In a case backed by the Firearms Policy Coalition (FPC) on behalf of one of its members, prosecutors in Savannah, Georgia, have dropped charges of violating the city’s illegal “safe storage” ordinance.
Savannah’s City Council passed a gun storage ordinance in April that requires that a firearm stored in an unoccupied vehicle not be visible and be securely stored in a glove compartment, console, locked trunk or the area behind the last upright seat of a motor vehicle that is not equipped with a trunk and that the doors of an unoccupied vehicle in which a firearm is stored must be locked. Violations can result in a $1,000 fine and imprisonment for up to six months.
In early May, Georgia Attorney General Chris Carr sent a letter to the city advising that the new rule was not valid as it was preempted by state law, which says cities aren’t allowed to regulate the possession, ownership, carrying or transport of firearms. However, Savannah leaders remained undaunted by the AG warning, insisting that the law would stand.
“In order to address the increasing amount of unsecured firearms stolen from unlocked vehicles the City of Savannah unanimously enacted this new ordinance,” the city replied in a released statement. “We certainly encourage our citizens to exercise their Second Amendment rights, but this ordinance remains in effect and will continue to be enforced.”
FPC member Deacon Morris was one of the people cited for violating the ordinance, prompting the FPC-backed defense in court. Finally, the city dropped the charges, a fact that pleased FPC President Brandon Combs.
“Governments often rely on steamrolling criminal defendants and coercive plea bargains, but Deacon Morris had excellent counsel, a strong defense, and FPC in his corner,” Combs said in a press release announcing the dismissal. “We are delighted that Mr. Morris can finally walk away from this outrageous prosecution and we can now turn attention to our Belt v. Savannah lawsuit, which we hope will end enforcement of Savannah’s unlawful ordinance once and for all.”
Belt v. Savannah is a parallel action filed by FPC challenging the Savannah gun storage ordinance. In that lawsuit, plaintiffs also contend that the ordinance violates Georgia’s firearms preemption law.
The complaint states: “The Ordinance is preempted by, and repugnant to, O.C.G.A. § 16-11-173, and is therefore void and unenforceable. Defendant has no power to enact the Ordinance, as such power is specifically withheld from Defendant by Article IX, Section II, Paragraph I(a) of the Georgia Constitution, and further limited by O.C.G.A. § 16-11-173, so the Ordinance is ultra vires.”
Plaintiffs are asking the court to declare that the ordinance is preempted by state law, issue an injunction prohibiting the city and its officers, agents, and employees from enforcing or attempting to enforce the ordinance, and issue an interlocutory injunction prohibiting enforcement of the Ordinance during the pendency of the case.
If you do not lock your car in a safe container and it is stolen you will face fines and jail time.
“If you do not lock your car in a safe container and it is stolen you will face fines and jail time.”
It is the obligation of every person to adequately secure from theft, all owned, or possessed, property, of whatever type; punishable by fine, or jail time.
It is the right of every person to acquire, by whatever means, any property not properly secured.
QED
That’s the way it works in Parador, the wife’s homeland. The only rights the law-abiding citizens have are the rights to be robbed, raped, and/or murdered. You call a cop to report that something happened, and they’ll blame you, maybe rough you up for good measure, and then walk away. Later at the bar, the crook buys them a drink and slips them an envelope.
“Later at the bar, the crook buys them a drink and slips them an envelope.”
Sounds like a system that works for everyone.
What, exactly, is a safe container for a car? A garage? So if I park my car on the street, put money in the meter, and walk away, I will have jail and fines?
Typical and perfect example of how and why these laws come about and how to stop them.
The local govt cant or wont (my guess here is wont) stop criminals from doing the criminal thing that they do until they are stopped. So, they shit the burden to the law abiding citizen because they believe that s/he will do what law abiding citizens do, obey the law. They believe that it costs them nothing, in either budget line items or political capital, to do it this way.
The response then is to make it cost them MUCH more than they ever expected; each and every of these wins should also be accompanied by a public announcement that the Govt’s choice to pursue this follow cost the tax-payers $X. The announcement should be part of every brokered settlement and/or should be a policy taken up by those backing the citizen.
Maybe once the voters find out that their taxes are being hammered by this they will come around.
The best way to eliminate these types of laws is to eliminate Gun Free Zones. In that way there is no need to leave a firearm in your vehicle.
“The best way to eliminate these types of laws is to eliminate Gun Free Zones.”
GFZs save uncountable lives, everyday. Everyone in, or near, a GFZ who is not killed by gunfire, is saved; ipse dixit.
The number of lives saved by GFZs far outweighs the number lost inside a GFZ; ergo, GFZs work.
BTW: asking a question regarding whether an action is legal, or illegal, establishes a precursor to committing a crime; an intent to do so.
“ipse dixit” means a dogmatic and unproven statement.
Hey Sam, there’s a sign post.
When you get tired of arguing with this side, you can step around and argue with the other side.
Have a Good Day👋
👽
Laws be damned anyone leaving a gun in plain sight in a vehicle is asking for trouble.
Hell’s bells the crooks bust windows for a pack of cigarettes.
“Hell’s bells the crooks bust windows for a pack of cigarettes.”
Any person who entices another to commit a crime is the worse of the two, and must be sanctioned severly, so as to not be capable of seducing another into commiting a crime.
According to Progressives, we shouldn’t be flaunting our wealth.
But then crooks will break into your car for a few dollars of loose change, doing hundreds of dollars of damage in the process.
“But then crooks will break into your car for a few dollars of loose change,…”
Which is why I don’t have anything visible inside my car. If thieves don’t see anything other than the interior, they won’t break in to see if there is something of value not visible.
The thieves in my neighborhood are nice about that.
In San Francisco circa the 1980’s the thief would break the window for a closer look and damage something else in frustration if they found nothing. I used to leave the window rolled down and an ancient battered screwdriver visible.
Was never bothered after…
“I used to leave the window rolled down and an ancient battered screwdriver visible.”
How many scredrivers did you lose?
They’ll bust the windows for change left on the seats.
“They’ll bust the windows for change left on the seats.”
Excellent argument for mandating digital “money”
Comments are closed.