
Reminds me of a story: (Gah, now I feel old... I'm reminded of stories.)
I worked for a company called Menards. Like Home Depot, but less nice.
The guy who ran it, Mr. Menard, and his brother, went to a store to do a 'store walkthrough.'
Our uniforms were a dark blue color, and our nametag had a strip on the back like a credit card. We used that to clock in and out every day.
During this walkthrough, he saw some trash on the floor. Mr. Menard, who previously was hit with big fines a few times for burning brown-treated lumber and was generally an all-around dink, randomly issued orders to the closest 'blue shirt' he could find.
"Pick that trash up!" he barked.
The guy said "no."
Mr. Menard went on a rampage, using the classic "Don't you know who I am?" line, then demanded to have the guy's badge because he was going to make sure he was fired right that instant!
"I don't even work here!" the guy said.
oops. heh.
I also worked at home depot, and Mr. Menard went to a Home Depot store when they opened one up by his home offices in Wisconsin. They saw him and the store manager, who was handing out applications to people by the front, put on a bit smile and offered Mr Menard an application to work for home depot.
Mr. Menard turns around and flicked everyone off as he walked out.
Or so the legends say.
Somedays, Mr. Menard could be me hero.
:))
And then I wake up.
-----
Soar high and laugh on the wind
~Fallon~
"If you have built castles in the air, your work need not be lost; that is where they should be. Now put the foundations under them."- Thoreau
-----
Heh. He is scum.
Brown treated lumber is highly toxic, and we had to get rid of it from our stores. When buried or burned, it produced VERY toxic pollutants that could harm and kill people.
There was a specific way to dispose of it, but it wasn't overly cheap. He chose to, instead, burn it. They caught him and fined him.
Did he dispose of it properly? No. he trucked it somewhere else and tried to burn it again a year later. They caught him and fined him ALOT... etc.
It was either after this second time, or after a third time that they threatened to yank his business license if he did it again.
I remember when I worked there, we shifted vendors for an in-stock cabinet system that was REALLY inexpensive (good for a cabin, but I wouldn't want them in my home). We were told by corporate office to store them along the side of one of the warehouses, outside. We were required to do so.
Our stock, like any other store's stock, got damaged by the rain. It was clearly stupid to store wooden cabinets outdoors. He tried to get a full refund from our vendor and a replacement of stock. They refused, and rightly so, because it was not a defect of the cabinets, but the stupidity of the corporate person who decided that we could store wooden cabinets outdoors.
He told us to trash our stock and he had us change vendors. He said that they refused 'to work with him.'
He does sound like an ass. I just sometime think it would be awesome to just flip out and fire people for no good reason. Talk about stress relieving
:dances:
-----
Soar high and laugh on the wind
~Fallon~
"If you have built castles in the air, your work need not be lost; that is where they should be. Now put the foundations under them."- Thoreau
-----
heh. Until the lawyers show because that employee sues. lol.
(or, unless you're hte one fired)
I haven't quite worked that one out yet. For the time being, I just fire Nick religiously. He always comes back though. Go figure lol
-----
Soar high and laugh on the wind
~Fallon~
"If you have built castles in the air, your work need not be lost; that is where they should be. Now put the foundations under them."- Thoreau
-----
As long as you have a constructive outlet like firing Nick, I think you'll be able to channel such aggression without problems.
Heh.
My, myself, go target shooting and practice martial arts.
Go go right to work states, where they can fire you (and conversely, you can quit) for almost any, or no reason, and no warning...
And the whole "like Home Depot, but not as nice" scares me....
-- quis custodiet ipsos custodes?
I live in a Right to Work state.
Right to Work means that if there is a union, you're not required to join it.
In any state, they can fire you "for almost any, or no reason, and no warning.."
And, unless you've signed a contract with them, you have a right to leave for almost any, or no reason as well.
However, if you are fired under the guise of 'poor work habits' and it turns out that they fired you because you wear glasses, then you have a lawsuit.
Right to Work is about Unions, not about firing people or getting to quit.
Unions, however, don't like to shine light on that and prefer to frame it as evil corporations against the innocent worker, with the heroic union defending them.
If you can't tell, I don't have much of a positive opinion of Unions.
So you're right. I actually didn't know that.
However, if you are fired under the guise of 'poor work habits' and it turns out that they fired you because you wear glasses, then you have a lawsuit.
Too bad that's hard as hell to prove. =/
If you can't tell, I don't have much of a positive opinion of Unions.
Nah, couldn't tell. =P
-- quis custodiet ipsos custodes?
I don't claim the same consistancy in being right that Rush jokingly does, but I come darn near close. lol
That's ok in my book though. It lets the markets decide. If a company is so dinkish as to fire people for 'no reason' (as the unions claim is why anyone gets fired, ever.), then people will view the workplace as hostile. As such, people will not want to work there as such places get reputations. Workers already working there will seek jobs elsewhere.
That is not to say that I oppose lawsuits where ACTUAL wrong was done.... if someone is fired because they are black or a male or a female or white or anything else specifically protected by the constitution, I have no problem with a lawsuit.
You do...
Isn't that what Nick is for?
----
Success Is In The Eye Of The Beholder [The Dresden Dolls]
http://progressiveu.org/143541-how-to-survive-the-2008-elections
I liked the "Georgie" thing, though.
-- quis custodiet ipsos custodes?
In every testable subject, Georgia public schools are below the national average. Maybe they should be a bit more concerned with this; they sure have their priorities right.
http://nces.ed.gov/nationsreportcard/states/profile.asp
"Harder than ya'll cause I'm smarter than ya'll
I know that deep down it's got to be bothering ya'll
Pay attention, watch fly gon get larger than ya'll
Put your pride on the rocks, make you swallow it all"
And that is related to the 2nd Amendment of the Constitution of the United States of America...... how?
Also, not that PUBLIC education as a whole is very good in the United States anymore, but on any listing, at least half will be below average.
Those half will be found in the south. By the way, the Bill of Rights originally didn't apply to the states, only the general gov't. Aren't you a strict constructionist?
"Harder than ya'll cause I'm smarter than ya'll
I know that deep down it's got to be bothering ya'll
Pay attention, watch fly gon get larger than ya'll
Put your pride on the rocks, make you swallow it all"
The Bill of Rights applies to the individual, not the federal government, except to limit how the federal government is allowed to affect the individual.
There is no such thing as a 'general government'
As for us southern folk being just too stupid.... I guess I never considered California, Idaho, Utah, Illinois, Indiana, Michigan, New York, Rhode Island, Deleware, Maryland and Washington DC to be 'southern'
Please do stop trashing the south.
No the bill of rights is intended to help the individual by saying what the gov't CAN'T do.
"Congress shall make NO law..." "...shall NOT be infringed." "NO soldier shall..." "...shall NOT be violated..."
And that's just the first four. The bill of rights is a list of stuff gov't can't do intended to help the individual. It isn't a list of stuff people can do and have a right to do...it's a list of stuff government can not do.
"They lie about marijuana. Tell you pot-smoking makes you unmotivated. Lie! When you're high, you can do everything you normally do, just as well. You just realize that it's not worth the fucking effort. There is a difference." Bill Hicks
Right, and the point is that these rights are in relation to the individual....
That's what makes the Constitution so special is that its focus is on protecting the individual.
Which, of course, was my point by this:
It is the individual that is given the freedom of speech, freedom of religion, freedom to keep and bear arms, freedom to have a fair trial, etc. etc. etc.
Rather than granting powers to the federal government, the Bill of Rights specifically limited them on behalf of the individual...
that was my point.
I'm not wholly disagreeing with your point just stating that...
The bill of rights doesn't say Citizens(or whoever) have the right to free speech, it says the gov't can't infringe on it. There is a difference. One empowers the citizen by giving them actual merit, "See it says "I" have a right to free speech, which means I can do whatever I want." No it says the gov't can't infringe on free speech. It's not to empower indivuduals it is to limit gov't(like you said) on behalf of the individual. However that "behalf" is important. Citizens don't have power, gov't is just limited to their powers.
"They lie about marijuana. Tell you pot-smoking makes you unmotivated. Lie! When you're high, you can do everything you normally do, just as well. You just realize that it's not worth the fucking effort. There is a difference." Bill Hicks
I think we're arguing the same point from different sides.
except that I would note that, unlike most any other nation, we citizens DO have pretty strong power, thanks to a free and largely uncorrupted vote.